 |
| Photo courtesy of Scot Campbell |
Last
week, the trans blogosphere exploded in response to the July 29, 2011
changes to the Canadian Identity Screening Regulations. The focus of
this attention was section 5.2 (1) of the regulation, which reads:
"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." The regulation is notable for two reasons: first, many Canadians have
finally found something about airport security that breaks through
the fabled 'mildly annoying' barrier, and; second, it absolutely
smacks of social conservatism. Many are calling the regulation out
and out discrimination against transgendered individuals (a sentiment
held by trans activist Christin Milloy).
Of
course, not everyone agrees with this. An acquaintance of mine
recently attempted to defend the change, claiming that it was
designed to combat an increase in passport and identity fraud, and
furthermore, that calling the regulation discriminatory is an
overreaction. I am willing to concede that this is probably not a
convoluted, conservative conspiracy to systematically discriminate
against trans people. However, it is sign of either gross negligence
or an entire disregard for the issues that trans people face every
day.
First,
I challenge anyone to justify the necessity of visually confirming an
individual's apparent gender with a letter on a passport. If someone
is attempting to board a flight with fraudulent documentation, there
are many other fields on a passport that will set alarm bells ringing
(false name, false or doctored photo, incorrect age, invalid passport
number, and on and on).
Second,
lawmakers are, or ought to be (ignorance is no excuse) aware of the
legal restrictions involved with changing one's gender identifier on
a passport. Most commonly, a signed letter is required confirming
that the person has received SRS (sex reassignment surgery). Not only
are the requirements for SRS quite stringent, but there are a large
number of trans people who do not want SRS, and still others who
identify as neither gender.
Besides
all of these very real concerns, there is the problem of the actual
visual confirmation itself. The regulation is essentially asking a
CATSA employee to decide what an 'M' or an 'F' ought to look like.
Should Janet be barred from her flight if she likes to dress as a
lumber jack? All that this sort of check will accomplish is to
reinforce an already prevelant and problematic gender binary.
There
is
a sub-clause in the regulation that allows for exceptions to be made
if a person does not match their identifier, yet has a doctor's
letter, identifying them as a trans person. This isn’t much of a
solution however, as it assumes trans individuals have the time and
forsight to obtain a letter prior to travel – something not
required of any other minority in Canada. Moreover, some trans people
do not seek consultation from a medical professional during or after
their transition.
A
recent Xtra article cites a Transport Canada representative as saying
"the regulations are the same as before, since they are those of
the International Civil Aviation Organization that are in place in
all countries." This statement is both interesting and false, as the ICAO calls for
participating countries' passports to have M, F or X gender
designation options (ICAO PDF). Hmm, I wonder why I failed to notice the X option
while filling out my passport application? To
add insult to injury, the Xtra article goes on to note that while the
opposition was questioning the regulation, Conservative MPs could be
heard snickering in the background.
To
date, I am not aware of any trans person that has been barred from
their flight due to section 5.2 (1) (c). However, what the regulation
does or does not do in practice is not the issue. There is no
distinction drawn between the gender-nonconformance of a trans person
and the gender-non-conformance of someone trying to get away with
something. In essence it is the nonconformity itself that may be
punished. That the Canadian government deems it acceptable to amend a
regulation in such a way as to allow for potential discrimination, is
entirely unconscionable.
Follow @FRW
