TSA

Transgender Travelers Collide with TSA's Security Theater

Blame it on the body scanners, poor training.

|

Shadi Petosky
Shadi Petosky, Twitter

When Shadi Petosky began tweeting about her terrible treatment at the hands of Transportation Security Administration (TSA) workers at Orlando International Airport on Sept. 21, she detailed an experience of being ordered around, patted down, dehumanized, and threatened. She was describing a situation familiar to anybody who gets caught up in the agency's airport security theater.

Petosky is also transgender, and that played heavily into her experience. But being transgender and tripping up alerts at airports and getting taken aside or treated poorly is also not a new problem with TSA screening, though it was the first time Petosky, a writer and producer, had an encounter this bad. While she was tweeting her experience, other transgender people on Twitter responded about having similar problems.

What's new is that Petosky's encounter ended up getting significant news coverage, from The New York Times, to the Los Angeles Times, to Vox.com, along with television networks. The coverage highlighted a problem that has persisted for a while: TSA agents are not well-trained to deal with transgender travelers, leaving these flyers uncertain of what to expect when going through airports. Furthermore, the screening technology used for scanning bodies passing through the airport has no real mechanism for recognizing the biology of transgender travelers, prompting confusion to trigger completely unfounded security fears.

Many travelers may not even realize it, but as they're forced in to spread eagle for body scanners in security lines at the airport, a TSA agent is pressing a button telling the machine whether the person inside is a male or female. They don't ask—they just look and decide. In Petosky's case, the TSA employee saw a woman and pressed the appropriate button. And then the employee declared there was an "anomaly," which Petosky bluntly explains to Reason, is her penis.

Petosky says she travels frequently and hadn't had such a problem before. Obviously these body scanners must have picked up the truth about her body, but previous TSA agents must have understood her situation. Petosky says she's ready to explain that she's transgender to TSA personnel if necessary. In fact, when the machine in Orlando registered the "anomaly," she says she immediately told the TSA employee that she was transgender. But rather than accepting the explanation, the TSA agent told her that he wanted her to go through the screening process again "as a man." Apparently he wasn't demanding that Petosky change her appearance. Rather, he wanted to switch the button he pressed to male instead of female. Then it became a big mess.

"He kept saying, 'Are you a man or a woman?'" Petosky says. They said she needed to be pat down, which becomes its own issue for transgender traveler. Should the person patting her down be a man or a woman? She didn't want to make a female TSA employee have to touch her genitals. The situation escalated; she was taken aside for further screening and ultimately missed her flight. Even worse, in order to reschedule her flight, she had to return to the gate area, meaning that she would have to go through the airport's security yet again. In addition, Petosky says she was told her hands tested positive for "explosives" residue twice. It was never explained to her why this happened, and she wondered if this was some sort of retaliation or after-the-fact justification for advanced screening.

Petosky eventually was able to board a flight. After being contacted by several media outlets (including Reason), a TSA spokesperson put out a statement the following morning declaring that the "officers followed TSA's strict guidelines." Petosky found that response surprising, because she has been told by a different representative from the TSA that there's an ongoing investigation, and it would take several days just to interview the TSA employees involved.

Reason spoke to Jen Richards, a writer, actor, and activist on transgender issues. She appears on E!'s reality show I Am Cait, documenting Caitlyn Jenner's gender transition. Richards had an airport experience similar to Petosky in 2013. She live-tweeted her treatment as well, but failed to get the sort of media reaction Petosky did. She credits the increased attention on the transgender experience to the media blitz surrounding Jenner, saying "the public seems ripe for this story."

"I was marked as an 'anomaly,' several times," Richards says. "Only once was I detained. The issue becomes human variation. Usually they just do a pat-down. But sometimes somebody decides to escalate the situation for a reason." She said transgender men can also get caught up by TSA security if they bind their chests.

There are two issues here: The training and the machines. Richards said she's not entirely sure how the machines might function better for transgender fliers, but there are definitely training problems for TSA employees.

"Certainly better training would have prevented these situations from escalating into public embarrassment," Richards says.

As for the machines themselves, The National Center for Transgender Equality is suing the TSA for bypassing the appropriate federal rule-making process to implement the body scanners. They're part of an unusual coalition that includes the free-market Competitive Enterprise Institute and pro-liberty group The Rutherford Institute. By failing to follow administrative laws for implementing the body scanners, the petitioners argue, the public was left out of the opportunity to comment and provide feedback for the scanners. Perhaps if they had followed the regulations, they would have better understood that expecting TSA employees to determine sex of thousands of passengers based on superficial appearance was bound to cause confusion for some of them. And a machine that is a programmed to identify anything other than a simplistic analysis of what makes a "male" or "female" as an anomaly is going to ultimately result in problems, and not just for transgender travelers.

"I've had black friends with natural hair get patted down," Richards says. "I've heard of incontinence items [like adult diapers] causing problems." The end result is that anything that is even slightly out of the ordinary is treated as a potential threat, and thus the security theater is fed and amplified for unnecessary reasons. That a person's gender identity or expression doesn't match his or her biology isn't a sign of a terrorist threat.

"We need a system where they're not guessing what genitals they have just by looking at them, because they're not going to be right all the time," Petosky says. "They use term 'anomaly,' when it comes to genitals, and they should be a lot more considerate. I don't see myself as an anomaly. They think that I should be processed as male, but I also have grown breasts. They're telling the transgender community that they're going to be flagged no matter what. …

"My penis should processed like anybody else who has a penis. My breasts should be processed the same way as anybody who has breasts. They have to be able to handle somebody who is both or neither. … If the technology can't tell if I have a penis or if I have something dangerous, it's probably not a very good naked picture."

And then there's the issue that transgender people themselves are being blamed for causing the problems at the airport just by being transgender. In response to the media coverage, Petosky has received criticism from Twitter blaming her for trying to trick people, even though she told the TSA she was transgender at the first sign of any trouble. It's a typical "bathroom panic" response, suggesting that transgender people are trying to defraud people for some sinister goal. In response to the criticism she's getting, Petosky tweeted Monday, "A lot of people's understanding of trans people begins and ends with 'Scooby Doo villain.'"

And as a final reminder from ReasonTV, the TSA thinks even the slightest variation in "normal" human behavior is a sign of potential terrorism:

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

564 responses to “Transgender Travelers Collide with TSA's Security Theater

  1. Wonderful, if a member of the protected class gets harassed by the TSA there might actually be some fallout for the agency.

    1. Yeah, but they wont’ get in trouble for harassing the rest of us.

      It’s just not okay to harass a member of a protected class.

      Don’t you know who the fuck I am?!

      1. “I’m a transgender afro queer! And you think you just fuck with me?”

        1. So I have to buy you dinner before I fuck with you?

          1. Do you think transgender afro queers are a cheap date?

            1. I was hoping so. All my money is tied up in a hush fund for altar boys.

              1. Anything less than Fazolis will not get you a mustache ride.

              2. Ah so you are the real pope! Or the anti-pope? This is confusing. What is your stance on the New World Order?

                1. I am the One True Pope?. Any others claiming to be popes are all Lo-Fat Mayo Popes – complete pretenders!

                  My stance on the New World Order is that it was completely gimmicky and I preferred Hulk Hogan to Hollywood Hogan. I curse the WCW as an abomination.

                  1. Are they deep dish popes ?

        2. I would never go NEAR one of the, transtesticle things.

          1. If you’re unwilling to have sex with a tranny, then you are a transphobic bigot in desperate need of reeducation.

            1. You laugh, but I have literally seen this stance expressed in earnest.

            2. There are many, many people I am unwilling to have sex with – and many, many that are unwilling to have sex with me. It just works that way sometimes.

          2. Nobody . . . nobody is expecting you to.

            1. “Nobody . . . nobody is expecting you to.”

              Yes they are!

              It’s in the 14th Amendment under “public accommodation”.

            2. In a few years it will be mandatory, you hater. PROGRESS!!!

        3. Sure you are. Unfortunately it’s physically impossible to be all of those
          brainless things. Get lost chump.

      2. Yeah, but they wont’ get in trouble for harassing the rest of us. It’s just not okay to harass a member of a protected class.

        This is where the beauty of having voluntarily chosen protected classes comes in: we can all be in a protected class, if we want to be.

        Personally, I’m going for butch dike lesbian, trapped in a man’s body, who likes it that way.

        GIVE ME MAH SUBSIDIE!

    2. But you can be assured that any such fallout will not take the form of wondering whether these bullshit screenings actually accomplish their ostensible goals.

      1. They seem to be working perfectly to me, Hugh. Desensitize, dehumanize, delovely.

          1. I had no idea that Colin Farrell was in a pop group before he tried acting.

            If you take notice, the clothes he wears in the video are very similar to those he would later wear in “Horrible Bosses.”

        1. Dominate. Intimidate. Control.

          https://reason.com/archives/2004/02/01/ dominate-intimidate-control

          This was actually a TSA training motto – *publicly* displayed.

        1. Eh. That article actually makes good points regarding the fact that most people care about their own liberty. Her argument is that these issues have been ongoing for transgendered people at airline checkpoints for awhile, but that people didn’t really care because it didn’t impact them.

          1. I have to call bullshit on the author’s premises

            Now that white guys are being objectified, scrutinized, touched, and considered guilty until proven innocent, they are finally getting a taste of what an encounter with authority can be like for other groups on a daily basis, and not just when traveling. Welcome to our world, dudes!

            Especially considering that probably 75% of the TSA are black oppressors, not the traditional white heterosexual male oppressors.

            1. She isn’t talking about the people doing the touching though, she’s talking about the fact that people who like authority in other situations where it doesn’t impact them (i.e. white conservatives who never get pulled over and love the cops) suddenly dislike authority when they are the ones being mistreated by it.

              Now, she’s a transgendered leftist so she runs that reasonable point through multiple bullshit filters of buzzwords and postmodern gender theory, but the overall point is sound.

              1. So “white guys”= people who like authority?

                1. So “white guys”= people who like authority?

                  You betcha! Now, who wants a glass of milk?

                2. So “white guys”= people who like authority?

                  If we’re talking about the kind of authority this girl is talking about, namely cops, then yeah, pretty much. White men actually do have high opinions of cops relative to other groups.

                  1. Blacks are disproportionately criminal relative to other groups, which drives the
                    “cops are power-tripping racist thugs” narrative because they are disproportionately represented in the prison system. This same line of reasoning however doesn’t justify claiming “blacks=people who are criminals”. Two way streets are a bitch.

                    1. Um…I don’t see your point. I was talking about how people view authority. It is a basic fact that white people view authority in America more positively in America and are also less likely to wind up on the wrong side of it.

                    2. Um…I don’t see your point. I was talking about how people view authority. It is a basic fact that white people view authority in America more positively in America and are also less likely to wind up on the wrong side of it.

                      It’s a basic fact that black people have higher rates of criminality in almost every metric and are more likely to end up on the wrong side of authority. It stands to reason that ANY group that had disproportionately higher interaction with police will be more anti-police.

                      To say that…

                      they are finally getting a taste of what an encounter with authority can be like for other groups on a daily basis

                      is petty bullshit that denigrates white victims of authoritarian impulses. And does so precisely because people making this argument want to keep whites firmly planted in the oppressor category.

                    3. Disproportionately criminal, or disproportionately arrested, prosecuted and convicted? Remember that so-called victimless “crimes” are not really crimes.

                    4. Disproportionately criminal, or disproportionately arrested, prosecuted and convicted? Remember that so-called victimless “crimes” are not really crimes.

                      Disproportionately criminal. African American murder rates are 9 times higher than white murder rates, so it’s not like they’re just being unfairly arrested for weed possession.

                    5. Disproportionately criminal, or disproportionately arrested, prosecuted and convicted? Remember that so-called victimless “crimes” are not really crimes.

                      Victimless crimes are not valid crimes yes. But I did write “in almost every metric”, which necessarily includes many crimes that are anything but victimless. Murder and rape for example, are not victimless.

                    6. Disproportionately criminal.

                      Black males are 6-7% of the population. Black males between 16-40 are about 3% of the population- yet they commit 40%+ of all murders.

                  2. Apparently I’m not nearly the white man I appear to be.

              2. And then there’s this gem at the end of the piece;

                . Contact your local lawmakers and media outlets, whether you are an angry white guy or not. But especially complain if you are an angry white guy, as it’s clear that you will be taken more seriously by the media more quickly and effectively than trans people have been in almost a decade of activism.

                Is that point sound too? It makes for more sensational news coverage when angry white men have been violated, as opposed to blacks, browns, gays, trannies and one-legged Mexican ass hookers? I think not.

                1. If something pisses off white people it’s more likely to change than if it pisses off black people because there are 5 times as many of us and we vote at higher rates (except during the anomalous Obama elections, but that black turnout won’t be replicated without a black man running).

                  There have also been studies showing that when rich people and poor people have different ideas about a political subject, the rich people are more likely to get what they want. Since whites are richer than blacks on average, we can extrapolate and assume that if white people are more upset about something, it’s also more likely to change because of the greater resources that can be brought to bear.

                  So yes. If middle class white dudes care about something, it’s more likely to change than if poor black people care about it.

                  1. Since whites are richer than blacks on average

                    That’s what happens when you’re satisfied with your car’s OEM wheels.

                  2. If something pisses off white people it’s more likely to change than if it pisses off black people because there are 5 times as many of us and we vote at higher rates (except during the anomalous Obama elections, but that black turnout won’t be replicated without a black man running).

                    So people riot about the strong arm robber Mike Brown and Saint Trayvon of the Purple Drank, but no one has even heard of the names of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom.

                    And while the Mike Brown shit was happening a white guy named Zemir Begic gets beaten to death with hammers as retribution, but the racist motivations are downplayed and this quickly leaves the media spotlight because they claim this couldn’t have been a racially motivated murder because “the assailants had no way of knowing he was of Bosnian origin”. You can’t make this shit up.

                    1. Is that supposed to be responsive to Irish’s argument?

                    2. Is that supposed to be responsive to Irish’s argument?

                      Yes. Welcome to the party Me Too.

                    3. So people riot about the strong arm robber Mike Brown and Saint Trayvon of the Purple Drank, but no one has even heard of the names of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom.

                      Tell me – what have those riots changed? Has policing been noticeably reformed? No, what those riots did was they burned down black neighborhoods for no reason, thus making poor blacks even poorer, and meanwhile they had no impact on the law. If anything, they increased support for cops since people saw a bunch of criminal scumbags and wanted to see them behind bars.

                      You’re mistaking people “caring” about something for actual change. Black people can be angry about something all they want and some of them might burn shit down, but that isn’t going to cause any sort of improvement in their lives and it is not going to cause the change that they claim to want.

                      Rioting is one of the most useless political acts it is capable to take part in. The fact that they rioted over Brown getting shot does not in any way contradict the fact that white people are vastly more likely to get what they want in this country than black people are.

                      The criminal element in Baltimore burning down entire city blocks and using Freddie Gray’s death as the excuse doesn’t change that fact.

                    4. Tell me – what have those riots changed?

                      Armies of SJWs and greivance monger roaming the land, waging their culture war to great success in public opinion.

                      Has policing been noticeably reformed?

                      No, but nor has outraged white people changed it either.

                      If anything, they increased support for cops since people saw a bunch of criminal scumbags and wanted to see them behind bars.

                      There certainly isn’t a war on cops but neither are they more popular than ever.

                      Rioting is one of the most useless political acts it is capable to take part in.

                      And yet, the consensus in academia and the media is that the riots happened because blacks are so helpless in the face white male oppression that dominates the land. And actual systemic problems with police and statutory law are swept right under the rug.

                      Brown getting shot does not in any way contradict the fact that white people are vastly more likely to get what they want in this country than black people are.

                      Brown getting shot does not in any way validate the premise that blacks “don’t get what they want”.

                    5. and who said anything about this being a catalyst for reforms? I didn’t argue that. I argued that maybe the TSA will experience some “fallout”. I also never argued that riots in Ferguson are going to provide any meaningful reforms to their police agencies. I argued that cops shooting blacks makes for more sensational news coverage than cops shooting whites. I don’t see how you can even debate that point.

                    6. Are you seriously going to try to continue arguing that when the state directs its oppression at minorities, that oppression doesn’t go on for longer than when the state directs it toward the majority? Do you think people are wrong when they suggest that if middle-class white people were as affected by the war on drugs as inner-city black people, it might be waged differently–or not at all?

                    7. Do you think people are wrong when they suggest that if middle-class white people were as affected by the war on drugs as inner-city black people, it might be waged differently–or not at all?

                      If by the same token you would concede that murder laws are racist or should be “waged differently” because they disproportionately affect inner-city black people.

                    8. If by the same token you would concede that murder laws are racist or should be “waged differently” because they disproportionately affect inner-city black people.

                      I’m not talking about “should,” or about anything being “racist.” I’m talking about how the world actually works. And the way it works is that when little Logan starts getting arrested and roughed up for the same bullshit that Jamal has been dealing with for decades, his parents have way the fuck more recourse and more social and political capital.

                      You think you argue against the points people make, but you’re just constantly moving goal posts. I never said drug laws were racist, and I never said racism was a reason they should be changed, not even on a disparate impact basis.

                    9. I’m not talking about “should,” or about anything being “racist.” I’m talking about how the world actually works. And the way it works is that when little Logan starts getting arrested and roughed up for the same bullshit that Jamal has been dealing with for decades

                      So what’s the difference between little Logan and Jamal that makes Jamal deal with this for decades? I’m sure you chose Jamal because that’s totally a race neutral name. Not sure why you picked Logan of all names though.

                    10. As I said, social and political capital.

                    11. As I said, social and political capital.

                      Because as we all know, Jamals have less political capital than Logans. Yep, you’re totally not making any racial implications by picking those two names to make your point.

                    12. Of course I was. That was the entire point I was making. I don’t know why you would even act like it wasn’t. That’s the entire conversation we are having.

                    13. You know this guy is a gigantic moron, right Nikki?

                      FS, what are you, 17? 16?

                    14. You know this guy is a gigantic moron, right Nikki?

                      FS, what are you, 17? 16?

                      Defend her honor Warty. That’a boy. And don’t let anyone make you feel bad for those shriveled steroid ridden testes of yours.

                    15. Honor? Sometimes, it’s easy to lose perspective and get drawn into a never-ending circular argument with a moron. He was giving her a nudge out the path of the imbecile train.

                    16. Of course I was. That was the entire point I was making. I don’t know why you would even act like it wasn’t. That’s the entire conversation we are having.

                      Because I directly asked you why you picked that name after you claimed race had nothing to do with your point and you said “political capital”. It’s just round and round in circles with you. You have to be the most tiresome poster on this site, hands down.

                    17. “You have to be the most tiresome poster on this site, hands down.”

                      Back at ya.

                    18. Back at ya

                      How can you shoot it back at me if it I didn’t shoot it at you to begin with? Hows that for tiresome?

                    19. You think you argue against the points people make, but you’re just constantly moving goal posts.

                      I can’t find one single spot where I made claims about riots leading to reforms. The only moving goal posts I see are from Irish and her little helper.

                      I never said drug laws were racist, and I never said racism was a reason they should be changed, not even on a disparate impact basis.

                      Yet you made arguments about disparaties in enforcement between whites and blacks and disproportionate affectation of said laws. The racism angle was implied, but you can go ahead and claim I just fabricated that line of debate. That’s the kind of shit you usually do; Strawman and then project, rinse and repeat.

                    20. I can’t find one single spot where I made claims about riots leading to reforms. The only moving goal posts I see are from Irish and her little helper.

                      I asked whether you actually disagreed with the widely held theory that white people hold more political power in this country than black people. You turned that into me claiming drug laws should be repealed because they are racist, which I never did.

                      Yet you made arguments about disparaties in enforcement between whites and blacks and disproportionate affectation of said laws.

                      I made an observation that there was disproportionate enforcement.

                      The racism angle was implied, but you can go ahead and claim I just fabricated that line of debate. That’s the kind of shit you usually do; Strawman and then project, rinse and repeat.

                      I made no claims about whether that lack of proportion had anything at all to do with racism, as it’s 100% beside the point of whether more enforcement in middle-class white communities would lead to political pressure against the laws.

                      And this is the kind of shit you usually do. Fail or pretend to fail to understand what someone else is saying, and try to belittle your interlocutors.

                    21. I asked whether you actually disagreed with the widely held theory that white people hold more political power in this country than black people.

                      You asked no such thing. You asked:

                      Do you think people are wrong when they suggest that if middle-class white people were as affected by the war on drugs as inner-city black people, it might be waged differently–or not at all?

                      No where near as direct of a question as you claim.

                      I made an observation that there was disproportionate enforcement.

                      The aforementioned question was not, categorically, an observation.

                      As usual Nikki, you’ve been a total waste of time.

                    22. Um, way to not quote this part:

                      Are you seriously going to try to continue arguing that when the state directs its oppression at minorities, that oppression doesn’t go on for longer than when the state directs it toward the majority?

                      That does not seem different from:

                      I asked whether you actually disagreed with the widely held theory that white people hold more political power in this country than black people.

                    23. Yeah you got me, I quoted the part of the post that I had directly responded to previously. Totally selective on my part. Your just full of great observations!

                    24. Armies of SJWs and greivance monger roaming the land, waging their culture war to great success in public opinion.

                      Great success in public opinion that has had virtually no impact on the popularity of cops.

                      And yet, the consensus in academia and the media is that the riots happened because blacks are so helpless in the face white male oppression that dominates the land. And actual systemic problems with police and statutory law are swept right under the rug.

                      The media and academia can say whatever the fuck they want, but there are compelling studies which show that riots actually make Americans more conservative.

                      Brown getting shot does not in any way validate the premise that blacks “don’t get what they want”.

                      Didn’t say it did, so I don’t know what you’re trying to tell me.

                    25. but there are compelling studies which show that riots actually make Americans more conservative.

                      So fucking what? Post all the links you want. I never argued that riots change the system or will make cops play more nicely. I said that cops shooting a black guy makes for more sensational news coverage than cops shooting a white guy. Lay off the damn strawman arguments every now and then.

                    26. Well then your argument now is dumb because it has nothing to do with what we were talking about.

                      This conversation started because I pointed out that the author of the post you linked was right when she said that white people being upset about something were more likely to get it CHANGED. Somewhere along the line you moved the goalposts so now we’re talking about what the media chooses to discuss. But what the media talks about and what actually changes are two different things.

                      Therefore, what you’re arguing about now has nothing whatsoever do do with what this argument is actually about.

                    27. Well then your argument now is dumb because it has nothing to do with what we were talking about.

                      You are the one who deviated from what we were talking about and strawmanned the shit out of this thread to begin with.

                      This conversation started because I pointed out that the author of the post you linked was right when she said that white people being upset about something were more likely to get it CHANGED. Somewhere along the line you moved the goalposts so now we’re talking about what the media chooses to discuss. But what the media talks about and what actually changes are two different things.

                      Look at what I actually quoted from the damn article. I never changed what I was talking about until I foolishly responded to your strawman arguments without even realizing that, at first, that’s what you were doing well into this exchange.

                      The text I quoted and subject I brought up are what YOU deviated from. I was exclusively making arguments about about media coverage and perceptions of injustice before you started moving goal posts.

                    28. I’ll looked all over this thread to see where in the world I give you some indication that riots will amount to reform or whatever. It’s not there. The relevant points of the article that I brought up don’t offer any indicator there either. So why the fuck you decided to change the terms I don’t know, but that’s on you.

                  3. “If middle class white dudes care about something, it’s more likely to change than if poor black people care about it.”

                    Like Obamacare ?

                2. “one-legged Mexican ass hookers”

                  Go on.

                    1. Nikki: “Are you seriously going to try to continue arguing that when the state directs its oppression at minorities, that oppression doesn’t go on for longer than when the state directs it toward the majority?”

                      A baseline problem. What’s the appropriate level of repression of blacks, what’s the appropriate level of repression of whites? It’s quite possible that the law (welfare, police, etc.) provides more goods (welfare) and less bads (police repression) to blacks than the appropriate level. The same goes for whites. Where’s the greater discrepancy?

                      It’s plausible that a group oppresses (i.e. inflicting a certain degree of disadvantage) the majority of its members. There are two essential elements, information and morality. This also explains how tyrants can rule (disruption of information, deception, morality). Try to come up with an oppression saldo. The majority does transfer recources to minorities (welfare) does it transfer more than it extricates? If so, something gives the minority power over the majority. Morality. Instead of “giving” itself these resources, the majority gives them to the minority. That means a greater concern for the minority than for itself (in respect to these resources). (Marginal utility left for discussion.) This is preferential treatment of the minority by the majority.

                    2. That was an impressive display of verbal diarrhea.

                    3. Whatever it was, it’s more impressive how few words it takes you to look stupid, Phil.

          2. and transgendereds never thought it was happening to anyone else until it happened to them

        2. Look, I get the being white doesn’t entitle me to special privileges (unless I’m applying for admission to a traditionally-black university).

          Restaurants treat you the same as a customer of another race.

          Even Cracker Barrel has stopped giving white-privilege discounts.*

          Cops no longer say, “Oh, you’re *white,* my mistake, I’m sure you’re sober enough to drive, go on your way!”

          So isn’t it about time that whiteness in and of itself stops being an insult or a punch-line?

          It hasn’t gotten to the point of being oppressive, but it *has* gotten to the point of being annoying. So why not stop it now before it grows into something nastier?

          *Note to their lawyers: Lighten up, I’m kidding.

        3. Over the course of three years and some dozen odd flights, I noticed a pattern in my treatment by the TSA. I am a white male, and at the time had long hair. I began to notice that if I had my hair pulled back nothing happened and I went through with not friction, but every time i had my hair down I would get pulled for “additional screening” this happened about 4 times. I was never once pulled for additional screening with my hair pulled back.

          I have had short hair for the last few years, and have never been pulled for additional screening in that time. WTF?

          1. profiling!

      2. It will just somehow make things worse for the rest of us.

      3. Tom Ridge was the first director of DHS and he was also Director when the body scanners were made mandatory. One particular brand of scanners was voted on to be the only one approved for use and purchase.

        By sheer coincidence he is also an executive and partner in TechRadium Inc which builds those very scanners chosen to be the ones the government approved for purchase at that time. I don’t know if that has changed or not since then.

        So yes, they are accomplishing their primary task which was to make Tom Ridge and associates very wealthy.

        Our system is so fucking crooked I don’t see how it can last much longer. When the Sec of State is an open crook, in my humble opinion) who openly takes bribes to approve pipelines and increase levels of arms purchases to certain countries and isn’t even being investigated for it makes me believe we have jumped the shark. African despots could take lessons from our modern day leaders.

    3. Yes, transgenders have historically enjoyed positions of power and privilege. What the fuck are you smoking?

      1. An indignity inflicted on a member of a minority group is far more of a travesty than an indignity inflicted on someone in the majority. I don’t make the rules, I just do my best to ignore them.

        1. Yes, we should totally treat people as individuals and be equally outraged at an individual instance of an “indignity,” no matter who is being violated. However, when you take stock of the context and an overall trend, you can make certain observations about certain groups of people being treated differently. This does not imply a need for special privileges or positive rights for that group, but it does suggest an increased awareness.

          1. I don’t disagree with anything you just said. I was simply stating the current narrative as defined by our betters.

          2. and be equally outraged at an individual instance of an “indignity,” no matter who is being violated.

            That’s why White Lives Matter got to be such an influential organization after that white guy got murdered by police.

    4. People immediately assume it’s about them when mostly it’s about the TSA.

      “My penis should processed like anybody else who has a penis.”

      Well, most anybody else who has a penis looks like a dude. You are confusing them, and them blaming them for being confused. (Not that they aren’t confused enough already.)

      Privatize the TSA, and ban unions.

  2. Is that a gun?

    1. +1 cucumber wrapped in foil

      1. Spinal Tap!

          1. DISCIPLINE’S MY MIDDLE NAME

            1. My amp goes up to ELEVEN.

              And I have it on good authority that your Stonehenge is only 6 inches.

                1. +1 bizarre gardening accident (best left unsolved)

                2. Nice.

                  When looking up a relevant quote from the movie with which to respond to you, FdA, I found a reference mentioning the name Lucy, which seems to have resonance here at Reason:

                  “Marty DiBergi: Now, during the Flower People period, who was your drummer?
                  David St. Hubbins: Stumpy’s replacement, Peter James Bond. He also died in mysterious circumstances. We were playing a, uh…
                  Nigel Tufnel: …Festival.
                  David St. Hubbins: Jazz blues festival. Where was that?
                  Nigel Tufnel: Blues jazz, really.
                  Derek Smalls: Blues jazz festival. Misnamed.
                  Nigel Tufnel: It was in the Isle of, uh…
                  David St. Hubbins: Isle of Lucy . The Isle of Lucy jazz and blues festival.
                  Nigel Tufnel: And, uh, it was tragic, really. He exploded on stage.”

  3. Someone from a special class got treated like everyone else? The horror.

    1. Yes, it is pretty horrible how the TSA treats us.

      1. On that, we can all agree, ne?

  4. She should inform them she is trans before she gets in the machine.

    1. Everyone should inform the TSA of their gender before they get in the machine.

      1. Male-presenting cistrans dragonkin.

      2. Actually, that gives me an idea for a new movement: Everybody Dress Like a Furry to Fly!

        1. You…don’t already do this?

          1. The rare times i get on a plane, i wear a translucent spandex bodysuit. Nobody’s ever had to question MY gender.

            1. So…skoliosexual?

              1. No, my chiropractor fixed all those 90 degree bends.

            2. just because you have a pecker doesn’t make you a guy. biology doesn’t matter anymore, you could feel like a woman

          2. Here’s the problem. I dress up as my favorite furry (a flying monkey from the Wizard of Oz) then I get to the waiting area. Inevitably someone makes a crack about how I’m a flying monkey and I’m waiting for a plane. They call me lazy. At that point someone realizes that a lazy monkey joke has been made and it is off to the racist re-education camp for the lot of us.

            1. So YOU’RE the reason i missed my connection that one time.

              1. If I recall correctly, it wasn’t until someone shouted Play that funky music – no wait….
                If I recall correctly, it wasn’t until someone shouted Laugh while you can, Monkey Boy! that the real trouble started.

        2. If you dress like a furry you in fact become a furry. There is no pretending. It just is.

          1. The guy in the dog costume in The Shining has a lot to answer for.

      3. “Are you classified as human?”

        “Negative, I am a meat popsicle.”

      4. “Hello, my name is Hugh and I’m a genderqueer hermaphrodite. Nice to meet you. Can I get a pat-down instead of the machine now? Any agent will do.”

        1. THE COLDER THE HANDS THE BETTER

          1. I like it when they’re really rough.

            1. Make ’em stick their hands in a bucket of formaldehyde first.

        2. They put me behind a sheet like the doctors used to do with lady patients and make the TSA agent guess.

          1. What’s the prize if they’re right?

            1. No one has ever been right, Nicole. NO ONE.

              1. When you stare into the abyss, Hugh’s genitalia stare back.

                1. The worst part is that I never win the staring contest because my genitals always blink first.

                  1. The words “squamous” and “rugose” get thrown around a lot…

                    1. Wow. Those are both real words. My forehead is now rugose.

                    2. +1 HPL

  5. I thought they’d decided to ditch the body scanners because they couldn’t detect certain types of bombs. Then again, the government never ends anything for the silly reason that it doesn’t work.

    1. You mean by putting shit in a side pocket? You think that is so easy?
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olEoc_1ZkfA

      1. That, plus the body scanners wouldn’t have stopped the underwear bomber. And there’s still no way to tell if someone has inserted a bomb into their body. I hate to mention that final one because I fear the next step will be full-on cavity searches.

        1. “I hate to mention that final one because I fear the next step will be full-on cavity searches.”

          I heard that you only get those if you ask politely for them.

          I think someone else’s mother told me that.

        2. I hate to mention that final one because I fear the next step will be full-on cavity searches.

          But not for anyone who might be likely to actually have such a bomb.

          1. I remember right after the naked body scanners debuted some Leftist made the argument that Muslims should not be forced to go through them because they are too proud and modest to be subjected to the indignity of strangers seeing them naked. I shit you not…

      2. “Side pocket” is a pretty funny euphemism for rectum.

    2. Bombs? Those things are supposed to detect money for the George Bush Christianofascist Asset Forfeiture fund to nationalize for GOP election subsidies.

  6. Furthermore, the screening technology used for scanning bodies passing through the airport has no real mechanism for recognizing the biology of transgender travelers, prompting confusion to trigger completely unfounded security fears.

    Wrong. The rapescan machine does recognize the biology of the person in it; it does not however recognize their delusions about their gender.

    1. Wow! A physicist, a biologist and a psychiatrist all in one! I can tell you know everything about everything!

      1. Wow! You are so smart and present such a cogent, well-thought-out argument! I’m convinced!

        1. If only she’d gotten her psych degree from Armchair U like you did, huh?

          1. Football scholarships are the best way to get a psych degree.

          2. Psychology aside, he’s not necessarily wrong about the biological component.

            Unless they’ve had full reassignment surgery, or we’re able to change our dna now. (If we are, I want to be a were-lion. Or have superpowers.)

            1. That rather depends on whether she’s undergone any hormone replacement therapy.

              They think that I should be processed as male, but I also have grown breasts. They’re telling the transgender community that they’re going to be flagged no matter what. ?

              which it sounds like she has if she’s got breasts. Depending on the length of time she’s been on HRT there are other physiological changes at play that would confound easy classification.

              1. What, you expect me to read the article?

                1. What? This place is the anti-Playboy, nobody reads it for the articles.

              2. which it sounds like she has if she’s got breasts

                So does Chuck Schumer- Would you be shocked to see a penis?

    2. In fact it doesn’t know anything about biology. No more than a camera. Body shapes are not biology.

  7. You identify as female? Then have a female search your balls. It’s their job. They can quit. You can’t quit the theater if you want to fly.

  8. “We need a system where they’re not guessing what genitals they have just by looking at them, because they’re not going to be right all the time,”

    I got news for you: no system is every going to be right all the time.

    The solution isn’t a new system, the solution is to get rid of this shit entirely and make the airlines responsible for their passenger’s safety as well as the people and property they fly over.

    If the airlines and their passengers can’t deal with the liability costs of air travel, let them go bankrupt and find another mode of travel they’re willing to pay for.

    In other words: fuck the airlines and the passengers for demanding subsides.

  9. In addition, Petosky says she was told her hands tested positive for “explosives” residue twice.

    Who tests the testers’ hands?

    1. Yeah. I reload a lot. I am sure my clothes and skin would test positive on any given day.

      I don’t fly.

    2. If you ever get a patdown, you need to watch and verify with your own eyes that the TSA agent has taken a new pair of gloves out of a box before beginning the patdown. I have gone through hell because I got a positive result and all it took was a new pair of gloves to get a negative one. Well, a new pair of gloves, some time in a room by myself, and a supervisor. Not recommended.

      1. Nicole fails to mention the bag of weed she had stored in her vajayjay.

        1. I don’t know what you’re smoking, but if it’s covered in explosive residue…you might want to get that checked out.

          1. It’s admittedly pretty strong stuff.

            1. When they say, “it’s a blast!”, they aren’t just using a trite turn-of-phrase.

  10. …a TSA spokesperson put out a statement the following morning declaring that the “officers followed TSA’s strict guidelines.”

    That should be the end of the scrutiny. Once it is determined a functionary acted within internal policies, that’s it. There’s nothing more to say.

    1. “Once something has been approved by the government, it’s no longer immoral.”

  11. I used to hang with Shad ‘s crew. Holy fuck – I’m kinda shocked.

  12. “…is her penis.”

    Curse of the Ancients.

    1. I am DEFINITELY calling my penis that from now on.

  13. And then the employee declared there was an “anomaly,” which Petosky bluntly explains to Reason, is her penis.

    *tilts head sideways, squints at text*

    Words… not go together… like that

    1. yeah, there’s an anomaly here

  14. “…which Petosky bluntly explains to Reason, is her penis.”

    Uh, no. Only he’s have penises. It is kind of what defines one as a he.

    1. Hmm…tell that to NutraSweet’s mom.

      1. True. She had a hard time determining what you are. She settled only on “sickening.”

        1. Hey, that’s better than I would have guessed! Thanks!

        2. SF, are you quoting her directly? Or did you mom say Epi made her gag?

          1. Her direct quote was “Bllargggf horkkkkk aaaagh!”

            1. One would think you’d have learned by now not to interrupt her when she’s “working.”

              1. you misspelled “flossing”

                1. Hey, if you’re into that.

      2. At what point did you realize it wasn’t a strap on?

        1. Two be fair, at least two of them WERE strap ons.

        2. Oh…I always knew, deep down. And then I *really* knew…deep down.

    2. Even if you think this is just a perverted dude running around in women’s clothes…I mean, there’s no excuse for the TSA to treat anyone the way it does.

      1. I agree. Why should the transgender folk get special treatment. Everyone thinks their flavor of TSA shit sandwich is worse than the next guy’s/gal’s. JUST EAT IT LIKE EVERYONE ELSE.

    3. It is kind of what defines one as a he.

      Serious question, then…if a dude gets his penis chopped off, say in an automobile accident, then he becomes a chick?

      1. Only if he feels like a chick

        1. Only if he feels like a chick

          But what if he feels like a nut?

          1. Does he still have them?

          2. He has sex with a Mounds Bar.

          3. Almond Joy, dude.

              1. Leave Michael Moore out of this. And out of all other discussions of sexual issues in general.

          4. Sometimes you feel like a nut, and sometimes you don’t.

            1. This is why you are such a fan of autobukkake.

          5. Which feeling came first?

          6. No video? I had to Google the reference on the YouTube! /Millenial

            1. I also found this, which made it all worth it
              http://i.imgur.com/oF3PO.jpg

      2. Not unless that accident somehow inverts the penis.

      3. Well, he still has the XY chromosome thing going on, so no.

      4. “…a dude gets his penis chopped off, say in an automobile accident…”

        That doesn’t happen much anymore because bench seats have been phased out. All cars now have those damned bucket seats with a console between them.

        1. The bucket seats are not the issue here!

          1. True. It’s the damned console that digs in her ribs.

            1. Some cars are significantly better than others in that respect. And that’s why they should be treasured.

  15. Similar topic:

    Mom captures emotional and life-changing moment her transgender daughter, 14, is surprised with hormone therapy drugs after waiting for more than TWO YEARSk

    After researching therapists who work with transgender children, Erica was sent five hours away from their home to the gender clinic at Lurie Children’s Hospital in Chicago.

    Corey was soon given a $21,000 puberty-suppressing implant that was fully covered by their insurance.

    Their therapist and the hospital’s medical team agreed that Corey could star hormone therapy in August when she turned 14, but the family still had to wait for the therapist to send a ‘readyness letter’.

    On the day she filmed the video, Erica said she received a phone call from the pharmacy telling her that Corey’s estrogen was ready to be picked up, and the ecstatic mom immediately began thinking of ways to tell her daughter that the moment she had been waiting nearly three years for was finally here.

    1. Everyone involved that the sick experiments on that child should be burnt alive.

      1. Just breathe into a paper bag until your respiratory rate returns to normal, tough guy.

    2. Corey was soon given a $21,000 puberty-suppressing implant that was fully covered by their insurance.

      Can we stop calling it “insurance” now?

      1. I agree, but that ship has sailed. “Extended warranty and technical support” is simply not pithy enough.

      2. “Redistribution of my premiums” would be better.

  16. I for one support the government’s efforts to reveal and revile self-mutilators.

    1. Well she hasn’t actually had the surgery yet, that’s kind of the whole situation in the article.

    2. I for one support the government’s efforts to reveal and revile self-mutilators.

      Okay, let’s assume for a moment transsexuals are just delusional. Why do I care? What impact does this have upon me?

      If the people freaking out about trannies can answer me that question, then maybe I’ll get why people are so obsessed with this.

      1. You see, Irish, when a man and a woman love each other very much…

        And then when the man finds out the woman is “actually” a “man,” he might have to kill her.

        1. And then when the man finds out the woman is “actually” a “man,” he might have to kill her.

          WHO TOLD YOU OF MY GREATEST SHAME.

          I mean, who would kill a transsexual and theoretically bury her in his mother’s garden just because it turned out she was born a man?

          Not I.

          Not. I.

          1. That would not be like you – I’m sure you’re more a crawlspace kinda guy.

        2. Look at it this way Nikki… If you had no self-esteem whatsoever and let Episiarch pick you up in a bar, and you went back to your place and he revealed the crawling, mewling horror of his genitals, wouldn’t you be upset?

          1. Now I’m imagining a blind date with Wilbur Whately. Ick.

          2. Hey man, shoggothosexuals need love too.

            1. Yeah! Thanks, X!

              (you can come by later, I’ll leave the back door unlocked)

              1. Sorry, i’m married. I’ll send Hugh over instead. You’ll like him, he has that certain Innsmouth look.

                1. Nicely done, Sir.

                  It still surprises me how many of the commentators here are steeped in Lovecraft.

                  /Intentional.

              2. I’ll leave the back door unlocked

                I bet you say that to all the girls guys whatever…

          1. I just watched that movie for the first time a few weeks ago because I was tired of not getting the references to it. Now I just have to brush up on my 70’s candy commercials

      2. Haters gonna hate.

      3. What impact does this have upon me?

        Corey was soon given a $21,000 puberty-suppressing implant that was fully covered by their insurance.

      4. “What impact does this have upon me?”

        “Corey was soon given a $21,000 puberty-suppressing implant that was fully covered by their insurance.”

      5. Seriously. The SJW bullying about pronouns is really annoying, but I don’t get the anger about people wanting to define themselves as they wish (even if you think they are delusional).

      1. Hamster,

        Scanning that reminded me of some of Joseph Campbell’s descriptions regarding other cultures.

    3. Got any tattoos or piercings?

  17. She didn’t want to make a female TSA employee have to touch her genitals.

    The claim that Anna isn’t male just became a little more credible.

    1. Shadi, not Anna.

      I always get those two names mixed up.

  18. That’s why I always opt out for the full body patdown. Plus, if I’m saving up a juicy fart, I basically have a moment when I can let it go.

  19. Ironically, the TSA seems to have the labor market cornered on androgynous “Pats,” at least in my experience.

  20. Will the real Slim Shadi please stand up?

    /TSA

  21. Can a male-male ask for a female-female TSA agent to pat his genitals?

    1. They must be cuter at your airport. Lucky.

    2. Have you seen the typical female TSA agent? Crusty would, but i wouldn’t.

      1. “I needs ta check ya asshole!”

        1. And then she doesn’t even stop chewing her Nicorette during the cavity search.

  22. OT:

    Too many people claiming free speech is bad M’kay

    http://twitter.com/Reyeko_/sta…..1712700416

    In totally unrelated news no one trusts the news:

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.co…..-time-low/

    1. the ensuing evisceration warms my soul.

  23. Petosky says.”… I don’t see myself as an anomaly”

    But you ARE an anomoly. That’s what being ‘trans’ IS. It’s a fucking defect. You’re claiming that your entire body came out wrong.

    You’re an outlier, a freak, an abberration. You’re a special circumstance–because 99.9% of people aren’t like you.

    The entire world is not supposed to bend and adapt so that you go through your life without a bump. The world cannot be run as if the norm is bepenised wonem and vaginaed men and random assemblages of verbiage-as-gender are the standard.

    Because they’re not.

    1. The entire world is not supposed to bend and adapt so that you go through your life without a bump. The world cannot be run as if the norm is bepenised wonem and vaginaed men and random assemblages of verbiage-as-gender are the standard.

      Because they’re not.

      What does that have to do with her being mistreated by the TSA? This situation should never have occurred in the first place because the TSA shouldn’t exist.

      The world can function just fine without everybody knowing what genitals and/or chromosomes people have.

      1. +1 “Who died and made you Genital Monitor Supreme?”*

        * Every former hall monitor’s goal career.

        1. Genital Monitor Supreme

          Excellent nom du comment.

      2. The world can function just fine without everybody knowing what genitals and/or chromosomes people have.

        This should be the obvious takeaway from this story.

        1. Of course! But where’s the outrage? And there’s no target! We must have a target!

    2. I don’t see how you could not call it a mental disorder, developmental defect or whatever. Calling it “normal” basically means there is no such thing as normal.

      1. “Abnormal” is not just another way to say “wrong”, and normal is not something to which we must all aspire.

      2. Ding ding ding!!!!!!! This is the goal of all progressives. Then they can finally achieve their dream of normalizing pedophillia.

        1. I would so love for you to show me some sort of evidence that the average prog wants to normalize pedophilia.

          And don’t point to the one article published in Salon last week since pretty much everyone shit on it from across the political spectrum.

          You know, when people go bugfuck crazy on the subject of progressives supposedly wanting all our kids to be raped by pedo-gangs, it makes me angry because then I have to defend them.

          1. California Senator Mark Leno introduced legislation in the past that would have greatly increased the amount of child pornography a person is allowed to possess before they can be charged with a crime. He felt that so long as someone didn’t have any more than 24 DVDs (original law allowed for 100) full of pedophilia, it’s all good. The legislation was defeated, but the fact he was confident enough to introduce it and stand by it speaks volumes. I hope you’re right that there will never be a push to normalize pedophilia, but there are people on the Left who are trying.

            1. There are libertarian arguments against criminalizing mere possession of child pornography (versus manufacture) or at least questioning the current statutory punishments.

              Making either of those arguments is in no way pushing to “normalize pedophilia.”

              1. I’m aware of the opinion that mere possession is essentially a victimless crime, but Mark Leno is the polar opposite of a Libertarian on every issue. He clearly had other motives for decriminalizing this offense. But it’s a foot in the door, and Progressives are never happy until they’ve pushed an issue to absurd extremes. He got a lot of blowback when he attempted this, so maybe that sent a message. We’ll see.

      3. There isn’t. What makes you think there is? Evolution is not static.

        1. What the holy fuck?

          Evolution doesn’t, in any way, define normalcy. Statistics, physics, and physiology do.

          Evolution is a theory about a process/processes. Saying it defines normalcy is like saying normality can’t exist without an assembly line. At best evolution describes how organisms change in varying norms (but explicitly doesn’t define or predetermine them).

          1. Um, I was responding to this.

            “Calling it “normal” basically means there is no such thing as normal.”

            Change anything in your mind?

            1. Well it’s not normal. What proportion of any society are transgender do you think?

              1. Why do you think the definition of normal is based on percentages? You could just well say that it is normal because transgenders normally arise in the population at predictable rate.

                1. Why do you think the definition of normal is based on percentages? You could just well say that it is normal because transgenders normally arise in the population at predictable rate.

                  I imagine that you can expect a certain percentage of the population to be born without legs, i.e. a normal rate of that birth defect taking place, but you could reasonably say such births are not “normal”, no?

                2. First of all, the rate is normal, not the state exactly. Car accidents (even intentional ones) occur at a normal rate, that doesn’t de facto make them normal.

                  Second of all, this isn’t my point. Evolution doesn’t (even really attempt to) define normality in any way to begin with one way or the other. Sapient Mulch may as well have said ‘Virology is not static.’ or ‘Thermodynamics is not static.’

                  Sure, thermodynamics *and* evolution aren’t static, what has that got to do with normality or gender dysmorphia?

                  1. We’re really getting into the weeds here. Especially with Sapient’s far flung analogies to complex natural systems and processes. Him telling you that evolution is not static is the functional equivalent of him telling you that circles are not square. We can take that fact for granted, I don’t know what he thinks that point proves.

            2. Change anything in your mind?

              Nope.

              If he said “Calling it purple means there’s no such thing as purple.” and you replied, “What makes you think there’s such a thing as purple? Evolution is not static.”

              I’d still think you were crazy and torturing logic to fit a conclusion and, arguably, purple is even more vague an abstraction. The thinking is so wrong on so many levels it’s like trying to define God using rational thought. Some (dated) conceptions of evolution is/are that it is a movement to an equilibrium. However, those models are irrelevant because evolution is not self-conscious or directing. Moreover, the particular transgender phenomenon has little/no indication of being any sort of evolutionary phenomenon one way or the other.

              1. Apparently, you think that you can define or quantify what is “normal” in evolution, which requires the assumption that evolution is static, or at least experiences no mutation. No known system in the universe is static, but if that’s what you choose to believe, I’m done with you.

                1. Apparently, you think that you can define or quantify what is “normal” in evolution, which requires the assumption that evolution is static, or at least experiences no mutation.

                  ummmmm what? Saying that something is “normal” in context of evolution does not in any way indicate that “evolution is static” or that mutation doesn’t take place. It’s drawing a distinction between things that commonly happen in evolutionary processes and things that are more rare happenings.

                2. Apparently, you think that you can define or quantify what is “normal” in evolution, which requires the assumption that evolution is static, or at least experiences no mutation.

                  You brought evolution into this, not me. I don’t think it defines normal one way or the other, that’s pretty concisely my point (and I’m pretty sure we share that view). The problem is, you use that as justification, out of the blue for your side of the argument. When in reality, we both know that even if you and I arrived at a definition of normal tomorrow there’s not even the suggestion that it has any bearing on evolution (or vice versa) in any way whatsoever. And that’s the part that gets me, you mention evolution as though transgender were the next step or somehow relevantly related to the evolutionary process.

                  As I said, if Free Society had said, “Building cars without an assembly line is not normal!” Even if I were 100% convinced the statement wrong (as I think that statement may be), Evolution has no bearing on the situation one way or the other. Like invoking a specter to lend legitimacy to your stance.

                  1. As I said, if Free Society had said, “Building cars without an assembly line is not normal!” Even if I were 100% convinced the statement wrong (as I think that statement may be),

                    Well I hate to agree with my hypothetically disagreeable self, but wouldn’t building a car without an assembly line be abnormal? What proportion of cars on the road were built without an assembly line? If you have such a car, I would be surprised precisely because it’s not normal.

                  2. ” I don’t think it defines normal one way or the other, that’s pretty concisely my point (and I’m pretty sure we share that view).”

                    Alright, yes, I do agree. My point was that we have no way of identifying what “normal” in evolution is. Here is the original sequence of comments:

                    FS: “Calling it “normal” basically means there is no such thing as normal.”
                    SM: “There isn’t. What makes you think there is? Evolution is not static.”

                    Okay? No such thing as normal.

                    “And that’s the part that gets me, you mention evolution as though transgender were the next step or somehow relevantly related to the evolutionary process.”

                    No. Just no. I brought up evolution as an example of a system that was so dynamic, we have no way of defining what is considered “normal” until sometimes after the fact. It would have been the same as asking an astrophysicist, “What is a normal star?”. No way to answer that question without so many conditions as to make the answer meaningless.

                    1. How you twisted that into trans people being the next evolutionary step and that being what I was proposing, I have no idea. I think trans people have been around forever. The same as everyone else. Different cultures have been more ruthless in weeding out non-conformance is all.

                      “As I said, if Free Society had said, “Building cars without an assembly line is not normal!”

                      And here is the crux of the matter. What makes either one of you think you can define normal when you can’t even know the range of the characteristics, the population, or the variables? Do you know anything of statistics or population distributions?

    3. “You’re an outlier, a freak, an abberration. You’re a special circumstance–because 99.9% of people aren’t like you.”

      John?

      Cheese and fucking rice, another one. It must be really rough for assholes like you to go through life with so much variation around you, a total lack of conformity to the rules as you see them.

      “The world cannot be run as if the norm is bepenised wonem and vaginaed men and random assemblages of verbiage-as-gender are the standard.”

      Why not? Because you say so? Fuck off.

      1. Plus I still haven’t gotten an answer to my question! Even if transgenderism is just delusion, in no way does it harm me or anyone around me, so why the fuck do people hurl such vitriol at transgendered people?

        Hell, it’s especially ridiculous if you seriously think it’s a mental disorder. If someone were schizophrenic, would you say ‘Man, you are such a stupid schizo cunt’ or would you be more tactful? The fact that people behave so rudely to transgendered people pretty much proves they don’t think it’s a delusion since what other delusion gets treated to that kind of anger?

        1. They don’t.

          People are rude to everyone. Only transgendered people think it’s about being transgender.

          1. People are rude to everyone. Only transgendered people think it’s about being transgender.

            When people in this very thread are being rude specifically because other people are transgendered, you might want to reassess this argument.

            Example:

            But you ARE an anomoly. That’s what being ‘trans’ IS. It’s a fucking defect. You’re claiming that your entire body came out wrong.

            You’re an outlier, a freak, an abberration. You’re a special circumstance–because 99.9% of people aren’t like you.

            So…do you think this had nothing to do with people being transgendered and was just normal rudeness?

            1. I’d say that’s more bluntness than rudeness. Transgender people are rare. “Freak” may be a bit rude, but “aberration”, while essentially meaning the same thing, has fewer rude connotations. “Defect” may or may not be true (I lean toward it being true, but I could be wrong).

              Now, what any of that has to do with the TSA groping people (which should never happen) I don’t get. If we could all drop the group distinctions and just terminate the TSA with a woodchipper, we’d all win.

                1. So, not actually refuting any facts, just picking cities in far away places and guessing that people haven’t been there?

                  1. You’re not well traveled? Color me shocked.

                    1. WHYCOME YOU TO GUD FER AMERICA

                  2. So, not actually refuting any facts, just picking cities in far away places and guessing that people haven’t been there?

                    A sense of humor. Obtain one quickly.

                    1. Nonsense, Heroic. There’s a KULTUR WAR to be fought. And you sound like one of those.

                    2. I forgot. Jokes are gayer than sucking 37 dicks. In a row.

                      My bad.

                2. Was that my High School Geometry teacher walking across in the foreground?

          2. People are rude to everyone. Only transgendered people think it’s about being transgender.

            So true. Being in a victim class means every bad thing that happens to you is because of your class status. Like bad things don’t happen to everyone for all kinds of reasons. Nope, bad things happen only to you because you are a victim. Pfeh.

            When people in this very thread are being rude specifically because other people are transgendered, you might want to reassess this argument.

            Good lord, you see how we treat each other around here. There’s all kinds of pretexts for being rude, including that someone is transgender. But they are just that: pretexts.

        2. I’ve asked that question of many, many people and never gotten an honest answer.

        3. Uh, Irish…my answer was the real answer.

          I mean, isn’t it obvious? Why on earth would anyone care about this if they weren’t constantly thinking about who was a potential future sex partner or not?

          1. I’m just saying, if you want to shoot heroin into your eye socket while getting a blowjob from a transgendered prostitute, it’s none of my business unless you took the heroin form my stash, you goddamn thief.

            1. You didn’t have dibs on that heroin.

              1. If you like your heroin, you can keep your heroin.

        4. You are exactly right. I think it is a delusion and while it can be very harmful to the person suffering it it harms me in no way whatsoever.

          I won’t adjust my behavior or language in order to accommodate someone’s delusion, but the malice people feel towards trannies is certainly not justified.

          I suspect it comes from the same place that hatred towards homosexuals comes from. Trannies and homosexuals make some people feel very uncomfortable about themselves because they sense something in themselves that they don’t like.

        5. I think the rudeness comes from several things.

          1) People don’t like to have their mental categories violated, and male/female are incredibly basic mental categories. Transgenderism “wrong-foots” most people, and often seems creepy. I’ve lived in SF for a long time, but bearded guys in dresses still cause me to cringe a bit. It’s hard to get rid of the “ick” factor.

          2) Now that transgenderism is the new Civil (Rights) War, it’s gone from “Just leave me alone” to “You must all change the way you think and speak about people like me, and make whatever accommodations for us that we decide are needed.”

          The combination of those two things often produces a “Oh yeah? Fuck you!” reaction.

          1. Ding. Ding.

            Papaya’s number 2 shows how victim classes generate their own backlash. By being assholes.

            Our society has gone from one where “do your own thing” and “mind your own business” are no longer hallmarks of tolerance, but of hate. So, if I want to mind my own business and let you do your own thing, I am now liable to be attacked as a bigot and hater.

            Guess what happens when you come at me, bro?

            1. I’m trans and for the record, I absolutely want no part of that shit and no one I know does either.

              Interestingly enough, we get a lot of “help” from supposed “allies”, who like typical progressives give you what they think you need, not what you actually want. So many of us get caught up in the general backlash when anyone claims to speak for the group. Just as what happens to the public perception of libertarians when some statist calls us dangerous.

              1. I’ve had many gay friends and co-workers for a long time, and something similar happens with gay rights (and in other areas): the people who make the most noise get the most attention, and a lot of people who are generally allies roll their eyes.

                1. In essence then, the squeaky wheel gets the lube …

              2. So many of us get caught up in the general backlash when anyone claims to speak for the group.

                Yeah, I know. That’s gotta suck.

                Fortunately, I learned long ago to compartmentalize politics, so I really don’t think I allow my annoyance at the activists to slop over on the people they claim to represent. Hell, I’ve even had civil conversations with activists, as long as they keep their ideology to themselves.

            2. Pro-tip: Using “come at me, bro” even ironically is like wearing a nametag that says

              “Hello My Name Is
              DOUCHEBAG”

              I would hate for you to be accidentally telling everyone that you’re a douchebag.

              1. You mean we’re not all douchebags?

                But that’s what my libertarian commenter monthly said!

                1. Well of course. But it’s one thing to BE a douchebag and another to get “I’m a douchebag” embroidered on a mesh-backed trucker hat or wear a “Keep Calm and Chive On” shirt.

                  1. Tribal armband tattoo peeping out of the sleeve of an Ed Hardy t-shirt.

                  2. *quietly closes chive and backs away from his computer.*

                    1. DesigNate has on a backwards baseball cap, and when he turns it around, it’s still backwards.

                    2. Are you saying he’s this guy?

                    3. Add a beard and basically

                      (Not really though. Except the beard part.)

                    4. A beard, eh?

                      Go on…

              2. I would hate for you to be accidentally telling everyone that you’re a douchebag.

                Accidentally?

          2. Now that transgenderism is the new Civil (Rights) War, it’s gone from “Just leave me alone” to “You must all change the way you think and speak about people like me, and make whatever accommodations for us that we decide are needed.”

            I think Petosky’s experience clearly demonstrates the former. There is no need for TSA apes to be ogling my genitals – period.

        6. How is it not a mental disorder? Seems like a species of dysphoria. I mean there are people who have an overwhelming urge to have their legs amputated because they “feel disabled on the inside”. Both cases sounds like something that could be described as a disorder. I’m sorry that you feel it’s so rude for a person to think it may just be some sort of aberration.

          1. Just as with homosexuality over the years, transgenderism, as it is studied more, has been moved out of the disorder column in the DSM and is now not even considered a dysphoria unless it chronically and negatively impacts an individual’s life.

            The current treatment regime most accepted in the world is the WPATH standards of care which call for evaluation and transition to the point at which dysphoria is manageable.

            1. chronically and negatively impacts an individual’s life.

              How many transgenders and their advocates will tell you how this non-disorder has negatively affected their lives? 1 percent? Maybe just a tad bit more?

              1. In working with gender dysphoria and people who are seeking transition, most therapists will start by separating existing mental issues from gender issues and then determining if outside influences such as persecution are the cause or simply exacerbating existing mental problems.

                There is a considerable amount of time spent with psychologists and psychiatrists to eliminate comorbidities in order to establish the “truth” of a gender identity and treat it appropriately.

                1. outside influences such as persecution

                  The whole issue of transgenderism is about social perception and interaction. Their dysphoria centers around other people’s perception about their gender identity. Why does a transgender person want to dress and appear like their preferred gender if not for the benefit or attention of others?

                  1. The whole issue of transgenderism is about social perception and interaction. Their dysphoria centers around other people’s perception about their gender identity. Why does a transgender person want to dress and appear like their preferred gender if not for the benefit or attention of others?

                    How have you managed to get this so completely backwards? The dysphoria is centered around their perception of themselves, for fucks sake.

                    1. The dysphoria is centered around their perception of themselves, for fucks sake.

                      If it were purely self-perception, they’d be content to consider themselves a woman and be done with it. The fact that it’s vital to their psyche that they actually present themselves as the opposite gender to other people means that it’s not just about self-perception, they want other people to see them a certain way. “for fucks sake”

                  2. “Their dysphoria centers around other people’s perception about their gender identity.”

                    Exactly wrong. Dysphoria is an internal sense of gender mismatch.

                    1. Gender is social construct, I’m so often told. The “social” part of it implies “other people”, which means there is an outward projection of themselves at stake. If a male tranny has an “internal sense” to wear high heels and lipstick that somehow has nothing to do with their desire for other people perceiving that person as a woman?

                      Why would a transgender female have an urge to act, feel and look like a man if that had nothing to do with other people?

                    2. Would you want to spend all your time dressed as a woman if you never left the house and no one ever saw you looking like that?

                    3. He’d fuck him.

                    4. Would you want to spend all your time dressed as a woman if you never left the house and no one ever saw you looking like that?

                      That’s exactly my point. If an ostensible man thought dressing and presenting himself as a woman were important, how could that possibly have nothing to do with other people? There is a very poignant and inescapable social aspect to being transgender.

                    5. You said:

                      If a male tranny has an “internal sense” to wear high heels and lipstick that somehow has nothing to do with their desire for other people perceiving that person as a woman?

                      Society creates the construct of gender. Society does not actually have to be present for that construct to exist. Society taught it to you and you internalized it. So it you don’t need to desire other people to perceive you as a woman. You want to perceive yourself as one, even if you’re alone.

                    6. “Society creates the construct of gender. Society does not actually have to be present for that construct to exist. Society taught it to you and you internalized it.”

                      Any idea how society managed to construct transsexuals, something it doesn’t want at all?

                    7. Would you want to spend all your time dressed as a woman if you never left the house and no one ever saw you looking like that?

                      Don’t push your ‘leaving your home’ and ‘dressed’ normality on me!

                2. Why are you wasting your time with these slack-jawed fucks, Sapient? The best thing is to just leave them to their small-minded provincialism.

                  WHYCOME AINT THEM FAGGOTS JUST BE NORMAL

                  1. It helps in the long run Warty. Being gay was more widely persecuted until more people knew gay people. I do it to demonstrate that not all trans people are SJW’s. I do it to help counteract all the messes other trans make for me.

                    I do because as the old saying goes, “Some people are like Slinkys. They’re not good for much, but they always bring a smile to my face when I push them down the stairs.”

                    1. I do because as the old saying goes, “Some people are like Slinkys. They’re not good for much, but they always bring a smile to my face when I push them down the stairs.”

                      I like you.

        7. Even if transgenderism is just delusion, in no way does it harm me or anyone around me, so why the fuck do people hurl such vitriol at transgendered people?

          If this were the end of it, there wouldn’t be a problem.

          The issue is what it is; people torturing logic to support their delusion. I don’t support the TSA in their security theater, but that doesn’t automatically mean I support whomever in their gender delusion either.

          The part that really pisses me off, is when people like Sapient Mulch, who actively oppose selective interpretation of facts, start torturing logic to support a delusion that they themselves know to be counterfactual.

          1. What has she said to make you think she knows what she is saying to be counterfactual? I’ve asked her specifically if she thinks she’s literally a woman (or a man? Don’t actually know what transition occurred there) and she’s said no, of course not.

            Transgendered people are aware they’re not literally the gender they transitioned to in a biological sense. Her argument, and the argument I’ve heard from other trannies, is that they want to live as a different gender, think they feel like that gender inside, and want to transition. Who cares?

            There are crazy loudmouth transgendered people that you’re taking as being indicative of all transgendered people, which is just as unfair as assuming all libertarians are Alex Jonesian conspiracy theorists.

            1. Who cares?

              Please show me where Shackford, et al. recommend knocking off the security theater. It doesn’t happen.

              Second, this is the one in a million (700M/yr. * ~10 yrs.) 70 billion case. An outlier by even the most robust definition. Increase it’s frequency 100-fold and it’s still an outlier.

              Third, training and software upgrades. Two ‘kicking the can down the road’ solutions that would otherwise be regarded as intrinsic fallacies or non-solutions around here are given legitimate traction. Between the NSA and the ACA, I doubt the TSA will ever get the software right and, if they do, that we would want them too (Wasn’t the twitter mob up in arms when the thing could see genitalia in the first place? Good thing we didn’t die on that hill!).

              I didn’t put the TSA in place and actively oppose(d) it. The TSA harasses a transgendered person for being transgendered? As long as I’m not literally spewing vitriol on them, what difference does it make if I’m spewing it? Especially since, rather than decreasing government intervention, we’re just calling for it to be more structured and rigorously disciplined.

          2. “The part that really pisses me off, is when people like Sapient Mulch, who actively oppose selective interpretation of facts, start torturing logic to support a delusion that they themselves know to be counterfactual.”

            I guess what I don’t understand is why people such as yourself consider my experience of reality to be delusion. Seriously. If this comes from a place where the only true and valid representation of sanity and reality is that which exists within your mind, EVERYONE else must be delusional.

            I really don’t get the counterfactual part. For ALL intents and purposes, I am a woman. I am remarkably unremarkable and you would be hard pressed to identify me as trans. So what is your issue?

            1. If this comes from a place where the only true and valid representation of sanity and reality is that which exists within your mind, EVERYONE else must be delusional.

              See, you’re forcing them to confront the problem of other minds again.

              1. I’m an ass like that.

              2. There are no other minds, Nikki. You of all people should know that. Except you can’t know that. Since you don’t exist. Whatever. Show me your tits.

                1. SPRING BREAK WOO

                  1. That’s the last time I’m going to see them for awhile.

            2. I really don’t get the counterfactual part. For ALL intents and purposes, I am a woman. I am remarkably unremarkable and you would be hard pressed to identify me as trans. So what is your issue?

              I *didn’t* identify you as anything except badly mistaken. This is the internet. As far as I’m concerned, you could quite possibly be anything up to and including a poorly programmed AI.

              Change anything in your mind?

              1. “-you could quite possibly be anything up to and including a poorly programmed AI.”

                Nope. Just confirmed it.

        8. it’s especially ridiculous if you seriously think it’s a mental disorder. If someone were schizophrenic, would you say ‘Man, you are such a stupid schizo cunt’ or would you be more tactful?

          I wouldn’t pretend the delusions were real, which is what the author here did

      2. It must be really rough for assholes like you to go through life with so much variation around you, a total lack of conformity to the rules as you see them.

        Jeez, Sapient, do you not know how scary it is to have other people be…other?

        1. I have long wondered about those who are unable to separate their environment from their concept of “self”. No wonder so many people have fucked up life priorities.

          1. To be fair, it is kind of upsetting, and for some people is the basis of, you know, general life malaise, alienation, existentialism, etc.

            But that doesn’t mean it’s better to live a life so fucking unexamined that you failed to actually assign other minds to other people.

              1. Very humorous, HM.

                When I translated the ample labels (yes, the picture included the “moarst” labels possible given aesthetics), the most succinct result was “Heroic Mulatto Cleanest Of All Possibilities.”

                Tony hardest hit?

                1. Tony hardest hit?

                  One could hope.

        2. Jeez, Sapient, do you not know how scary it is to have other people be…other?

          I dunno about you Nikki, but I’ve never ‘othered’ anyone in my life!

          1. That…may be the exact problem.

            1. Of course he has.

              mad.casual|3.4.14 @ 4:02PM|#|?|filternamelinkcustom

              You’re making a rather sweeping claim that homophobia is non-existent and that the emotional response to gays maxes out at “People might not agree with their lifestyles.”

              What you describe better approximates hysteria than phobia.

              My brother-in-law came out to my wife. The first words out of his mouth after saying it were; “Don’t tell [your husband].” When my wife asked, “Why?”. He said “Because he won’t let me visit my nephews.”

              My wife is a healthcare professional and is neither particularly religious nor anti-homosexual, but his statements made her absolutely irate.

              Funny thing is, he would’ve had two advocates behind him and nephews to visit after his parents overreacted to his sexuality. Instead, his homophobia-phobia did a good job of just outright alienating everyone in his immediate family.

              And I’ve been through this, “I can just tell who will accept me and who won’t.” drill more than once.

              reply to this

              1. Aww shucks! You got me Warty. Posted on this very public forum no less. Dang!

                My apologies to Nikki for interrupting her sermon of pure rationality; othering those sinful other people for having other other people to other.

      3. There’s nothing wrong with being an anomaly…

        1. No, there isn’t. But you shouldn’t be surprised and angry when it causes problems.

  24. was an “anomaly,” which Petosky bluntly explains to Reason, is her penis

    Do you know who else had a penis anomaly?

    1. Wow the responses are like a who’s who of Warty victims

      1. He looms large.

        1. Not that large.

          1. The size isn’t the issue so much as the shape. And the teeth.

            1. It’s pretty shocking to encounter a Klein bottle in the real world for the first time, especially when it’s semisentient.

              1. Noneuclidean geometries belong in math books, not in someone’s pants.

                1. Physicist Edward Witten made some important revisions to Calabi-Yau manifold theory after encountering Warty in the locker room at his gym.

              2. See, when I encountered it, it was like a Schrodinger’s Cat, but in penis form.

                1. Bullshit. None survive.

                  1. Some survive, but remain forever broken in body AND spirit.

                2. So it wasn’t hard until you looked at it?

                  1. That, and it didn’t have barbs and teeth… until I looked away.

                    1. Always leave the lights on when Warty’s around and don’t blink. Ever.

    2. I’d say clicking “follow” on Snowden guarantees some extra automated scrutiny from our digital overlords.

      1. Good point.

  25. This is not an entirely unexpected outcome when we let people who got C and D grades in high school arbitrate what is “normal” behavior at an airport.

  26. There are two issues here: The training and the machines. Richards said she’s not entirely sure how the machines might function better for transgender fliers, but there are definitely training problems for TSA employees.

    I think there’s only one issue here – the training.

    The machines have their own problems, but those problems are not transgender-specific.

    The *training* however . . . look, its a dude who looks like a lady. And that’s not illegal. Its not even a hard concept to grasp – its a dude dressed up as a chick, switch the machine over to dude and send ‘im through again. Simples.

    Hell, its not like Petosky made a big deal about it, initially. She understands that confusion is possible, was willing to to explain and let the operator make the machine adjustments (press the ‘dude’ button this time) and run through once more. Its the TSA that made this into a whole thing.

  27. “They think that I should be processed as male, but I also have grown breasts. They’re telling the transgender community that they’re going to be flagged no matter what. ?”

    yes. if they treat you like a woman… which is the point… then when they push the “blur here for privacy reasons” buttons… they won’t blur the right thing…. she travels a lot, knows it causes problems, and still, not only lets, but demands they push the wrong button. she wants them to see her junk? i agree they overreacted, but they probably got irritated with her refusal to just say she was biologically a man. (despite her clearly knowing why they were asking)… hence the repeatedly saying “are you a man or a woman?” clearly she was not answering with one of those two options, and she resisted being processed as a man. it’s like claiming prostate cancer must treat you like a woman

    i think security is way overblown and overbearing and over-empowered, and this is a good example of that…. but the machine doesn’t care about your breasts…. if you push the “woman” button, you are going to have an extra bit someplace it was not expecting to see.

    1. “Dammit! There are no chicks with dicks, Johnny! Just guys with tits!”

      -Ted-

    2. If she traveled a lot, she’d have signed up for pre-check and she’d be going through the metal detector instead of the scanner.

      1. Not all frequent flyers want to sign up to pay extra to get fingerprinted by the feds.

      2. I have artificial knees and even though I am signed up for pre-check, I have to go through the scanner. That doesn’t bother me too much. What really bothers me is in some airports, because they don’t have a scanner next to the pre-check line, I’m required to remove my computer from my bag among other things.

    3. Except she *did* explain.

      1. ” Apparently he wasn’t demanding that Petosky change her appearance. Rather, he wanted to switch the button he pressed to male instead of female. Then it became a big mess.”

        she wanted to be treated like a woman, when the screening required knowing certain things. she fought getting screened this way, and resisted giving them a clear answer so the appropriate person could do a hand pat down. the security has way too much power and control, but the specifics of her situation were entirely self induced. you have the right to act and be treated the way you desire, but that does not equal having the “woman” button pressed on a machine meant to look through your clothes.

        can a transgender get away with indecent exposure just by saying they are offended those preschoolers even acknowledged her penis?

        1. she wanted to be treated like a woman, when the screening required knowing certain things. she fought getting screened this way, and resisted giving them a clear answer so the appropriate person could do a hand pat down.

          No. The screener resisted *understanding* a clear explanation – ‘I’m trangender so I have a penis *and* breasts*’. *TSA* were the ones who insisted on a pat-down – even though the ‘anomaly’ was just a fleshy bit hanging down, which would have been easily understood to be a penis if the screener had thought she was a man – and then couldn’t decide if a male or female screener was appropriate.

          In any case they had already seen her dong and her chest was considered safe because they *thought* she was female – there was absolutely no reason to insist on a patdown

          1. i have no doubt that the agent behaved like a complete turd, and overstepped on what should have been obvious. but, he wanted to follow protocol, and scan her again… as a man. this way the scanner would give a “no abnormality,” and he would know his job was done. this was how the whole thing started. if she had gone through the scanner again, and let them push the “has a penis” button, that would have been the end of it. no abnormality on the machine= there is nothing else down there=they have no reason to hold her…. abnormality on the machine= they have excuse to hold her.

            the pat down came BECAUSE she did not want to be scanned as man…. because she viewed being screened in the anatomically correct way to be a violation of her desire to be treated as a woman. it needs to be very clear that this was triggered the whole thing. she refused to be treated as a man in any conceivable way, including getting re-scanned. being fought on such a simple request tends to put the rent-a-cops on high alert, and that is what leads to their subsequent abuse of power in “additional screening.” it is like leaving your keys in your pocket, and then refusing to walk through the metal detector again, saying “but i told you it was just my keys.” it is absolutely nuts to refuse to walk through the machine again, because they want to push the button that says “man.” maybe they should change the button to say “penis” or “vagina” to avoid this.

  28. This situation should never have occurred in the first place because the TSA shouldn’t exist.

    Exactly.

    But incidents with the TSA aren’t the only place transfolk are having issues where they expect the world to say, “oh, yeah, that–that’s normal–the other 99+% rest of us aren’t.’

    And that’s a problem.

    It’s–‘problematic’, as the SJWs say.

    1. “But incidents with the TSA aren’t the only place transfolk are having issues where they expect the world to say, “oh, yeah, that–that’s normal–the other 99+% rest of us aren’t.'”

      Why does this seem like an either or problem to you? Gotta be a weird world you live in where there are only two possible states in any situation.

    2. Do the “transfolk” usually argue that they are normal and everyone else isn’t normal (where’s the transfolk newsletter where they all vote on what they believe as a folk)? Or are you just making shit up?

      1. Nope, not making shit up; you can go look at my history here if it matters to you, but in fact I don’t ever recall any trans person I have met or read argue that trans was normal and cis was not. Many argue that there is a gender spectrum that is not binary, but no position on that spectrum is viewed as more pr less “normal”.

        1. Plus, trying to lump people into categories like “normal” and “not normal” and applying political policy and/or cultural attitudes based on off of that is just another form of collectivism. Why does it matter if it is “normal” or not?

          1. I had this discussion with my dad last night. I don’t think normal is a thing. Everyone is either a wanker or a liar.

            1. Either or? I thought most people were both.

              1. Well everyone is a wanker. Some people just lie about it.

        2. I wasn’t responding to you Sapient, my bad. I was trying to respond to Azathoth

    3. That presumes that whatever security measure the airlines or airports would put in place (or be required to be put in place) of the TSA would not include body scans of this sort. The TSA borders on the ridiculous, but this sort of issue would not go away just if there was no TSA.

      Exactly how are security personnel going to phrase a question about what a person’s sex is that is not going to offend someone?

      1. Yes, but then you might be able to find an airport or an airline that didn’t treat you like the TSA does.

      2. It’s pretty common knowledge that the rapescanners are mostly worthless. If different airports/airlines were responsible for their own security, they would be motivated to look for solutions that are actually effective and non-intrusive.

        But instead we get a one-size-fits-all policy because the TSA doesn’t need to compete for anyone’s business and someone at OSI Systems is a good lobbyist.

      3. We managed to survive without rapescanners until very recently. In fact, almost everywhere else in the world manages to survive without them today.

        1. Israel arguably has the worlds best airline security.

          They look for bombers not bombs but that can’t happen in a PC America because it might offend some Muslims.

  29. I don’t get it. The machine actually fcking worked by detecting something hidden that shouldn’t be there. I am bumfuzzled with surprise.

    This account doesn’t really clarify why the encounter went beyond pushing the “penis” button and running the scan again. Was someone deconstructing the use of “man” in the context of selecting software parameters?

    1. The article is clear enough that it was the TSA that was unable to handle the situation – it went beyond the screener’s rapescanner training – “press ‘D’ for dudes and press ‘C’ for chicks”.

  30. Trans-related articles have an interesting effect here at Reason.

    1. They do encourage me to take my pants off, that is for sure.

      1. For style and accessibility, for you, Crusty, a kilt might be just the thing.

        1. I should be airing it out, you are right. Thanks, Hamsies.

        2. I could get behind Crusty in a kilt.

          1. My eyes are up here! Men…

            1. To be fair, I looked too.

    2. Well at least John isn’t around to tell us all what we really think.

      1. Fortunately, we have stand-ins.

      2. Thanks to John, I learned that I am a socially signaling SJW scumbags who wants the faggots to destroy Christendom and grind Christian bones beneath their fashionable boot heels.

        1. Are you inferring that any of that is bad?

          1. I’m harmed by the cultural expectation that I should be wearing fashionable shoes.

            1. Flip flops, right?

              1. It is known that jesse only wears Tevas.

              2. Flip flops are my cultural heritage. I was born and raised in coastal CA towns with strong surf culture.

                1. Gotta have something on your feet when you go out on your atrocity of a ‘lawn’.

                  1. THERE’S A DROUGHT ON, MAN!

                    Close-cropped bits of dry dead grass are surprisingly sharp. And the dirt…there is so much dirt.

                  2. jesse, I think you should take your lawn in a different direction.

                    Laugh at the drought and find inner peace.

                2. Flip flops are my cultural heritage

                  Californians get a pass on this fashion and ocular atrocity, because it is their heritage.*

                  *I am joking. They are still disgusting people.

                  1. Tundra, our landlord has been dragging his feet on xeriscaping. I’d be ok with a zen garden, but fear that the neighborhood cats would befoul it more quickly than I’d be able to maintain it.

                    *I am joking. They are still disgusting people.

                    Crusty, if you’re trying to get into my pants, just ask. The PUA shit is just unnecessary.

                    1. Are you afraid they’d bury you too?

                    2. Jesse, my negs are so subtle that by the time you figure out what was happening I will have already dressed and left uber fair on the nightstand.

                    3. fare, not fair. damn, I knew that did not look right.

        2. +5 Discount coupons on Zappos!

    3. It really separates the live-and-let-live wheat from the EWW ICKY TRANNIES chaff.

      1. If you think this separates the commentariats, wait until Shackford finally writes the article I have been begging him for, which of course is a review on Ryan Adams’ cover of T-Swizzle’s 1989 album.

        I know where I stand on the issue.

        1. Ugh. So problematic.

        2. Ha. I heard the cover of Bad Blood and was confused.

        3. What about Father John Misty’s covers of Ryan Adams’s covers of Taylor Swift’s 1989, done in the style of Lou Reed? Talk about a Gordian knot.

    4. The “transition period” when something(such as this “transgender” nonsense) goes from a joke to something you’re a Bigot if you joke about is interesting. The same kind of thing is happening now on National Review Online with regards to race.

      1. I agree with you there Jason. It is very interesting. I’m not sure how relevant is this to any of the conversations in this comment thread though? Is someone calling someone a bigot because of a joke?

  31. I am sick of hearing calls for increased training. When somebody exhibits poor judgment that leads to consequences like this, fire that person. Immediately. Once the other agents see one of their own go through the metaphorical woodchipper, you will see a dramatic decrease in incidents where insufficient training played a role.

    1. I wouldn’t count on that. I used to work for a police department. About a third of the guys were good ones. The others? You couldn’t train them to dress themselves.

      1. did they get fired?

  32. I am deeply disturbed by the lack of hat tips. Shackford you stingy jerk. Hat tips should be given freely!

      1. I actually feel much better now. Thank you.

  33. “”What’s new is that Petosky’s encounter ended up getting significant news coverage, from The New York Times, to the Los Angeles Times, to Vox.com, along with television networks.”

    I can promise you = the “problem” here is not the Security Theatre state, or the insistence on micromanaging bureaucrats creating Safe Spaces… but rather, that TSA needs more Sensitivity Training.

    we dont need to stop the state from junk-inspection! we need more Culturally Trained junk inspectors. Obama will ensure they all get free community-college degrees in GenderFluid Security Protocols.

  34. “officers followed TSA’s strict guidelines.”

    “And those guidelines are to take a naked picture of you before manhandling your inner thighs, with added humiliations as deemed arbitrarily necessary.”

    1. Earlier today FS types sarcasm with which I mostly agree, and now you do the same.

      Wait… I just saw Henri the Existential Black Cat pass by twice.

    2. It’s “the LAW”, though, so suck it up.

    3. Which are an aspect of the regulatory state you so love.

      1. By this logic, you like having courts and police to protect your private property rights, and that is part of the “regulatory state,” thus you are also in favor of Gitmo torture.

  35. Because I’m sure you all care, I found my double posting problem. My mouse clicky thingy is worn out. You can breath easy now.

    1. Whew, that’s good. I was beginning to worry that clicking “follow” on Snowden guarantees some extra automated scrutiny from our digital overlords.

      1. I’m resigned to my fate now. You can’t hurt me anymore.

        1. Who knows, maybe you have just coined the sequel to “weed, ass-sex and Mexicans”.

          1. Step 1: Start meme
            Step 2: ????
            Step 3: Profit?

      2. Do you honestly think they are tracking “likes” on social media accounts of certain individuals? The only program that I know of like that in the intelligence community is ORc2 8a 9b f0 96 fe fe bc 8c 70 bc c3 INTERCEPT BEGIN

        ************************************
        This message has been flagged for interception. If you feel that it has been flagged in error please contact the Computer Crime & Intellectual Property Section at:

        U.S. Department of Justice
        10th & Constitution Ave., NW
        Criminal Division, (Computer Crime & Intellectual Property Section)
        John C. Keeney Building, Suite 600
        Washington, DC 20530

        Tel (202) 514-1026
        Fax (202) 514-6113

        ************************************

        INTERCEPT END

    2. That’s nice.

      Ye shall still be mocked!

    3. Mouse? Everything’s done on touchscreens now.

  36. “They don’t ask?they just look and decide. In Petosky’s case, the TSA employee saw a woman and pressed the appropriate button”

    Yeah, well, if they asked everyone we’d all be complaining that they’re wasting everyone’s time about 99.9% of the time.

    And they would be.

    Plainly what we need – given that Congress won’t dismantle the TSA anytime soon, sadly – is software for the scanners that can cope with transgender people.

    1. “Plainly what we need… is software for the scanners that can cope with transgender people.”

      I’m in – if Agile Cyborg has a final say.

      How long do you think the TSA would exist after implementation?

    2. Plainly what we need – given that Congress won’t dismantle the TSA anytime soon, sadly – is software for the scanners that can cope with transgender people.

      Then why even deal with the gender issue anyways? I think the point is to do exactly what they did, detect men who are pretending to be women. Women are viewed less suspiciously(and no one has a problem with that) so it would make sense for terrorists or other trouble-causers to do this. People forget that less than a decade ago most people viewed the whole transgender thing as a big joke.

      1. Girls will be boys and boys will be girls
        It’s a mixed up muddled up shook up world except for Lola
        La-la-la-la Lola

  37. Cheese and fucking rice, another one. It must be really rough for assholes like you to go through life with so much variation around you, a total lack of conformity to the rules as you see them.

    Why? Because I stated the truth? There is a default. I may not fit it, but I do admit it.There is a type of sexuality that most of humanity fits into. This is not my rule. It simply is.

    Why not? Because you say so? Fuck off.

    Because it seems incapable of accomodating that level of individuality with any efficiency?

    You all seem to assume that my problem is with the ‘trans’ part of this.

    When it isn’t.

    My problem is with people who are outliers demanding that everything for them be just as smooth as it is for cishets who were born in the mold. It can’t be so–because they don’t exactly fit the mold, so accomodations must be made–and making them is fine–but acting pissy when things go off a bit is, IMO, not.

    con’t

  38. con’t from above

    There are two young women who are conjoined in such a way that they appear to be a single two-headed individual. No matter how much training a person gets, when they show up even the heartiest might be taken a little aback.

    They are outliers. And they understand.

    When your oddity is that your brain says you’re one thing, while your body says another no one can see that as easily as if you were those twins. It behooves you to understand that you fall outside the spectrum and need to be specially accomodated.

    And be gracious about it.

    1. You sound so libertarian right now.

    2. A lot of that was horseshit.

      “It behooves you to understand that you fall outside the spectrum and need to be specially accommodated.”

      I will say this…

      I suspect libertarians have a predisposition for individualism. One of our base fears may be that we’re going to be treated just like everyone else–despite our individualism. I am not a number!

      Collectivism is one of our antitheses. Our enemies typically want to treat everyone as a member of a group, and we libertarians are probably suspicious of those who want to be treated just like everyone else–despite the differences. So…you want to be a clone of everyone else? Yuck!

      Instinctively, we probably react to such people not only as traitors to themselves but also as threats to our own individuality. We hear a transsexual female to male say he wants to be treated like any other man, and some of us probably think, if subconsciously, “Well, I was born a man, and I don’t want to be treated like every other man. I want to be treated as an individual.”

      1. I think this may explain our initial knee jerk reactions to feminism, black civil rights groups, etc., too. We keep fighting to have everyone treated as individuals, and so many of them keep fighting to be seen as a group.

        1. This is the essence of what is called privilege and why libertarians overwhelmingly skew white and male. Easy for you to say not to categorize people, that we’re all unique butterflies, when the whole basis for bigotry is that certain individuals have been categorized against their will. If you’re a member of a class of oppressed people, your classification is of paramount importance. People’s rights are denied because of the category they were born into, all else being equal, and not their individual actions. It therefore matters. Random individuals weren’t denied the right to vote; women were. Individuals weren’t denied the right to marry; gay people were. The oppressors need to stop categorizing people in order to oppress them before the oppressed accept the utopian notion that we need not pay attention to categories.

          1. “This is the essence of what is called privilege and why libertarians overwhelmingly skew white and male.”

            Your disgusting racism and sexism are both disgusting.

            1. It’s a simple fact dude.

              1. Just because you think your disgusting racist and sexist ideas are true doesn’t mean they aren’t racist and sexist, Archie Bunker.

                1. It’s not an idea, it’s a fact. Your philosophy is a pasty white sausage fest. You try very hard not to understand any of these issues, and it’s because you don’t have to understand them. You self-collectivize whether you like it or not. The mere fact of your homogeneity is a statement on other types of people. You think you are the most correct people; so what the fuck is wrong with all the brown people and women who don’t join up?

                  1. “Your philosophy is a pasty white sausage fest.”

                    Your racism and sexism are revolting. Now you’re using slurs?

                    Philosophies don’t have a race or a sex, and if you hate one because you associate it with “pasty white” people and men, then you’re a revolting racist and sexist.

                    You should be ashamed of yourself.

          2. Not all white hetero males are oppressors.

            But then, you’re a racist and a bigot, so I can understand how you might make that mistake.

            1. Didn’t say anything of the kind. Some white hetero males, however, aggressively refuse to acknowledge the perspectives of other types of people.

          3. Easy for you to say not to categorize people, that we’re all unique butterflies, when the whole basis for bigotry is that certain individuals have been categorized against their will.

            Whoosh goes the point.

            Which, to put it in simple terms (because Tony), is that we don’t like collectivizing people against their will, and we don’t like people who collectivize themselves in order to bully us.

          4. Or, to put in classical proggy projection terms:

            “Collectivizing people against their will is bad. Therefor, we will collectivize white people against their will!”

            1. People are categorized, usually by someone else. This is not bad, it’s neutral. Sometimes it’s instructive to refer to the categories people fall into. If women are paid less than men on average, your notion is to ignore that because we’re all butterflies!

              Meanwhile you idiots insist on theories of human behavior that amount to “all black people are lazy.” So spare me.

          5. your logic seems a little flawed. first you suggest that libertarians are racist bigots… based only on their race (the hypocrisy of racial claims always gets me)…. and then you go on to list things that, typically, libertarians are not against…. voting rights, gay marriage. you then finish with a real mind bender, that we really want to oppress people, but just need them to not know they are being categorized for oppression (or something like that)

            the knee jerk reaction to feminism and racial issues has more to do with the fact that many of these issues have passed that pinnacle… where the attempts to fight inequality have surpassed the original problem, and actually restrict the freedoms of others. the state restricting personal freedom gets a knee jerk. is racism bad? yes. does it still exist? yes. is it impacting people in a way that requires government intervention? no.

            1. Libertarians kind of mightily struggled with the gay marriage thing; I know, I was here. But leave that aside. I’m not accusing libertarians of anything. I’m explaining why it’s a luxury of white dudes to talk about not collectivizing people, because they don’t suffer one way or the other. Oppressed minorities have to talk about themselves as groups in political contexts because their oppression is a result of other people already having put them in groups. Their relative lack of privilege is a result of other people categorizing them. It’s white dudes spending centuries categorizing others in order to keep them in line, then coming along asking “why all the categorizing, geeze!”

              Your second paragraph is highly debatable. We aren’t yet in the utopia in which bigotry doesn’t actively affect people’s ability to prosper because of how they were born. So if you don’t want to address it politically, I guess the option is to sit around and wait? Perhaps lecture people about the folly of categorizing?

              1. “Libertarians kind of mightily struggled with the gay marriage thing; I know, I was here.”

                Support for gay marriage by libertarians around here has been almost universal.

                Probably the biggest detractor was John, and I don’t know how libertarian he really is.

                Democrats “mightily struggled” with gay marriage, which is why Barack Obama campaigned against it.

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJhQBZ1La0w

                When Barack Obama was too ashamed to say he supported gay marriage, libertarians, here and elsewhere, were shouting support for gay marriage all the way.

                Tony is either making shit up, genuinely confused, or, probably, both.

              2. I’m explaining why it’s a luxury of white dudes to talk about not collectivizing people, because they don’t suffer one way or the other.

                Yup. I’ve never EVER heard of “white privilege” or “mansplaining”…

              3. much of the “oppression” facing minorities today is not because they are actively oppressed, it is because their parents and grandparents were. it is more about their economic conditions… access to better schools, better inheritance, more educated parents and role models, etc..

                yes there are still racist people out there, but existing law and social sentiment already prevent them from restricting minorities. every time the race card is played, they are actually detracting from what might be a bigger issue. take the black lives matter crowd. police power is a real problem…… by making it a black versus white thing, they are actually rejecting the help needed to address the real problem. 60% of people killed by cops are white. maybe not an equal share based on demographics, but clearly enough to demonstrate the problem with cops is not racism…. it is that they are killing people. almost every race based issue these days is the same… something not really about race, that prevents addressing other factors by making it about race.

                1. I agree that the problem should be recognized as not a solely black thing–criminal justice in this country is an oppressive scourge for us all. But BLM is the activist movement that is bringing to light the abuses of cops, even against white people, even just today. It’s no surprise that white people would bitch about the deep injustice of their not being recognized as much as they think…

                  But if white people had the experience and level of activism over the past 30 years that BLM does, something would have been done about the problem a long time ago.

                  1. “But BLM is the activist movement that is bringing to light the abuses of cops, even against white people,”

                    but they cry havoc at the mention of the idea that it should be “all lives matter”?!?! they are obscuring the issue, by pretending it is all racially motivated, and melt down at the suggestion it is not.

                    “It’s no surprise that white people would bitch about the deep injustice of their not being recognized as much as they think…”

                    logic loop alert. white people are mad they are not being equally considered…. by a group whose core message is that their deaths are not being equally considered? if you want to look at police violence, you need to look at the whole picture. cutting it into smaller pieces is exactly how they make it look like a smaller problem

                    “But if white people had the experience and level of activism over the past 30 years that BLM does, something would have been done about the problem a long time ago.”

                    no… the problem has been, and continues to be that race is over-emphasized in almost every case. this obsession with race does not serve any purpose, or solve anything. it gives the cops an out… where they can take some sensitivity training, or hire more minorities… maybe fire a few “bad apples” at most. it does nothing to address the real issue. it divides the issue up in a way that makes real change almost impossible.

                  2. But BLM is the activist movement that is bringing to light the abuses of cops, even against white people,

                    So does shit just ooze out of your ears because you’re overflowing?

          6. “The oppressors need to stop categorizing people in order to oppress them before the oppressed accept the utopian notion that we need not pay attention to categories.”

            We should pay attention to categories. It’s efficient. Correlations and probabilitic relations are relevant.

            1. I agree on the sentiment but I have a funny feeling about where you take it.

              1. Understandably so. This could be used as part of a thoroughly utilitarian system. That being said, whatever end one chooses, efficiency (of means) is advisable.

  39. There is the Transport Socialist Arbeiterpartei spawned by God’s Own Party attacking Allah’s Prophets. Were it not for Nixon’s campaign bribery law enacted the day before the LP formed, we could have competed on a lever playing field and avoided this groping by ignorant thugs. With 5% of the vote in the libertarian column there might have been no bombing of Iraq and no hijacks into buildings. But nooooooooooooooo!

  40. Rather than:
    :My penis should processed like anybody else who has a penis. My breasts should be processed the same way as anybody who has breasts. They have to be able to handle somebody who is both or neither. ? If the technology can’t tell if I have a penis or if I have something dangerous, it’s probably not a very good naked picture.”

    we should do away with this unnecessary practice….

  41. How is that a group that is approximately 0.1% of the population generates so much noise?

    1. Look what the pope did and he’s just one guy!

    2. Apparently because people are fascinated with them.

      1. There’s no sex like transsex.

        1. Shhh. Keep it down! If that gets out, there won’t be enough to go around.

    3. “How is that a group that is approximately 0.1% of the population generates so much noise?”

      They don’t want to suggest that we have a right not to be subjected to unreasonable searches ’cause that shit’s cray cray.

      So, they make it all about LGBTTQQIAAP.

      Also, it sells. People are into hearing, seeing, and talking about what’s different. When’s the last time you heard an ice cream company announce that it’s new exciting flavor is…vanilla?

  42. There are two issues here: The training and the machines.

    No, there is one issue here: The routine, ongoing violation of the Fourth Amendment rights of airline travelers.

    1. Airline travelers have a choice, and if you have a choice then you don’t have any rights.

      Isn’t that the way it’s supposed to work? Isn’t that why whether being gay is genetic or a choice is supposed to matter to socons?

      I don’t know. I used to understand socons better. God bless their First Amendment free exercise rights, but their gay marriage arguments are from Bizzaro World. If government discrimination against gays is wrong, seems like they don’t want to be right.

      1. My fellow Earthicans, we enjoy so much freedom, it’s almost sickening. We’re free to choose which hand our sex-monitoring chip is implanted in. And if we don’t want to pay our taxes, why, we’re free to spend a weekend with the Pain Monster!

  43. And then the employee declared there was an “anomaly,” which Petosky bluntly explains to Reason, is her penis.

    You just can’t make this stuff up.

  44. Is she a man or a woman? Science still dictates that your are one or the other unless hermaphroditic. Then which one are you?

    It’s exhausting living in this cesspool.

    1. “Science still dictates that your are one or the other unless hermaphroditic.”

      Science has the answer to everything, doesn’t it?

      Now that Science is done dictating which sex we are, could you get Science to tell my girlfriend to stop asking me silly questions while I’m watching football?

      Science is a process. Science is a tool. Science is falsifiable. Science changes its mind as new data becomes available that contradicts what science seemed to suggest before.

      Science doesn’t dictate which sex we are. Our genes might, but our genes aren’t science, and what science tells us about how our genes work together with our environment on specific behavioral traits is under constant revision.

    2. It would be less exhausting for you if you would stop giving a shit about other people’s genitals.

      1. How is he supposed to do that when talking about a person complaining about how he was treated because of his genitals?

    3. I INVOKE SCIENCE TO MAKE MY POINT (and then use terms long since deprecated by science to show I don’t know what I’m talking about!)

      1. Not deprecated by biological science itself. (Contrast ethical concerns of biological scientists.)

        1. My understanding was that the term was phased out for being old-timey (hermes-aphrodite) based on Greek myth and was specific to a particular sub-type of intersexed individual, but used in loosely in popular culture to the point of confusion.

          Kind of the way Uranians as a term for homos was phased out in favor of the less myth-connected homosexual.

          1. I think that’s pretty much correct (and involving linguistic contamination, negative connotation). But none of this is because the term was scientifically incorrect; there’s no reason out of biological science in this.

            I understand what you were getting at: someone who uses a discarded term may not be that well-informed (up-to-date) about the scientific field.

    4. She is a star player on Iran’t women’s soccer team?

      Just when trans people were about to be the new cool hip thing, the fucking Iranians had to fuck it up. Now it will be OK to hassle trans people because they are probably Iranian.

      At least eight players on Iran’s national women’s soccer team are not actually women, according to regional reports lambasting the Islamic Republic for unethical practices.

      These eight players have not fully completed sex change operations, yet they are currently playing for the Iranian female team, according to Arab language reports carried by Al Arabiya.

      1. I don’t want to be that guy, but…

        Gillespie got taken in by a false story the other day, so it happens to the best of them.

        And we’re not talking about the best of them; we’re talking about The Free Beacon reporting something that was said on a Saudi network–and the Saudis are currently fighting a hot proxy war against Iran’s allies in Yemen.

        I’m not saying it’s a false story, but I wouldn’t buy it hook, line, and sinker just because I read it on The Free Beacon by way of the Saudis either.

      2. I don’t see what the problem is, it’s normal to be Iranian. Evolution isn’t static.

    5. In your defense, some people’s brains are simply wired to be overwhelmed with discomfort at any challenge to preconceived notions.

      1. Well, given comfortable/uncomfortable spectrum and challenged/unchallenged spectrum, uncomfortable and challenged strongly suggests they’re putting their consciousness to the fullest possible use. “Which is all, I think, that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.”

  45. I’m sorry, but unless you have the surgery done, you’re a man if you have a cock, and a woman if you don’t. If you’re a man who dresses like a woman, you’re a transvestite, not transgender.

    That said, I’m not against people who feel like they’re the wrong gender pursuing the sex-change process. I’m glad that transgender people are getting more popular support these days. Hell, I had a childhood friend who had a sibling that got a sex change when he/she was a teen. If you feel like you should’ve been the opposite sex and want to become one of the opposite sex, knock yourself out. I won’t stop you or even disapprove of your actions at all.

    But trust me… it’s only gonna take an incident or two of a woman getting raped in the ladies’ room by a man claiming he’s a woman (and was granted the right to use the ladies’ room) for that support to evaporate quickly. So either use the restroom that corresponds to your genitalia, get the gender-reassignment surgery, or have the government make public restrooms into unisex restrooms with fully-enclosed locked toilet stalls.

    1. People are entitled to be called whatever they want to be called. That is basic manners.

      And transgender people suffer rape at much higher rates than non-trans people among a host of other issues they face. If someone engineers the scenario you describe, I don’t think people will blame the entire community for the actions of someone who’s not even in it.

      1. People are entitled to be called whatever they want to be called. That is basic manners.

        I agree. It gets to be a little tougher when people claim to be entitled to more than basic civility, though.

      2. “People are entitled to be called whatever they want to be called. That is basic manners.”

        Hardly. If someone asks to be called Prince Dinosaur then that could be rude. Someone who hasn’t earned a doctorate, nor is a medical doctor, asking to be called Dr. could be rude. And if the definitions of male or female are subjective/arbitrary, then being asked to pretend that someone is female could be rude too. Someone may call himself female, yet that gives no right (including one of manners) to be called female. Those who have divergent definitions do not violate his negative liberty. He touches upon theirs when asking to be called female. And if you want to fight that out, trans-/inter-people have a bad position, not only in terms of negative liberty, but objectively.(evolutionary biology).

        1. You don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about. Wanting to be called “Prince Dinosaur” is not rude, it’s crazy. And I don’t know what you gain by being rude to a crazy person. As for “Doctor,” technically everyone who isn’t a physician isn’t entitled to that designation, but lots of PhDs take it anyway: people are entitled to be called what they want. I don’t make the rules.

          Just stuff your negative liberty and evolution bullshit. This is manners. There is never an excuse for rudeness. If you aren’t aware of this, you must be a small child or have been raised poorly.

          1. “Wanting to be called “Prince Dinosaur” is not rude, it’s crazy. And I don’t know what you gain by being rude to a crazy person.”

            Merely wanting it is certainly not rude. Asking someone, esp. demanding to be called “Prince Dinosaur” is quite possibly rude.

            As for the rest of your post, you simply claim that the rule is that people are entitled to be called what they want. There’s no reasoning. You have three options, directly invoking natural law, relying on (local? pluralism) majority standards (which assumes that democracy is natural law), or to rely on negative liberty.

            1. I invoke Ms. Judith Martin, thank you very much. I am not telling you things that are up for debate. I’m hardly talking about oyster forks here. If you have a better idea about how to handle people’s preferred designations that doesn’t result in rudeness, then you are a singular genius of etiquette innovation. You are not that.

          2. You don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about. Wanting to be called “Prince Dinosaur” is not rude, it’s crazy

            Tony wrote, in a thread about a crazy man who wants people to call him a woman

        2. Calling yourself whatever you want is fine.

          Insisting on control of what other people say is something else entirely.

          1. I’m only talking about etiquette. It has an enforcement mechanism, which is that decent people stop associating with you when you’re a rude asshole. I would endorse no further level of control, so stop whining because you’re acting like a bitch.

            1. Actually, I was responding to Sevens.

              But this is what you wrote:

              “People are entitled to be called whatever they want to be called.”

              You say that people are entitled to be called what they want, you start talking about manners and etiquette, and then you call me a “bitch”?

              There’s more than one reason why no one takes you seriously, Tony. You can’t even stay consistent within a single post!

              1. As there is no excuse for rudeness, I make none.

            2. Yeah, and that brings you right into obscenity territory. Some local community may well consider transgender people – dress and behavior – obscene. But let’s stick with mere rudeness. Are you fine with the informal, social enforcement mechanisms, refusing association with transgender people?

              1. Bigotry is the worst form of rudeness.

      3. No, no one has such a right. That imposes an obligation on other people, especially ones who do not know you and are unfamiliar with your tics. Unless we start toting around holographic signs over our heads proclaiming what we think we are, everyone is going to have to make assumptions based on experience .

        1. That’s about the standards and costs of care. I generally agree. But there’s a more basic aspect, about beliefs and truths. If A and B have different, incompatible beliefs as to what defines “female” then why should A be obliged to adapt B’s belief and call B female?

        2. Yeah, basic manners impose obligations on people. Welcome to being a civilized human being. You people are unabashed in your desire to live lives like bratty children, do you realize that?

          Feel free to make assumptions. It’s also rude to berate people for making mistakes. But if you aggressively refuse to call someone what he or she wants to be called, you are a rude asshole and that’s the end of it.

          1. “But if you aggressively refuse to call someone what he or she wants to be called, you are a rude asshole and that’s the end of it.”

            If someone wants you to say that “broccoli tastes good”, or that “libertarian philosophy is right” and you refuse, does that mean you are a rude asshole?

            1. No, so long as you decline politely.

              Refusing to honor a person’s preferred name or honorific, however, is rude, and, again, I didn’t make that rule.

              I do however apologize for educating you on manners when you didn’t ask.

              1. So one is obliged to call someone one doesn’t believe is female female, but not obliged to call a philosophy one doesn’t believe is right right? Do you notice that what determines who is male or female is (a) philosophy? By calling the person female – as she wants – you also call her philosophy right.

                No need to apologize for your attempt. I did want to know what you think.

                1. The analogy doesn’t work. A more correct analogy is to say you refuse to acknowledge that someone identifies as a libertarian when they’ve just told you that they do. You instead insist they are a pot-smoking closet Republican. That’s rude.

                  If Robert wants to be called Bob, you call him Bob, and don’t protest his preference. If someone identifies as a particular sex, the polite thing to do is go with it. I don’t see another polite option.

                  1. OK, let’s go with that analogy. Someone wants to be called “libertarian”. I think he is not libertarian. Why should I be obligated to call him “libertarian”? I don’t deny that he calls himself “libertarian”. But I don’t call him that. Calling him a Republican could be rude if he is indeed a libertarian. Is he? (Cf. Calling him female could be rude if he is indeed male. Is he?)

                    I could refuse calling Robert Bob, but I don’t see any fundamental (philosophical) question carried by it. I don’t care much whether a Robert truly is a Bob. And this truly seems like a matter of convention, which supports Robert-Bob. The question female-male is substantially different. — Good example, Tony.

                  2. Tony, if you told me you were a libertarian, do you really think I should call you one?

          2. You people are unabashed in your desire to live lives like bratty children, do you realize that?

            Like the fags that demand someone bake them a cake?

            1. This is actually far more serious. Most of you think this is a bigger problem than climate change. Really. You are that stupid.

    2. Gee Thomas, came straight here from eaglerising did you?

      “I’m sorry, but unless you have the surgery done, you’re a man if you have a cock, and a woman if you don’t.”

      And if you hold opinions about others based on their genitals rather than their individual merits, you’re a sexist fuck. Are you gonna check under my dress to make sure? Do you work for the TSA? And don’t apologize; if you’re going full on John, do it.

      “If you’re a man who dresses like a woman, you’re a transvestite, not transgender.”

      Gosh, all that agony I went through and I just could’ve asked you? You should go look these up Tom. One is a subset of the other, and no, I’m not telling you.

      “Hell, I had a childhood friend who had a sibling that got a sex change when he/she was a teen.”

      ‘And I even know black people, so I know what I’m talking about!’ Right Tom? Lovely.

      1. “But trust me… it’s only gonna take an incident or two of a woman getting raped in the ladies’ room by a man claiming he’s a woman (and was granted the right to use the ladies’ room) for that support to evaporate quickly.”

        And the ever popular, fully discredited, “THEL RAPE AR WIMMINZ!!!!1!!1!!11” Men can already do all that shit Tom. There are already laws against it Tom. No trans person has ever been convicted of any such act Tom. Shithead.

        “So either use the restroom that corresponds to your genitalia, get the gender-reassignment surgery, or have the government make public restrooms into unisex restrooms with fully-enclosed locked toilet stalls.”

        So you perv, once again, who stands outside the bathroom and checks? Oh and if we can’t do that the government should step in and fix the problem?

        “I won’t stop you or even disapprove of your actions at all.”

        Your post says otherwise.

        1. “So you perv, once again, who stands outside the bathroom and checks? ”

          Oh please. None of this makes such a check necessary. Informal checks, pressure, and enforcement are fairly effective. There’s an informal rule in sports that there are not be homosexuals in men’s showers. The existence of this rule makes it possible to ignore that there inevitably are homosexuals who break it. (Simplified.)

          1. “Oh please. None of this makes such a check necessary. Informal checks, pressure, and enforcement are fairly effective. There’s an informal rule in sports that there are not be homosexuals in men’s showers. The existence of this rule makes it possible to ignore that there inevitably are homosexuals who break it. (Simplified.)”

            Okay, so if that’s all it takes, why don’t all of you who disagree with trans people being allowed to use public bathrooms just make an informal rule that trans people are not allowed in the bathroom and then if there IS one in there, you can just ignore them.

            I have no idea what your point is.

            1. “I have no idea what your point is.”

              An aspect of it is, that one does not legally allow trans people to use the wrong bathroom (based on biological sex). That’s because a change would actually send a signal, one that occurs on the informal level, too. (Morality (informal norms) influences law, law influences morality. Law and changes of it draw attention.) Not only that, but the change also makes the presence of them more likely. Both, signal and greater presence make ignoring more difficult, potentially impossible. In all this, note that transgender people are worse at “passing” than homosexuals.

  46. What do you expect? You take people that are in many cases barely employable, you give them unchecked power, and you tell them that they’re doing God’s work by stopping terrorism what do you think you’re going to get. I mean half these people don’t even seem to acknowledge that you are a human, you’re cargo.

  47. “In fact, when the machine in Orlando registered the “anomaly,” she says she immediately told the TSA employee that she was transgender. But rather than accepting the explanation, the TSA agent told her that he wanted her to go through the screening process again “as a man.” Apparently he wasn’t demanding that Petosky change her appearance. Rather, he wanted to switch the button he pressed to male instead of female. Then it became a big mess.

    “He kept saying, ‘Are you a man or a woman?'” Petosky says.”

    “Rather than accepting the explanation”? Apparently her explanation was that she is physically male but identifies as female. If so, the fact that he wanted to start the scanning programm for physically male people does not mean he didn’t accept her explanation. It seems he was about to make the right choice (male body male scan). Why did it “then” become a mess? It sounds like Petosky caused it. Not to mention that – “having grown breasts” – she should have called herself intersexual rather than (just) transgender.

  48. As for avoiding such problems, giving the scanners even greater specificity and detail would infringe privacy more. The same goes for determining sex by asking instead of superficial visual check. It seems to me that most improvements would shift burdens from transgender/-sexual/intersexual people to normal people. Not a convincing move. As for pat-downs, are we going to give normal heterosexual men the choice to be patted down by women? (By the way, that might improve acceptance. Could increase lines, though.) Blacks the choice to be patted down by blacks? And so forth.)

    Interesting article.

    1. “It seems to me that most improvements would shift burdens from transgender/-sexual/intersexual people to normal people. Not a convincing move. As for pat-downs, are we going to give normal heterosexual men-”

      You’re a piece of work.

      1. For some record, I don’t consider normal to necessarily be better. Normal expresses statistics, and a tendential preference of a majority. Both applies here. And I also wanted to distance myself from the entitlements to others’ “proper” language use. Some other time I might indulge these wishes.

  49. We as a country need to just lighten up about security screenings. We are well along on the asymptote where every tiny gain in security comes at a huge cost in sacrificed freedoms.

    Nowadays I choose my security line at the airports based on if it has the millimeter wave imaging (the L3 “naked body scanners”). I’d far rather go through that and avoid the metal detector setting off because of the metal in my ankle or my underwire bra (yes, one of the endangered female libertarians), because I will NOT put up with the resulting pat-down if i set the metal detector off. With the imager they just wave you on through. Sometimes they pat down my hair if it’s particularly big and wavy that day, but I don’t get offended about having my hair patted down; kinda makes sense and isn’t personal.

    Last time I dealt with the hassle of the metal detector, I said “I chose this line because it has the scanner, but you guys have the scanner roped off” and he said, “You can always opt-in for the scanner, even if it’s closed.” News to me, but I’ve used that knowledge since. Line is really short, too!

    1. “We as a country need to just lighten up about security screenings. We are well along on the asymptote where every tiny gain in security comes at a huge cost in sacrificed freedoms.”

      Exactly correct.

      1. Yeah, I was just trying to cheer myself up with the rest of the post, and also dispense a little advice.

        1. I have to fly in November. It will be interesting to see whether there are any noticeable changes in policy by then. As I have not updated the information on my passport, perhaps I’ll use that for ID and see what the system does. On the other hand, I deal with enough ignorance on a day to day basis, so perhaps best to not poke the beast.

  50. Why are these idiots listened to?

  51. People with penises (aka “men”) who like to dress up as women are not women, they are drag queens. I have nothing against them, but they simply aren’t women. If they want to really be a woman, they can have surgery.

    Beyond that, it’s not like it’s not a uncommon tactic for male terrorists to dress up in burkhas and whatnot and pretend to be women to avoid scrutiny.

    1. Haven’t read a single other comment have you?

        1. Thanks. I like yours as well.

          1. I like both your handles. I’m a two handed kind of guy.

  52. I went to view Pope Francis on the Mall, which was secured by having everyone go through a TSA choke point. The TSA agents told me they’d been flown in from Florida – apparently the TSA staffs at Washington, D.C.’s three airports (Dulles, Reagan National, and BWI) just didn’t have the staff. The TSA agent inspecting my electronics took an accidental selfie with my phone. Most fun of all, though the TSA made people throw away bottled water and fruit before entering, people with trays of coffee from Starbucks could saunter right in.

    A tip for terrorists. You don’t have to limit yourself to wood chippers anymore.

  53. “Theater” seems mostly what we get from the TSA, and the ‘performances”, it turns out, are rather expensive.

  54. I had a chat with her tonight in Hollywood…she is a lil overwhelmed by the coverage. She thought it would blow over after the Times piece but she still gets calls re the story. The TSA called to say they are doing an investigation although the PR dept said they did a thorough investigation…which they lied about. i told her to turn to the Reason/Libertarian community for help and support…so lets not let her down.

    1. I did say that the issue is the TSA is a violation of everyone’s rights.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.