Transgender passports
Discussion
Ari said:
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: Why do any of you care enough to seemingly get so wound up by something that doesn't impact you at all?
A: Because of the amount of public sector time that gets wasted on st like this inevitably by already overstretched resources that could better use the time to help people who really need it.B: Because it will never stop - every extra inch given results in another three asked for.
C: Because inevitably it does impact us eventually, when we're sat in another diversity lecture at work or left wondering whether we should hold the door open for a woman or whether it's okay to say her dress looks nice (things considered perfectly normal, acceptable and polite by both sexes a few years ago but now a potential minefield).
D: Because common sense has gone out of the window (stuff like that old fashioned thing where there were two sexes, male and female), and it's irksome.
E: Because for every one person that is genuinely affected by this, there are 10,000 bored teenage boys with nothing better to do than decide that today they would like to be called Doris, use women's toilets and have the whole world rotate around them in the process and they really don't need encouraging that this is a good thing.
I'm sure there are people for whom this is a real issue, but they're a tiny tiny minority. They need to work out how to fit into society rather than expecting so much time effort and resources to be devoted to this. This is a perfect example - work out if you want to be identified as male or female (bizarrely it seems you can simply choose now), go with that and get on with your lives.
There are people out there being bullied, starved, oppressed, hurt, homeless and on and on. Those once we've solved all of those problems, then lets start worrying about whether we need a third option for something of which there are only two choices...
I honestly don't get it but to each their own
roachcoach said:
Shakermaker said:
roachcoach said:
A: Neither.
"That's fine. As a result of you saying that you are refusing to be searched, you will not be permitted to travel. If you'll kindly follow me to the exits now please..."Refusing to be searched at an airport when you have set off screening equipment, eg a metal detector, one of those body scanners etc, is a valid reason under UK legislation to be denied travel through an airport.
Transgender, intersex and all these others, have been travelling through airports for many years. Some of them will have set off the metal detectors and other screening equipment, and been required to be physically searched, and all have managed to successfully pass through and continue on their journey.
Shakermaker said:
roachcoach said:
Shakermaker said:
roachcoach said:
A: Neither.
"That's fine. As a result of you saying that you are refusing to be searched, you will not be permitted to travel. If you'll kindly follow me to the exits now please..."Refusing to be searched at an airport when you have set off screening equipment, eg a metal detector, one of those body scanners etc, is a valid reason under UK legislation to be denied travel through an airport.
Transgender, intersex and all these others, have been travelling through airports for many years. Some of them will have set off the metal detectors and other screening equipment, and been required to be physically searched, and all have managed to successfully pass through and continue on their journey.
Mind you, I bet a lot of people would have said the same thing about the current court case not so long ago, so I would not be so quick to presume that it will not happen.
Edited by roachcoach on Thursday 12th October 15:45
jjlynn27 said:
WinstonWolf said:
jjlynn27 said:
WinstonWolf said:
Ooh look, one of our very own SJW's proving the point...
'SJW's'? Seriously? 
"SJW" is such a lame term.
roachcoach said:
Who pats down a "gender X" in the airport?
Are they allowed to choose? Does this mean men can choose a pat down from a woman?
How about a strip search?
Fun times.
Don't trans etc people fly already? Because if so, I expect the airport already has policies / manages it... Are they allowed to choose? Does this mean men can choose a pat down from a woman?
How about a strip search?
Fun times.
Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 12th October 16:09
roachcoach said:
Of course it is perfectly valid. Naturally you'd think such a thing wouldn't happen.
Mind you, I bet a lot of people would have said the same thing about the current court case not so long ago, so I would not be so quick to presume that it will not happen.
Oh of course, naturally I would hope not. I can only speak to my own experience working at the airport and dealing with people who travel through an airport.Mind you, I bet a lot of people would have said the same thing about the current court case not so long ago, so I would not be so quick to presume that it will not happen.
Edited by roachcoach on Thursday 12th October 15:45
Those who do identify as trans/cis/inter or other such matters, are also themselves well aware that they identify as such, but this does not mean they are not allowed to avoid the same screening measures as other passengers or staff using the airport. They should know that if they bleep the scanner, they'll be searched, and know who it is they would want to search them, when presented with the options.
Security staff are aware that some people identify differently, and have a process to deal with that. That is why all of the security teams at the airport are made up of Male and Female security staff, so that anyone coming through can be challenged when necessary, and searched to the standards required by the CAA, DfT and Home Office.
I don't doubt that someone with an axe to grind really will try and challenge the system. As to how far they will be able to get, I like to think it would not go that far, though of course, people always have the right to appeal if they don't like the decision and make more noise in the press.
The legal requirement for airports to search people is quite straightforward and allowances have been made for many many years for a variety of people who have needs outside the majority. EG - someone with a pacemaker cannot use the metal detector. Lots of people might have cause to say that is unfair - but they are then given a manual search every time they go through. Those who wear headgear for religious reasons may be asked to remove it - but will have the opportunity to do so in a private area. You can get around most of the issues with a handheld metal detector of course in these cases. But it goes to show, such matters have already been taken into consideration.
TurboHatchback said:
And once again we're back to the SJW brigade insulting anyone who doesn't agree with them as if this will somehow validate their own viewpoint.
You seem to be getting confused between 'getting frothy mouthed' with 'having an opinion'. If nobody is allowed to have or express an opinion on an issue unless they are personally affected by it then automatically every single fringe pressure group gets to push their agenda unchallenged no matter how ridiculous or distateful it is.
A group wants to impose Sharia law on West Yorkshire? Doesn't affect me so I can't think or say anything.
A group wants to legalise kiddy fiddling because they've invented a new religion that demands it? Doesn't affect me so I can't think or say anything.
A group wants to introduce racial segregation on public transport? Doesn't affect me so I can't think or say anything.
A group wants to totally dismantle the welfare state? Doesn't affect me so I can't think or say anything.
Obviously this is a much more minor principle but do you really not understand the parallel?
What parallel?You seem to be getting confused between 'getting frothy mouthed' with 'having an opinion'. If nobody is allowed to have or express an opinion on an issue unless they are personally affected by it then automatically every single fringe pressure group gets to push their agenda unchallenged no matter how ridiculous or distateful it is.
A group wants to impose Sharia law on West Yorkshire? Doesn't affect me so I can't think or say anything.
A group wants to legalise kiddy fiddling because they've invented a new religion that demands it? Doesn't affect me so I can't think or say anything.
A group wants to introduce racial segregation on public transport? Doesn't affect me so I can't think or say anything.
A group wants to totally dismantle the welfare state? Doesn't affect me so I can't think or say anything.
Obviously this is a much more minor principle but do you really not understand the parallel?
All of the examples you cite are hypothetical where one group want to negatively impact on the lives of, or in some way potentially harm other people (the people who would live under Sharia, the child that is raped, the person who suffers from racial segregation, the person who loses their welfare). It's perfectly ok to get vocal about a scenario like that on either your own behalf, or on behalf of someone who needs you to speak up for them.
How do you think that in any way equates with a group of people who already face massive challenges in life getting the option of an extra letter on their own passport to make things just a little easier for them? The change affects no one outside of the impacted group, and has no ill effects for anyone else. Who exactly, other than the trans people it impacts, is in a position to get really worked up about it?
Can you try and find an example where there is genuinely a parallel? Because I'm struggling to think of one actually...
fblm said:
La Liga said:
"SJW" is such a lame term.
And yet for want of a better term a fairly succinct description of those who can barely contain their excitement at signalling just how 'progressive' they are on every possible thread. It's as useless and heavy-handed as using a word to pigeon-holing people who take the 'other side'.
fblm said:
And yet for want of a better term a fairly succinct description of those who can barely contain their excitement at signalling just how 'progressive' they are on every possible thread.
What about a corresponding three-letter acronym that provides a fairly succinct description of those who can barely contain their excitement at signalling just how 'conservative' they are on every possible thread?The Spruce goose said:
del mar said:
You are free to identify as you wish, but biologically you are male or female - bar the 0.7%.
I may well be a loser but I identify as a successful individual.
In biology nothing is black and white, I may well be a loser but I identify as a successful individual.
Edited by The Spruce goose on Wednesday 11th October 18:42
- Badger
- Zebra
- killer whales
- penguins
- pandas
- Malayan Tapir
- racoons
- some monkeys
.....
La Liga said:
fblm said:
La Liga said:
"SJW" is such a lame term.
And yet for want of a better term a fairly succinct description of those who can barely contain their excitement at signalling just how 'progressive' they are on every possible thread. It's as useless and heavy-handed as using a word to pigeon-holing people who take the 'other side'.
Always funny though.
jjlynn27 said:
La Liga said:
fblm said:
La Liga said:
"SJW" is such a lame term.
And yet for want of a better term a fairly succinct description of those who can barely contain their excitement at signalling just how 'progressive' they are on every possible thread. It's as useless and heavy-handed as using a word to pigeon-holing people who take the 'other side'.
Always funny though.
Attacking the poster via using one of the above is much easier than attacking the argument.
Shakermaker said:
roachcoach said:
Who pats down a "gender X" in the airport?
Are they allowed to choose? Does this mean men can choose a pat down from a woman?
How about a strip search?
Fun times.
There are procedures in place for that. It is quite easy actually:Are they allowed to choose? Does this mean men can choose a pat down from a woman?
How about a strip search?
Fun times.
"Hello, because you've set off the metal detector we need to give you a body search. Would you prefer this to be a male or female security officer?"
This isn't really about transgender people, though, is it? If you are transgender you can have your passport corrected already, and rightly so. This is for non-binary people, a condition which seems to me to be more political than medical.
Personally, if I were a member of a group which has historically been persecuted and still attracts the ire of the frothing right, the last place I would want that to be recorded is on my identity documents.
Personally, if I were a member of a group which has historically been persecuted and still attracts the ire of the frothing right, the last place I would want that to be recorded is on my identity documents.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff