Sex Matters to seek judicial review on BTP searching policy

[southbiscay]

x.com/sexmattersorg/status/1872368242012131505?s=46

Good news - gardening in order.

Also there is an interesting comment on the GRA:If we lose and the court declares that a GRC changes a police officer’s sex for the purpose of searching members of the public, this would strengthen the case for repealing or reforming the Gender Recognition Act."

And it's good to see this bit bringing awareness of the fetish that is autogynephila to a wider audience: "The High Court will be asked not just to look at the meaning of words in law, but to consider the concrete facts relevant to the case, including the facts of autogynephilia; the way systemic weaknesses tend to act as magnets for abusers; the impossibility of “passing” for most men who identify as women; and the abusive nature of deceit as to sex where intimate procedures or searching are concerned."

Great specific points you pulled out there, thank you!

it’s been my belief for a long time that if the general public heard and had the word autogynephile explained to them, this would end the trans movement the same weekend. Please please please let this unravelling of GI continue.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/12/26/police-sued-transgender-officers-strip-search-women/

'Women’s rights campaigners are suing the British Transport Police (BTP) over guidance that allows transgender officers to strip-search women'

https://archive.ph/uas6f

'Chris Philp, then policing minister, said transgender officers should be stopped from conducting strip-searches on suspects of the opposite sex unless they had changed their legal gender.
Sex Matters penned a letter before claim, also known as a letter before action, as opposition mounted over the BTP policy.
But the force doubled down, rejecting the claim that the guidance “exposes women to a particular risk of behaviour”.
The force wrote: “As has been outlined previously, Parliament has imposed stringent safeguards in respect of the ability of an individual to obtain a GRC. It is not enough simply that a man identifies themselves as a female to obtain one.”'

'Stringent safeguards' my fat arse.

The outcome of the recent For Women Scotland case in the Supreme Court- judgement expected in the new year - will impact on this, surely?

I know it's preaching to the converted on this board, but always worth saying again:

By definition, accepting trans people's gender identity means accepting that their gender is in their mind not their body. Fine.

But why is a person's mental gender rather than their actual sex relevant when it comes to privacy, nudity, intimate care, intimate searches and so on? Given that all these are about the body, not the mind, why is a quality of the mind considered more pertinent than a quality of the body?

As the owner of a female body, I really don't care what gender someone sharing private spaces or having access to my nudity has. I do, however, care that they also have a female body.

But if the Scottish government win the Supreme Court case I’ve mentioned above the only thing that will be relevant unless the law is changed is whether the male searcher has a GRC that says they are a woman - in which case they are one for all legal purposes

“As has been outlined previously, Parliament has imposed stringent safeguards in respect of the ability of an individual to obtain a GRC. It is not enough simply that a man identifies themselves as a female to obtain one.”

Considering how close Scotland came to self-ID and considering how Labour still want to make it much easier for men to get a lady certificate this argument doesn't remotely offer any reassurance.

Yet another example of how, although combersome, the SSE could be put in place.

The explanation that because getting a GRC is a "rigorous" process, fails to acknowledged that even the then Labour Government recognised that is some cases, actually biological sex takes precedence.

It isn't about whether the process is rigorous, it is about whether (particulary something so intimate) should only happen when someone of the same biological sex is concerned.

I dont understand how so many people dont grasp that the fact that the SSE exists, shows that even the totally Stonewalled labour government, recognised that in reality there are occassions that biological sex is the only safeguard. Whether a rape crisis centre, or police searches.

If more people pointed out that these exemptions exists it would actually illustrate that even those who drafted the guidelent knew, know that when it comes down to basics it is only biology that matters.

Stringent safeguards? Are you kidding me?
A diagnosis of gender dysphoria that any captured GP will sign off. Changing your name on a gas bill. Wait 2 years. An application form to a panel. And £5

Fair enough it takes time. But it is not stringent. Any Tom, Dick or Harry can do it because it's unfalsifiable as there is no objective test.

THIS ⬆

There are no ‘safeguards’. I have had to explain to various people over the years (some of them very senior people in their organisations) that a GRC is incredibly easy to get and there is no vetting, it’s simply paperwork and a diagnosis anyone can get with coaching (freely available on the internet). Huge lack of knowledge about this.

All very cogent arguments.

It’s as if BTP believes what’s in someone’s head is materially more important than their physical body. If you think it, it becomes manifest reality.

The fact that the whole pharmaceutical industry would go broke in one fell swoop if that were true seems to be conveniently ignored by the BTP.

"The Claimant seeks:
(1) Suitably worded declarations that (i) the policy is systemically flawed and inherently incompatible with (a) the Human Rights Act 1998 / European Convention on Human Rights and/or (b) the Equality Act 2010 and (ii) the Defendant has failed to comply with the PSED; (iii) the policy amounts to an error of law, is ultra vires and/or irrational; (iv) further or different declarations as the Court sees fit;
(2) An Order quashing the Search Policy;
(3) Further or other relief as the Court thinks fit; and
(4) Costs."

sex-matters.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Facts-and-grounds-Sex-Matters-and-BTP.pdf

No. I won't be contributing to this. The most likely outcome here will be 1,b,ii. They'll just go back and make the same decision but with an EIA.

The only serious way to end all this is to repeal the GRA and remove the PC of GR in the EQA. No more lawfare. And no more coming to us to pay for it either.

"The only serious way to end all this is to repeal the GRA and remove the PC of GR in the EQA. No more lawfare. And no more coming to us to pay for it either."

While I agree with your desired outcome, it is simply impossible to go from where we are today to where you want to get to in one bound. And certainly not under a Labour government. How do you propose to do that?

The whole gender ideology elephant has to be eaten one bite at a time. Each success loosens another brick, and at the same time helps prevent matters getting worse (such as relaxing criteria for getting a GRC).

Yes it's shit that women have to fund this but frankly there is literally no realistic alternative.

It's not impossible. We wasted time during the Tory years and I won't pay to waste more time during the Labour ones. We need to be focused on the next GE.

But I'm not stopping anyone else from contributing. Just saying I won't because I think we've paid more than enough now. There are other reasons but I think enough is enough and I don't think this will achieve more than x organisation being told to make the decision again. When they could still make the exact same decision.

That said it's good they got AGP into their facts and grounds.

This isn't just about whether someone is a sexual predator.

This is about the right of women to define what is appropriate to them.

So by just going on and on about TW who are potentially dangerous misses the much more fundamental point that women are the ones who should decide what is appropriate in an intimate situation.

It is women who should have the right to say I do not want a biological male to strip search me.

This is about, which the SSE allow, women be the ones to set the boundaries.

It would be just the same if the most caring, sharing, empathetic, whatever TW was involved. The women or women concerned has the right to say NO, I will only be strip searched by another biological female.

This is the same basis on which Sarah is taking a court action against Survivor's Network.

The court have already stated the sex based rights are "worthy of respect".

Do go on and on about predators just fits into the trans narrative that terfs are out to malign them.

When what it is about is women defining what is right for them.

No other protected characteristic has to allow for some other groups "feelings".

The state would not expect of PoC to accept and white person who identifies as Black as being that.

As the quotes illustrate, they, the Government, the institutions want it to be about them defining what is appropriate.

Whereas the actual issue is about women defining what is right for women.

To make it just about safeguarding actually implies that there are on occassions when it would be okay for a TW to strip search a biological woman, because the state or the institution knows 100% they are trustworthy.

Which again is about validating TW.

This is and should be about women saying what is right for them, not having to accept someone else's belief set.

Women's beliefs are of equal validity and nobody, whether police, the NHS or whoever can say we aren't entitled to have those beliefs, and impose their beliefs on us.

This.

"....but to consider the concrete facts relevant to the case, including the facts of autogynephilia; the way systemic weaknesses tend to act as magnets for abusers; the impossibility of “passing” for most men who identify as women;...."

The constant implication from some on here that trans people are only trans for sexual/fetish reasons is offensive considered hate and transphobia by many.

That is not what is being said. The only person who has made the statement that "trans people are only trans for sexual/fetish reasons" is you.

What is being said is that the special rights and accesses available to people who claim to be trans, and the ability to dismiss any boundaries as, in your words, "hate and transphobia", create systemic weaknesses which can be exploited by bad actors.

Women - in the original meaning of people born female and living that reality not a fantasy version of womanhood in a male mind - know very well that weak boundaries and opportunities attract sexual predators, both overt and covert. We've all felt discomforted by the behaviour of someone who is supposed to be "safe" and usually also felt the powerlessness and helplessness of not being able to say anything about it because we won't be believed, our motives doubted. Only someone who is not a woman or someone blinded by ideology would not recognise this.

Interestingly, whether these actors are really "trans" (whatever that means) or not is irrelevent, because as long as "transness" is a self-identified quality there is no way to gatekeep who has access to the special privileges of transness.

However, if you would like to give a meaningful and workable definition of trans woman that can be used in practice to exclude men with a fetish for dressing/been seen "as women" please please do so. It would solve so much, I'm sure everyone would welcome it.

Are you saying this isn't a motivation for a good many? Then you are a fool or a liar. And why is it 'transphobia' to point it out? Your attempts to stiffle debate have failed. Give it up.

Well the 'many' need to 'reframe their trauma' because the female of the species are not going to let them reframe the female sex or gender. Women = Human Adult Female.

Agree.

Well said FlirtsWithRhinos

Blanchard's typology, while probably not covering every trans-identifying male, is likely pretty accurate:

1. Homosexual transsexuals - gay, effeminate men who identify strongly with femininity and find it easier presenting as a 'transwoman' than as an effeminate man.

1. AGPs. Heterosexual men who get aroused at the thought of themselves as a women - yesterday's furtive crossdressers who have now been given full licence to flaunt their fetish in public.

The second group is the largest by far and yes they are doing it for sexual fetish reasons. And only the most deluded truly believe they are a woman.

There is of course a third group not identified by Blanchard and that is prison-onset transwomen. They have no fantasies of being a woman themselves, but they are certainly not averse to be intimately searched by women or being banged up with women instead of men.

I don't think either approach is a waste of time. I can't see any government of any hue being prepared to even discuss GRA repeal for at least another 10 years and, in the meantime, situations such as this one will keep happening and will require a response.

I don't think there's any need to decry different approaches, in fact I believe a variety of approach is what is needed.

I think today there is a third group, men (mostly young) and boys who have been brought up with the idea that your gender is an expression of your personality like your music or fashion choices, and have formed their social identity around being "trans". They are not in themselves a direct threat to women, but in their denial and naivety they are supporting a political and social movement that erases women's voices, removes women's rights and protections, and redefines womanhood into reductive and sexist caricatures.

Like I said, I’m not stopping anyone. I disagree this is a variety of approaches though. This is the same one - legal challenge. It’s never a serious effort for Repeal. It’s never lobbying for that eg by way of a Select Committee examining the many and egregious safeguarding failures or any other such way of tackling it. It’s always crowdfunding for lawfare.