What if the TSO performing the enhanced patdown is gay?
Nov 9, 2010, 7:35 pm
#31
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 549
Nov 9, 2010, 7:57 pm
#32
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: RDU
Posts: 5,239
Oh for the love of cryin' out loud! There are very few advantages to being a short female but I have to admit, as the aforementioned short female, I have often felt fortunate not to "get" this type of phobia. I've been patted down/searched by women who were pretty obviously "of an alternative lifestyle" and you know what? Didn't hurt a bit. Who cares. Is it really about the person searching you or is it about your ego? Get over yourself. The lesbian/gay person searching you is NOT interested in you, any more than your lesbian/gay med tech is interested in you. It's at work. They're wishing they were somewhere else with someone younger and better looking.
Nov 9, 2010, 8:52 pm
#34
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Nashville, TN
Programs: WN Nothing and spending the half million points from too many flights, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 8,043
Nov 9, 2010, 8:57 pm
#35
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: BOS
Posts: 814
I am a male and have had pat down from male and female TSOs before. If you don't want a certain gender touching you, you can get the other one. You may have to insist upon it.
Nov 9, 2010, 9:01 pm
#36
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Nashville, TN
Programs: WN Nothing and spending the half million points from too many flights, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 8,043
Based on what I have seen, and the potential ramifications of selecting a random choice from among the available pool of possible candidates, I'll take my chances with the possible gay guys. Just me.
Nov 10, 2010, 7:07 am
#37
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Somewhere between here and there...
Programs: WWF, Appalachian Mountain Club
Posts: 11,595
I'm talking about the relevance of informed consent to physical contact regardless of the physical contact involving vaginal penetration or not. It generally matters when it comes to physical contact.
Just because something is government sanctioned doesn't really move me one way or another as government engages in all sorts of disgusting filth.
Just because something is government sanctioned doesn't really move me one way or another as government engages in all sorts of disgusting filth.
I am not moved either, but it is established policy and must be endured until such time that TSA changes their policy. Unfortunately for all of us, the only option is to not fly, and I'll bet even tanga has begrudgingly undergone the grope.
And this is the crux of the matter - that we're being pre-judged as criminals. Not that the person doing the screening is man, woman, homosexual, transgender, sheep, broom, etc...
Nov 10, 2010, 10:23 am
#38
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
You're right about consent, it doesn't have to involve penetration to be against the law. Counter to your argument, though (as applied to airport security checkpoints), is the fact that by virtue of purchasing your airline ticket, you give explicit consent for TSA to potentially grab you in specific ways that would be illegal - had you not provided consent. Again, we're not talking about vaginal penetration here.
Again, we're talking about informed consent as involves any physical contact with sexual organs, and that includes vaginal penetration.
Nov 10, 2010, 10:43 am
#39
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Somewhere between here and there...
Programs: WWF, Appalachian Mountain Club
Posts: 11,595
Which airlines' contracts with buyers of the tickets states that the buyer of the ticket is giving explicit consent for the passengers to have their sexual organs touched by the TSA? I recall no such explicit consent in any of the contracts I've checked out.
Again, we're talking about informed consent as involves any physical contact with sexual organs, and that includes vaginal penetration.
Again, we're talking about informed consent as involves any physical contact with sexual organs, and that includes vaginal penetration.
Every airline's CoC explicitly states that you will not be carried if you don't comply with the screening process.
The TSA explicitly states what the screening process is.
I'm not bothering with quotes because you know full well what they are. I'm sorry you don't like it. Neither do I, but for now it's what we have to deal with at the checkpoint. All we can do is work together to change the system.
I'm not arguing further the vaginal penetration point. It's ridiculous and immaterial. If you believe it is not, again provide any instance where vaginal penetration has happened at a checkpoint, or where any airline or TSO states intravaginal searches are mandatory. Better yet, let's drop that topic with the agreement that it's not TSA SOP and would be illegal.
Nov 10, 2010, 10:47 am
#40
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,110
Have em all line up and pick the one who seems most likely to make your day complete.
Nov 10, 2010, 11:13 am
#41
Moderator: Smoking Lounge; FlyerTalk Evangelist
Original Poster
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: SFO
Programs: Lifetime (for now) Gold MM, HH Gold, Giving Tootsie Pops to UA employees, & a retired hockey goalie
Posts: 28,878
Nov 10, 2010, 11:15 pm
#42
Join Date: Oct 2009
Programs: AA, DL
Posts: 326
Touched on this a bit in a thread last year
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/trave...a-agent-3.html
As I implied then, for the lowest risk of incidents, patdowns should be assigned to older female TSA agents. Not that that would be practical as the TSA is currently staffed.
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/trave...a-agent-3.html
As I implied then, for the lowest risk of incidents, patdowns should be assigned to older female TSA agents. Not that that would be practical as the TSA is currently staffed.
I think the anxiety surrounding the gender of the person performing the patdown has more to do with concern that a security agent will take advantage of the situation and touch a passenger inappropriately than it has to do with whether the passenger might be aroused by the agent.
Sure, we'd all like to think that all of the security staff are professionals and none of them would ever touch a passenger inappropriately. But we'd also like to think the same of doctors and other medical personnel, not to mention clergy. With the huge numbers of patdowns that are now being ordered, it's highly likely that there will be some unpleasant incidents; hopefully these will be rare.
My sense is that in settings outside the airport (eg medical offices, hospitals) older (55+) women are probably the least likely demographic to be accused of inappropriate touching of males or females in their work. Given that, there would probably be the least number of incidents if the vast majority of patdown screeners were older women. Of course, that doesn't help a lot right now since the vast majority of airport screening staff tend to be pretty young.
Sure, we'd all like to think that all of the security staff are professionals and none of them would ever touch a passenger inappropriately. But we'd also like to think the same of doctors and other medical personnel, not to mention clergy. With the huge numbers of patdowns that are now being ordered, it's highly likely that there will be some unpleasant incidents; hopefully these will be rare.
My sense is that in settings outside the airport (eg medical offices, hospitals) older (55+) women are probably the least likely demographic to be accused of inappropriate touching of males or females in their work. Given that, there would probably be the least number of incidents if the vast majority of patdown screeners were older women. Of course, that doesn't help a lot right now since the vast majority of airport screening staff tend to be pretty young.
Nov 10, 2010, 11:31 pm
#43
Join Date: Feb 2009
Programs: AA, Priority Club
Posts: 15
Nov 11, 2010, 12:00 am
#44
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5
TSA screener would seem to be the dream job for a homosexual sex offender : you can grope people all day long right in front of police officers who will arrest you if you complain.
I have nothing against homosexuals, but I do have a problem with sex offenders of all persuasions.
I have nothing against homosexuals, but I do have a problem with sex offenders of all persuasions.
Nov 11, 2010, 2:19 am
#45
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Originally Posted by GUWonder
Which airlines' contracts with buyers of the tickets states that the buyer of the ticket is giving explicit consent for the passengers to have their sexual organs touched by the TSA? I recall no such explicit consent in any of the contracts I've checked out.
Again, we're talking about informed consent as involves any physical contact with sexual organs, and that includes vaginal penetration.
Again, we're talking about informed consent as involves any physical contact with sexual organs, and that includes vaginal penetration.
Originally Posted by tkey75
Every airline's CoC explicitly states that you will not be carried if you don't comply with the screening process.
The TSA explicitly states what the screening process is.
I'm not bothering with quotes because you know full well what they are. I'm sorry you don't like it. Neither do I, but for now it's what we have to deal with at the checkpoint. All we can do is work together to change the system.
I'm not arguing further the vaginal penetration point. It's ridiculous and immaterial. If you believe it is not, again provide any instance where vaginal penetration has happened at a checkpoint, or where any airline or TSO states intravaginal searches are mandatory. Better yet, let's drop that topic with the agreement that it's not TSA SOP and would be illegal.
The TSA explicitly states what the screening process is.
I'm not bothering with quotes because you know full well what they are. I'm sorry you don't like it. Neither do I, but for now it's what we have to deal with at the checkpoint. All we can do is work together to change the system.
I'm not arguing further the vaginal penetration point. It's ridiculous and immaterial. If you believe it is not, again provide any instance where vaginal penetration has happened at a checkpoint, or where any airline or TSO states intravaginal searches are mandatory. Better yet, let's drop that topic with the agreement that it's not TSA SOP and would be illegal.
1. The TSA doesn't explicitly state what the screening process is - consider the likes of the TSA hiding SOPs behind "SSI".
2. If any airlines' contract with buyers of tickets explicitly states what the screening process is, those explicit details surely haven't been provided in this thread (if they even exist).
3. Also, buyers of tickets may give away their own rights, but they cannot generally do so for other competent adults who are ticketed passengers.
4. Granting informed consent is rather difficult for the majority of persons to provide in such circumstances, particularly as the TSA isn't explicit about all the details of the screening process; and if the airlines' contracts are more explicit about the screening process than the the TSA, that surely hasn't been made available to all buyers of tickets and/or passengers.