Police Scotland say transgender suspects have the right to ask for a male officer to search one half of their body and a female officer to search the other half
Police have issued new guidance ruling transgender suspects can demand one half of their body is searched by a male officer and the other by a female colleague.
Gender-critical campaigners have accused Police Scotland of potentially putting female staff at risk with new rules drawn up after a recent Supreme Court verdict.
The latest guidance - issued with comments from Assistant Chief Constable Catriona Paton - has been condemned by activists including Kellie-Jay Keen, of the group Let Women Speak, and Sex Matters charity chief Fiona McAnena.
Judges determined in April that the word 'woman' meant a biological female and not gender within the terms of Britain's Equality Act.
Police Scotland - the crime force covering the whole country - carried out a review in response to April's judgment and has now published what it calls 'interim transgender search guidance'.
A statement described searching as a 'complex and important area of policing'.
Police Scotland said the force 'must ensure that it is acting in line with its duties under the Equality Act and the Human Rights Act, and that officers and staff feel confident that they are conducting searches lawfully'.
Among the new guidance is a question-and-answer section, which inclludes the suggestion: 'Can a transgender detainee ask for a separate area search depending on anatomical presentation?'
The reply provided states: 'Yes - a transgender detainee can ask for a separate area search.
'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 has been sparked concerns among gender-critical campaigners, who worry female officers would be left in uncomfortable and even risky situations.
Kellie-Jay Keen, who runs the group Let Women Speak, told MailOnline: 'I'm worried about the rights of female officers, if they're subjected to the whims of a suspect.
'I'd be asking the police force for single-sex searches - otherwise women aren't safe. It's just beyond belief that messages like this are being sent out.'
Ms McAnena, director of campaigns at the charity Sex Matters, said: 'This ludicrous policy that allows one half of a suspect's body to be searched by a woman and the other half by a man comes from a police force which has embraced transgender ideology.
'Police Scotland's new rule is a gift to any suspect who may get satisfaction or enjoyment from being disruptive.
'This is particularly the case for trans rights activists who take an interest in eroding boundaries and making women uncomfortable.'
The new Police Scotland statement comes just weeks after a controversy over similar searches for prison inmates identifying as transgender.
MailOnline reported last month how female prison guards were having to strip search the top half of transgender inmates before male colleagues check their lower region.
Trans criminals held at HMP Dovegate described how two female guards are used to check the top half of their bodies while two male colleagues check below the belt.
The inmates subjected to the searches say they feel 'humiliated and violated' by the additional checks by male officers, which leaves their confidence 'shattered'.
However, women's rights campaigners accused prison bosses of breaching the 'human rights' of female officers.
April's ruling by the Supreme Court in London deemed the definition of a woman to be based on biological sex, meaning transgender women are not considered to be women in the eyes of the law.
The verdict means trans women with a gender recognition certificate could potentially be excluded from single-sex spaces if 'proportionate'.
Police Scotland has now said in a statement: 'The Service has been reviewing affected areas of operational policing, including the procedure for conducting certain kinds of searches, to provide clarity to our colleagues and communities.
'The guidance states that officers and staff will undertake all searches whether in custody or as part of a stop and search interaction, which involve the removal of more than a jacket, gloves, headgear or footwear, on the basis of biological sex.
'The guidance also states that when an individual, whose lived gender differs from their biological sex is subject to search and requests to be searched by an officer of their lived gender, efforts will be made to ensure an appropriate officer conducts the search, where this is operationally viable to do so.
'In these circumstances written consent will be required from the authorising officer (Inspector rank or above), the person to be searched, and the officer(s) conducting the search.'
The force said the approach followed advice from its legal team, 'as well as engagement with relevant business areas, staff associations, trade unions, the Scottish Government and other key partners'.
What does the Supreme Court gender ruling mean?
What did the Supreme Court rule?
The Supreme Court ruled the terms 'woman' and 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex.
What does it mean for single sex spaces?
The court's decision will have huge consequences for how single-sex spaces and services operate across the UK, experts said today.
The written Supreme Court judgment gives examples including rape or domestic violence counselling, refuges, rape crisis centres, female-only hospital wards and changing rooms.
The court ruled that trans women with a gender recognition certificate (GRC) can be excluded from single-sex spaces if 'proportionate'.
The government said the ruling 'brings clarity and confidence, for women and service providers such as hospitals, refuges, and sports clubs'.
What does it mean for employers?
Employment experts say it will provide companies with greater 'clarity' over single sex spaces for their staff.
Lara Brown, senior Research Fellow in the Culture and Identity Unit at Policy Exchange, said a trans woman with a GRC who is excluded from single-sex spaces cannot say she is being discriminated against as a woman.
She explained: 'This ruling makes it legal for any space that wants to be single sex to exclude biological men.'
Could employers still be at risk of discrimination?
The Supreme Court made it clear that trans people are protected under the gender reassignment provisions in the Equality Act and will be able to bring claims if they are discriminated or harassed.
Experts say a trans woman will be able to bring a sex discrimination claim if they are disadvantaged because they are perceived to be a woman or because they associate with a woman.
Rob McKellar, legal services director at Peninsula, said failure to be an inclusive workplace, regardless of any protected characteristics, could result in a discrimination claim.
What does the ruling mean for competitive sports?
In recent years, many sports have cracked down on rules around transgender athletes at the elite level.
Athletics, cycling and aquatics are among those who have banned trans women from taking part in women's events.
The UK government said it hopes the decision will provide clarity for sports clubs.
Although today's ruling did not concern sport directly, former Olympian Sharron Davies welcomed the decision, saying it was important to 'define what a woman is'.
Could a pregnant woman with a GRC be entitled to maternity leave?
Experts said today that the ruling that only women can become pregnant shows a trans man (biological woman) would be able to take maternity leave, while a trans woman (biological man) would not.
Jo Moseley, an employment law specialist at national law firm Irwin Mitchell, said: 'The Supreme Court acknowledged that only women can become pregnant. Therefore a trans man (a biological woman who identifies as a man) can take maternity leave.
'Had the court reached a different decision, it's possible that trans men with a GRC wouldn't have been entitled to protection in relation to pregnancy under the characteristics of 'pregnancy or maternity'.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
35 minutes ago
- Times
No 10 gags civil servants to stop them speaking out in public
Sir Keir Starmer has gagged senior health officials, military leaders and even the head of the civil service from speaking openly in public, in a move that has been described as a 'chilling' attack on free speech. In an edict issued across Whitehall, Downing Street has warned public sector officials not to talk at open events where their comments have not been vetted in advance. They have also been barred from taking part in any public question-and-answer sessions — even if they are part of an industry event. The rules also apply to media briefings on issues such as public health, carried out by senior figures such as the chief medical and scientific officers. While these can go ahead they must be cleared in advance by Downing Street and have a minister or special adviser in attendance. Those affected include public sector officials working for arms-length bodies such as the media regulator Ofcom and the education inspectorate Ofsted, which have operational independence from the government. The rules also apply to senior health leaders, diplomats and military officers. The edict has already led to cancellation or curtailment of a number of public events where senior government officials were due to speak. The Whitehall think tank the Institute for Government (IFG) was forced to cancel an event on Tuesday which was due to discuss Labour's new approach to public sector spending after Nick Donlevy, a senior civil servant at the Treasury, was made to pull out. Last week the Royal United Services Institute (Rusi) told journalists attending a land warfare conference that they would not be able to report on a speech by Air Chief Marshal Sir Richard Knighton, the chief of the air staff, who is expected to become head of the armed forces. • No 10 gags military chiefs at events where a minister is present The think tank said there had been a change in 'reporting rules relating to speakers from the British armed forces'. It said that the majority of speeches and panel appearances by British personnel 'will not be for reporting', whereas those by individuals from foreign militaries will be. Sources confirmed that the change had been forced on Rusi by the new Downing Street senior Whitehall figure said the move had been made to prevent high-profile officials from causing 'problems' for the government by using speeches to 'lobby ministers in public' or criticising spending plans or government policy. However, it has caused unease both inside and outside the government with one senior source describing it as 'unnecessary' and heavy-handed. 'It's the usual desire of No 10 to control absolutely everything without thinking through the consequences,' the source said. 'The idea that even the cabinet secretary cannot take part in a public question-and-answer event is both misguided and counterproductive.' Another added: 'This is mad on so many levels.' Alex Thomas, programme director at the IFG, said the rules would have a 'chilling effect' on public debate. 'This will lead to a more closed government and less effective policymaking,' he said. • Foreign Office staff told to resign if they don't like Gaza stance 'Openness is one of the seven principles of public life and it cannot be a good thing that officials that are responsible for the day-to-day running of critical public services will no longer be able to attend, speak, and answer questions at events.' 'Ministers will always be the main public spokespeople for government activity but this is an overreach and will damage the quality of government and public discourse.' Paul Johnson, director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, described the move as 'outrageous'. He said: 'This unprecedented ban on civil servants speaking in public will damage public debate, politics, policymaking and the civil service itself. What are they thinking?' Baroness Spielman of Durlston, the former head of Ofsted and now a Conservative peer, said the restriction was 'astonishing and unworkable'. She added that it would force bodies like Ofsted to cancel interactive stakeholder events without a minister present and slow down communication. 'Government grinds too slowly and this will jam the works completely,' she said. Sir John Kingman, a former permanent secretary at the Treasury, said that when he worked for government he would participate in an event involving questions most days. 'It was quite an important part of the job because many people understandably want to know what the government thinks and why, and want a chance to discuss it,' he said. A Downing Street source insisted the guidance was not heavy-handed and would be looked at on a 'case by case' basis. But No 10 said it reflected the principle that ministers were responsible for representing the government in public — rather than officials. A Cabinet Office spokesman said that the rules around media engagement were 'longstanding and established'. 'It has always been the case, and a constitutional principle, that ministers are ultimately accountable for decision-making to parliament and the public — so it is right they are routinely scrutinised by the media and MPs.'
Times
35 minutes ago
- Times
British students hoping to study in US warned about online posts
Students applying to US universities should be extremely cautious on social media, experts have warned, amid reports of visas being rejected while immigration officials comb through posts. British sixth-formers accepted by US universities are reporting disruption in applications for student visas, which were suspended and then reinstated by President Trump. One consultant advised British school-leavers to consider starting degrees at branch campuses of American universities if visas were not processed in time. Applicants must now make their social media profiles public and officials have been ordered to scour through content dating back five years, meaning British students' posts from the age of 12 could be scrutinised for possible threats or 'hostile attitudes'. Education and legal experts said it reinforced the need for teenagers to be extremely cautious about what they post on social media. • I'm a Brit at Harvard — what Trump's doing is scary and dehumanising The US State Department says foreign nationals applying for student and exchange visitor visas should make their social media profiles public so it can comprehensively vet and identify visa applicants who 'pose a threat to US national security'. A federal judge has temporarily delayed issuing a ruling on whether the Trump administration can block international students bound for Harvard University from entering the country. Peter Adediran, digital media rights Solicitor at PAIL Solicitors, said that some students would self-censor or even not have social media, as a result. The measures risked infringing upon the right to freedom of speech enshrined in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and might also conflict with the Human Rights Act, he said. 'Students, being aware that sharing or being monitored for politically sensitive content may complicate their visa applications, are either not going to have social media accounts or will sensitise about what they discuss and post, which is extensive surveillance and a repression of international students,' he said. 'Intrusions into students' private lives could potentially lead to discrimination against international students due to their political beliefs or affiliations. 'Students should be removing any posts that could be deemed politically sensitive. Alternatively, they could have social media accounts that reflect a politically neutral position.' • Harvard can continue accepting foreign students, judge rules Nick Hillman, director of the Higher Education Policy Institute, said: 'Everyone should be constantly aware of the fact that anything you put on social media is there for ever, even if you delete it. It's depressing if something you think at the age of 16 can affect your life and career'. He added: 'Telling people to delete social media to get a place at university is completely contrary to what higher education is about: letting people speak freely. It's utterly perverse. If you can't make mistakes when you're young, when can you?' Robert, a British student at Yale is back in the UK for the summer working at a school and helping students with US applications for next year. He said the application process was already complex without the added visa problem. 'It's been tough for students and for universities who are getting updates about visa changes only at the same time as the media, then trying to figure out what the government is doing,' he added. 'We're in the dark, Yale students were concerned because of comments made by the US government about current visa holders so there's a feeling that everything is falling under investigation. 'For those applying this year, it's been bittersweet, getting a place is an amazing opportunity then, bam! You can't get a visa. It's nerve-racking.' David Feinburg runs an education consultancy in New York that gives advice to overseas students applying to US universities. He said some universities were advising students to start their degrees at branch campuses outside the US if their visas were not processed in time. Boston and North Eastern universities both have branches in the UK. 'My advice to students is to be very careful on social media,' he said. 'You always want to be careful anyway.' This was echoed by Iain Mansfield, a former Department for Education adviser and head of education at Policy Exchange think tank, who said: 'When you go on social media, whatever you put up is there to stay for a long time and can be seen by future employers. And now by those considering your visa. It's an important lesson for young people. 'This may be a bit of a lifeline for British universities which are an obvious alternative and are very highly regarded, without the extra hurdles for the US. Some British students who thought of going to the US will be staying local.'
BBC News
36 minutes ago
- BBC News
Person killed and another seriously injured in A361 crash near Burford
A fatal crash has resulted in the closure of a main road in Oxfordshire. One person was killed and another seriously injured in the crash on the A361 near Burford at about 15:20 BST, police said. Their next of kin have been informed. Oxfordshire County Council said the A361, from north of Bradwell Village to just south of Burford, was shut and remained so into Thursday night. You can follow BBC Oxfordshire on Facebook, X (Twitter), or Instagram.
