Trans suspects can ask for female and male officers to search different halves of body
Trans women with breasts and a penis can ask for a female police officer to search the top half of their body and a male officer to search their bottom half, under new guidance issued in Scotland.
The five-page document issued by Police Scotland says searches will usually be conducted by an officer of the same biological sex as the transgender person.
The guidance, issued following the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in April, means that police searches of trans women will be carried out by male officers.
However, the guidance also says that trans people can request to be searched by an officer who matches their 'lived gender' instead to ensure their dignity is 'respected' and 'to minimise distress'.
If this happens, the guidance stated that 'efforts will be made to ensure an appropriate officer conducts the search, where this is operationally viable to do so'.
Officer's consent required
Written consent will be required from the officer conducting the search, an 'authorising officer' of inspector rank or above, and the trans person.
Trans people are also entitled to ask for a 'separate area search' if one part of their body has a different 'anatomical presentation' from another.
This could happen if a trans woman suspect has had hormone therapy to grow breasts but still has male genitalia, for example.
'This means that one half of their body will be searched by one biological sex officer and the other half of their body will be searched by a different biological sex officer,' the guidance said.
Police Scotland said the new policy had been developed following 'extensive advice' for legal and human rights advisors, following April's Supreme Court ruling that the definition of a woman is based solely on biological sex.
'Erosion' of women's rights
But For Women Scotland, the feminist campaign group that won the case, warned that a trans person altering one half of their body does not mean they have changed sex.
Susan Smith, one of the group's directors, said: 'They aren't some creature of myth, half-male and half-female. It is disturbing and distressing that the police are pandering to these extreme delusions.'
She also argued that 'written consent cannot override the law and will be a poor excuse if a female officer subsequently discovers that the suspect she agreed to search intimately has committed sex offences'.
Fiona McAnena, director of campaigns at gender-critical charity Sex Matters, said: 'Until what seems like five minutes ago, Police Scotland was a fully-fledged champion of transgender ideology and a paid-up member of Stonewall's diversity champions scheme, so it's a relief to see Police Scotland joining several other forces in the UK in basing strip-searching primarily on biological sex.
'However, the policy to allow trans-identifying suspects to request being searched by someone of the same 'gender' that they identify as is a glaring loophole. It's open to exploitation by trans rights activists who take an active interest in the erosion of boundaries and the rights of women.
'This policy puts female officers at risk of pressure and coercion to go along with the demands of male trans-identifying suspects to be searched by women.'
'Complex' area of policing
Police Scotland is the second-largest force in the UK after London's Metropolitan Police. The British Transport Police has previously confirmed trans women arrested on the railways would in future be strip-searched by male officers.
Assistant Chief Constable Catriona Paton said: 'This is a complex and important area of policing and searching members of the public is a significant intrusion of their personal liberty and privacy.
'It is critical that as an organisation, Police Scotland continues to fulfil its legal duties as well as ensuring officers and staff feel confident that they are conducting searches lawfully.
'While the guidance will bring clarity to both our colleagues and members of the public, we are acutely aware of the impact and depth of feeling around this issue, both among the transgender community and those who hold gender-critical views.'
She said the force's priority was to ensure decisions were made in line with its service values of 'integrity, fairness, respect and upholding human rights'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
North Wales Chronicle
an hour ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Chagos Islands deal must be ratified to secure Diego Garcia, peers say
Mauritius is 'likely' to resume its campaign to secure a binding judgment on sovereignty against Britain unless the agreement is rubber-stamped, the House of Lords International Agreements Community (HLIAC) warned. In a report published on Wednesday, the peers concluded that the Government 'cannot ignore' the risk of an 'adverse ruling' putting the UK's right to run a joint UK-US base in jeopardy. The deal signed last month after long-running negotiations returns sovereignty of the archipelago to Mauritius, but will see Britain lease back the military site on Diego Garcia, the largest of the islands. It follows a 2019 advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice which said the islands should be handed over to Mauritius. Critics argue it comes at too high a cost to the taxpayer, which is expected to run to billions of pounds, and that the retention of the base will interfere withh Chagossians right to resettle. Islanders were expelled from the archipelago between 1965 and 1973 to make way for the military site and have not been allowed to return. Chairman of HLIAC Lord Goldsmith said that 'like all treaties, the agreement reflects a compromise' and highlighted that there was no guarantee it would be extended after the initial 99-year term agreed between the two countries. 'However, the UK cannot ignore the advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) which found that the Chagos Archipelago had been unlawfully detached from Mauritius at the time of its independence in the 1960s,' he said. 'If the agreement is not ratified there would be a greater risk from the adverse ruling of an international court to the future of the military base.' As well as establishing a £40 million fund for Chagossians, the UK has agreed to pay Mauritius at least £120 million a year for 99 years in order to lease back the Diego Garcia base – a total cost of at least £13 billion in cash terms. Using Government accounting principles to adjust for long-term costs, officials have claimed the deal amounts to an average of £101 million a year in 2025/26 prices with an overall cost of £3.4 billion a year 'using a net present value methodology'. The deal also includes provisions preventing development on the rest of the archipelago without the UK's consent, which the Government has argued will prevent countries such as China setting up their own facilities. The agreement has also been backed by the United States. A Foreign Office spokesperson said: 'We are pleased that the committee has welcomed the Diego Garcia base deal. This deal is vital for our national security.'
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
EXCLUSIVE Brighton's bin mafia exposed: Threats to stab people. A suicide. Even a STONING... all from the people in charge of rubbish collection. Now the Mail names the two bully boys accused of presiding over a culture of fear
One of the first things you notice about the impressive, detached house in a tree-lined street in the heart of Brighton are the CCTV cameras. It's not the only safeguard. At night, lights come on if anyone approaches the property. Inside is an alarm with a panic button linked to a private security firm. The owner is on its 'emergency response' list, which carries out regular patrols around her address.
Powys County Times
an hour ago
- Powys County Times
Chagos Islands deal must be ratified to secure Diego Garcia, peers say
The Chagos Islands deal is 'not perfect' but must be ratified to avoid legal challenges that could threaten UK control of a vital military airbase, peers have said. Mauritius is 'likely' to resume its campaign to secure a binding judgment on sovereignty against Britain unless the agreement is rubber-stamped, the House of Lords International Agreements Community (HLIAC) warned. In a report published on Wednesday, the peers concluded that the Government 'cannot ignore' the risk of an 'adverse ruling' putting the UK's right to run a joint UK-US base in jeopardy. The deal signed last month after long-running negotiations returns sovereignty of the archipelago to Mauritius, but will see Britain lease back the military site on Diego Garcia, the largest of the islands. It follows a 2019 advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice which said the islands should be handed over to Mauritius. Critics argue it comes at too high a cost to the taxpayer, which is expected to run to billions of pounds, and that the retention of the base will interfere withh Chagossians right to resettle. Islanders were expelled from the archipelago between 1965 and 1973 to make way for the military site and have not been allowed to return. Chairman of HLIAC Lord Goldsmith said that 'like all treaties, the agreement reflects a compromise' and highlighted that there was no guarantee it would be extended after the initial 99-year term agreed between the two countries. 'However, the UK cannot ignore the advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) which found that the Chagos Archipelago had been unlawfully detached from Mauritius at the time of its independence in the 1960s,' he said. 'If the agreement is not ratified there would be a greater risk from the adverse ruling of an international court to the future of the military base.' As well as establishing a £40 million fund for Chagossians, the UK has agreed to pay Mauritius at least £120 million a year for 99 years in order to lease back the Diego Garcia base – a total cost of at least £13 billion in cash terms. Using Government accounting principles to adjust for long-term costs, officials have claimed the deal amounts to an average of £101 million a year in 2025/26 prices with an overall cost of £3.4 billion a year 'using a net present value methodology'. The deal also includes provisions preventing development on the rest of the archipelago without the UK's consent, which the Government has argued will prevent countries such as China setting up their own facilities. The agreement has also been backed by the United States.
