Transgender people are completely banned from boarding airplanes.

[Pleiades]

http://chrismilloy.ca/2012/01/transgender-people-are-completely-banned-from-boarding-airplanes-in-canada/

 

Here's the link and my thoughts: what's wrong with requiring people to look like their ID? That's the point of ID. Whether or not government issued ID's and passports are ethical aside, there's no point in having any form of photo identification if it doesn't apply to you? Am I missing something here?

[JamesP]

Not "banned" because they are transgender, but "banned" because they have evidently made choices to change their appearance and no longer have representative identification.

 

Making it about transgender is at least jumping to a conclusion and at worst manipulating the emotions of some very sensitive and highly triggered people. I seriously doubt that the policy is targeted at them, though it clearly does affect some of them.

[prolix]

Is it so hard to look like you want to look 99.9% of the time, then, when you fly dress like your ID. Otherwise just get a new ID. Also it is not hard to get 2 ID's. Just say you lost one, boom, now you have 2 IDs for your 2 sexual identities...

[Miramiss]

problem is not being trans, it is that they are not allowed to define their own gender. Not everybody feel they belong to only one gender, and some people feel they have the wrong gender. When people are only defined by what is between their legs, and not whats happening in their head, things like this occur.It could be solved easily by opening up for a third gender in passports and two pictures. But no... surgery is required *sigh*

[Josh F]

This is disgusting example of the state enforcing gender, and something libertarians should oppose.  This kind of discrimination is irrelevant to the security of a flight and would not be tolerated in a free market or enforced by airline companies.  The 9/11 terrorists boarded those planes with lawful government issued IDs without wearing makeup or high heels.  

 

The government is actually making a law saying not only can't you choose to look a certain way, but that genders specifically must represent certain norms.  Its extreme discrimination and an invasion of everyone's privacy.  

[MMX2010]

This is disgusting example of the state enforcing gender, and something libertarians should oppose.  This kind of discrimination is irrelevant to the security of a flight and would not be tolerated in a free market or enforced by airline companies.  The 9/11 terrorists boarded those planes with lawful government issued IDs without wearing makeup or high heels.  

 

The government is actually making a law saying not only can't you choose to look a certain way, but that genders specifically must represent certain norms.  Its extreme discrimination and an invasion of everyone's privacy.  

 

Josh, Do you (or do you not) want everyone who flies a plane to reliably look like their IDs? 

 

If yes, explain how enforcing this desire on transgender people is wrong. 

 

If no, explain why you don't want everyone who flies a plane to reliably look like their IDs?

[JamesP]

I have no opinion on whether airline passengers and identification should be have anything to do with each other. I think that's probably the wrong question. I think it's also not right to make this about gender.

[Josh F]

The issue is that transgender people are preventing from self-identifying their gender when getting their IDs.  Thats the real issue.  They identify as a woman, but are forced to mark their gender as male, for example.  The only way to board a plane is to dress in a way which they are not comfortable, and for some of them this requires more than you might realize, since many transgendered people have physically altered their body with breast implants, hormone treatments, and other hard to disguise surgical changes.  They're not entirely cosmetic.

 

To put it into a context you can relate to, imagine being told you can't have a beard.  Beards similarly distort and disguise IDs.  Now imagine that it costs $10,000 to remove your beard, requires potentially dangerous surgery, and you hate not having a beard... just to get onto an airplane.... because some guys with completely lawful IDs in another country committed an act of terrorism.  

[DaVinci]

No one looks exactly like their I.D. picture. It makes me think of a Mitch Hedberg routine.

 

"This picture is of me when I was younger."

 

"Every picture is of you when you were younger."

 

So what is the answer to the problem of an I.D. being accurate when you shave your beard, or cut your hair, or get glasses? Get a new I.D.? I think that there is a reasonable expectation that you look like the picture on an I.D., but I think it is just as reasonable for the people looking at an I.D. to be able to tell that who is standing in front of them is the same person as the one in the picture.

[MMX2010]

The issue is that transgender people are preventing from self-identifying their gender when getting their IDs.  Thats the real issue.  They identify as a woman, but are forced to mark their gender as male, for example.  The only way to board a plane is to dress in a way which they are not comfortable, and for some of them this requires more than you might realize, since many transgendered people have physically altered their body with breast implants, hormone treatments, and other hard to disguise surgical changes.  They're not entirely cosmetic.

 

To put it into a context you can relate to, imagine being told you can't have a beard.  Beards similarly distort and disguise IDs.  Now imagine that it costs $10,000 to remove your beard, requires potentially dangerous surgery, and you hate not having a beard... just to get onto an airplane.... because some guys with completely lawful IDs in another country committed an act of terrorism.  

 

This is wrong for two reasons: (1) I'm not transgender.  I'm not allowed to self-identify my gender as female when getting my ID.  (2) On my New York State driver's license, it says "SEX: M". 

 

Since transgender people are the loudest advocates of "Sex isn't gender, and gender isn't sex.", then they (and you) are wrong to assume that "This is disgusting example of the state enforcing gender." 

 

It's actually an example of the state enforcing biological sex when flying planes, and ONLY when flying planes.  Everything else, you're free to do/dress/be however you like. 

[Psychophant]

Aren't there those biometric control devices at the airports? What about biometric id cards? That would reduce boarding time and solve the problem.

[Josh F]

 

This is wrong for two reasons: (1) I'm not transgender.  I'm not allowed to self-identify my gender as female when getting my ID.  (2) On my New York State driver's license, it says "SEX: M". 

 

Since transgender people are the loudest advocates of "Sex isn't gender, and gender isn't sex.", then they (and you) are wrong to assume that "This is disgusting example of the state enforcing gender." 

 

It's actually an example of the state enforcing biological sex when flying planes, and ONLY when flying planes.  Everything else, you're free to do/dress/be however you like. 

 

I don't really understand how this logic works.  Let me break down my own logic.

 

Person X is transgendered.  They personally identify as a woman, though they were born men.  They take hormone treatment and perform other surgeries to look female.  They prefer to dress as a female and to present themselves and be addressed as females.  The government writes their sex on their ID card, regardless of their gender.  The law says if their appearance, according to an unelected agent of the state, does not match their sex they can not get on airplanes.  Even if the photo ID matches the physical appearance of the traveler, has the correct date of birth, ID number, accurate photo, and legal name they can't enter an airplane because it says "sex:m"

 

In a free market there would be a demand for IDs which takes gender into account.  This system, therefor, requires the state's monopoly on violence to enforce this regulation.  

[Wuzzums]

Even if the photo ID matches the physical appearance of the traveler, has the correct date of birth, ID number, accurate photo, and legal name they can't enter an airplane because it says "sex:m"

 

Why not? If they're male yet have a female gender (or vice-versa) how can they possibly be suspicious when the photo ID matches their appearance?

[MMX2010]

I don't really understand how this logic works.  Let me break down my own logic.

 

Person X is transgendered.  They personally identify as a woman, though they were born men.  They take hormone treatment and perform other surgeries to look female.  They prefer to dress as a female and to present themselves and be addressed as females.  The government writes their sex on their ID card, regardless of their gender.  The law says if their appearance, according to an unelected agent of the state, does not match their sex they can not get on airplanes.  Even if the photo ID matches the physical appearance of the traveler, has the correct date of birth, ID number, accurate photo, and legal name they can't enter an airplane because it says "sex:m"

 

In a free market there would be a demand for IDs which takes gender into account.  This system, therefor, requires the state's monopoly on violence to enforce this regulation.  

 

 

According to the article, you have no complaints. 

 

The article says: "Well, in order to change the ‘sex’ designation on a Canadian Passport, the federal government requires proof that surgery has taken place, or will take place within one year. So for non-operative transgender persons, for gender nonconforming (genderqueer) persons, and for the vast majority of pre-operative transsexual persons, it is literally impossible to obtain proper travel documentation marked with the sex designation which “matches” the gender identity in which they live."

 

The person you've described, by having undergone gender re-assignment surgery, will be issued a government ID that reads "Sex: F".  And because her appearance matches the sex-label on her government ID, she'll be allowed to board without incident. 

[Josh F]

According to the article, you have no complaints. 

 

The article says: "Well, in order to change the ‘sex’ designation on a Canadian Passport, the federal government requires proof that surgery has taken place, or will take place within one year. So for non-operative transgender persons, for gender nonconforming (genderqueer) persons, and for the vast majority of pre-operative transsexual persons, it is literally impossible to obtain proper travel documentation marked with the sex designation which “matches” the gender identity in which they live."

 

The person you've described, by having undergone gender re-assignment surgery, will be issued a government ID that reads "Sex: F".  And because her appearance matches the sex-label on her government ID, she'll be allowed to board without incident. 

Okay, that is informative.  To update my argument, simply forget the part about surgery and everything else I said remains the same.  The person has undergone hormones, or simply chooses not to look a particular way.  

 

And what could that entail?  Basically, the outcome is this:  biological men can't wear makeup or wigs, but biological women can.  Even in a traditional gender model that is still a double standard.    

Why not? If they're male yet have a female gender (or vice-versa) how can they possibly be suspicious when the photo ID matches their appearance?

So if their ID matches their face, but says a gender different from how they look (according to this government agent's ideas on how men and women are supposed to look), they can't fly.  

[MMX2010]

Okay, that is informative.  To update my argument, simply forget the part about surgery and everything else I said remains the same.  The person has undergone hormones, or simply chooses not to look a particular way.  

 

And what could that entail?  Basically, the outcome is this:  biological men can't wear makeup or wigs, but biological women can.  Even in a traditional gender model that is still a double standard.    

 

Right.  But now I point out that I, as a non-transgender male individual, am also unable to dress up like a woman and board a plane in Canada. 

 

So if their ID matches their face, but says a gender different from how they look (according to this government agent's ideas on how men and women are supposed to look), they can't fly.  

 

Again, that's not what happens.  What happens is, "If their ID matches their face, but says a biological sex different from how they look, they can' fly.

 

So, again, gender isn't sex and sex isn't gender. 

[Josh F]

Right.  But now I point out that I, as a non-transgender male individual, am also unable to dress up like a woman and board a plane in Canada. 

 

oh right, this falls into the same funny argument I heard about gay marriage.  How even straight people are prevented from getting married to the same gender, so it isn't biased against homosexuals.  You understand that if the government bans behavior done exclusively or mostly by a specific community is th e text book definition of discrimination.

 

So for example, if the law said no beards, we understand that this law would target men, right?  

 

Am I talking to an anarchist right now?  I'm not sure what letter of the law or semantics have to do with the state preventing non-violent behavior.

 

Again, that's not what happens.  What happens is, "If their ID matches their face, but says a biological sex different from how they look, they can' fly.

 

So, again, gender isn't sex and sex isn't gender. 

This part is really hard to understand.  If your point is just about the difference between sex and gender, you're incorrect about this topic.

 

LOOKING a certain way is gender.  Being born a certain way is sex.  Banning someone from entering an airplane because of how they look is DISCRIMINATION.  What is with the cognitive dissonance here?  Again am I talking to an anarchist right now?

 

I just have such a hard time wrapping my head around the argument that banning a traveler should have something to do with their sex or gender. 

[Wuzzums]

So if their ID matches their face, but says a gender different from how they look (according to this government agent's ideas on how men and women are supposed to look), they can't fly.  

 

This sounds more like an attack on appearance in general rather than gender. Government does what government does...

[Josh F]

This sounds more like an attack on appearance in general rather than gender. Government does what government does...

Government does what government can do.  And unfortunately transgender people are frequently discriminated against, even within the LGBT community a common criticism is the lack of "T" or transgender issues.  They are an easy target for government power.  They're also incarcerated in large numbers, mostly for vice crimes like drug abuse and prostitution.  In prison, they're frequently raped and forced into gang culture.  The community faces a lot of issues like depression and suicide as well, in large part by how violently they are treated in society.  Even during childhood those children, still normally confused by their own feelings, are the victims of abuse.  And in parenting too, there are many families intolerant to their children's gender identity.  

[MMX2010]

LOOKING a certain way is gender.  Being born a certain way is sex.  Banning someone from entering an airplane because of how they look is DISCRIMINATION.

 

That's not accurate, either.  If they were banned from entering a plane because of how they looked, they'd never be able to enter a plane, because "how they look" is permanent.  

 

So I would say they're being banned from entering the plane because of how they're dressed - specifically, they're dressed in a way that runs contrary to their biological sex.  

 

Being dressed in a certain way is a choice.  Entering a plane is a privilege, not a right.  

 

And this topic is wrongfully presented as "No transgender people are ever allowed to enter planes!" - which is factually untrue.

[Josh F]

Yes, I think I understand your approach.  Let me refine your description:

 

People dressed in a way which appeals exclusively to people who identify as transgender, are prevented by the government from using a product.  

 

The airlines are not making this requirement.  

 

And correct me if I am wrong, but the government is not providing evidence for its relevance to security.  

[MMX2010]

 

People dressed in a way which appeals exclusively to people who identify as transgender, are prevented by the government from using a product.

 

 

 

No, that's not true.  Transgender people who have either: (a) already undergone gender re-assignment surgery, or (b) provided sufficient evidence that they will undergo gender re-assignment surgery within a year are allowed to board planes when their government ID lists the opposite of their biological sex. 

 

Whereas, transgender people who have yet to undergo this procedure cannot board a plane when their appearance doesn't match their biological sex. 

 

Because different types of transgender people are being treated differently, you can't say (nor imply) that all transgender people are being "discriminated against". 

[Josh F]

chaging what you said, "Transgender people who have either: (a) already undergone gender re-assignment surgery, or (b) provided sufficient evidence that they will undergo gender re-assignment surgery within a year are allowed to board planes when their government ID lists the opposite of their biological sex. "

 

to

 

Transgender people who have neither: (a) already undergone gender re-assignment surgery, or (b) provided sufficient evidence that they will undergo gender re-assignment surgery within a year are prevented from boarding airplanes dressed as they choose when their government ID lists the opposite of their biological sex.

 

 

Now, is there a case to be made for the government regulating or defining conditions to qualify as transgender?

[MMX2010]

 

 

Now, is there a case to be made for the government regulating or defining conditions to qualify as transgender?

 

 

 

I don't think it's in my best interest to answer that question before you acknowledge that your headline, "Transgender people are completely banned from boarding airplanes", was utterly incorrect.  (Mind you, I'm not accusing you of deliberately misleading us.  Just pointing out that your headline is incorrect.) 

[Josh F]

I don't think it's in my best interest to answer that question before you acknowledge that your headline, "Transgender people are completely banned from boarding airplanes", was utterly incorrect.  (Mind you, I'm not accusing you of deliberately misleading us.  Just pointing out that your headline is incorrect.) 

 

I didnt start this topic, thats not my headline.

[MMX2010]

 

 

I didnt start this topic, thats not my headline.

 

 

Okay.  Now I feel like a blithering idiot. 

 

One million apologies. 

 

I don't think the government is defining "what it means to be transgender".  It's just setting rules with regard to "are you going to be allowed to board a plane if your government ID reads opposite of your biological sex". 

[Josh F]

Its cool, no worries.  

 

 

 

 

I don't think the government is defining "what it means to be transgender".  It's just setting rules with regard to "are you going to be allowed to board a plane if your government ID reads opposite of your biological sex". 

 

I mean this is going to be speculative, right, but what do you think the reasons are for the government to do that?

 

And also, do you think they could get away with it happening to other groups?  Wearing makeup and a wig, for example, is okay for a woman even if her ID photo has her with short hair and no make up.  

 

And in application, this will have probably have little to do with pre-op female to male transgendered people. Its mostly about people born men who choose to dress like women but have not undergone or plan to undergo surgery.  For some reason if those people "dress like a woman" they can't fly.... I mean rappers dress like women all the time wearing fur coats and diamond earrings, but I don't think they're going to have a problem with this at all.  And what does "dress like a woman" or "look like a woman" mean legally?  Make up?  Jewlery?  Skirts?  Long hair?  Sorry Kilt wearing long hair hippies with red chapstick, no fly for you!

[MMX2010]

 

 

I mean this is going to be speculative, right, but what do you think the reasons are for the government to do that?

 

Whenever speculating about government actions, I always presume the most thoughtless reasons possible.  So a large conspiracy, wherein the government deliberately produced a rule to discriminate against transgender people, is far too intelligent, thoughtful, and coordinated. 

 

Thus, I assert that the government needed a simple rule, and therefore it produced a simple rule. 

[Psychophant]

For some reason if those people "dress like a woman" they can't fly.... I mean rappers dress like women all the time wearing fur coats and diamond earrings, but I don't think they're going to have a problem with this at all.  And what does "dress like a woman" or "look like a woman" mean legally?  Make up?  Jewlery?  Skirts?  Long hair?  Sorry Kilt wearing long hair hippies with red chapstick, no fly for you!

 

Women dress like men, too, wear trousers, t-shirts, sneakers, suits and bow-ties, just to mention a few. Better go with Humme's law. You cannot derive an ought from an is. Stereotypes might be convenient, but that doesn't make them objective.

 

E. g. I am a dude who likes to wear kilts and other skirts with or without tights combined with shirts or T-shirts, sneakers and biker boots. I exercise my freedom of expression. I don't fit in any aformentioned categories. 

[Josh F]

Whenever speculating about government actions, I always presume the most thoughtless reasons possible.  So a large conspiracy, wherein the government deliberately produced a rule to discriminate against transgender people, is far too intelligent, thoughtful, and coordinated. 

 

Thus, I assert that the government needed a simple rule, and therefore it produced a simple rule. 

 

Sure, it is hard speculate motives for the government.  I think it speaks to the powerlessness of transgendered people though, and I think the rule is discriminatory and unnecessary.  

 

Women dress like men, too, wear trousers, t-shirts, sneakers, suits and bow-ties, just to mention a few. Better go with Humme's law. You cannot derive an ought from an is. Stereotypes might be convenient, but that doesn't make them objective.

 

E. g. I am a dude who likes to wear kilts and other skirts with or without tights combined with shirts or T-shirts, sneakers and biker boots. I exercise my freedom of expression. I don't fit in any aformentioned categories. 

 

I'm not sure what your point is?

[Psychophant]

 

 

I'm not sure what your point is?

 

Hard to believe, since you wrote "dress like a woman" several times and it is clearly related to your statement of a lack of standard on part of leviathan.

[Josh F]

Sorry, that did not help clarify what you're saying.  I genuinely do not understand your point at all.  

[Psychophant]

Sorry, that did not help clarify what you're saying.  I genuinely do not understand your point at all.  

 

Hommie, there is no objective standard for clothing, since you cannot derive an ought from an is. You can argue that in some cases one garment is more suitable than the other, in case you are operating dangerous machinery or riding a horse back but that is not a normative thing. Government enforces an arbitrary standard that is so ill defined that it leaves room for a political witch hunt against people who dress a certain way.

[Bortasz]

Not "banned" because they are transgender, but "banned" because they have evidently made choices to change their appearance and no longer have representative identification.

 

Making it about transgender is at least jumping to a conclusion and at worst manipulating the emotions of some very sensitive and highly triggered people. I seriously doubt that the policy is targeted at them, though it clearly does affect some of them.

I will ask one more time. How I can give +1 to posts? Because this one deserve it.

 

There is reason for photos in ID. If they want to board a airplane they must have ID with matching photos. And of F****** story.

[Josh F]

Hommie, there is no objective standard for clothing, since you cannot derive an ought from an is. You can argue that in some cases one garment is more suitable than the other, in case you are operating dangerous machinery or riding a horse back but that is not a normative thing. Government enforces an arbitrary standard that is so ill defined that it leaves room for a political witch hunt against people who dress a certain way.

oh okay, yeah I agree.