Ellie M

You're conflating whether the ticket is a legally binding contract, i.e. could the purchaser of a nonrefundable ticket get a refund based on not wanting to go through screening, with actual informed consent to the screening itself.

mr.travel1

This is a serious question.

Nothing against gays. I have gay family members, and they agree with me. Can being pat down by a gay screener be considered sexual assult?

I would have no problem filing charges against the screener personally. Nor would my wife and daughters.

sbm12

I fail to see how the screener or screenee's sexual orientation plays into whether there is a sexual assault being comitted. The actions are what matter, right?

Scott64

How do you tell the gay ones from the straight ones? I guess you could make the gay ones wear rainbow colored shirts or something.

flyinbob

Then why are only women patting down women and men patting down men?

Boggie Dog

If the screening is non-sexual then why does TSA when possible restrict men from screening women and vice versa.

I think the OP makes a very valid point.

maebhan

Mr.Travel 1,

I want to be clear since conversations like this can often get misinterpreted. I am not suggesting that you personally are either homophobic or heterosexist.

However, any statement that includes the disclaimer "not that I have anything against gays" tends to read as homophobic. It's the kind of remark that often appears in conversations in which people are derailing discussions about heterosexism and homophobia.

Despite that part of your post, your post raises a valid question that I've been thinking about for a long time.

As a lesbian myself (and one who unfortunately does not seem to "look lesbian" to most straight people, men and women alike) this is something I think about every time I'm subjected to being felt up by a female TSA agent.

Those of us who are LGBTQI understand that simply making sure any physical searches are conducted by a TSA staff member of the same sex as the person who is being screened is not a guarantee that sexual harassment or assault can be prevented.

However, it's also important to remember that sexual assault and harassment are more about power than about sexual desire. Straight men can, and have, raped straight men to express dominance. Straight women can, and have, assaulted women in order to do the same. In a situation in which the power dynamic of the situation is set up in a particular way, a woman can sexually assault a man. That's the reason that just hiring a bunch of women to do the pat downs doesn't remove the problem with the invasiveness and potential for abuse in the procedure. By definition, a TSA staff member is in a position of power over a passenger at a check point. At that moment, it is possible for a woman to sexually assault a man.

As a woman, I am slightly more comfortable having the pat down be conducted by a woman; but as a lesbian, I am perfectly aware of the fact that the blanket assumption society seems to have that having women pat down women and men pat down men will prevent any sexual assault from taking place is--like most other things about the security theater--an illusion to make ill-informed people more comfortable.

While I would imagine that the number of gay and bisexual men in the ranks of the TSA is fairly low, I would also guess that those who are there are unlikely to be the gay and bisexual men who would signify as gay to the average straight person. I'm basing that on my own experiences with repeatedly having straight folks assume that I am straight. Unfortunately, it's entirely possible to be sexually assaulted by someone who doesn't actually want to have sex with you. Sex and sexual assault can be about violence, dominance, and control rather than about desire, and my experiences with TSA agents suggest that there is a definite potential for some of the people hired by TSA to be exactly the sorts of folks who get off on using their power over others. Not all, mind you. But some.

Straight men should be just as anxious about that happening while they are being groped by a straight TSA agent as a gay one. Assuming that a gay male or bisexual male screener will be any more or less appropriate than a straight one assumes that sexual desire will always enter into the inappropriateness that makes one search inappropriate and another not. That's not the case.

battensea

You make a number of valid points. But I suggested that having older women be the screeners assigned to perform patdowns because their demographic tends on average AFAIK to be the least likely to be accused of having committed sexual assault in other settings, notably religious institutions, schools, and medical offices/hospitals. (And I said "be accused" as opposed to "commit" purposefully. Other groups, especially men, are more likely to commit assaults; plus their actions are more likely to be perceived as threatening and possibly interpreted to be assaults.)

You're right that you cannot completely eliminate the risk that any assaults will occur. But I think this is one measure that might help reduce the risk, even if it is not a wholly satisfactory solution.

usafwso

I am a gay person, and let me tell you, NO TSA twit would get me the least bit excited! The uniforms are extremely ugly and my attraction tends to the smarter type person, the exact type of person would not consider employment with the TSA.

Remember, most government jobs are jobs of last resort. Most of these TSA people could not get a job at Wal-Mart.

motorguy

Yup. Therein lies the problem. Gimmie a break: Professional???

Flaflyer

Yes. She would only be offended 40% as much.

If 10% of the population is gay, and TSA hiring is full of diversi-tay, then 10% of the time the screener "enjoys" the massage more than the pax, 10% of the time the pax enjoys it more than the straight dewd performing the grope, and 1% of the time We Have a Win-Win Situation!!!!!.

motorguy

Good question. Can the TSA shills here assure us that the agency does not hire sex offenders to be screeners?

battensea

Not directly related, but this federal appeals court ruling from San Francisco yesterday shows where the federal courts apparently are on this issue (note, however, that the court was closely divided in its ruling).

The judiciary and corrections establishment appear to continue to be operating under the Victorian assumption that same-gender attraction doesn't exist, or at least that there are no gay officers performing body searches.

San Francisco Chronicle 6 Jan 2011
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...BAGE1H4PU4.DTL

The actual opinion (pdf file) is at
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...5/07-16640.pdf

Boggie Dog

It's a shame that court cases dealing with convicted felons would enter the arena of citizens who are only exercising their right to travel unmolested by government.

battensea

Well, the court didn't specifically address searching travelers. So this was just my drawing a connection.

But both situations involve the scope of authority of law enforcement officers, gender, and Fourth Amendment rights. (As well as rights to privacy and other Constitutional rights.)