I am transgender and intersexed. I have an unusually configured body, and non-standard genitalia. I am visibly of non-standard gender even clothed; my body and my presentation are both leaning towards female, but ambiguous nonetheless. That is who I am.

I’ve been subjected to violence for my identity before – I’ve had rocks thrown at me, been punched in the face, and once was beaten unconscious by five guys. I woke up in the emergency room, minus two teeth.

I should think that my biggest reasons for not wanting to be scanned are fairly obvious – I don’t want the details of my gender and in the peculiarities of my body revealed to random (and potentially bigoted) airport employees, let alone have them actually look at my genitalia. I’ve been humiliated plenty in my life already for being queer and trans. I shouldn’t have to put up with it again. Flying while trans carries plenty of potential for humiliation to begin with, what with airline employees and government employees rifling through one’s paperwork.

My issues plug into a larger field of concerns about these scanners, though; plenty of people have unusual bodies that could be snickered at by unscrupulous screeners, things that they don’t want to have to show to strangers. People have unusual-looking genitalia, large surgery scars, breasts that had to be removed due to cancer, and so on. They should not have to stand for examination by a potentially hostile audience just in order to step on an airplane.

In fact I think Cory’s next book should be about this dystopian future society #27 has imagined.

Imagine what it would be like for transgendered people to have their sex organs, even a vague outline of them, looked at every time they fly.

What’s the point of even having clothing if we are going to let some arbitrarily empowered people look under it?

There are so many people who abuse their authority and access to private information about people that it is impossible to trust that all the people viewing these images will behave appropriately.

Little piece of advice here: claiming to be modest is everything but modest.

The dude getting paid $14/hour to look at off-putting and weird human silhouettes will very quickly tire of it; it’ll turn into just another job for him.

I consider this a whole lot less invasive than having that same guy feel up every part of me except my crotch (a technique that, by the way, makes it pretty obvious where you should hide your nonmetallic contraband).

I can’t see how these scanners represent a loss of freedom – either theoretical or practical. So can someone provide a reason why they’d consider this invasive, aside from a prudish discomfort with having a stranger view a semi-nude image of you for ten seconds?

I think airline security is a farce and is an incredible waste of time and money. No one is safer for having done it, everyone is later for having done it and I wonder how long it’ll continue.

That said, I don’t think it’s a violation of anyone’s inalienable rights since flying is a choice. You can turn around and leave anytime you want.

When I’ve mentioned that before I’ve heard things like “Oh, so am I supposed to walk from the US to India?!”. My response may be overly pragmatic with, “No. You take a boat or you just don’t go”.

Air travel is an amazing example of human ingenuity and technology. The fact that we can move hundred and thousands of times faster and further than we could on our own two legs changes the world… but it’s not something that is entitled to every man woman and child.

To me there’s a very real difference between being forced to do something (i.e. You’re walking down the street, the police stop you and insist you get a full body scan. You don’t have any options here. Do it or get arrested and possibly both.) and needing to comply with certain rules in a situation you choose to enter and leave of your own free will.

Flying is a luxury and a choice.

If your job forces you to fly, then you choose to work in a position where it’s required of you.

If a family member is gravely ill and you need to be by their side, then this is an unfortunate factor you must weigh when making a decision. No more or less so than if my father was dying and I had no money to even buy a ticket – I don’t have an inherent human right to fly free because I’m in a family crisis. I’d have to make other arrangements. Even bereavement rates airlines would offer usually aren’t any less expensive then what you can pull off of the internet.

If you are mortally ill with a serious disease and need to travel to some place for some reason, it’s a shitty shitty choice you’re making… but you are choosing to go to other medical attention. But before you say “AHA!!”, put yourself in that situation; You have a horrible wasting disease that you might be able to get help with, do you care if someone sees the outline of your naked body? Is that something you would rather die than do?

A situation where a mandatory check point like they do with drunk drivers, where citizens who are going about their otherwise daily and private lives are then put to a choice: You must scan or you get put in jail until we can determine who you are. That is being deprived of your rights. If they had a portable scanner that they could come to your house or even select you out of a crowd in a public place. You are not given the choice to keep your rights. You are either giving up your right to privacy or your right to personal freedom. In such situations, I’ll fight along side you guys.

Choosing to fly when you know they have these scanners is not being deprived of your right to privacy any more than you are being deprived of your right to personal property when you pay for the ticket. You are not being deprived of your personal freedom by having to wear a seat belt or not using your cellphone (which is a pseudo-science bullshit rule, by the way).

It’s just not a question of ‘how many of your rights are you willing to give up’. When I go to a library and they ask me to throw away my ice cream cone, I don’t say “You have no right to deprive me of personal property without due process!”.

Maybe I just don’t care who sees me naked.

2. “The dude getting paid $14/hour to look at off-putting and weird human silhouettes will very quickly tire of it” – That is, until some celebrity goes through, or some hot chick, or minor (depending on preference), or ex-wife, or… (think CCTV abuse, but in naked-o-cam).

3. “less invasive than”… it’s a comfortable way to treat everyone like a suspect, to reduce them to their most indignified selves and to be reduced to cattle-status.

4. “I can’t see how these scanners represent a loss of freedom”
When not only your every move is being monitored, but it’s also being done sans-clothes, isn’t that a tad worrying? What did we do before, back in the day when there were as many terrorist-in-a-plane incidents as there are now, but we just didn’t think it warranted trampling over our individual rights? There are those much more articulate than I, but I am baffled that there still are so many people with no problems at being stripped searched on camera to get on a plane. When they do that to get into a bank, a train or a cinema, will that be OK too?

Your definition of choice is quite loose. You say flying is always a choice because people choose their jobs. However in that case it’s their jobs they chose, not to fly. Also taking the boat is more expensive and time consuming than flying, some don’t have other options than taking the plane. So basically you’re wrong.

Actually I’m acutely aware of and extremely uncomfortable with the growing surveillance state: I just don’t think this is an example of it.

It’s a scanner at an airport lineup: it’s operated in a narrowly defined location and set of circumstances. It’s nothing like ubiquitous CCTV. It’s not “your every move being monitored” but rather “a single picture taken of you, with your knowledge, at a very specific time and place. And you’re kind of sort of naked.” A bit of a difference.

It’s *useful* (unlike much of the security theatre) and, in my view, non-invasive. Maybe it’s just because I don’t really care if someone sees a ghostlike silhouette of my wang, especially if that person is a qualified professional and there are controls in place to make sure the images don’t leak.

And to everyone freaking out about camera phones and such: it’s not hard to confiscate them from screeners and set up appropriate penalties for contravention of the rule. Professionals in many fields are entrusted with private information, and by and large they respect the rules of their professions.

Where ‘rights’ are concerned… if a guy in a room sees a photo of my wang and it never leaves that room, has something been taken from me? I just can’t see it. Everyone who’s comparing this to a strip-search needs a reality check… yes, both end up with someone seeing you naked, but there’s a world of difference between actually having to go through the motions and just walking past a machine. Having some total stranger physically molest me is way, way more invasive and uncomfortable. Or maybe just annoying.

I guess what it comes down to is that I don’t give a damn what they look at in an airport security lineup, as long as I don’t have to be physically inconvenienced.

We object to security theater being policy, and to giving hall monitors powers of arrest, that is all.

I see what you’re saying and agree with it. Like I said, I’m sorta on the fence with this one because I agree with your point. I feel this is all a valid discussion about policies and procedures.

Mostly my post was addressing people who call this sort of thing a violation of their rights. To me, your rights are something you alone choose to protect or yield.

Losing them, again to me, is a situation where… your right to free speech is pitted against your right freedom. You can say what you want and go to jail, or you can stay quiet and go home. Where you literally have to choose which one you can exercise. That’s a violation of your rights. When that school district issued kids laptops and then spied on them at home? That’s a violation of your rights. You never willing waved certain aspects of your privacy, they were forcibly removed.

I suppose I worry about how we phrase things since it can dilute the impact later on.

@failix

“Your definition of choice is quite loose. You say flying is always a choice because people choose their jobs. However in that case it’s their jobs they chose, not to fly.”

Did you come up with that on your own, or are you just rephrasing when I said:

If your job forces you to fly, then you choose to work in a position where it’s required of you.

Because, I have to spend thousands of dollars a year in parking for my job… My job is worth it to me to have to fight my way downtown, find a parking spot and pay out the ass for it. I may not like it, but it’s required by the job I accepted. In no uncertain terms, I choose to pay to park.

“Also taking the boat is more expensive and time consuming than flying, some don’t have other options than taking the plane. So basically you’re wrong.”

Let’s simplify your argument from three terms (time, money and logistics) to one and impart to it a sense of urgency. This isn’t a vacation, this is serious: My father is dying and I have no money. I have no way of paying for an airline ticket. Are they violating my rights for not letting me fly free? No. Does it suck? Yes!! Am I angry? Extremely. Were any of my personal rights and freedoms stripped from me? Again, no.

You do NOT have, as part of your inherent human dignity, the inexorable right to convenience. Just because something costs more or takes longer, it’s not a violation of your rights.

I can’t see how these scanners represent a loss of freedom – either theoretical or practical. So can someone provide a reason why they’d consider this invasive, aside from a prudish discomfort with having a stranger view a semi-nude image of you for ten seconds?

It’s ok, after a while you get used to the feel of restraints and chains.

“Choice” is a word of privilege, with which you seem familiar, but this is a post about Dubai where that word is reserved EVEN MORE SO than in the US.