House of Lords- trans women police officer searches

[Hoosemover]

This was a government response to a question yesterday

https://x.com/Fox_Claire/status/1861088463317000423

He had a really arrogant, sneering expression and a scolding tone, as he said "Trans people are people." Not that Claire Fox said that they aren't, of course.

Full Hansard here for anyone who’s interested (though it’s fully captured in that video clip). Scroll down to about the fifth question. https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2024-11-25/debates/F44A7FC2-6913-47D4-A635-A92D84F59EE4/PoliceReform

It’s David (now Lord) Hanson, who was a junior minister in the 1997-2007 Labour government. I remember him from then. He’s now a Minister if State at the Home Office and spokesperson for the Home Office in the Lords. I think he would be worth writing to. I don’t imagine he’d be delighted to receive a deluge but hey ho, we don’t always get what we want in life. I suspect he could be reasoned with if not standing at the despatch box terrified of saying the wrong thing on camera (which, unfortunately, he did very much do in that clip).

Was this the lord who was wittering on about "trans people are people"? Well of course they are, they're not fish or something, are they? Still doesn't mean that they're the sex they want to be.

I will be writing to him and pointing out that women already have scant trust in the police and this is how he addresses our concerns by favouring the rights of males over the safety and dignity of women.

Thank you

I have written. I’ll update if I get a response.

There seem to be quite a few transwomen in the police nationally, though most are in non-public facing roles as much to protect them than cis women.

Whilst it's possible to recognise some transwomen, I know someone who's transitioned MTF at 20 and is now in her mid 30's; outwards looking at her and listening to her, you'd never know she was trans; for all intents and appearances looks 100% female.

The question that crosses my mind is how you identify if the person a police officer or airport security searching you is a transwoman or a cis woman, whilst I accept that in many cases you might be able to recognise someone is transgender or cis,, many transwomen it's impossible to differentiate gender.

Should there be a common sense rule that there not allowed to search cis women?

I'm not sure if it's "common sense" but I certainly think it's common decency for a male person to seek informed consent before doing something like performing an intimate search on a woman.
And sexual assault to deceive them.

The use of ‘cis’ as a descriptor of women is hateful and misogynistic. There is only one way to be a woman - that is an adult human female. Men identifying as women are just that - men.

Should there be a common sense rule that there not allowed to search cis women?

firstly I agree cis is an offensive term.

but yes, biological men should not be searching biological women no matter how long the man’s hair is or how much lipstick he’s wearing. When we are talking about searches let’s be clear this isn’t an “empty your pockets” search. It’s a strip off in a prison cell search. I’m not 100% sure if police officers search body cavities if deemed necessary or do they get a medic in for that? But even a naked strip search is too far.

because either the male police officer is honest and tells the woman that even though he looks female he’s actually a man. Or he does it by deception and hope she doesn’t realise. Funnily enough people have been prosecuted for the latter. There was a case where a biological woman pretended to be a man and had a realationship with a straight woman inc sex (with the lights off). That woman went to prison.

Are you actually saying that the police should allow sexual assault by deception? Really?

I mean what does it matter if a female is violated if she might never know about it?

Giving me Monsieur Pelicot vibes here.

Simple question

Whose rights matter more? The rights of the person facing the potentially frightening and humiliating experience of an intimate search or the rights of the person doing the searching?

The police should only interfere with our rights to the extent necessary to perform their obligations to society. It is not necessary for proper policing that any officer has their identity validated in precedence to the rights of a person being searched.

whilst I accept that in many cases you might be able to recognise someone is transgender or cis

The issue here for women is that they are being searched by a male, not "transgender or cis". And yes, in most cases it would be extremely obvious which sex they were.

This.

dear God. It's so fucking normalised isn't it.

You can view them on Nitter

If you replace the X.com part with

nitter.poast.org/

copy and paste it into your browser, you get to see the whole thing.

It's not as instant as just clicking, but at least you can see what everyone else is talking about

The woman suggested it was state sanctioned sexual assault, and he basically said let's be clear about this transwomen are people and they deserve jobs and responsibilities.

A nonsense reply. And the exchange made him look utter a misogynistic creep. I can understand if he doesn't know what he's talking about. But just say can you please write to me about this and I'll discuss it with you. Not it's fine but you can write to me anyway

It's total nonsense isn't it? Not being able to strip search someone of the opposite sex isn't taking jobs or responsibility away from trans people. The entitlement these people have is astonishing. FFS.

People see it as the same sort of reaction as homophobia

The biggest marketing coup in history was telling people that trans like being gay.

But it's lazy thinking. And the people spouting it never stopped to consider for one single second that legalising homosexuality didn't violate women's consent!

Or straight people s

Surely a blanket ban on males searching females is the only pragmatic solution? Imagine the horror and revulsion of a SA survivor or devout woman on finding out they've been undressed and touched by a man (or even, that there's a policy in place that means this might have happened).

Passing or not, irrelevant. Any process for getting informed consent, or attempting a carve-out for specific vulnerabilities, is just going to be really intrusive for both the officer and the person being searched. So just don't do it.

Why is it so hard to understand?

I don't know - if someone has actually changed sex there is a good chance that they are actually a clown fish.

What kind of mentality is at work to even consider this an option. Why does a male police officer HAVE to strip search a woman?

It really is quite foul when a man's demand for validation overrides women's consent to be touched by him - and it's utterly horrific when the police force and government agree.

As I said on another thread, anything, any single, bloody thing that might possibly, even if you look at it with one eye closed from a distance of a mile, be considered female only, is targeted.

“Women have very little idea of how much men hate them" Germaine Greer.

Thanks for that, @Datun - it makes it an awful lot easier to follow!

There are also PACE rules about how the Police should deal with children. If men are allowed to search women, even if they "look like women" (according to Nicola1978x) then male officers taking advantage of this could also be guilty of child sexual abuse or of enabling child sexual abuse:

Scenario 1: Where a child (0-13) or young person (14-18) is incorrectly treated as an adult

"There are specific rules and responsibilities to observe when detaining a child or young person. Where no record of a person’s age is available on arrival in custody, for example if they refuse to provide this information or if they have no means of proving age, officers need to make a decision about whether they should treat the individual as a child/young person or as an adult."

Scenario 2: Where a child or young person's age is known:

Intimate and strip searches of children and young persons
Intimate search (physical examination of a person’s body orifices other than the mouth)

An intimate search of a child or young person may take place only in the presence of an appropriate adult of the same sex, unless the child/young person expressly asks for an appropriate adult of the opposite sex, who is readily available. The search may take place in the absence of the appropriate adult if the juvenile specifically requests this, provided the appropriate adult is present when the request is made and the adult agrees. The decision should be recorded and signed by the appropriate adult.

www.college.police.uk/app/detention-and-custody/detainee-care/children-and-young-persons