this post was submitted on 18 Apr 2025

100 points (99.0% liked)

UK Politics

3710 readers

289 users here now

General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both [email protected] and [email protected] .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

[email protected] appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

100

First police force changes search guidelines for trans women in wake of Supreme Court gender ruling (www.lbc.co.uk)

submitted 1 month ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

118 comments fedilink hide all child comments

A British Transport Police spokesperson said: “Under previous policy, we had advised that someone with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) may be searched in accordance with their acquired sex, however as an interim position while we digest yesterday’s judgement, we have advised our officers that any same sex searches in custody are to be undertaken in accordance with the biological birth sex of the detainee.

“We are in the process of reviewing the implications of the ruling and will consider any necessary updates to our policies and practices in line with the law and national guidance.”

(page 3) 22 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[+] [email protected] -28 points 1 month ago (4 children)

I'm new here and it seems just as left leaning as Reddit but there going to be teething problems. The percentage of Trans people in the country and those that will actually be affected by this is negligible.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 1 month ago (1 children)

OK, so if a group is small enough, it's OK to abuse them and deny them their rights?

What's your threshold? 1%? 10%?

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Counterpoint: if it negatively affects one person it's bad. You actually don't need to "well actually" this, especially when your "well actually" amounts to "it won't be as bad as it could be"

[+] [email protected] -12 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Counterpoint to your counterpoint.

Women have been negatively affected as well. Somehow do you square that circle. The world is not a utopia. So taking a Utilitarian approach the benefit would be in the positive towards women. Which is the greater number of those affected.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Leaving aside that you're treating "women" as separate from "trans women", which women? Who has been negatively affected by letting trans women pee in peace? And now this is going to negatively affect cis women as well as trans women. And this hysteria over trans women is already doing harm to cis women even before the supreme court ruling. Literally all of this is just worse for women, over some imagined problem that this was supposed to "fix".

I'm fully aware that you aren't arguing in good faith so this will be my last response to you

[+] [email protected] -10 points 1 month ago (9 children)

I'm not arguing. I'm having a discussion. This place is the same as Reddit. No actual conversation if you don't buy in to the belief systems here.

The Supreme Court has stated that Women actually means something and it is defined Biologically. The fact that we live in a world where that even needs to be confirmed is insanity.

Woman means adult human female, and Man means Human Adult Male. That is the literal definition.

There is no ambiguity here. There was and that was the issue. Yes people will be affected, but women having a safe space and being allowed to go about their days without fear of reprisals for wanting women only spaces is a win.

I was far from a feminist in my younger years but the way women are treated now is abhorrent. Especially in sports and places like Changing rooms.

You can argue a trans Women is a women all you like but you had to prefix and the law supports my viewpoint, and the vast majority of those in society and rightly so.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Actually that's over reaching what the judgement said. The SC said that the equalities act, as worded, needs the word female to mean biological in order to make sense. Not that trans women could not be women, just not with regards to way this specific act was worded if you were relying on it. Now parliament can review the act and see how differently to word it to accommodate both female at birth and trans women etc.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 1 month ago

Correct. Apologies. So it's not the end of the world like all are making out.

The world female does mean biological and that is a huge point and win and hopefully a stepping stone to getting back to a world of logic and common sense.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago

Exactly my point

load more comments (7 replies)

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] [email protected] 50 points 1 month ago (2 children)

The BTP jumped on this almost instantly as they'd been under fire because trans women on the force could strip search those AFAB.

I'm waiting for next shoe to drop when someone AFAB complains because they get strip searched by a big hairy bloke because he was also AFAB. At no point does anyone seem to have considered the effect this law will have on trans men now having to go into women-only spaces. I don't think JK Rowling cares about the messy fallout from her War on Trans Women.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 month ago

What continues to amaze me is the animosity towards trans people by the TERFs. They're like religious zealots. It's depressing to see such spite empowered by law.

[–] [email protected] 33 points 1 month ago (2 children)

So now, if you're a woman and some pervert cop takes a fancy to you all he has to do is say "I reckoned she looked trans so I did the search myself" and he can touch you up as much as he feels he can get away with

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Even better, he can demand her to strip naked for him. Purely theoretical of course, the bobbies would never abuse their power.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago

Goodness no, perish the very thought. This fucking country...

[–] [email protected] 46 points 1 month ago (5 children)

But hey, trans people have totally not lost any protections because of this ruling. The Supreme Court can only interpret the law, which is, as we know, an apolitical, amorphic force of nature and not a deeply political process informed just as much by a person's perspective and bigotries as any other.

load more comments (5 replies)

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 month ago

The damage these people are doing is unimaginable.

load more comments