NZ trans correction officer case

[MusingMuseum]

Pleased to see some of the UK guidance/legislation changing but still stuck with this sort of media coverage in NZ - although some stuff is clearly inappropriate/bullying I don't understand why they are so upset that they weren't allowed to do safety searches/rubdowns of prisoners of the opposite sex.

thespinoff.co.nz/society/16-05-2024/deadnaming-insults-and-harassment-trans-corrections-officer-brings-landmark-human-rights-case-against-his-employer

This story contains transphobic language and references to self-harm. Take care

Oh my days

Bullying and harassment - bad.

But the corrections unit are perfectly within the law to stop Adam from patting male prisoners down. For Adam's own safety more than anything.

Why is it so many people who say they are the opposite sex want to lay hands on people of the opposite sex?

It’s really worrying this individual - & whoever wrote the article - can’t seem to separate out the genuinely transphobic bullying they should have been protected from from the issue of doing rub-downs. Why is it that they think the dignity of the trans CO trumps that of the prisoners - particularly given that’s a relationship where there’s already a whacking great imbalance of power?! Why does it trump that of other COs who want - or perhaps need - a single-sex space to change in?

The astonishing blinkeredness that considers ONLY the wishes of trans people; & behaves as if ONLY they have rights that must be respected really is breathtaking, however often you encounter it.

So by the end of that very long article, Corrections have now said that prison officers can conduct the 'full range of duties' according to their gender - I assume that includes rub downs? Well done. Isn't this what the UK police have been told they can't do?

I agree the bullying is bad and can believe it would happen in that environment in NZ, but no, not wanting to be a woman doesn't make you male (even if that's what the subject and the writer of the article seem to think)

Dear God, the comments underneath the article 😳

And this quote, (although hard to choose from so many gems in there) caught my eye:

It was verbally explained that the decision was being based on his assigned sex at birth. “So in other words they were basing it on what they thought was in my pants – which they don’t actually know either.”

Well…
(a) I think you’re pretty deluded about how well you pass

(b) I’m pretty sure you can’t ‘come out’ as trans (and adopt a male identity) if you’ve not started out life as a woman. Which means they’d have had a pretty good idea of what was “in [your] pants” and
(c) even if you’d gone through the barbaric ‘bottom surgery’ (reader, she hadn’t) and you had a lump of your arm or thigh stitched to your clitoral tissue, you’d STILL be a woman. Albeit a mutilated one.

And that’s without addressing any of the issues around removing even more of the rights of the male prisoners this officer will now be permitted to sexually assault pat down as part of her job.

This has set a precedent, so I'm assuming tw prison officers will be permitted to conduct their full range of duties too.

I can't believe they are completely trampling over the prisoners rights.

The majority of men in prison here will have had a pretty shit childhood (at lease 15% of male prisoners have been sexually abused) and likely mental health issues. There is a reason the prisons have the rules around touching people to keep everyone safe - I just don't understand the need to be 'validated' through taking advantage of others.

www.justice.govt.nz/justice-sector-policy/key-initiatives/key-initiatives-archive/hapaitia-te-oranga-tangata/

Some bits the transman may have legitimate gripes about, she deserves to be treated with dignity at work. But so do the male prisoners who don't wish to be sexually assaulted on a regular basis by a female member of staff.

No prison should affirm the staff member to point that it is to the detriment of half of the population of the prison estate. That is not a proportionate response to resolving the issue.

Going by their own account, this individual was subjected to some quite unpleasant bullying for which their employer should take responsibility. Also, though I don't think people should be 'patted down' by someone of the opposite sex, the employer didn't make their policy on this clear and put the employee in a difficult position.

It’s not just pat downs though is it. As soon as Adam decided that Adam wanted to identify as male, Adam was allowed to use the male facilities. Adam was bullied, but a policy which overrides others rights is bound to cause tension.

This is, of course, the classically designed transactivist test case.

It’s about an individual who has indeed been bullied, thus will garner sympathy.

The selected individual is a relatively harmless person (being female - male transsexuals used for such cases usually look very weak and feminine). A test case would never be brought with a big butch man demanding the desire to carry out intimate examinations on women.

However, all rolled into that history of bullying are the demands to be given “gender” privilege when assessing the question of dignity and privacy in encounters that involve others.

The fact that the management didn’t make the situation clear is irrelevant to the principle that male prisoners have a right to same-sex officers when it comes to intimate examinations.

The parts about how the law works are not very clear, but it sounds like the aim is to embed gender identity in law as if it was sex, which then creates the direct conflict we have all identified, because her right to carry out intimate examinations on men will then be entirely equal to the men’s right to have another man do it.

Any and all laws in this area need to note the potential conflicts and be very specific about which applies and where and when. As we can see with the GRA and EA in the UK, fudging the matter doesn’t work and opens everything up for a power struggle.

So if it is embedded that female Adam is allowed to intimately search male prisoners because of her gender identity, then it follows that any male CO who ids as a woman will be able to intimately search female prisoners.

The situation with Adam adversely affects those male prisoners. But tell me again which sex category is likely to be worse affected by this approach.

This is a classic case of governments and employers letting everyone down by not writing clear rules.

Transitioning from ftm perfectly fine. Records to hold both sex recorded at birth and gender.

Changing name etc. perfectly fine, use the pre-existing processes for women changing surname on marriage and other standard name changes.

Bullying and harassment policies very clear what constitutes bullying e.g. deliberate deadnaming, outing etc.

Toilets and changing facilities - ideally 3rd spaces for mixed sex/unisex/gender neutral. If not a fully enclosed cubicle/room. At a push disabled facilities ( not ideal) As a last resort, if there is no other option, use facilities based on sex recorded at birth.

Duties - this will be role specific but no pat downs, intimate exams etc. of the opposite sex. This is on the grounds of respecting prisoners rights to dignity and privacy.

I would have thought a ftm prison officer may struggle in a male prison due to the average height, weight and strength differences between men and women. However, we have female prison officers in male prisons so no problem in restricting duties to those of female prison officers on H & S grounds and prisoners dignity and privacy grounds.