Homeland Security Scans Yuor Gender

[gilded]

All my IDs are Male & I fly as one. I got stopped before the scanner and was guided to another line.
I entered a glass box, "oh a new gadget," I thought. Then alarms went off & I couldn't open the exit door like the girl ahead of me had done. HS cops came with their hands on their guns. One checked my papers and YELLED, "a male" and was sent to the male scanner.
They all smile/chuckled and stared. Apparently, the box sniffs your gender.

I wonder how many TGs they get everyday at LGA & JFK? NYC has lots of TG/TS.

Your airport may not be used to daily TG traffic and you could be delayed and miss your flight as they do a thorough check ..

For an old pro like me, that would be fun to "entertain" the HS Troops.
"What? No body cavity search?"

Please pass this on to relevant forums and groups.
THNX

Above was on Dec 28, 2009. The box was not there when I flew a month before. LGA may have installed the male version by now.

[Britney_413]

I really don't see anything funny about this. In fact it is pretty sad that Americans can no longer have any right to privacy or freedom because of so-called "security." I haven't flown for a long time and when I do I know it will be full of hassles because I carry a gun and will have to have it checked. Regardless of whatever security measures any of us are required to go through to board the plane, the law enforcement that we all pay taxes for is obligated to treat us in as fair a manner as possible and I do expect reasonable professionalism. Any nasty remarks and I will not hesitate to demand names and badge numbers of officers I'm dealing with. Any inappropriate or irrelevant questions will result in my refusal to answer them followed by me mentioning the magic word "lawyer."

Flying is not a government-granted privilege. When you have bought a ticket and reserved a seat on that aircraft you have a right to board as long as you met the airliner's rules and applicable laws. While it is law that you consent to a search by passing through security, there is no law requiring you to give them unnecessary personal information. They don't need to know why I am travelling somewhere, who I am going to see, what I am going to do in said destination, nor do they need to know why I came from wherever I was from and what I did there. I have been asked such questions before. My civil liberties do not require me to explain them to anyone. Enough said.

[Alyssa M.]

Alas, you' ae are mistaken, Britney. Flying is not a right; it's a privilege granted to you at the discression of airlines and, since 9/11, the TSA. That's why they can have "no-fly" lists that are not subject to due process, and why airlines can boot you from flights for pretty much any reason they want. "Lawyer" might just be a magic word that gets you thrown off. The last thing you want to do is cop an attitude. Only humble subservience and calm will get you out of a scrape with the TSA. You can talk to the media afterwards.

-----

In the TSA documents released recently (the ones where some parts were ineptly redacted, adding black boxes without removing the data from the pdf files), there was section that specified that TSO's should always be of the same gender as the passengers being screened. It specifically stated that the gender of the passenger was to be determined solely by their physical presentation. If you presented as male, you should have been sent to the male body scanner, no matter what. Of course, this is subject to variations in effectiveness of training and changes in policy.

The last time I flew (going home for Christmas, between two major airports), I had a ticket in my legal name and gender (male), but presented female. Nobody cared. But that was with metal detectors only, no body scanners.

[FairyGirl]

Since I began my transition I've flown domestically in the States and internationally from LAX to Sydney several times. I always present female and though my legal name on my passport is female, until my surgery is complete it still carries that little "M" on it. Pre-scanners, I've never had any trouble whatsoever and never been stopped or questioned. Everyone has unquestionably treated me as female. I'll be flying to New Zealand this weekend for a few days and don't anticipate any trouble there, but I'm flying to the US again in mid-April. I just had a friend from the States here to visit and she said they are now doing pat down searches, and all passengers traveling to the US from Sydney airport are being subjected to a second search before being allowed to board the plane. This is only for passengers going to the US. She didn't mention scanners.

I'm not trying to conceal anything as my passport clearly says male, but I present fully female. If they go by presentation then it won't be a problem, but I really don't want some man pawing over me in the airport. By the time I fly back to Australia my passport should have that glorious little "F" so it won't be a problem.

[Britney_413]

I disagree that flying is a privilege. We have Constitutional rights and one of those has to do with government interfering with commerce. Another one has to do with the right of the people to be secure in their persons and possessions against unreasonable search and seizure. When government starts telling people (citizens I might add) where they can and cannot go within the country and how they can and cannot travel, that is not freedom. Even if the courts rule this constitutional, it is still a violation of basic human rights. It shouldn't matter if I travel by foot, bike, taxi cab, train, ship, or aircraft.

As to "copping an attitude" as you put it, I do agree with being professional with law enforcement (and in general anybody). Being professional does not include waiving your rights. I am always professional with police officers but at the same time I do not consent to searches or answer questions I don't feel comfortable with and I will ask names and badge numbers and ask for an attorney if I feel it is necessary. As long as you state your rights in a polite and professional way, that is not "having an attitude." Just because other Americans are perfectly happy to waive their rights and subdue themselves to the government they pay taxes for doesn't mean I do the same. I will stand for my rights when necessary up to and including taking legal action in court. I'd rather avoid hassles but I am not going to be treated like a slave.

[Alyssa M.]

I'm not happy about it either, and I don't necessarily approve of the government's or airlines' ability to restrict these rights, but that's the way it is. When you buy a ticket, you agree to a contract that is nearly as impenetrable as a credit card agreement, and gives just as much power to the corporation. See, for example, the United Airlines Contract of Carriage. You voluntarily sign over a whole lot of rights by engaging in commerce with an airline, before you ever deal with the TSA. And by the way, that Constitutional right you mentioned is granted to Congress, not individuals. Article I, Section 8 says: "The Congress shall have power ... To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." So whether the government ought to be involved, and whatever the intrinsic human rights questions, I don't see how there's a question of constitutionality.

I used the value-laden term "copping an attitude" because that's how any action standing up for your rights (if indeed they are rights you haven't signed away) will be interpreted and dealt with by the airlines. It sucks, but I don't think you can change it by anything you do at an airport. Given the amount of rights you simply don't have while travelling by air, it's totally different than dealing with ordinary police officers.

I don't like it either, but the battle can only be fought in the courts, Congress, and the executive branch, and it will be a hard one. Frankly, I think it would be easier to get a nationwide high speed rail system (as in, actually fast, not like the Acela) in place that could replace airlines. That is, it's nearly a hopeless cause. But I agree that the current situation sucks.

[PanoramaIsland]

I don't suppose they're willing to create a third body scanner line to cater to genderqueers, are they? 

[gilded]

PanoramaIsland

I don't suppose they're willing to create a third body scanner line to cater to genderqueers, are they? 

LOL

[Dennis]

I'm really unhappy about these things. I already avoid flying as much as possible because I loathe the security show they put on. If I thought it was effective, I might complain less.

These body scanners are a nightmare for any FtM's who pack (it's gonna look like explosives in your crotch).

Dennis

[IndigeoAliquis]

I found this woman's anecdote about a single implant post-breast-cancer interesting.
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/02/06/my-left-breast-put-fancy-tsa-scanner-to-the-test/

Her comments on the things they see and that they'll eventually, generally discard breast implants (and hopefully the implements that we use) or at the very least, learn about it and handle future instances correctly.

[tekla]

or at the very least, learn about it and handle future instances correctly

There is nothing in the history of all this security stuff to even hint that such a notion might be true. 

[IndigeoAliquis]

all this security stuff

lul

[tekla]

Actually they are finding out that the scanners are MUCH BETTER then they let on.  And, god I love irony - Muslims find them objectionable, so they are getting a pass in that you can opt for a regular pat-down search.

http://www.freep.com/article/20100211/NEWS05/100211044/1318/Airport-body-scanners-violate-Islamic-law-Muslims-say


Define irony. Bunch of idiots dancing on a plane to a song made famous by a band that died in a plane crash.
Garland Greene in ConAir

[placeholdername]

The whole thing is ridiculous.

[Alyssa M.]

Everybody is "getting a pass" -- right now, at least. That is, everybody is free to refuse the body scanners for any reason; you just get alternative screening instead.

If it comes to a point that passing through security is not allowed under Muslim law, then so be it: Muslims will join the Quakers in being unable to fly in the U.S. for reasons of religious conviction. While I don't think they do it well at all now (in fact, it's a disaster), I don't object in principle to effective screening.

[Britney_413]

To throw some humor into all of this security insanity we are having to endure here's a joke someone told me a long time ago:

A friend invited his other friend who was a statitician to fly with him on a vacation. Unfortunately, the statitician said he was no longer flying due to safety concerns. The friend couldn't figure out why. The statitician said that while bombs on board planes are relatively rare, he had been doing some advanced equations and determined that while rare because it had been a long time since one had been on a plane, the chances weren't rare anymore that one sooner or later would turn up on board.

At some point later in time, the friend noticed his statitician friend was now flying all over the country. He asked what convinced him that flying was now safe. He said he worked out an equation determining that while a bomb on a plane was rare that two bombs on a plane was so extremely rare it just wasn't going to happen. The confused friend asked what that had to do with anything. The friend replied, "That's why I always bring a bomb with me when I fly. I don't have to worry about someone else bringing one."

On a serious note, I hate to say it but no matter how much security they have these days, there is always someone smart enough to figure out a way around it. That is why I think security should actually be more focused on time-tested common sense measures such as being aware of your surroundings vs. the modern heavy reliance on technology. As someone else said, when you have a company with a security guard going around watching things, you have pretty good security but the moment they put up cameras and the security guard is now just watching the monitors, security instantly goes down. Something to think about.