Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Question about police strip searches

19 replies

puckingfixies · 20/04/2025 11:30

Daughter has raised a point and I'm stuck. If she was stopped by a male police officer who had reason to carry out a strip search and said he believed she was a trans identifying male, how can she prevent him from carrying out the strip search? We have looked at the id she normally carries and none of it states she is female.

OP posts:
2dogsandabudgie · 20/04/2025 15:32

Where do you think this strip search would take place, on the street?

Enough4me · 20/04/2025 15:33

She'd say "I'm female" and her biology (you know that thing that we all know is real!) would show she's female. Tall/short/clothes/fake boobs/mastectomy whatever, biology is in every cell and is apparent.

Ingenieur · 20/04/2025 15:35

Quote the Police and Criminal Evidence Act Section 55 (7).

"A constable may not carry out an intimate search of a person of the opposite sex."

OttersAreMySpiritAnimal · 20/04/2025 15:37

A single police officer can't just decide to do a strip search. It involves multiple people, happens at a police station, multiple checks before it gets that far. The likelihood of this actually happening? I'd say nil.

Conxis · 20/04/2025 15:40

Get her to ask her grandmother how this would have worked 40 years ago. The police had no problem in the past working out what sex people were. No idea why it’s so difficult in 2025

puckingfixies · 20/04/2025 17:18

Thanks to all who have answered, I don't know much about police procedures but am relieved to hear that more than one person would be involved in the decision to carry out a strip search.

I am delighted with the S C ruling last week, daughter not so much.

OP posts:
spannasaurus · 20/04/2025 17:36

Until the judgment was delivered that male police officer could have just said he was a woman and strip searched your daughter.

andtheworldrollson · 20/04/2025 17:59

Once stripped the sex would be pretty obvious thus anyone lying would be rapidly caught out - lying to police isn’t a good look - making it easier for police to rely on self reported sex

NumberTheory · 20/04/2025 21:09

Ingenieur · 20/04/2025 15:35

Quote the Police and Criminal Evidence Act Section 55 (7).

"A constable may not carry out an intimate search of a person of the opposite sex."

Just FYI - Intimate search and strip search are different. Strip search is removing more than outer clothing, intimate search is a search of body orifices other than the mouth.

Requirement for same sex officers for an intimate search is within PACE primary legislation. Requirement for same sex officers for strip searches that expose intimate body parts is within the PACE codes of practice which are issued by the Secretary of State.

Skandar · 20/04/2025 21:14

Conxis · 20/04/2025 15:40

Get her to ask her grandmother how this would have worked 40 years ago. The police had no problem in the past working out what sex people were. No idea why it’s so difficult in 2025

This. All these questions we keep seeing about "how will this work" as if we didn't manage just find until about a decade ago...
It's like being confused about how you reheat food without a microwave.

HPFA · 20/04/2025 21:24

It's funny how whenever we talked about self ID being abused we were always told "men will abuse women anyway"

So why are policemen supposedly gagging to use this weird excuse which would doubtless ultimately lead to their dismissal?

NumberTheory · 20/04/2025 21:40

An officer on the side of the road cannot conduct a strip search under stop and search powers.

Where strip searches are allowed, the requirement for same sex officers is within PACE code of practice C, which is issued by the Secretary of State.

Neither of these bits of legislation are the 2010 EA, so it's unclear to me that the SC ruling should affect them, though the SC did highlight and put clear weight on the BLOODY OBVIOUS fact that single sex provision is provided because of biology, not feelz, and maybe it was that bucket of cold water that has jolted some forces into doing the right thing.

When conducting same sex activities under PACE (like strip searches), there is an entire annex (annex L) dedicated to deciding which sex to treat people as with a focus on transgender people. However, it only considers the sex of the detainee, not of the officer conducting the searches.

ANNEX L ESTABLISHING GENDER OF PERSONS FOR THE PURPOSE OF SEARCHING AND CERTAIN OTHER PROCEDURES

1. Certain provisions of this and other PACE Codes explicitly state that searches and other procedures may only be carried out by, or in the presence of, persons of the same sex as the person subject to the search or other procedure or require action to be taken or information to be given which depends on whether the detainee is treated as being male or female. See Note L1.

2. All such searches, procedures and requirements must be carried out with courtesy, consideration and respect for the person concerned. Police officers should show particular sensitivity when dealing with transgender individuals (including transsexual persons) and transvestite persons (see Notes L2, L3 and L4).

(a) Consideration

3. In law, the gender (and accordingly the sex) of an individual is their gender as registered at birth unless they have been issued with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) under the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (GRA), in which case the person's gender is their acquired gender. This means that if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman and they must be treated as their acquired gender.

4. When establishing whether the person concerned should be treated as being male or female for the purposes of these searches, procedures and requirements, the following approach which is designed to maintain their dignity, minimise embarrassment and secure their cooperation should be followed:
(a) The person must not be asked whether they have a GRC (see paragraph 8);
(b) If there is no doubt as to as to whether the person concerned should be treated as being male or female, they should be dealt with as being of that sex.
(c) If at any time (including during the search or carrying out the procedure or requirement) there is doubt as to whether the person should be treated, or continue to be treated, as being male or female:
(i) the person should be asked what gender they consider themselves to be. If they express a preference to be dealt with as a particular gender, they should be asked to indicate and confirm their preference by signing the custody record or, if a custody record has not been opened, the search record or the officer’s notebook. Subject to (ii) below, the person should be treated according to their preference except with regard to the requirements to provide that person with information concerning menstrual products and their personal needs relating to health, hygiene and welfare described in paragraph 3.20A (if aged under 18) and paragraphs 9.3A and 9.3B (if aged 18 or over). In these cases, a person whose confirmed preference is to be dealt with as being male should be asked in private whether they wish to speak in private with a member of the custody staff of a gender of their choosing about the provision of menstrual products and their personal needs, notwithstanding their confirmed preference (see Note L3A);
(ii) if there are grounds to doubt that the preference in (i) accurately reflects the person’s predominant lifestyle, for example, if they ask to be treated as a woman but documents and other information make it clear that they live predominantly as a man, or vice versa, they should be treated according to what appears to be their predominant lifestyle and not their stated preference;
(iii) If the person is unwilling to express a preference as in (i) above, efforts should be made to determine their predominant lifestyle and they should be treated as such. For example, if they appear to live predominantly as a woman, they should be treated as being female except with regard to the requirements to provide that person with information concerning menstrual products and their personal needs relating to health, hygiene and welfare described in paragraph 3.20A (if aged C Codes of practice – Code C Detention, treatment and questioning of persons by police officers 89 under 18) and paragraphs 9.3A and 9.3B (if aged 18 or over). In these cases, a person whose predominant lifestyle has been determined to be male should be asked in private whether they wish to speak in private with a member of the custody staff of a gender of their choosing about the provision of menstrual products and their personal needs, notwithstanding their determined predominant lifestyle (see Note L3A); or
(iv) if none of the above apply, the person should be dealt with according to what reasonably appears to have been their sex as registered at birth.

5. Once a decision has been made about which gender an individual is to be treated as, each officer responsible for the search, procedure or requirement should where possible be advised before the search or procedure starts of any doubts as to the person's gender and the person informed that the doubts have been disclosed. This is important so as to maintain the dignity of the person and any officers concerned. (b) Documentation

6. The person’s gender as established under paragraph 4(c)(i) to (iv) above must be recorded in the person’s custody record or, if a custody record has not been opened, on the search record or in the officer’s notebook.

7. Where the person elects which gender they consider themselves to be under paragraph 4(b)(i) but, following 4(b)(ii) is not treated in accordance with their preference, the reason must be recorded in the search record, in the officer’s notebook or, if applicable, in the person’s custody record.

(c) Disclosure of information

8. Section 22 of the GRA defines any information relating to a person’s application for a GRC or to a successful applicant’s gender before it became their acquired gender as ‘protected information’. Nothing in this Annex is to be read as authorising or permitting any police officer or any police staff who has acquired such information when acting in their official capacity to disclose that information to any other person in contravention of the GRA. Disclosure includes making a record of ‘protected information’ which is read by others.

Itdoesntendwellatall · 20/04/2025 22:00

HPFA · 20/04/2025 21:24

It's funny how whenever we talked about self ID being abused we were always told "men will abuse women anyway"

So why are policemen supposedly gagging to use this weird excuse which would doubtless ultimately lead to their dismissal?

Only if whoever is searched knows their rights.

HPFA · 20/04/2025 22:06

Itdoesntendwellatall · 20/04/2025 22:00

Only if whoever is searched knows their rights.

If someone didn't know their rights the policeman would presumably just tell them it was legal for a male to search a female.

Serencwtch · 20/04/2025 22:41

She doesn't need to worry at all & there's a lot of scaremongering going on. There's no record of that scenario happening ever.

There are strict criteria for a strip search anyway - definitely not the same as the more routine 'stop & search'. You can't just strip search someone without very good reason.

It doesn't took place immediately or in public & they would verify her identity first.

If there was any doubt about her sex they have access to doctors and nurses in custody so she would be kept on 1:1 observation in custody until a doctor or nurse could speak to her. The search wouldn't take place until that was done.

I hope that reassures both of you.

puckingfixies · 21/04/2025 00:01

Many thanks for the further replies, I'm definitely reassured.

OP posts:
NumberTheory · 21/04/2025 01:27

If there was any doubt about her sex they have access to doctors and nurses in custody so she would be kept on 1:1 observation in custody until a doctor or nurse could speak to her. The search wouldn't take place until that was done.

This is absolutely NOT what is supposed to happen.

SternJoyousBee · 21/04/2025 01:50

puckingfixies · 20/04/2025 17:18

Thanks to all who have answered, I don't know much about police procedures but am relieved to hear that more than one person would be involved in the decision to carry out a strip search.

I am delighted with the S C ruling last week, daughter not so much.

Is she genuinely concerned or does she think this is a ‘gotcha’? Why does she think she would be more at risk now than before the ruling? If a police officer would be deliberately predatory after the ruling why not before?

OuterSpaceCadet · 21/04/2025 07:07

Before the ruling, was she equally concerned for women forcibly strip searched by transwomen police officers? Or female police officers forced to strip search transwomen as part of their job?

Funny how there's so many piping up now with concerns who didn't before. And as ever, if they really care, blame the ideology which lobbied the authorities to let predatory men and vulnerable young people falsify their sex on official documents! FFS!

New posts on this thread. Refresh page