By Gwendolyn Ann Smith
In an interview with The Advocate, Kimberly Walton, assistant administrator of Transportation Safety Administration's Office for Civil Rights and Liberty, was asked about issues transgender people have had with the agency, including the recent experience live-tweeted by a transwoman, Shadi Petosky, in the Orlando International Airport. Petosky was held by the TSA due to an "anomaly" in her scan. Specifically, her genitals.
While Walton could not speak directly about Petosky's experience, as it is under investigation, she did address a lot of more general questions about how transgender people are supposed to be treated during screening.
"Our policies and procedures focus on ensuring that all of our passenger are treated with dignity, respect and courtesy," said Walton. "With that said, we screen travelers as they present. So if a person presents as a female, they are screened as a female. If a person presents as a male, they are screened as a male. If our workforce is not sure, they are trained to discreetly and politely get clarification."
This isn't what happened in the Orlando International Airport. A TSA agent only identified as "Bramlet" demanded that Petosky rescreen as a male "or it was going to be a problem." This was only the start of 24 hours of difficulties with TSA, local police and American Airlines for Petosky.
Petosky's experience is by no means singular. Many other transmen and women have faced similar issues in TSA screening. Her experience led to a #TravelingWhileTrans hashtag on Twitter, revealing plenty of similar stories.
You see, as Walton stresses, their scanners, which she describes as "the best technology for the current and historical threat," require that people be identified by the two traditional — or should I say "current and historical" — genders. TSA agents determine which button to press based on how a person presents. Instead of useful information about weapons and bombs, then, then machine spits out details about ones body as "anomalies," and you end up being "discreetly and politely" asked about it. I assume as discreetly as Officer Bramlet spoke to Petosky, no doubt.
Of course, Walton has said many nice things about all the trans and LGBT organizations they are working with to make sure their policies are good for transgender people, and how they've been giving their employees a "Transgender 101." I have to assume that training has not made it to Florida.
She also indicated that they're working on a website update to provide better information for transgender fliers — although their sites past information for transgender fliers leads to a "not found" error.
When asked about what transgender passengers can do to have a better experience, Walton suggested calling the TSA in advance, and requesting a private screening.
Oh, and one last thing from this interview: When asked specifically about the use of the word "anomaly" to refer to transgender bodies, Walton made it clear that they are changing that word. To what, however, is not yet known.
I think that Walton, should she need to take a different position with the TSA, may consider public relations. The interview was very short on specifics, very tall on promises with a side order of doublespeak.
I want to see just what the TSA is offering up as a "Transgender 101." I want to know who prepared it. I want to know how many TSA employees have actually been through this. Is this a training session, or just a pamphlet? It would seem, from all the stories out there, that this particular "101" is not effective.
I already stressed the obvious lack of "discreet and polite" treatment that Petosky and others have received. So many transgender people have spoken out about their treatment, and how it seemed more designed to publicly humiliate them than in any way allow them to hold onto a shred of their humanity. What does this "Transgender 101" have to say about that, and how much is that respected by the rank and file if they cannot even follow this supposed policy of discretion?
Indeed, I would suggest that their current policies seem more like an "anomaly 101," with us in the center of things. These machines that are, supposedly, "the best technology" should not need to work based on a person's gender presentation. If the TSA is doing anything more than going through the motions, then they should be looking for weapons, not genitals. If they are geared towards gender, and declaring anomalies based on genitals and other body parts — binders, hysterectomy scars and breast implants, for example — how is this keeping us safe while we fly?
If the system worked, no one would feel they had to call in advance, or ask for special treatment. Then again, if the system worked, bullets and explosives would be the anomalies the TSA might pull you out of line for.
So the upshot is this: The TSA intends to largely keep going as it has, with a pretty page on their website to tell you how you can make it easier on them to scan our transgender bodies, but they'll find a better word for it when they find anomalies on our bodies.
I'm here to say, though, that the very fact they call the parts of a transgender persons' body an "anomaly" is the problem, and no as-of-yet-unknown euphemism changes that. These are not policies designed for transgender passengers, but for the TSA themselves, and — in spite of anything said by Walton — this is not a positive change.
It's not a change at all.
