Harper gov't (Canada) bans trans* people from flying

[netcrusher88]

The original source, near as I can make it, is a tumblr, but it links directly to the Canadian Department of Justice website and cites a bit from the law directly:

An air carrier shall not transport a passenger if the passenger does not appear to be of the gender indicated on the identification he or she presents.

According to Wikipedia, at least some Canadian provinces require SRS to change one's gender on legal documents.

This can't be adequately explained by stupidity. This is outright maliciously transphobic.

*I had to give this asterisk a remark because it was driving me crazy without one. Also, fixed the spelling of "Harper". -Hawk

[poxic]

"Harper", please, Though "everyone-is-worse-than-me guy" will do in a pinch.

I am so unsurprised by this that it's hardly news, really. Except that Harper is so right-wing (for Canada) that pretty much every decision he makes should be newsmakinger than it is, really (for Canada).

Have I mentioned around here that I don't really like Harper? I vaguely recall that I might have said such a thing once or twice.

[stevey_frac]

This law existed before Harper came to power. So to blame it on Harper is disingenuous as best, and a total croc at worst.

[yurell]

Do you need an ID card for domestic flights in Canada? In Australia*, I go to the ticket machine, type in my name & flight and it prints my ticket for me, no ID required (and if you have luggage there's a machine for that, and you just scan or ticket to send it on its merry way).
It's a bad enough law even if it's just for international flights in Canada. If it's for domestic flights too it's absolutely horrid.

*Specifically, Melbourne & Canberra

[netcrusher88]

"Harper", please, Though "everyone-is-worse-than-me guy" will do in a pinch.

Dammit did I really do that? I'll fix it. Sorry.

...actually looks like Hawk beat me to it.

This law existed before Harper came to power. So to blame it on Harper is disingenuous as best, and a total croc at worst.

True, and false. The law existed previously; the specifically cited section was enacted in 2011. I figured out the markup (which is nifty, by the way, it's a pain in the ass to figure out where bits of USC came from) and found the amendment: http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2011/ ... 6-eng.html

[stevey_frac]

Can any one figure out what the passage said before the amendment?

Trying to search through on my phone on that terrible website is kinda garbage...

I will point out that the original act claimed that if for any reason you didn't look like it your Id, but could provide documentation to show why, you should be allowed on. This applied to cosmetic surgery, and facial reconstruction due to accident. The same should apply for someone who does not appear to be if the gender listed on their id. Also, anyone enforcing this on trans people is being a giant douche, as this is clearly not what the law is intended for.

[poxic]

Do you need an ID card for domestic flights in Canada?

Pretty much, yes. I have to show my ticket/boarding pass/thingy, and one of driver's license, passport, or (if going to the US) Nexus card.

[netcrusher88]

The same should apply for someone who does not appear to be if the gender listed on their id. Also, anyone enforcing this on trans people is being a giant douche, as this is clearly not what the law is intended for.

You seem to be having a bit of a problem with reading comprehension, so let me spell it out. Because you just called yourself a douche.

Many trans people have photo ID with a gender different from the one they present as. Or more to the point, ID conflates gender and sex and the indicator is difficult to change on legal documents. That is, many trans women have ID with M indicated, and vice versa. Under this law, they would be barred from boarding a plane.

Given that some (possibly all, I don't know) Canadian provinces require SRS to change the gender indicator on legal documents, this excludes a very high number (possibly a majority, I don't know) of trans people.

Regardless it is insanely unreasonable to force trans people to carry medical documentation of their status in order to board flights. Not to mention, the law does not allow for that anyway.

[mike-l]

Do you need an ID card for domestic flights in Canada?

We didn't need ID to board planes until after 9/11. Of course, this does nothing for security and just prevents people from trading tickets, a nice boon for the Airlines' bottom line. And apparently lets us be more discriminatory as well. Yay Canada?

[Diadem]

Many trans people have photo ID with a gender different from the one they present as. Or more to the point, ID conflates gender and sex and the indicator is difficult to change on legal documents. That is, many trans women have ID with M indicated, and vice versa. Under this law, they would be barred from boarding a plane.

Given that some (possibly all, I don't know) Canadian provinces require SRS to change the gender indicator on legal documents, this excludes a very high number (possibly a majority, I don't know) of trans people.

I'm confused by this. If they can (and are even forced to) change their legal gender/sex, then there is no problem, right?

You're born of the male sex, discover your gender is female, and therefore decide to present yourself as female. Ok. You are saying the Canadian states require you to change your legal gender to female. Ok. But then when you board a flight you present as female and your ID says female. So where is the problem?

There would only be a problem if you were *not* allowed to change your legal sex to your actual gender.

Am I missing something?

[Vaniver]

*I had to give this asterisk a remark because it was driving me crazy without one. Also, fixed the spelling of "Harper". -Hawk

It looked to me like a wildcard (i.e. will match transgender, transsexual, transvestite, and so on), not a footnote. (Was that your intent, netcrusher88?)

Many trans people have photo ID with a gender different from the one they present as. Or more to the point, ID conflates gender and sex and the indicator is difficult to change on legal documents. That is, many trans women have ID with M indicated, and vice versa. Under this law, they would be barred from boarding a plane.

Hm. I have a problem with someone who presents as F, has an ID card photo that looks F, and an ID card that says M getting flagged for security screening. But I don't think I have a problem with someone who presents as F, has an ID card photo that looks M, and an ID card that says M getting flagged for security screening.

That is, security personnel should put a reasonable burden on people whose ID card photos are hard to identify as them (rather than, say, as their fraternal twin sister). But barring them from entering the plane seems unreasonable, though.

[JudeMorrigan]

This rule seems stupid, but was I the only person who read the subject line and found myself thinking, "I didn't even know that trans folks had wings. That would be *awesome*?" Yes, I was? Oh, ok. Carry on then.

[buddy431]

The law's clearly designed to ensure that the ID matches up with the person presenting it, and there's no problem with that. You must also appear to be of the age indicated, and to match up with the photo provided. I don't consider it a huge burden for air travel that a person's ID actually matches up with their appearances.

[omgryebread]

The law's clearly designed to ensure that the ID matches up with the person presenting it, and there's no problem with that. You must also appear to be of the age indicated, and to match up with the photo provided. I don't consider it a huge burden for air travel that a person's ID actually matches up with their appearances.

Conveniently enough, IDs have photos! I cannot think of a situation in which a person would need not only a photo but also a gender listed to match up. If I were to look male, my photo looked like me, but my gender said female, I shouldn't be allowed on the plane? That's really really stupid.

[Роберт]

The law's clearly designed to ensure that the ID matches up with the person presenting it, and there's no problem with that. You must also appear to be of the age indicated, and to match up with the photo provided. I don't consider it a huge burden for air travel that a person's ID actually matches up with their appearances.

Conveniently enough, IDs have photos! I cannot think of a situation in which a person would need not only a photo but also a gender listed to match up. If I were to look male, my photo looked like me, but my gender said female, I shouldn't be allowed on the plane? That's really really stupid.

Exactly. The point of the law is that photo IDs should serve a purpose. The point of the law should NOT be to oppress trans people.

[lucrezaborgia]

I guess this guy wouldn't be allowed to fly in Canada then?

[Dauric]

Problem is that bureaucracies in general (regardless of nation) still haven't gotten their heads wrapped around the idea of trans*, and the entry marked "gender" still just has checkboxes for "Male" and "Female".

* = wildcard

To make matters worse just as western societies are beginning to grapple with the distinction and the public acknowledgement of gender identities outside cis male and cis female coincidentally (or not so coincidental if you're wearing your tinfoil headgear) some lunatics decide to make an unprecedented terrorist attack that succeeds in generating so much terror that governments crank down on security by increasing... bureaucracy, which itself notoriously suffers from an extreme lag behind changes in the culture of the people the bureaucracy is suppose to administer.

Grand upshot is that because of the perceived need for security restrictions what would otherwise be annoying(and possibly harassing) bureaucratic mislabeling of someone's identity becomes outright denial of mobility/services.

[sourmìlk]

I'm not sure what the intent is behind this law, but it's unnecessary and does pose a risk for trans* people: it shouldn't matter what gender is listed on the card; if the person matches the photo in his ID, there shouldn't be a problem.

[Chen]

Conveniently enough, IDs have photos! I cannot think of a situation in which a person would need not only a photo but also a gender listed to match up. If I were to look male, my photo looked like me, but my gender said female, I shouldn't be allowed on the plane? That's really really stupid.

The only reason I can think of that the "sex" listing (and it does say sex not gender for what its worth) would be to help in the cases of a misleading photograph. Imagine a case where someone has long hair in the picture and is clean shaven. They come to the border sometime in the 5 years that the passport is valid with a buzz cut and a goatee. Here having the extra qualifier of "sex" at least gives some other method of determining who the person is (not a terribly good method mind you).

Now unfortunately that ISN'T what the act says though. It states that if you don't match the gender on your passport you can't fly. Which in and of itself doesn't work since the passport does not state your gender it states your sex. Note also that in reading the act, only medical reasons for your not resembling your photograph are acceptable too. So if cutting your hair/growing facial hair changes what you look like they can technically also not allow you to fly. While hair length may not usually be an issue, facial hair can make a picture of you look dramatically different. The problem lies in just how vague this whole section of the act is. What does "resemble" mean in a quantitative sense? Clearly there's a problem here.

[Jessica]

There are some big problems with this revision. It's also probably not going to have the largest effect in general.

As written, currently I cannot board a plane, without a doctor's note saying that I am in the process of transition and the M on my drivers license/passport is going to be fixed. I can apply to get the M changed to an F with the above doctors note in Ontario (without having genital surgery), but that isn't necessarily true across Canada. In parts of the country, (and in many parts of the world), you cannot change your gender marker on government issued identification, without having genital surgery. Not all trans people would like to have surgery, or can afford surgery, or many other issues around this, and yet are presenting completely as their chosen gender. Some parts of the world don't even allow you to change the gender markers after surgery.

Having to get a doctor's note to "prove" who you are is something only trans people would ever have to do. Not all trans people can even do that.

Not to mention, there are no "men in dresses committing terrorism". A different gender marker on identification is not likely to be a forgery, so the person can try and get through security, or onto a plane. Making it overt that the person has to look like the gender they have written is just bad.

BUT

It must be stated this change has been in effect since the middle of last year. We're hearing about it now because someone brought it up, and it started a frenzy . There are few trans people who are actually affected by this, and it's much more likely to affect people of colour and immigrants (as these things do).

[Hawknc]

*I had to give this asterisk a remark because it was driving me crazy without one. Also, fixed the spelling of "Harper". -Hawk

It looked to me like a wildcard (i.e. will match transgender, transsexual, transvestite, and so on), not a footnote. (Was that your intent, netcrusher88?)

Argh, probably. Apologies, netcrusher.

[Azrael]

You're born of the male sex, discover your gender is female, and therefore decide to present yourself as female. Ok. You are saying the Canadian states require you to change your legal gender to female. Ok. But then when you board a flight you present as female and your ID says female. So where is the problem?

There would only be a problem if you were *not* allowed to change your legal sex to your actual gender.

Am I missing something?

Yes, you are missing something. The only way most Canadian states allow you to change your legal sex to your actual gender is to have undergone sexual reassignment surgery (or prove such surgery is pending within one year). This is a significantly unobtainable hurdle for some (most?) trans persons.

Thus, some (most?) trans persons cannot legally board an airplane.

The law's clearly designed to ensure that the ID matches up with the person presenting it, and there's no problem with that. You must also appear to be of the age indicated, and to match up with the photo provided. I don't consider it a huge burden for air travel that a person's ID actually matches up with their appearances.

Conveniently enough, IDs have photos! I cannot think of a situation in which a person would need not only a photo but also a gender listed to match up. If I were to look male, my photo looked like me, but my gender said female, I shouldn't be allowed on the plane? That's really really stupid.

This can cross into the scary zone really, really quickly with full body scanners and/or intrusive pat downs. Because now there's an ability -- and even the possibility to construe a legal requirement -- to check that the gender presented in the photo matches the sex specified on the ID plus the genital sex.

Although both of these procedures are less prevalent currently in Canadian airports than in the US, the two largest manufacturers of body scanners both include gender specifiers that alter the automatic detection algorithms (when / where said automatic thread detection is in use, which is not yet universal).

Shit could get ugly. Fast.

[yurell]

Although both of these procedures are less prevalent currently in Canadian airports than in the US, the two largest manufacturers of body scanners both include gender specifiers that alter the automatic detection algorithms (when / where said automatic thread detection is in use, which is not yet universal).

Shit could get ugly. Fast.

I wonder what would happen to someone with an Australian passport in that case, since you can change the gender on your passport without having SRS here.

[buddy431]

Shit could get ugly. Fast.

Or maybe, like so many other small changes to specialized pieces of legislation, things will continue to happen pretty much as they always have, with perhaps the occasional edge case that causes a bit of consternation until a judge figures it out. The law's been in effect since July, if I'm reading the revisions right. Have there been planeloads of people turned back because their appearance didn't match the M or F on their photo ID?

I think you guys are attributing to malice what was instead probably some boilerplate language intended to make more specific that yes, you really do need to have a valid ID to get on a plane. The entire law is basically about making sure people who are on a no-fly list are prevented from getting on a plane, and part of that is in checking that peoples' IDs. This only works if the person is using an ID that is really for them. Having a photo, or a date of birth, or an indicated gender that doesn't match the appearance of the person in front of you is at least some indication that the ID might not really be for them, and further investigation is needed. Now there is certainly room to argue that this hyper-paranoia for flying isn't justified, but that's not a discussion for here.

Maybe the law goes to far in preventing anyone who's indicated gender doesn't match their appearance from boarding (and doesn't appear to provide for exceptions), but I really don't know why this means that the people who created the law were out to get a certain small subset of the population whose appearance don't match the letter on their ID. It's probably an edge case that was never considered in drafting the law. Hopefully the people who apply the law will have a little bit of common sense in doing so.

[ConMan]

It's probably an edge case that was never considered in drafting the law.

And therein lies the crux. They either didn't think about that edge case, or they did think about it but considered it not important enough to cover in the bill. If the former, then they're marginalising a minority through ignorance, and that's the better of the two possibilities.

Certainly I accept that if catching people on the "no fly" list is a priority then they need to check for falsified ID. But that means that the airport staff should be trained to look out for inconsistencies with the ID and possibly use it as a reason to look a little closer, not to effectively rule such ID invalid from the get-go.

[poxic]

It's probably an edge case that was never considered in drafting the law. Hopefully the people who apply the law will have a little bit of common sense in doing so.

That's pretty much how a lot of oppressive and/or harassing legislation gets into place. People say "we have this problem" and don't realise (or care) that there are complications to their proposed solutions. Later, someone with an attitude problem gets hold of this law and uses it for evil, in totally (now) legal ways.

/ninja'd, but hey, I worked hard on that sentence. I'm goin' to press with it.

[Le1bn1z]

Happily, the fixes for this should be simple enough - adopt a "T" or "X" option, as with New Zealand or do away with gender on ID all together. Alternately, make the ridiculously minor change to the legislation required to fix it - remove the gender provision, for a start.

Unhappily, we cannot put this one on Harper. This really isn't his fault. Here are the reasons:

1.) This is part of very routine legislative update. All changes would be proposed by civil servants, many of whom would have been appointed under a Liberal government, and NOT a Minister, let alone the Prime Minister. This is WAY below his pay-grade.

2.) In order to become law this had to be presented to Parliament. Opposition MPs (NDP, Liberal, Bloc and even Green Ms May) all had opportunities to comment and oppose. They did not. Not because they don't care - they do, but for the same reason as no Conservative said anything about it:

They didn't notice.

Otherwise you have to make the case that the NDP and Liberals are engaged on a homophobic crusade.

3.) Saying the PM should know every detail of legislation or regulatory changes is silly, and has never and will never happen.

This sounds a lot like the accusations from a week or so ago when some jackass lawyer in some jackass office in Ottawa said that same-sex marriages of foreigners in Canada were invalid for some technical reason.

hours later, baffled and angry Ministers and a Prime Minister were busy reassuring everyone that this was likely not true, and if it was, they were going to make sure it didn't stay true... and was based on flaws in existing legislation anyway - provisions put in place by the same goddam Liberal Government which legalized gay marriage in the first place - Paul Martin's (swoon) in order to prevent abuses and clogging of Canadian courts. Hard to argue it was malicious intent there.

The Foreign Minister, John Baird, recently received major accolades from LBGT groups in Canada for being bully-boy in the Commonwealth for gay rights. I suspect that in a week or two this will, like so many other things, be revealed to be another unintentional wrinkle in legislation to be promptly fixed.

Now, see - look at what you made me do. You made me defend Stephen Harper.

Now I have to go and wash my hands until they bleed, and burn my keyboard.

I hope you're all happy.

[poxic]

I stand corrected. And, my sympathies.

[Weeks]

I was prepared to say this was the most depressing thing I'd read all day, but then I read Le1bn1z's and JudeMorrigan's posts and giggled.

[netcrusher88]

*I had to give this asterisk a remark because it was driving me crazy without one. Also, fixed the spelling of "Harper". -Hawk

It looked to me like a wildcard (i.e. will match transgender, transsexual, transvestite, and so on), not a footnote. (Was that your intent, netcrusher88?)

Argh, probably. Apologies, netcrusher.

No worries. I did mean it as a wildcard.

[Роберт]

Yes, you are missing something. The only way most Canadian states allow you to change your legal sex to your actual gender is to have undergone sexual reassignment surgery (or prove such surgery is pending within one year). This is a significantly unobtainable hurdle for some (most?) trans persons.

Thus, some (most?) trans persons cannot legally board an airplane.

That last sentence is not entirely true. If they do decide to be jerks about it and some trans people really want to fly, they could theoretically do it by cross-dressing. Not an acceptable workaround, really. Especially considering that this is not only oppressing a minority in a pretty invasive way, but in a way that is likely to be a highly sensitive, emotional area to them. Sort of like if we forced gay guys to make out with woman before we allowed them on airplanes.

[Dauric]

Sort of like if we forced gay guys to make out with woman before we allowed them on airplanes.

I'm really tired, but now I can't help but think this would cast "TSA groping people with body searches" in a whole new light.