New police guidance on searching - same sex only

[ArabellaScott]

https://news.npcc.police.uk/releases/new-police-search-guidance-following-supreme-court-decision

'Police chiefs have been reviewing the implications of last month’s UK Supreme Court judgment in relation to the scope of the Equality Act on sex and gender.
The National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) has today (Thursday) published draft interim guidance on searches of members of the transgender community, as well as searches carried out by transgender police officers and staff.
It makes clear that thorough police searches, such as those which expose intimate body parts, should be carried out by police officers and staff of the same biological sex as the detained person.
There may be very limited exceptions considered where someone requests to be searched by an officer of their gender.
The guidance is explicit that any search not conducted in line with biological sex must have the written consent of the detainee, the officer carrying out the search as well as the authorising officer.
The guidance has been circulated to every police force in the country.'

Great news!

Excellent news. Why don’t they link to the actual guidance though?

Not sure I like the limited exception where someone requests to be searched by an officer of their gender…. A young inexperience female officer could well not feel able to refuse to search a TW who requested this.

I thought that too. It has happened to a female officer who had to search a TW while her male colleagues watched. TW verbally abused her during the search. I can't remember where I read it though. Hopefully she is taking them to an employment tribunal.

Fantastic news.
It sounds good on the surface, but I think it may be open to exploitation.

Male says he's a woman, insists on being searched by a woman. But this could be countered by 6 foot + PC Dave with a beard who is also a "woman" ( at least for the duration of the search, gender is fluid remember ) does the search. Male searching male. It would be interesting to see if a male "woman" has the right to insist on being searched by a female officer.

The written consent sounds good, but what happens when a male "woman" insists on being searched by a woman, which the police are happy to do, but refuses to sign the search consent. No written consent = no search.

Certain tran people, "more of a woman than JKR" cough cough consider themselves to have changed sex from male to female. Can a person like this insist that they are now female and so must be searched by the same female sex?

Sorry this should be a cause for much celebration for so many reasons, but all my mind can do these days is ask, "How are they going to pervert this?" Everything gets undermined and turned upside down and inside out by the gender borg.

Brilliant news, thanks for sharing.

'There may be very limited exceptions considered where someone requests to be searched by an officer of their gender.'

So they're going to allow trans people to choose who searches them. What a shame they could never bring themselves to treat women with the same kindness and respect. Instead, I seem to recall some forces or policies actually threatened that a woman who wanted to be searched by a woman and objected to being strip searched by a man could be treated as having committed a hate crime or have a NCHI recorded against her name .

Male says he's a woman, insists on being searched by a woman. But this could be countered by 6 foot + PC Dave with a beard who is also a "woman" ( at least for the duration of the search, gender is fluid remember ) does the search. Male searching male. It would be interesting to see if a male "woman" has the right to insist on being searched by a female officer.

A complaint on that would be interesting to say the very least, it would blow out of the water all the treasured mantras of the gender ideologues particularly the TWAW.

I can see no way a male claiming to be a woman has the right to insist on being searched by a female officer and female officers should not be coerced or forced into so doing, they have the right to refuse.

A major breakthrough from the previous position which was that men officers who identified should be provided with the right to forcibly handle non consenting women.

The searching of trans identified people is going to be tricky whatever anyone does. This seems to be the most sensible approach all in all with enough flexibility and sensitivity, particular the recorded consent of both parties and the authorising officer if opposite sexes are involved, and that shows the awareness that they legally have to cover their backs.

The written consent sounds good, but what happens when a male "woman" insists on being searched by a woman, which the police are happy to do, but refuses to sign the search consent. No written consent = no search.

I would take this to be no search by someone of the same ‘gender’ so could still be searched by the same sex as no consent required that.

That could be solved if there was a TW officer - same gender (and same sex of course) as a TW detainee. Wonder if they’d protest though?

Thank you for posting. Finally some good news and common sense.

I'll take trans people being allowed to choose who searches them if the payoff is female women get the default right to be searched by biologically female women. That's a big win in my book. If the police are not so comfortable with a trans person getting to choose, well the police threw females under the bus without a second thought, now they get a taste of it themselves. Sarcastic sad tears face.
I don't want individual female police officers put under difficult circumstances, but my opinion of the police as a whole is the lowest now it's ever been in my lifetime. If this makes things more difficult for the police as an organisation well my world's tiniest violin is in with JKR's box of missing fucks.

Good Everyone's catered for, which is how it should be. I take it that a make couldn't get out if being searched by stating they wanted a female, and no females wanting to do it? Or indeed vice versa?

I’m not sure about getting everyone to sign consent forms, isn’t it effectively saying, if all the parties involved sign this disclaimer we can disapply the Equality Act? I don’t think they have the authority to do that. They would still be legally liable in a discrimination claim if someone changed their mind afterwards, wouldn’t they?

Otherwise an employer could say all our employees have agreed that everyone can use the loos they choose - look we’ve got all their consent forms.

Perhaps this would make a good exemplar for the EHRC.

This was one of the points made by Sex Matters in their action against the British Transport Police. Obviously that hasn’t gone to court yet and may not now they have changed their policy.

It may be similar to the ‘boys under 8 in the changing room’ situation, as a sensible accommodation that may be permissible.

I don’t think the person being searched would have a claim as it was on their request. The police would need to be VERY careful they weren’t coercing their employees to consent, but I do think we should assume that a police officer is robust enough to only consent if they want to, unless we have actual evidence to the contrary.

I think the reverse - I think that there is a real risk of women going along with mixed sex spaces or searching a sub-set of men, or any number of other "compromises", and it not being what they thought, and that we need to protect people from themselves.

Good news but there should be no exceptions - those are discriminatory. Why should a trans identifying person be given choices someone else isn't?

I agree with this. I'm not sure this is as positive as they've carefully worded it to sound.

Those "limited exceptions" could very easily describe the circumstances every time a trans-identifying man needs to be searched.

This guidance appears to be saying that any trans-identifying man can say they only consent to being searched by someone with the same gender - ie/either a woman or another trans-identifying man.

The chances of there being a male police officer who is trans-identifying on hand whenever needed is infinitesimal. The likelihood is that a female police officer will be pressured to "consent" and just like magic, the same sex rules set out by the SC judgement vanish in smoke.

Yes, female police officers should refuse but we know the police is a male-dominated environment and women are under a lot of pressure to prove themselves. If a search needs to be done, there is no convenient trans-identifying male officer, I can well imagine a female being persuaded just to do it so things aren't held up.

There should be no exceptions - this sounds like a poor precedent to set. They're essentially showing how it's possible to consent out of the law....

Yes, I think it’s the thin end of the wedge/a Trojan horse.

A hospital cld use this style of exemption: just as you’re going into theatre, “oops cld you sign to say you don’t mind the gender of those treating you, if you do mind, we’ll have to cancel your operation today…”

The main reason we have got into this mess is because people (mainly women) have been too scared/intimidated to say No, we don’t want men in our SSS.

It shouldn’t be possible to waive your protections under the Equality Act.

I’ve mentioned this on another thread but as clinicians, patients have the right to request a same sex clinician perform their ECG. I (a woman) have been made to perform one on a transwoman, clearly a fetishist on account of the blow up sex dolls etc in their living room, who was clearly enjoying me having to touch his ‘titties’ 😡.

My God. I'm so very sorry.

patients have the right to request a same sex clinician perform their ECG.

What?? I have had 3. Once by a rude woman who ripped my clothes off without asking, nor putting the curtain round, or locking the door. The other two times by males who didn't ask, and no chaperone either. And yes, I did feel violated and still feel very uncomfortable about it all months later.

@BiologicalRobot That is appalling. As an emergency service it isn’t always possible to have a same sex clinician in attendance but if there is, ‘right’ might be inaccurate but we’re told that for dignity we must accommodate patient preferences. You’d be within your rights to complain btw 💐.

Police Scotland ‘dithering’ over trans strip search guidance

Police Scotland has been accused of “dithering” over adopting a “common sense” policy that sees suspects searched by officers of the same sex.

Following the Supreme Court ruling that “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 is defined as “biological sex, not gender identity”, the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) issued clear guidance on how to conduct body searches.

In cases that involve a transgender person, the new guidance states that they should be searched by a police officer of the same biological sex and not of the trans person’s self-identified gender.

Scotland’s national force, however, has yet to adopt the policy.
It said the policy was being considered and advice had been sought from an independent human rights adviser.

Full article https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/06/08/police-scotland-dithering-trans-stop-search-court-ruling/

And at https://archive.is/18ArU

So in Scotland, a suspect of Nicola Sturgeon’s “rapist” gender, could still be intimately searched by a coerced woman officer.

Nice one, Police Scotland.