JK Rowling has vowed to fund any women who chose to sue the police over being strip-searched by a transgender officer.
It comes after police chiefs sparked outrage after refusing to immediately ban trans officers from strip-searching women despite the UK’s highest court ruling that sex is biological.
In a move branded a ‘stunning lack of urgency,’ forces across the country have said they ‘will not rush’ to change their policies, even after the Supreme Court‘s bombshell April 17 judgment clarified that legal sex is based on biology, not gender identity.
Chief Constable Rachel Swann, who leads on diversity for the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC), told officers the day after the ruling: ‘We welcome the clarity that the decision at the Supreme Court has provided and will be reviewing our policies and procedures in accordance with the outcome.
‘However, we will not rush our response to this landmark ruling. We will need time to consider the full implications of the court’s decision, as will many other public bodies.’
An NPCC spokesperson added on Saturday: ‘Forces should make decisions [about strip-searches by trans officers] on a case-by-case basis.’
In response the author, 59, took to X to tell her 14million followers: ‘So the police are dragging their heels on stopping males strip-searching females, which, as the Supreme Court ruling confirmed, was illegal all along. I’m sure they hope no woman decides to sue.
‘Of course, I’ll fund her if she does.’
JK Rowling has vowed to fund any women who chose to sue the police over being strip-searched by a transgender officer
In a move branded a ‘stunning lack of urgency,’ forces across the country have said they ‘will not rush’ to change their policies (file photo)
That means that, in practice, trans officers may still be allowed to carry out strip or intimate searches on detainees who do not share their biological sex.
Sussex, Merseyside, Northumbria and Surrey Police all confirmed to The Telegraph that transgender officers are still permitted to carry out searches on detainees who share their gender identity – even if they are biologically male and the detainee is female.
Similarly, transgender people in custody may be searched by officers who match their gender presentation, not necessarily their biological sex.
The forces insisted these policies are currently ‘under review.’ But there is still no national guidance – 15 months after the NPCC withdrew its previous policy, which had endorsed gender self-ID for searches.
Internal NPCC communications obtained by The Telegraph reveal that on April 17, Chief Constable Swann thanked senior officers for their ‘patience’ and insisted there would be no immediate change.
Female officers furious: ‘It’s like we just don’t matter’
Rank-and-file officers – especially women – are said to be fuming at the leadership’s response.
One Northumbria officer said: ‘The messaging we’re getting as officers reveals a stunning lack of urgency. There’s no rush to review policy.’
She described the NPCC’s stance as: ‘Keep calm and carry on – we hate this ruling and are looking at options to circumvent it.’
A female officer said the lack of acknowledgement for women’s concerns made her feel like she ‘just doesn’t matter at all.’
She added: ‘There is no contrition. No recognition of the harm done to women’s rights and the homophobia demonstrated by the embrace of gender ideology and the conflation of sex and gender.’
Similarly, transgender people in custody may be searched by officers who match their gender presentation, not necessarily their biological sex (file photo)
A joint statement issued via Surrey and Sussex Police’s intranet, dated April 17, said: ‘We are not announcing any changes to our practices and policies until the full ruling is released and assessed.’
Officers in Sussex were told the ‘complexities of this ruling are far greater than has been publicly acknowledged.’
Both forces allow strip-searches to be carried out by officers of the same gender identity – or biological sex – depending on whether the person has a Gender Recognition Certificate.
Merseyside Police, which introduced a gender identity-based strip-search policy in April 2024, defended the decision.
In a statement to staff, the force said: ‘We police without fear or favour, malice or ill-will to ensure the safety and security of all members of our community and will continue to do so.’
But gender-critical officers have interpreted the reference to ‘malice’ as a veiled swipe at their beliefs.
The controversy erupted after the NPCC quietly dropped its national guidance on strip-searching in January, following a legal backlash from campaigners who argued it violated the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE).
Under PACE, officers ‘may not’ strip or intimately search ‘a person of the opposite sex.’
Despite the Supreme Court’s ruling, and legal clarity on the definition of sex, the police appear to be stalling.
Chief Constable Swann said: ‘It is important for us to act on the Supreme Court’s ruling as quickly as we can, as both our colleagues and the communities we serve are looking for clarity on some very challenging issues. But it will inevitably take time to consider the full implications of the ruling.’
