Canadian legislation prevents transgender people from flying

[Doctor Faustus]

This is the result of new rules, introduced last July, but only now coming to light, which state that 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”...

...Its impact will be felt first by members of the Canadian transgender community, who may only change the ‘sex’ designation on a Canadian Passport, on provision of proof that surgery has taken place, or will take place within one year. This, it is argued by blogger, Christin Scarlett Milloy, means that non-operative transgender persons, gender nonconforming (genderqueer) persons, and the vast majority of pre-operative transsexual persons will find it literally impossible to obtain “proper” travel documentation.

More here: Comment: The Canadian rule which bans transgender flight - PinkNews.co.uk

[British Lad]

-facepalm- no words to how stupid that it

[NickT]

It's probably originally to prevent criminals who are trying to exit the country incognito from flying around.

[Ridiculous]

Looks like some legislation that's going to hurt everyone except the criminals it was meant to target.

[No One]

That is absolutely ridiculous. I dont think any terrorist is going to be dressing as the opposite gender in order to "avert detection". I just dont understand the logic behind such a move.

[Olive]

Dammit, now I can't even move to Canada! I always said I was gonna move to Canada, nothing bad happens there.

[ANightDude]

That's stupid. I understand the reasoning, but seriously? That's just unfair.

[thecat06]

Wow... I understand their reasoning, but they went about it in the wrong way.

[Emberstone]

Well conservatives like to compaire lgbt people to terrorists... guess it was only a matter of time.

A security risk would not do something to draw attention to themselves.

[Fintan]

Originally Posted by Emberstone

Well conservatives like to compaire lgbt people to terrorists... guess it was only a matter of time.

Haha! You got to be kidding me....

I work in gov't in Canada and I think its far more likely that the gov't overlooked the issue of transgender passengers in an attempt to increase security. Not right -- but not the boogeyman either.

[SagaciousNJ]

I think it was an effort to stop any "Abdul Aziz Ghazi" type crossdressing where a terrorist dresses up as a woman to escape capture. Though, as a defense that's a bit farfetched because if it didn't work at the Red Mosque it really shouldn't be a concern in a Canadian airport.

[Bradley]

Originally Posted by No One

I dont think any terrorist is going to be dressing as the opposite gender in order to "avert detection".

You'd be surprised.

If you read deeper into this, no transgendered person has ever been denied boarding because of this. It is understandable that in the high security world of aviation, they would require further information for conflicting information regarding a person's ID. A simple explanation or even a document such as a doctors note would allow a transgendered person to board an aircraft.

I completely understand the opposition and I do agree that this law goes too far, but look at it from an airport security perspective: A woman walks up and hands you an ID that states they are male, with the name "Kevin" on it. Are you honestly going to just let them go or would you ask questions to determine the identity of that person? I would expect any competent airport security guard to question anybody who does not match the appearance or description on the ID provided.

I'm all for equality...but I would be equally stopped by airport security if I gave them an ID that said I was a female.

[TheEdend]

Originally Posted by Emberstone

Well conservatives like to compaire lgbt people to terrorists... guess it was only a matter of time.

Such wild generalizations

Its an unjust law, but I can see the logic behind it. Instead of fighting this new law, though, they should probably focus on the law that only allows them to change the sex on their passport if they get some type of surgery done. That, to me, is more ridiculous than anything else on here. If you allowed trans people to change their sex without the need of surgery then you wouldn't have this problem in the first place.

[Emberstone]

quoting numerious conservatives who make that comparrison is not a 'generalization'. the conservative movement, at least in america, rarely question when their own people make racists/sexist/or homophobic statements that are easily disproven.

[Hot Pink]

I don't care about the reason, this just sucks for us trans people.

[DhammaGamer]

"5.2 (1) An air carrier shall not transport a passenger if

(a) the passenger presents a piece of photo identification and does not resemble the photograph;

(b) the passenger does not appear to be the age indicated by the date of birth on the identification he or she presents;

(c) the passenger does not appear to be of the gender indicated on the identification he or she presents; or

(d) the passenger presents more than one form of identification and there is a major discrepancy between those forms of identification.

(2) Despite paragraph (1)(a), an air carrier may transport a passenger who presents a piece of photo identification but does not resemble the photograph if

(a) the passenger's appearance changed for medical reasons after the photograph was taken and the passenger presents the air carrier with a document signed by a health care professional and attesting to that fact; or
(b) the passengers's face is bandaged for medical reasons and the passenger presents the air carrier with a document signed by a health care professional and attesting to that fact."


So, definitely inconvenient, but they do allow people with proper docs to avoid this embarrassing situation. Sucks for girls who aren't on HRT yet though.

le sigh

[Fintan]

Originally Posted by Emberstone

quoting numerious conservatives who make that comparrison is not a 'generalization'. the conservative movement, at least in america, rarely question when their own people make racists/sexist/or homophobic statements that are easily disproven.

Haha. Its interesting how you attempt to legitimise a generalisation/stereotype by targeting and generalising/stereotyping a specific group.... again.

[scooby]

Originally Posted by Bradley

I would expect any competent airport security guard to question anybody who does not match the appearance or description on the ID provided.

This. And only this.

This new law is just drawing attention to the LGBT community in a bad way. Seriously. It is stupid.

The law already in place - and common sense - says that if someone does not match the description on their ID, they need further scrutiny. There is *no sensible reason* to make specific mention of gender in a brand new law.

I look sort of "mannish" - I wear pants and men's fashions more often than not, and when I travel I don't wear makeup. I'm not trying to look any different than what I naturally am - I just don't subscribe to women's traditional fashions. (I've been called "sir" a few times.) I look more masculine than most MtFs I know - they would be probably allowed to pass and I would not.

[Bradley]

Well put Scooby. I think the whole problem with this law is the wording. If it had not gone so far as to state the age, gender, and appearance part, it would still be effective and would not draw such negative press.

The fact remains though that when you produce ID, it is expected be valid and represent who you are. If you have changed something about yourself, it should not come as a surprise that you would need to either get a new ID or provide proof of that change (in this case a doctors note).