Connect with us

Transgender? Don’t Try To Board A Plane In Canada

Published

on

This week bloggers exposed a regulation passed in July that could effectively bar transgender, transsexual, and gender non-conforming people from boarding airplanes in Canada. While it is still unclear whether the regulations have affected any trans people at the airport, the policy as it is written is disquieting – and asks us to think about how gendered documents affect movement.

There are two clauses of concern in Canada’s “Identity Screening Regulations”:

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

(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.

 

Crossing Borders

In a recent report, Human Rights Watch explains: “For many trans people, one of the most distressing consequences to having the wrong gender in their identity documents is that they repeatedly have no option but to reveal to perfect strangers … details of a particularly intimate aspect of their private lives, namely that they are transgender.”

International travel can be a high-risk experience for trans people as it calls for multiple identity checks in high-security environments – namely airports.

Paisley Currah and Tara Mulqueen explain that at airports, expectations of gender often reflect the “common sense” that gender is an unchanging biometric characteristic or, “that there is a perfectly harmonious relationship between the sex classification an individual is assigned at birth based on a visual inspection of the body (what one was), one’s current “biological sex” (what one is), one’s gender identity (what one says one is), one’s gender presentation (what one looks like to others) and the gender classifica­tion on the particular identity document one proffers.”

And when documents don’t match expectations, it’s an anomaly, which, Currah and Mulqueen argue, “is an event that automatically triggers higher levels of scrutiny.”

Most countries which allow gender to be legally changed at all still require intense – often medicalized and expensive – processes to change gender markers on documents. Some countries, however, are allowing gender identity to be increasingly based on self-identification when it comes to travel documents.

These progressive policies complicate the Canadian regulation even more. What would Canada do with a passport marked “X”?

Marking Papers

Australian citizens are required to list their gender on passports as M (male), F (female), or X (unspecified). While changing gender on documents requires certifying letter from a doctor, sex reassignment surgery is not required to issue a passport in the preferred gender. The letter from the medical practitioner must confirm intersex status or appropriate clinical treatment for gender transition. If unable to obtain a letter from doctor, citizens can apply for a Document of Identity with the gender marker field left blank, then complete the passport application.

In New Zealand, people have the option of changing the gender on their passports, also to M, F, or X. To get a name change, a Family Court must approve. However to obtain the gender change (including to ‘X’), citizens must simply submit a statutory declaration indicating how long they have been living in their current gender identity. The declaration must also promise that should the person’s gender identity change in the future through a court process, a new application and full fee will apply in order to have the new gender identity recorded in the passport. Citizens are not required to change their name to apply for a change in gender (including the X) passport.

India has issued passports to people who identify as a third gender, denoted by an “E” for “eunuch” since 2005. Nepal’s Supreme Court established a third gender category in 2007, and a third gender passport case is currently pending in the Court. Bangladesh implemented a similar passport gender category in 2011. In line with what LGBT human rights experts support, all three South Asian countries rely on self-identification to determine gender on identity documents.

Policies such as Canada’s, however, can be harmful in that they reinforce the assertion that if other countries won’t recognize a third marker – be in “E” or “X” – governments ought to not issue such passports.

Some countries do not allow legal gender change at all; some insist that gender appearance and performance must match that expressed on travel documents; some require medical evidence to substantiate any discrepancy; and some require nothing more than self-identification to list one of not two but three gender markers.

So then how is gender standardized as bodies cross borders around the world?

For international standards, we turn to the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and the Convention on International Civil Aviation. According to the ICAO, there are four mandatory personal data points on all international travel documents: name, date of birth, nationality, and sex. ICAO standards for Machine Readable Passports indicate that sex may be listed as unspecified, both in the part inspected by humans, and that which is read by computers.

In the Visual Inspection Zone of the passport, the “sex” field must be filled in as follows:

Sex of the holder, to be specified by use of the single initial commonly used in the State where the document is issued and, if translation into English, French or Spanish is necessary, followed by a dash and the capital letter F for female, M for male, or X for unspecified.

In the Machine Readable Zone of the passport, sex must be marked as “F = female; M = male; Global Action for Trans* Equality. “While it is unlikely that any terrorists will be deterred by this silly piece of law, it violates all trans people’s right to freedom of movement and travel.”

What Gender Tells Us

The task of legally assigning sex or gender to citizens has come up relatively recently, and often only in countries whose medical institutions have developed extensive technologies which can alter bodies.

Matching appearance to documents is too often based on arguments of common sense that gender classifications are obvious and clear, and common sense that these real classifications uniform across administrative systems. Governments have a legitimate interest in knowing the sex or gender of their citizens – how else, for example, would they implement sex segregation in prisons, an essential protection included in virtually all of the world’s detention standards?

However, as international travel demonstrates, documents and the genders they list can indicate far more about the institutions that issue them than they do about the people carrying them, say, at the airport.

On Monday, Canada’s Foreign Minister spoke in London about Canadian foreign policy values. He slammed Uganda’s gay rights record, paid homage to the late David Kato and, toward the end of the speech, declared:

We will speak out on the issues that matter to Canadians – whether it is the role and treatment of women around the world, or the persecution of gays, lesbians, bisexual or transgendered persons…

If Canada’s policy on gender and air travel was developed in the name of security, international standards clearly show that argument to be weak. And if Canada’s government is going to push for LGBT rights in its foreign policy, it might consider allowing trans people to board planes within its borders.

Image by Noble

Kyle Knight is a Fulbright Scholar in Nepal where his research focuses on the LGBTI rights movement. He previously worked at Human Rights Watch, where he focused on children’s rights issue. For three years, he worked as a suicide prevention counselor for LGBTQ youth at the Trevor Project in New York City. He currently sits on the Trevor Project’s Advocacy and Public Policy Committee, is the president of the Duke University LGBT Network, and a is lecturer in Gender Studies at Tribhuvan University, Nepal’s state-run university in Kathmandu. You can follow him on Twitter @knightktm.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

OPINION

Trump Threatens to Violate Gag Order and Go to Jail: ‘I’ll Do That Sacrifice Any Day’

Published

25 mins ago

on

May 6, 2024

By

Just hours after a New York State Supreme Court Justice held Donald Trump in criminal contempt of court for violating his gag order and threatened him with jail time, the ex-president attacked several of the judges overseeing his cases, and suggested he may violate the gag order for the good of the U.S. Constitution.

“Because this judge has given me a gag order and says you’ll go to jail if you violate it. And frankly, you know what, our Constitution is much more important than jail. It’s not even close. I’ll do that sacrifice any day,” Trump claimed.

Trump is on trial for 34 criminal felonies for falsification of business records, which experts describe as election interference after he paid “hush money” to an adult film actress in an effort to keep his alleged affair away from the public eye just before the 2016 presidential election.

The ex-president, who announced his 2024 run for the White House, insiders say, to escape prosecution for a wide variety of alleged crimes, began his Monday post-trial news conference with reporters by criticizing the prosecution’s announcement it expects to wrap up its portion of the trial in about two weeks.

READ MORE: ‘Israel Aid, Ukraine Aid, Kitchenaid’: Dem Mocks GOP’s ‘Hands Off Our Appliances’ Week

“The government just said that they want two to three more weeks,” Trump complained. “That means they want to get me off the [campaign] trail for two to three more weeks. Now, anybody in there would realize that there’s no case, they don’t have a case. Every legal scholar says they don’t have a case. This is just a political witch. It’s election interference. And this is really truly election interference, and it’s a disgrace. It’s a disgrace, and in every poll I’m leading by a lot.”

Those statements are false.

The New York Post reports, “Prosecutor Josh Steinglass estimated that the DA’s office would wrap up its case around May 21, two weeks from tomorrow. But he cautioned that’s a ‘rough estimate.'”

Concluding the District Attorney’s Office did have a case, a Manhattan grand jury indicted Trump on 34 felony counts.

A great many legal scholars say there is a case.

There is no evidence of a “political witch-hunt.”

Trump is not leading in all the polls, nor, in all the ones he is leading in, is he leading by “a lot.” Nor do political candidates get exempt from prosecution because they may be leading in a particular poll.

The ex-president went on to claim prosecutors “figure maybe they can do something here, maybe they can do, this case should be over, this case should have never been brought.”

“And then Alvin Bragg brought the case, as soon as, when I’m running and leading, that’s when they decided, let’s go bring a case. So it’s a disgrace. But we just heard two to three more weeks. I thought that we’re finished today and they are finished today. We look at what’s happening. I thought they were going to be finished today and then 2 to 3 more weeks,” he again complained, again saying prosecutors “all want to keep me off the campaign trail. That’s all this is about. This about election interference. How do we stop it? And it’s a disgrace.”

READ MORE: ‘I’m Not Talking About That Meeting’: Noem Implies She May Have Met With Kim Jong Un

Trump then brought up the gag order.

“Where I can basically, I have to watch every word I tell you people, you asked me a question, a simple question I’d like to give it but I can’t talk about it,” he claimed, falsely.

“Because this judge has given me a gag order and say you’ll go to jail if you violate it. And frankly, you know what, our Constitution is much more important than jail. It’s not even close. I’ll do that sacrifice any day.”

Trump attacked three of judges overseeing his case, excluding U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon.

“But what’s happening here is a disgrace and the appellate courts ought to get involved. New York looks so bad, system of so called justice was so bad between this judge and [Judge Arthur] Engoron and [Judge Lewis] Kaplan the triple teamed with the corrupt judges is a disgrace to our nation. So I should be out there campaigning.”

Watch Trump’s remarks below or at this link.

READ MORE: Congressman Pummeled for Praising Students Mocking Black Protester With Monkey Sounds

 

Continue Reading

OPINION

‘Israel Aid, Ukraine Aid, Kitchenaid’: Dem Mocks GOP’s ‘Hands Off Our Appliances’ Week

Published

3 hours ago

on

May 6, 2024

By

Last year in January, in the wake of a study that found 650,000 children have developed asthma because of gas stoves, Bloomberg News reported: “US Safety Agency to Consider Ban on Gas Stoves Amid Health Fears.”

There was no ban in the works or on the way, and the chair of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) was forced to issue a statement promising, “I am not looking to ban gas stoves and the CPSC has no proceeding to do so.”

Republicans however, went on the attack, with some, like U.S. Rep. Ronny Jackson (R-TX), a physician, shouting on social media, “I’ll NEVER give up my gas stove. If the maniacs in the White House come for my stove, they can pry it from my cold dead hands. COME AND TAKE IT!!”

Congressman Jackson soon doubled-down, appearing on Newsmax.

One month later, West Virginia Democratic U.S. Senator Joe Manchin teamed up with several Republicans to protect Americans’ “right” to non-electric cooking.

READ MORE: ‘I’m Not Talking About That Meeting’: Noem Implies She May Have Met With Kim Jong Un

“Gas stoves have been in the news lately and I’ve come out strongly against the Consumer Product Safety Commission pursuing any ban of gas stoves,” Manchin declared, despite there being no possibility of that. “In fact, I’m introducing legislation today with Senator [Ted] Cruz that would ensure that they don’t and separately sending a letter to the commission with Senator [James] Lankford.”

For decades the scientific community has known about the health dangers of gas stoves, but Americans love them and there are no plans to have any federal government agency coming to take them away.

The Biden administration would like to help Americans buy new, energy-saving home appliances, but Republicans oppose those efforts as well.

Nearly sixteen months later, Republicans are still working to protect Americans from what some have suggested will be the federal government knocking on the doors of U.S. citizens to take away their gas stoves.

Last month, Republican Speaker Mike Johnson was all set to revive the House’s focus on ensuring Americans can continue to grill baby grill – indoors – childhood asthma-be-damned, and nearly put HR 6192, the Hands Off Our Home Appliances Act, and several others on the floor for votes, including:

The “Liberty in Laundry Act” (HR 7673), the “Clothes Dryers Reliability Act (HR 7645), the “Refrigerator Freedom Act” (HR 7637), the “Affordable Air Conditioning Act” (HR 7626), and the “Stop Unaffordable Dishwasher Standards Act” (HR 7700).

But at the last minute he changed the schedule after aid to Ukraine and Israel became the national focus.

READ MORE: Judge Hands Trump ‘Incarceration’ Threat as Experts Say Next Time He’ll Toss Him in Jail

MSNBC’s Steve Benen reports Monday, “the ‘Hands Off Our Home Appliances Act’ … will likely reach the floor this week, possibly as early as tomorrow.”

One year ago this month, U.S. Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL) delivered amusing remarks during a House hearing.

“I want to apologize on behalf of the Democratic Party that we have decided to put kids’ safety, in their neighborhoods from getting gunned down, in movie theaters, or grocery stores, or school churches, or synagogues – we as Democrats have clearly lost our way that we are not focused on appliances,” Moskowitz said sarcastically in a viral video.

Now he’s back, along with the House Republicans’ renewed focus on the false fear-mongering the federal government is coming for your home appliances, or is going to ban them.

In response to Axios’ Andrew Solender reporting, “Appliance Week is BACK in the House!” Congressman Moskowitz replied, “Israel aid, Ukraine aid, Humanitarian aid, Kitchenaid.”

He then grew even more sarcastically excited:

Watch the videos above or at this link.

READ MORE: Congressman Pummeled for Praising Students Mocking Black Protester With Monkey Sounds

 

Continue Reading

News

‘I’m Not Talking About That Meeting’: Noem Implies She May Have Met With Kim Jong Un

Published

6 hours ago

on

May 6, 2024

By

Republican South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem continues to make media appearances promoting her new book, which has received massive attention for the story about her shooting to death her 14-month old dog, Cricket, and a goat, and her reportedly false claim she met with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un.

But in discussing that apparent lie that appears in her book, Noem appeared to tell a few more – and seemed to suggest she may have actually met with Kim Jong Un but should not have put that meeting in her memoir. Experts have said it’s unlikely she did meet with him.

“The book is called, ‘No Going Back,’ but it sounds like the publisher, Center Street, is going back on a couple of the details in the book,” CBS Mornings told Noem.

“Well, I don’t believe so,” Noem replied.

After hearing the apparently false details of her alleged meeting with Kim Jong Un being read on-air straight from her book, Noem explained, “when I became aware of that we changed the content, and the future editions will be adjusted.”

READ MORE: Judge Hands Trump ‘Incarceration’ Threat as Experts Say Next Time He’ll Toss Him in Jail

Noem also said she’s “met with many, many world leaders, I’ve traveled around the world. I should not have put that anecdote in the book, and at my request they have removed it.”

She was then asked, “That specifically didn’t happen?” but Noem appeared to brush off the question.

“What I’m saying is I’m not talking about that meeting, I’m not talking about my meetings with world leaders, there are some that are in the book and there’s some that are not in the book.”

Asked, “Did you tell your ghost writer to write that?” Noem refused to answer the question.

“I specifically have worked on policy for over 30 years, and over that time I have traveled around the world and met with leaders around the world. And that anecdote, I’ve asked them to change the content, and it will be removed.”

“It’s a simple question, did you or did you not meet with Kim Jong Un?”

“That’s the answer that I have for you,” Noem replied.

READ MORE: Congressman Pummeled for Praising Students Mocking Black Protester With Monkey Sounds

She also did not tell CBS why she chose to put it in the book at all, if she knew it was false.

Noem does not mention that she recorded the audio book version for “No Going Back,” and would have read those words about meeting with the North Korean dictator aloud, yet apparently did not ask her publisher to remove it until a local newspaper, The Dakota Scout, published a report starting her account of the event was “in doubt.”

On Sunday, Noem first began to suggest the meeting might have taken place. Speaking with CBS’s “Face the Nation,” Axios reported, “Noem declined to talk about specific meetings she had with various world leaders, and never outright said she didn’t meet with Kim during the interview.”

A CBS News transcript of that interview shows “Face the Nation” moderator Margaret Brennan saying, “you released video of your recording of the audio book. you didn’t catch these errors when you were recording it?”

“Well, Margaret, as soon as it was brought to my attention, I took action to make sure that it was reflected,” Noem responded, before leaping into an attack on the media.

Also on Sunday, The Independent reported, “North Korea experts say it’s highly unlikely Ms Noem ever met the North Korean leader.”

“From 2011 to 2018, Mr Kim did not leave North Korea, according to University of Notre Dame professor and North Korea expert George Lopez.” The Independent added, “Benjamin Young, a professor at Virginia Commonwealth University and an expert on North Korea, told The Dakota Scout that Ms Noem’s account of meeting Kim was ‘dubious.'”

“I cover North Korea very closely, and I have never heard of Kim Jong Un meeting congressmen or congresswomen,” Young said.

Watch Noem’s full CBS interview from Monday below or at this link.

READ MORE: RFK Jr., Embracing Far-Right, Spoke at Fundraiser for Anti-Government Group With J6 Ties

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.