“Transwomen should be able to strip search women if they have a GRC”

[SidewaysOtter]

Chris Philp, the policing minister says that transwomen should “only” be able to strip search women if they have a GRC: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/trans-gender-police-officers-strip-search-id-xfvwsdjgn

On one hand, it stops the self-identified transwomen but NO man - and transwomen ARE biologically male - should be involved in the strip search of a woman. A GRC does not change their biological sex. And any transwoman who insists on a “right” to strip search women raises more red flags than a communist rally.

Mr Philip can be tweeted at @CPhilpOfficial, if anyone else wants to make their feelings known.

Thank you for trying. It’s a shame the people introducing it didn’t care

Now twenty years later we’re seeing what the law enables more and more

If I am entitled under the law to hold GC views and these GC views carry equal weight under the law to a man’s view that his gender identity is a woman, how come his rights (to see himself as a woman) trump mine (to see him as a man) when it comes to a strip search? That doesn’t sound like equal weight to me.

I don't see why we should have trans policemen at all, any more than we should have furry policemen. You come to work, you do your job, in the uniform of your job, if applicable. Just like everyone else. Why should a tiny minority be given a latitude no-one else enjoys?

Hansard has all the minutes? Is it called minutes? Of what went on around the GRA.
You can clearly see some people brought up the same issues we are seeing now. It was handwaved away (it'll never happen) even back then you were thought of as a bigot if you even mentioned not liking it.

So much info in hansard. Go look it up.

It is the line between expressing yourself while treating others with the respect and consideration that this lobby and its representatives constantly demand.

Present as you want, view yourself how you want, whatever, you enjoy yourself, I'm all for it.

Require me to enable you by lying and provide my body for your use? Fuck off to the far side of fuck. Someone with that kind of an issue needs to be nowhere near the police or any other position of responsibility and duty of care over others.

And that's what will eventually finish this, it will end with being 'if you are going to exploit and push and make yourself an absolute PITA then yes, it's two sexes, end of'. And I will have no sympathy.

I note too in my lack of sympathy the absolute deafening lack of trans people going 'no, do not demand the right to sexually assault women in my name, that behaviour has nothing to do with being trans'.

I don’t agree that a male examining another male (irrespective of how they present themselves cosmetically) would be anything than someone of the same sex examining another. Many men have ‘moobs’, and some may also have parts of their genitals removed due to cancer. They are still materially the same sex, notwithstanding an unfounded and unrealistic belief that men can change into women, or vice versa.

Good point. There is an imbalance of power which could be intimidating for women who are subjected to strip searches. Especially if they are wrongfully arrested. They will be in shock as were the women sub postmasters who were subjected to this.

KPSS and Fair Cop are crowdfunding to get a legal opinion on this policy, if anyone has spare carrots. Googling will probably bring you to the crowd funder page

If I am entitled under the law to hold GC views and these GC views carry equal weight under the law to a man’s view that his gender identity is a woman, how come his rights (to see himself as a woman) trump mine (to see him as a man) when it comes to a strip search? That doesn’t sound like equal weight to me.

You are entitled to think that a transwoman is not a woman, but the thing is that legally they are women if they have GRCs regardless of what you think.

Again, I'm not endorsing the legal position - I am just trying to explain why GC beliefs don't matter in this regard.

I think this is a different thread to the one where I made this suggestion recently (apologies if not). Does anyone know if this would work:

If a woman suspect declares her gender to be 'cis female', then surely she can only be searched by another cis female. This will preclude all males, however they identify & whatever their legal status, as well as transmen. The officer who does the search needs to satisfy both aspects of the suspect's gender. Aren't GC people told yes, they do have a gender & it's cis-gender? So it seems valid to me, & can't be grounds for transphobia either.

Sorry to repeat from the other thread. There may be different posters here & I'd like to know what they think.

I can't find it, do you know what they've called it? Sorry, I obviously Google bad.

The legal entitlement is to be treated as if a woman for things like pension rights and marriage rights.

It is not a legal entitlement to force women to pretend, or an entitlement to assault women. That is an absolute perversion of a legal fiction created in the now very obviously naive belief that men would behave with some responsibility.

Bad law should not be followed. Stonewall have been ignoring the law for years and it hasn't impeded them much.

You are entitled to think that a transwoman is not a woman, but the thing is that legally they are women if they have GRCs regardless of what you think.

But not entirely the same as women. There are exceptions.

Hereditary peerages still go down the male line regardless of any GRCs (in either direction).

Sport is also mentioned in the GRA as an area where TWANW.

'Help protect women from searches by trans identifying officers', both organisations have tweeted about if it that helps, I got send a link via WRN

It's on a site called Democracythree. org.

But not entirely the same as women. There are exceptions.

Hereditary peerages still go down the male line regardless of any GRCs (in either direction).

Sport is also mentioned in the GRA as an area where TWANW.

True, but this isn't one of those exceptions. There is nothing in the GRA or elsewhere to provide for transwomen with a GRC not to be treated as female in this scenario.

The provision in GRA s9 which changes one's legal sex upon obtaining a GRA is subject to other provisions in the GRA and any other legislation. So if the Government wanted transwomen not to carry out intimate searches they could put a relevant provision in another Act (eg PACE) without touching the GRA itself. Amending the GRA would be more controversial IMO than amending PACE.

^ I should have added though that you would have to ignore/amend the Human Rights Act to make the above amendment, given the decision in the A case.

How like men, to think that protecting sport (I agree it is also important ) is a priority, but access to women’s bodies, not so much.

The latest from the Women's Rights Network reports that the page saying male police officers will be allowed to strip search women has gone. It will be interesting to see what happens next. I suspect they'll try to weasel it in somehow.

https://twitter.com/WomensRightsNet/status/1746096361139826726

The announcement may have disappeared but can we conclude that the policy has been revoked? I don’t think we can unless we get an announcement stating they acknowledge the right for women not to be strip searched by TW.

Presumably they're embarrassed to be outed as advertising that men can breach boundaries and forcibly assault women. Given their current track record of employing and finally sacking so many predators and abusers it's surprising to see them advertising the ability to abuse women as a perk of the job for certain born males. 🙄

@IcakethereforeIam, yes that's the one.

Allowing male bodied people to strip search females who do not consent is in breach of the Human Right's Act.

This is what you get when you make bonkers laws which contradict each other.

I think we've seen the official response, which will run much like the narcissist's prayer.

It doesn't happen much as the numbers are so very very tiny, so it doesn't matter does it? (see: yes men can play with women as they want but they mustn't break them too much or too often -numbers not yet figured as to acceptable limits but n+1 is usual- or mainly let information on breakage escape into the media)

It'll only be the men with certificates (which no one can ask to see, as is explained in the report being responded to, which means while Chris Phillips is trying to say that only SOME men have the privilege of being allowed to assault women and force the woman at the time to pretend they're female/it isn't assault where her body is meeting the male person's need so that's all ok isn't it, in fact it's any man from the moment of 'presenting as a woman'.

Squirrel!

So I used to be a police officer (female) and sometimes strip searches are necessary, ie. markers that an individual in custody has previously concealed item and they have to be checked to make sure that they haven’t got any items on them which they could use to harm themselves or others.

Sometimes these searches are straightforward, the woman complies and it is done as quickly and painlessly as possible, doing the top half then doing the bottom half, with as few people present as possible and the woman handing her clothes over, the clothes being checked and handed back immediately.

Sometimes these searches are a nightmare due to drugs, violence, mental health or none compliance. In these scenarios these searches involve multiple female officers and physical contact.

There is no scenario on earth where either should be completed with a male present GRC or not. These incidents already traumatising enough for the women involved, especially as many have previously been the victim of DV or sexual violence. The least we can do is keep this as a single sex practice.