Should members of AGS declare their sexuality?

fred funk }{

Following on from the other thread where a minor was strip searched, it was mentioned about male members may only be present when a strip search is being conducted and the same when a female is being search that only female members may be present when being strip searched.

Now my point is, should it not be based on their sexuality? Is it right that a gay Garda be present when a male is being strip searched? or a lesbian Garda looking on when a female prisoner is being searched.

Maybe I'm way off in my thinking but I think it's very wrong and they should declare their sexuality when joining the force.

old hippy

Are you saying that they would not be capable of doing their job professionaly, based on their sexuality?

What bobbins :rolleyes:

Big Lar

You're kinda looking for a problem that's not there

fred funk }{

old hippy wrote: »

Are you saying that they would not be capable of doing their job professionaly, based on their sexuality?

What bobbins :rolleyes:

What a ridiculous thing to say.

I don't mean that at all. I don't think it's right for a heterosexual male Garda to observe a female being strip searched the same as I don't think it's right for a gay Garda to observe a male being strip searched.

source

fred funk }{ wrote: »

Following on from the other thread where a minor was strip searched, it was mentioned about male members may only be present when a strip search is being conducted and the same when a female is being search that only female members may be present when being strip searched.

Now my point is, should it not be based on their sexuality? Is it right that a gay Garda be present when a male is being strip searched? or a lesbian Garda looking on when a female prisoner is being searched.

Maybe I'm way off in my thinking but I think it's very wrong and they should declare their sexuality when joining the force.

Having to declare sexuality would turn a lot of gay and lesbians off joining in the first place.

If you were to do that, you would have to do the same with paramedics, and doctors, nurses. Why should it matter what the sexuality of the member is. I understand where you're coming from with your question.

However I would equate it to a man saying he won't go into a gay bar because they'd all want to shag him. I know a number of people who would be gay. I also know a number of Gardai who are Gay or Lesbian and they are some of the most professional people I know.

fred funk }{

Big Lar wrote: »

You're kinda looking for a problem that's not there

How do you know the problem isn't there? If I was to be strip searched tomorrow and there was two male Gardai observing me, I wouldn't comfortable knowing one of them was gay.

source

fred funk }{ wrote: »

How do you know the problem isn't there? If I was to be strip searched tomorrow and there was two male Gardai observing me, I wouldn't comfortable knowing one of them was gay.

Do you want them to wear a mark to show they're gay?

fred funk }{

foinse wrote: »

Having to declare sexuality would turn a lot of gay and lesbians off joining in the first place.

If you were to do that, you would have to do the same with paramedics, and doctors, nurses. Why should it matter what the sexuality of the member is. I understand where you're coming from with your question.

However I would equate it to a man saying he won't go into a gay bar because they'd all want to shag him. I know a number of people who would be gay. I also know a number of Gardai who are Gay or Lesbian and they are some of the most professional people I know.

Well why is there a rule in place that males observe males and females observe females? Why not let males observe females being strip searched?

fred funk }{

foinse wrote: »

Do you want them to wear a mark to show they're gay?

Absolutely not.

But maybe they should opt out of observing male strip searches.

source

fred funk }{ wrote: »

Well why is there a rule in place that males observe males and females observe females? Why not let males observe females being strip searched?

In case of sexual assault claims. A second tier of protection is there to protect persons being searched. ie there are 2 members present, the Member in Charge and the arresting member.

Absolutely not.

But maybe they should opt out of observing male strip searches.

Why should they?

source

fred funk }{ wrote: »

How do you know the problem isn't there? If I was to be strip searched tomorrow and there was two male Gardai observing me, I wouldn't comfortable knowing one of them was gay.

So it's more about your discomfort, rather than the actions of the member?

fred funk }{

foinse wrote: »

In case of sexual assault claims. A second tier of protection is there to protect persons being searched. ie there are 2 members present, the Member in Charge and the arresting member.



Why should they?

I know why there's two members there, that wasn't the question I asked.
You stated...

I also know a number of Gardai who are Gay or Lesbian and they are some of the most professional people I know.

Then I said..

Well why is there a rule in place that males observe males and females observe females? Why not let males observe females being strip searched?

My point being that are male Gardai not professional enough to be trusted observing female strip searches.

source

fred funk }{ wrote: »

I know why there's two members there, that wasn't the question I asked.
You stated...



Then I said..


My point being that are male Gardai not professional enough to be trusted observing female strip searches.

Of course they are, but the females being searched aren't to be trusted not to make vexatious complaints.

fred funk }{

You're turning this into a debate about false sexual assault accusations. That is not the point I'm trying to make.

I'll repeat it.

If a male is being strip searched he must be observed by male Gardai, it is male Gardai because it is presumed that they are hetrosexual. The same example applies to females.

If this rule is there should it not be declared what the sexuality is of the Gardai that are observing the search?

source

fred funk }{ wrote: »

You're turning this into a debate about false sexual assault accusations. That is not the point I'm trying to make.

I'll repeat it.

If a male is being strip searched he must be observed by male Gardai, it is male Gardai because it is presumed that they are hetrosexual. The same example applies to females.

If this rule is there should it not be declared what the sexuality is of the Gardai that are observing the search?

No I'm not, that was the answer to your question.

You said: My point being that are male Gardai not professional enough to be trusted observing female strip searches.

I said: Of course they are, but the females being searched aren't to be trusted not to make vexatious complaints.

This is the reason males search males, and females search females.

fred funk }{

Maybe I'm not explaining myself too good. (wouldn't be the first time)

If you forget about the Gardas gender for a minute and think more about their sexuality only, then maybe you'll get where I'm coming from.

davetherave

I think I get what you are saying,
If a female needs to be searched you want a hetrosexual female Garda to do the searching.
If a male needs to be searched, you want a hetrosexual male Garda to do the searching.

What about bi-sexuals? Where do they belong in your scheme?

Do you really think a guard, homosexual or not, is going to be that eager to cop a feel or get a sneaky look at someone's gear and not do their job, miss evidence and get a case thrown out for it?

How do you know the problem isn't there? If I was to be strip searched tomorrow and there was two male Gardai observing me, I wouldn't comfortable knowing one of them was gay.

I'm being deadly serious here, do you have homophobia?

Edit: More to the point, how would you know one of them was gay? Do you want them branded or wearing special badges?

fred funk }{

What about bi-sexuals?

I haven't got all the answers. I just started a discussion to discuss these subjects. Maybe they shouldn't be allowed into any strip searches?

Where do they belong in your scheme?

What scheme?

I'm being deadly serious here, do you have homophobia?

ehh..no. This is a sexuality issue not just about being homosexual.

Edit: More to the point, how would you know one of them was gay? Do you want them branded or wearing special badges?

You missed that point completely. Go back a read it again and NO I don't want them labelled/branded or anything stupid like that.

TylerIE

fred funk }{ wrote: »

How do you know the problem isn't there? If I was to be strip searched tomorrow and there was two male Gardai observing me, I wouldn't comfortable knowing one of them was gay.

Thats your problem, not theirs. If you dont know it wont hurt.

Furthermore most LGBT individuals are not "out", particularly in organisations like AGS, so even if they had to "declare" you wouldnt know. And those that are out are comfortable enough with their sexuality that they dont need to get their jollies from a strip search.

fred funk }{

lst wrote: »

Thats your problem, not theirs. If you dont know it wont hurt.

Furthermore most LGBT individuals are not "out", particularly in organisations like AGS, so even if they had to "declare" you wouldnt know. And those that are out are comfortable enough with their sexuality that they dont need to get their jollies from a strip search.

Hi lst,

Will you answer me this one question. Is it OK for a male Garda to perform a strip search on a female prisoner? If not why not?

zuroph

fred funk }{ wrote: »

You're turning this into a debate about false sexual assault accusations. That is not the point I'm trying to make.

I'll repeat it.

If a male is being strip searched he must be observed by male Gardai, it is male Gardai because it is presumed that they are hetrosexual. The same example applies to females.

If this rule is there should it not be declared what the sexuality is of the Gardai that are observing the search?

incorrect. There is no question of sexuality in this instance, The reason it is a male is that they share the same genitalia, nothing more. same as segregated changing rooms, bathrooms etc. Its a segregation we've grown up with and are naturally more comfortable with, so reduces the embarrassment for the person being searched. The garda is a professional doing their job, the sex of the garda is to save the person being searched some embarrassment.

zuroph

fred funk }{ wrote: »

Hi lst,

Will you answer me this one question. Is it OK for a male Garda to perform a strip search on a female prisoner? If not why not?

because the female may feel more exposed as its a member of the opposite sex. they have different bits than us.

TylerIE

fred funk }{ wrote: »

Hi lst,

Will you answer me this one question. Is it OK for a male Garda to perform a strip search on a female prisoner? If not why not?

Its intimidating! Its not just about sexuality. A man standing over a woman is obviously a man - gay or straight.

When you see a guy you dont know if hes gay, straight, bi, trans, or even a sexual, hes a man. His body is (roughly) the same as yours. Another man hasnt got anything they havnt seen before.

drkpower

There are two reasons why female on male (and male on female) strip searches are not allowed:
1. The discomfort of the searchee
2. To reduce the risk of claims of inpropriety (which is also the reason for a chaperone).

Clearly, the rules against male on female, and female on male, searches are motivated (at least partly) by 'sexuality' (is there any more risk of a hetero male AGS doing an inappropriate search of a female than a lesbian AGS?), so the OP has a valid point. However, it is not all a one-way-street. The privacy of the AGS (or doctor or nurse etc..) has to be considered also. It is a relatively simple mattter to prohibit male on female (and vice versa) searches. It is a relatively simple mattter to insist on chaperones. Putting in place these safeguards does not cause any untoward harm to the rights of the AGS.

Requiring an AGS to declare their sexuality does have a negative consequence for the privacy of the AGS (who does not wish to declare same). It is therefore a disproportionate response. And is therefore not justified.

Does it leave a small risk to the searchee? Yes.
Is that risk justified on privacy grounds of the AGS? Yes

the_syco

fred funk }{ wrote: »

Maybe I'm way off in my thinking but I think it's very wrong and they should declare their sexuality when joining the force.

Yellow stars for the jews, pink stars for the gays...

Yes, you are "way off", and no, they shouldn't have to declare their sexuality, and/or preference of Smarties over Maltesers...

Zambia

Lets not forget the non white Garda they should declare that to.

drkpower

the_syco wrote: »

Yellow stars for the jews, pink stars for the gays...

Lets not forget the non white Garda they should declare that to.

In fairness to the OP, and while I dont agree with him, the premise of his OP doesnt deserve this level of derision.

If the reason for these rules is based (at least partly) on the risk (or perception of risk) that someone of the opposite sex might sexually assault a searchee, raising the question of those who are homosexual is not completely off the wall.

Zambia

Actually it does, the suggestion that if you are standing in a room while being searched you get to pick and choose the sexuality of the Garda searching you is beyond silly.

drkpower

Zambia wrote: »

Actually it does, the suggestion that if you are standing in a room while being searched you get to pick and choose the sexuality of the Garda searching you is beyond silly.

It is not so much that the searchee (or patient, as this issue applies to the medical sphere) gets to choose the sex or sexuality, it is whether the sexuality of the searcher should be considered when rules & regulations are made in this area.

A person's sex is already considered, primarily as an indicator of whether a sexual assault is more likely (or perceived as more likely), so the suggestion that sexuality might be considered is hardly outlandish.

Manic Moran

I know exactly where the OP is coming from, but I think his proposed 'solution' causes more trouble than it's worth.

We're about to hit the same problem in the US military with the repeal of the ability to separate servicemen on the grounds of sexual orientation. Thus far, soldiers have been sleeping in the same room as, or showering in the same communal showers, as some soldiers who have been sexually oriented in their direction. But until now, this has been done in blissful ignorance and has caused no trouble as long as everyone behaves themselves. All of a sudden, there are now concerns of discomfort with identified persons. It's a valid opinion, after all, the main reason we separate by gender is to avoid complaints of inappropriate conduct, harrassment, and so on, by the opposite gender because of the presumption of sexual attraction.

However. A prisoner being searched has likely no way of knowing the sexual orientation of the searcher. As a result, (s)he makes the presumption (as does everyone reading the reports afterwards) of heterosexuality. If the search is done to standard (and especially if it is observed) then the searchee is in utter ignorance and thus cannot feel any excessive levels of discomfort. There's absolutely no benefit to a public proclamation.

NTM

source

fred funk }{ wrote: »

Hi lst,

Will you answer me this one question. Is it OK for a male Garda to perform a strip search on a female prisoner? If not why not?

I already answered this question for you.

Can I ask you, Would you also advocate the provision of seperate changing rooms for LGBT persons, at say pools, gyms, spa's....etc?

drkpower

foinse wrote: »

I already answered this question for you.

Can I ask you, Would you also advocate the provision of seperate changing rooms for LGBT persons, at say pools, gyms, spa's....etc?

Out of interest, are you suggesting the reason for the present rules on strip searching (ie. male on male only, female on female only) are only/predominantly to do with body differences between the sexes (ie. the searchee might be embarrassed by a member of the opposite sex seeing their 'bits')?

Or do you accept that the issue of potential sexual impropriety (or perception of same) is at least a significant factor?

delta_bravo

foinse wrote: »

I already answered this question for you.

Can I ask you, Would you also advocate the provision of seperate changing rooms for LGBT persons, at say pools, gyms, spa's....etc?

I think you are completely missing the point. At a pool or gym you will not have anyone making forced contact with your body and searching you. There may be nudity in these areas but in a completely different context to the original post. You are dragging it off topic with these scenarios

source

drkpower wrote: »

Out of interest, are you suggesting the reason for the present rules on strip searching (ie. male on male only, female on female only) are only/predominantly to do with body differences between the sexes (ie. the searchee might be embarrassed by a member of the opposite sex seeing their 'bits')?

Or do you accept that the issue of potential sexual impropriety (or perception of same) is at least a significant factor?

Go back to post 13 of this thread you'll see my reply.

drkpower

foinse wrote: »

Go back to post 13 of this thread you'll see my reply.

This?

foinse wrote:

Of course they are, but the females being searched aren't to be trusted not to make vexatious complaints..

Im not sure how this answers my question.

If the females being examined by males aren't to be trusted not to make vexatious complaints, why would the might females being examined by lesbian females be trusted not to make vexatious complaints?

source

delta_bravo wrote: »

I think you are completely missing the point. At a pool or gym you will not have anyone making forced contact with your body and searching you. There may be nudity in these areas but in a completely different context to the original post. You are dragging it off topic with these scenarios

I'm not, What's the difference between a naked gay man in a changing room and a gay guy in a uniform performing a search?

NOTHING is what, and that is the point i'm trying to make. Just because he's gay doesn't mean he'll try to cop a feel.

source

drkpower wrote: »

This?


Im not sure how this answers my question.

If the females being examined by males aren't to be trusted not to make vexatious complaints, why would the might females being examined by lesbian females be trusted not to make vexatious complaints?

Because unlike the genetaila we're born with, it is often difficult to tell the difference between a gay man/straight man and a lesbian/ straight woman. Unless the op gets his way and they have to declare their sexuality that is.

So if a woman is being searched by a woman they don't automatically think lesbian they think woman, Unless the member has to declare their sexuality...In that instance it will become increasingly likely that a vexatious complaint would be made.

drkpower

foinse wrote: »

Just because he's gay doesn't mean he'll try to cop a feel.

That point doesnt get you anywhere.

Just because a man is searching a woman doesn't mean he'll try to cop a feel

foinse wrote: »

Because unlike the genetaila we're born with, it is often difficult to tell the difference between a gay man/straight man and a lesbian/ straight woman. Unless the op gets his way and they have to declare their sexuality that is.

So if a woman is being searched by a woman they don't automatically think lesbian they think woman, Unless the member has to declare their sexuality...In that instance it will become increasingly likely that a vexatious complaint would be made..

So, by that logic, if the man or woman appears to be gay, you would advocate that they dont search a member of their own sex?

source

drkpower wrote: »

That point doesnt get you anywhere.

Just because a man is searching a woman doesn't mean he'll try to cop a feel

But as I said, unless you force a gay person to declare their sexuality you won't know their sexuality. You always know a man is a man and a woman is a woman.

It is plain wrong to force a person to state that they are homosexual, when they may not even be comfortable with it themselves.

source

drkpower wrote: »

So, by that logic, if the man or woman appears to be gay, you would advocate that they dont search a member of their own sex?

What does a gay person look like?

drkpower

foinse wrote: »

But as I said, unless you force a gay person to declare their sexuality you won't know their sexuality. You always know a man is a man and a woman is a woman.

It is plain wrong to force a person to state that they are homosexual, when they may not even be comfortable with it themselves.

I agree with your conclusion, I just dont agree with how you get there.

It can be quite clear whether someone is gay; if i follow your logic, it suggests that in those cases, you might advocate that they should not do a search.

drkpower

foinse wrote: »

What does a gay person look like?

Are you suggesting that, in some cases, it is not possible to identify, with a reasonable degree of confidence, that someone is gay?

source

drkpower wrote: »

I agree with your conclusion, I just dont agree with how you get there.

It can be quite clear whether someone is gay; if i follow your logic, it suggests that in those cases, you might advocate that they should not do a search.

That is not what i'm saying at all, I was merely using that as an example to you can tell the difference between a man and a woman, and that it is not a clear line when it comes to LGBT people.

I presume by the above that you mean that if a man is camp then they must be gay, or if a woman has short hair they must be gay.

Michael McIntyre is straight, and married with children....he's probably the campest person on the planet.

You cannot tell who is and who is not gay by looking at them, the only way you can tell for sure is if they tell you. Which is what the OP is advocating. As another poster stated, AGS members also have a right to privacy, and a person's sexual orientation is possibly the most private thing any person has.

source

drkpower wrote: »

Are you suggesting that, in some cases, it is not possible to identify, with a reasonable degree of confidence, that someone is gay?

I'm saying that it is not always possible. Sure if you're outside the George it might be reasonable to assume that a person walking in the door is gay but you can never tell for sure unless they tell you. (I've been in gay bars and am not gay, so that method is also a poor way to tell).

In contrast when confronted with a male wearing a uniform then it is truely impossible unless they tell you. I worked with a woman for 6 months before she told me she is a lesbian, and i would never have guessed unless she told me.

drkpower

foinse wrote: »

As another poster stated, AGS members also have a right to privacy, and a person's sexual orientation is possibly the most private thing any person has.

Well, I actually said that, and as I said, I fully agree with your conclusion, precisely because to require everyone to declare their sexuality is a disproportionate response.

And no, I dont think you can tell if every person is gay, or even most people. But there are some people who you can identify to be gay, with a reasonable degree of confidence, and to follow your logic, it suggests that they should not be allowed to search another male. But it is a minor point, and I dont really want to get into an argument with you on it, as we are fundamentally on the same page on this one.

source

drkpower wrote: »

Well, I actually said that, and as I said, I fully agree with your conclusion, precisely because to require everyone to declare their sexuality is a disproportionate response.

And no, I dont think you can tell if every person is gay, or even most people. But there are some people who you can identify to be gay, with a reasonable degree of confidence, and to follow your logic, it suggests that they should not be allowed to search another male. But it is a minor point, and I dont really want to get into an argument with you on it, as we are fundamentally on the same page on this one.

Fair enough, You picked me up wrong on my point, I think I've since explained it.

Ken.

I hope i don't offend anyone with this but it seems to me that seeing as the op originally got the idea for this thread from the pi forum about a 16 year old being strip searched all i can conclude is that the op thinks that gay= pedophile.

If i'm wrong op i apologise but i can't see anything else in what your saying.

drkpower

lucyfur09 wrote: »

If i'm wrong op i apologise but i can't see anything else in what your saying.

You are wrong. And you should apologise.

While the OP might be wrong on his point, how anyone could take his point to be a veiled reference at what you are suggesting is beyond me. To react like you have done with accusations of paedophilia perhaps says more about your mindset, and your focus on paedophilia, than it says about the OP.

zuroph

lucyfur09 wrote: »

I hope i don't offend anyone with this but it seems to me that seeing as the op originally got the idea for this thread from the pi forum about a 16 year old being strip searched all i can conclude is that the op thinks that gay= pedophile.

If i'm wrong op i apologise but i can't see anything else in what your saying.

you need to look up the definition of the word paedophilia. Because currently you're about 5 years off the pace.

zuroph

drkpower wrote: »

Are you suggesting that, in some cases, it is not possible to identify, with a reasonable degree of confidence, that someone is gay?

in garda uniform, I'd say I would 100% never know. hell, some of the campest people I know are straight.

seanybiker

So bisexual guards don't search anyone then.

No I dont think their sexuality should be a big deal for anything to do with their work.
Just because someone is gay or straight doesn't mean they are going to get turned on by everyone in their preferred gender.