likely to reduce the opportunity “for transvestite and transsexual detainees to attempt to ‘manipulate’ their stated sex in an attempt to embarrass and discredit the Police Service”.
Thats how seriously the police take us.
If you have any brains you will complain now.
Ok, let me put it this way, if ACPO stated the had brought in guidelines to reduce lesbian, gay or bisexual detainees ‘manipulating there sexual orientation’ to ‘discredit the police’
Would you be thumbing me down then ? Or is it because I am saying it and your not being intellectually honest. Come on people debate with me if you think I am wrong.
Also the police can decided on the spot if your claims to the opposite gender is true or false ? What would you say if the officer was to decided on the spot that a lesbian or homosexual’s claims to there sexual orientation is false and submit them to what is bassically a sexual assault ?
And you wonder why the government walk all over you. Grow up.
My thumbs down was for your belittling comment “if you have any brains…”
Not a great way to bring people round to your way of thinking.
It’s like they attempt to take the issue seriously on the one hand while reverting back to basic stupidity and prejudice with the other.
I would have big issues if a male police officer searched my upper body because I would see a male officer touching my breasts as indecent assault. however while I’m pre-op I would never expect a female officer to search my lower body until I’m post-op. This seems the most logical approach respecting all persons rights on this issue. Having both a male and female officer present at such a search for pre-op individuals seems the right, while post-op the individual should only expect to be searched in personal areas of the gender they are.
Of course these are just my views as a woman of a transsexual history. Other parts of the transgender community will probably see it differently.
If your ever searched have it done in the presence of your solicitor but if you cant submit a motion to your court to have the police justify it after the fact under ‘due cause’. If you suspect your being humilated or touched indecently DONT go to the IPCC go to the CPS and report them. I had that nonsense once and my solicitor was going to have them for it.
Wonder if they will submitthe muslim community to these trans searches as well.
“a male officer touching my breasts as indecent assault”
But not a lesbian female officer?
For me, the criteria would be whether the officer, male/female/other, was conducting the search with respect, I have had my breasts examined by male doctors without cause to allege assault. Done properly, there is no reason assume assault, just because he is a man in uniform, in my view.
Well said, Polly
Might I suggest that you are misusing the term “woman of transsexual history” if you are pre-op? Transsexual really means being in need of change of one’s physical sexual characteristics to match one’s identity and feelings, and needing SRS is very definitely such a change. That’s from someone who is a woman of transsexual history.
Your logic otherwise seems flawed too. These search authorisations are for the whole body, so you cannot have different gender officers for different sectors. And the motivation behind the rules is surely modesty and embarrassment, so wanting officers of both genders doing an intimate search is really the same as saying you don’t care, and expecting them not to either, which they might not appreciate.
Also, you are speaking against both the existing and these new rules when you say a male officer should search male thangs, since many who hold a GRC recognising a woman’s gender have male lower parts, and would always be searched by women.
When I reported my ex for harrassing me and coming to my house uninvited (as well as the months worth of harrassment) it was put down as a domestic. Had I been a heterosexual woman I imagine it might have been taken more seriously, but as a queer and trans bloke…
My strong sympathies for the harassment (from a woman of transsexual history who had to call the police, twice when a lesbian partner was demolishing our home, and me with it, after years of insidious abuse), but I doubt it would have been rated differently. There are, after all, many, many cases even where heterosexual women have been murdered because really threatening harassment has not been sufficiently acted upon by police forces.
Agreed, it is neglected, but Karl is right that male victims, especially GBTQ male victims, are neglected even worse.
Fae: “…a gender recognition certificate – which amends the gender on an individual’s birth certificate”. — No it very definitely does not.
It allows for a new, second, duplicate birth registration certificate to be issued, leaving the original unamended and available to anyone upon request, and listed in the public index, including online. The existence of two for the same birth then identifying people who have a GRC.
The administrators claimed to need a special register to connect them both, so the lack of amendment causes the – believed to be insecure since it on a computer and open to many agencies – register. Other countries seal the old information would see a register as a serious threat to often vulnerable or persecuted people.
These prevent many from being able to obtain the corrected legal gender which is our right under international law, or the other rights that flow from that, and are major campaign matters.
“Annex L to these new rules sets out … that individuals must… be asked to express a preference … Where grounds for doubt still exist, the test will be: what is the predominant lifestyle that they follow.”
Hmm, so preference will be ignored if the police don’t “believe”, and they will go fishing for information on the suspect’s “lifestyle”. Will that include asking their friends, family and employers? Over what period will this balance of evidence be assessed, I wonder? Will a serious but recent transition be accepted, or ignored? How about transition except for having to present otherwise for work? Isn’t this what a specialist’s “Carry Letter” was supposed to prevent? What sort of “trans police officers” approved this?
And will this prevent a repetition of the cases where a young man is intimately searched only to discover a female, then outed, and prosecuted for fraud and shamed in the tabloids, because apparently, they didn’t know, or dare to claim protected status?
As per usual the issue of non-binary people is ignored. I’m legally male but my identity is such that I would be deeply uncomfortable being searched my a male officer, it would feel like a sexual assault. My legal title is Mx, which does not indicate either really, that’s the point, so aside from the records showing my pursuit of treatment at a gender identity clinic, which would hardly be to hand, I would most likely be treated as male and have an experience equivalent to a male officer searching a female suspect. What is more, the decision to carry out an intimate search in the first place is likely to occur with disproportionate frequency where the suspect is trans, not only because of the mutual suspicion the article mentioned but also the tendency of cisgendered heterosexual people with little contact with trans people to be ‘curious’ and consider such curiosity to be far more appropriate than really it is, at least on an individual level.
I’m rather disappointed by the negative views expressed rather than acknowledging the changes that have happened over the last few years and the way that the NTPA has been involved in the process.
Guidance around trans rights in the criminal justice system is always going to create some grey areas whether it’s because the country isn’t set up to deal with those outside the binary gender model or because some individuals DO claim to be transsexual to gain an advantage (believe it or not some offenders don’t always tell the truth).
That creates cynicism and makes it all the more difficult for transgendered people in the system.
But how would you deal with someone who does not fit the binary gender model? Who would you have search them? Would they have to wait until the police found another non-binary gendered individual? In fact, does it really need to be someone of the same gender (or non-gender)? Strange how it’s not a problem when it’s medical staff who are examining us. I’m not
“Strange how it’s not a problem when it’s medical staff who are examining us” – not true for everyone. I know many women who are not at all comfortable being intimately examined by male staff, and I am one myself. In the past, I have been told that I have a right to insist on female doctors only, but I have had this right trampled upon.
For instance, for a welfare benefits medical examination, I was forced to be examined by a male doctor. I had requested a female one, but was told that there were no female doctors available who could do home visits, and that if I refused the medical examination, I would be refused the benefit and thus not have enough money to live on. The doctor who attended asked needlessly invasive questions, refused to take no for an answer, and reduced me to tears.
In other situations I have gone without medical attention entirely due to not having the option of a female doctor for intimate examinations.
So yes, it exists, it’s a problem.
I’m not saying that there shouldn’t be an answer that suits everyone – but we also have to deal with the world as it is now.
Or what if someone who has been sentenced to a sex offender programme for men – claims to be transsexual (although they haven’t sought any referral and still live in male role).
What would you do about someone sent to prison who then claims to be transsexual? Do you immediately treat them as such? If they’d been referred before sentencing – this might well be appropriate. If this is their first indication it could be genuine – equally it might be to try to get moved to a female establishment or even just get trips outside the walls to a GIC.
Even if the new guidelines are not perfect, they seem to be a step in the right direction (not least of all by removing reasons to justify not employing trans police officers).
I’ve been “trans” for over ten years, and never once have I been searched by police, despite having been stopped in my car by them. Neither have any of my trans friends been searched.
What am I doing wrong, to not suffer this?
or is it a case of, if you’re a law abiding citizen then you have nothing to worry about, because you’ll never be searched?
I don’t mean to sound cynical/patronising but isn’t that how life generally works?
The Innocence Project in the U.S. regularly frees people ON DEATH ROW who went all the way through arrest, trial, conviction and appeals — 100% innocent the entire time. It happens.
Don’t assume that it doesn’t or that it can never happen to you.
Ha, like when it comes down to brass tacks any of this matters. I will never forget witnessing ,on one of these fly on the wall docs the Police seem so keen to take part in ,the sight of a young woman being threatened by a Male officer with a Tazer if she did not squat for an intimate examination in front of half a dozen coppers,male and female.
This is more REPULSIVE erosion of the rights of biological females. Allowing some male “transwoman” to search a woman’s privates just because he has a “certificate” saying he’s a woman is an appalling breach of REAL women’s rights to bodily modesty and privacy. This is horrifying. I would fight him off; they’d have to knock me unconscious first. This is legalized rape of the most offensive nature. ENOUGH of this crap. FIGHT BACK, WOMEN. ENOUGH.
Hahahaha, I laughed so BAD about this entry. Thanks for this one so much, so much fun! :-)))))))))