New TSA stuff.

[catsittingstill]

So here's what I think.

Zeroth, what was the old rigamarole (no liquids, take off your shoes, metal detectors, etc) for if it didn't keep us safe?  And if it did keep us safe, why do we need the new rigamarole? 

First, I want to at least see the face of the person who is seeing me naked. Seeing without being seen is a big power issue. Be glad I don't demand to see her naked too, because being clothed while other people are required to be naked is also a big power issue.

Second, note "her" in the sentence above. One of the reasons I want to see her face is I want to know she's a woman. I am culturally more comfortable at sharing "naked space," like a locker room, with people of my own gender. (Though, see above, "more comfortable" is not the same as "comfortable"--if I was sharing a locker room with a security guard in full uniform I might decide to skip the whole thing and go home in my gym clothes and change there. I don't get that option in the airport.)

I'm not prejudiced. I don't care if the woman seeing me naked is gay. I don't care if she's trans. But I want someone who says right out in public "I am a woman." I want someone who knows what it is to go though life among people who think your body is public property and your time belongs to whoever cares to claim it.

Because anything else is just, you will pardon the term, naked oppression.

Hat tip to Autographed Cat for the post that prompted the response I have expanded here.

Comments

[technoshaman.livejournal.com]

Answer to the zeroth, which makes all the other sexual abuse and power play moot:

It's security theatre, and they admitted it yesterday loud and clear by their actions. Yesterday, here in the Emerald City, on the busiest day of the year, they were directing people *away* from the backscatter array, even when there was no one in line for it. If they're not using their best stuff on the day with the most people - and thus the most vulnerable - they don't need it at all. It is about power. It is about the sheepleization of the American people, the ultimate stripping naked and leading through the streets.

And I think - I hope - the American people have had enough.

I don't know how we get awesome now instead of it gets better later on this issue. But I am willing to listen to ideas. Because I am tired - sick and tired - of being sick and tired of having to beat the drum on this issue. This is America, and travel with dignity is an inalienable right, and the government will damn well defend that right, zealously, or we will damn well institute one that will, as is our inalienable right. The only open question is how.

Oh, right! America, Inc., is a public company. Voting doesn't work; we've seen that with the current Emperor. But! We can buy shares in the corporations that make it up. First target? Rupert Murdoch's News Corp.

*does research*

Ohhhhh.... how very interesting. I smell a rant coming on.

Thanks, Cat, you make me *think*...

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry, but I don't agree that the gender issues here are moot. I am uninterested in being forced to submit to male inspection, and I think the issues are different for me than for a male forced to submit to female inspection, because we don't have much in the way of male "beauty pagents" and sexual violence by females against males is very rare.

These gender issues matter to me over and above the whole security theater aspect, though I agree with you about what the avoidance of backscatter machines on the busiest travel day of the year implies about how necessary they really are.

Thanks, Cat, you make me *think*...

I think you make yourself think, actually, but I am glad to have accidentally provided the happy chance of inspiration.

[technoshaman.livejournal.com]

I know so many people that are genderfluid, orientation-fluid, and otherwise weird that I can't get my head around the idea that gender should matter (oh hell yes it DOES, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms). Besides, I offer myself as proof that though the issues may be different, males can and do still take violent issue with this. And sexual violence (and head games) female on male is less rare than you think; men just don't generally talk about it. Much less report it.

Ultimately, rape and sexual assault (and this is definitely the latter, under color of law) are about power. Your insistence on being "inspected" by a woman is (from my POV) taking *some* of that power back... but I'm not one for half measures. I want freedom to travel with dignity for *everyone*, and I'm not going to sit down or shut up until I get it. (I also want just plain old dignity for everyone, straight, gay, transgender, both, neither, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Pagan, or Pastafarian... and I'm not going to shut up until I get that, either. But the TSA is the thing that's got people fired up right now, so I'm going to whack that mole until I split its skull and force a clue in edgewise...)

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

I'm having a really hard time responding to this in a measured way.

Males can get upset about this, because even male dignity is under assault, which is not usually the case. I am, of course, happy to see males worrying about human dignity, but am saving the bulk of my rejoicing for if and when their concern for human dignity continues after male dignity is restored.

It's not like people are going to quit trying to manipulate each other. (Not to mention that implying that female manipulation is the equivalent of male violence AND male manipulation just doesn't happen is--let's leave it at "just wrong" for the moment and not get into men's rights activists, since comments don't have enough space for how I feel about *that.*)

Suffice it to say that not caring about violence until head games stop is just not caring about violence period.

Now you want to put a stop to all security theater, fine, go for it; I'm certainly not disagreeing with that, it's just not the issue I was talking about.

[pocketnaomi.livejournal.com]

I think the key phrase in here is "Oh hell yes it DOES [matter], but that's a whole 'nother can of worms." Because that was the particular can of worms catsittingstill was talking about in this post. Yes, there are other cans of worms involved in this, including all the good reasons why you're pissed at the TSA doing this to anybody, male or female... and they are indeed good reasons and I don't disagree with you. But the can of worms Cat chose to discuss in this instance was the fact that gender DOES matter, whether it should or not, whether maybe someday if and when men stop treating women so routinely as objects that women need to take that into account in every decision they make about how to interact with the public or not. It'd be great if we get to the point where we don't need to take gender into account in dealing with decisions like who's going to be staring at us naked, and why, and under what conditions. But we're not there yet, and Cat chose to discuss that aspect of the problem, and I don't blame her for having trouble responding in a measured way, because in changing the subject from the gender aspect of the TSA problem to the overall aspect of it, you were -- accidentally, I'm sure -- brushing aside a factor which matters to her and which many others of us are forced to have matter to us, as if it doesn't matter, because it isn't as relevant to you. Which isn't kosher, in her journal.

You have a good point about the TSA operations and how they affect everybody. Cat has a good point about the TSA operations and how they specifically additionally affect women. It's her journal, she gets to decide which good point we're discussing at the moment.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

brushing aside a factor which matters to her and which many others of us are forced to have matter to us, as if it doesn't matter, because it isn't as relevant to you

This. THIS.

Go, pocketnaomi!

[pocketnaomi.livejournal.com]

Thanks. Since I was daring to speak at least partially for you, I'm glad you feel I got it right.

[hitchkitty.livejournal.com]

Let me play advocatus diaboli for a moment:

The "old rigamarole" was to keep us safe, given the threats we were aware of at the time. The new procedures are intended to address holes in security discovered in the interim. Presumably, when weaknesses in THIS system are found, additional safeguards will be put in place, and so on.

--------------

The problem is, all security measures are reactive. You cannot stay ahead of those who are determined to cause harm. And ultimately, there is no way to permanently stop anyone who is willing to die to accomplish his goals. The question Americans have to ask is, "How safe is safe enough?"

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Well, and security is that thankless job where, if I remember Bujold's phrase, successes are secret; failures are splashy. I expect some of the people involved are just trying not to be blamed when the next thing goes wrong. Because it is a when, not an if.

But remember when we used to be encouraged to despise the government of the USSR, who required papers for ordinary citizens to travel?

I don't recall that even they required people to parade naked in front of security guards for inspection.

And in our "security" theater, the power, and specifically gender, issues here are passing under the radar. I don't think they should.

[hitchkitty.livejournal.com]

Yes, but we were so encouraged by our OWN government, who were looking for reasons to tell us to despise Teh Evul Empire. Wasn't necessarily a statement from our government that a "papers, please!" state was a bad thing.

Remember, it's only wrong when "they" do it.

Power issues, certainly. Not sure about the gender issues. I don't know who's looking at my crotch-luggage. Could well be a man, a woman, or a trained chimp. Mind, as a Y-chromosome carrier, I don't have the -same- socialized body issues as a double-X; but as a slight male with a bit of a paunch, I'm not terribly thrilled with being seen naked by anyone.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

See above, what pocketnaomi has to say.

[pocketnaomi.livejournal.com]

This is why I fully intend to ask for the "grope test," s unpleasant as it may be, every time over the scanners. They have to send someone of the same gender as oneself to do that test, and since it's done by hand in direct proximity, I get to see that it's a woman. Like you, I don't care what variety of woman, but I want someone who has experienced the way this society treats women and their bodies, for the same reason that I didn't choose obstetricians who had not personally borne children.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Yes, this makes sense. If I can't see the person running the scanner, then at least I'll see the person doing the groping. And she will be a woman, like me.

someone who has experienced the way this society treats women and their bodies

Which apparently men, with the best will in the world, just cannot perceive.

[pocketnaomi.livejournal.com]

Which apparently men, with the best will in the world, just cannot perceive.

At least it seems that goodwill isn't sufficient to make it possible for them to perceive it. I won't make blanket statements about what men can or cannot perceive for the same reasons that I don't like to hear men make blanket statements about what women can or cannot perceive; there are always exceptions to any broad categorical statement (including, doubtless, the one I just made about broad categorical statements, if you want to play paradox games). But there's a difference between blanket statements and statistical predictions, and when I'm deciding what to do, between choices that are mine to make, such as scanners with random viewers I don't see or pat-downs by female agents I do see, I will bet the short odds.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Well, and I'm being too general. I was exasperated, and exaggerating.

I expect there are men who can perceive it, and can realize it's important.

[judifilksign.livejournal.com]

Washington Post claims there has been a survey saying the majority of Americans support the new scanners and searches as needed for our safety. I'm not buying it; the report lacks the date of the survey, and who conducted it. And I'd like to know what the people who fly on a regular basis feel, not just Americans who never fly and thus cannot put themselves in the already shoeless feet of travelers, or pilots and flight attendants.

I am not comfortable with my boundaries, either visual or physical being crossed in these new procedures. I suppose being violated by a woman is a little better than being violated by a man, but it is still a violation to me. I work with troubled teens who have been horribly abused by both males and females, and we teach them that their bodies are their own...oh, except when you buy a ticket to fly? It's unacceptable!

Trying to minimize my feelings of violation by comforting myself that at least my boundaries are being crossed by a fellow female actually provides me with little comfort at all. I *do* agree with Cat that being able to look at my searcher in the eye gives me a bit of power back.

Shortly after 9/11, traveling home with my two sons, I was pulled aside for a pat down that included full breast groping, side and bottom pats, in full view of fellow passengers. It was horrible, even when done by a woman, who warned me in a bored voice what she was about to do as she was doing it. ("I'm going to touch your breasts to look for contraband" as she was groping.) Our shoes were taken and put in a special bomb-sniffing machine as they went through our luggage. I kept it together on the outside for the sake of the kids and to try to be a good citizen, but the memory, more than seven years old, STILL burns. I have never worn a bra with an underwire flying again, nor anything metallic like jewelry, or belts. I take off my medical bracelet for the basket. The thought that I might have to endure that sort of thing routinely is appalling to me on a personal level.

And I've read that the men and women having to do the searches are really, really unhappy about it, too. What does that do to their daily psyches, to have to depersonalize folks so they can get through their day. "Just following directives" sounds like a horrible echo of bad psychological experiments of people following the voice of authority to be convinced to hurt people.

I truly think we ought to really look at a security force who have gotten it right for 60 years: the Israelis. They question everybody, and only pull aside people who respond weirdly to the screening questions. Now, this takes training, and decent pay. It doesn't have the pizazz of a modern gadget that someone can use with a two-hour training.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

In case there's some confusion, I didn't mean to say that I support the new policy, or that I don't see other problems with it.

I agree that I don't want to be groped by a female either. Just... if I decide to fly again, when I'm walking toward the guillotine, would I rather have my toes chopped off, or my feet? Toes. If I'm going to be seen naked, or groped, I want it to be by someone of my own gender, and I want to see whoever it is.

I do my best to avoid perfectly innocent things, which I shouldn't have to do, (I had a pair of shoes with some kind of steel shank in the sole, for example) to make the procedure quicker and smoother and it still doesn't work.

And it has been getting more and more onerous over time. And what for? *Everything* the 9-11 hijackers took on the plane was perfectly legal at the time. Patdowns and bomb sniffing machines for their shoes, and taking their water away, and all wouldn't have changed a damn thing.

[judifilksign.livejournal.com]

I'd like us to regain our dignity. I feel like American "security theatre" is the laughingstock of the world, when it isn't offending the heck out of travelers.

I hope enough of us are complaining to Congress, that maybe they'll listen and pressure Homeland Security and TSA to do a re-think on how they treat people.

[randwolf.livejournal.com]

The manual search procedures are incredibly invasive, regardless of who carries them out. (See Judi's remarks on being searched by a female TSA officer.) I wonder who thought them up: that person or group I would like to see investigated.

There are other problems with these machines. One is a radiological safety problem: there is no public data on them, and therefore no independent evaluation of their safety. The claims that the x-rays used by some of these machines (others use microwaves) do not penetrate the skin appear false based on examination of published images. They do not seem to be adequately shielded, and may put TSA officers at great risk. Some technical issues covered here.

Another problem is that it appears possible, though it is not certain, that we are hearing so much about this now because it is anti-government propaganda, aimed perhaps at re-privatizing airport security. There are connections with the Koch Foundation. This Nation article, while deservedly criticized for casting aspersions at John Tyner, has evidence of questionable connections in the work.

I think the messaging has got away from the Koch (pronounced "coke") Party in any event: this appears to be something which both right and left agree on. But it is going to take an act of god to get this fixed. The poll indicating widespread support of the restrictions was an honest telephone poll done by CBS. I'd caution in interpreting the results, that pollsters are forbidden by law to call cell phones, which means that the sample would have skewed to older subjects, and that many poll subjects seem to answer at random when the topic of the poll does not directly concern them. Nonetheless, I think much of the public does not yet grasp that if these procedures become standard in transportation policing they will be deployed far and wide.

ACLU press release. They've been working on this and related issues from the start. Might be time to throw them some (more) money, regardless of any objections to them.

...and how are international travelers and business travelers going to respond to this?

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

...and how are international travelers and business travelers going to respond to this?

Quit coming to the US? China and India are very big markets now.

[kittyguitar.livejournal.com]

Oddly enough, I personally would prefer being scanned by a man to being patted down by a woman. Degree-of-invasiveness issues trump gender issues for me. Look at me if you must--but don't touch me.

This doesn't mean I'm in favor of the scans, though. I may not personally have a huge problem with them, but I have a problem with the fact that they're being inflicted on other people whose feelings are just as valid as mine.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Fair enough.