I’ve had a pat down at an airport twice. I found it boring. It’s similar to sexual contact in the same way that getting onto a crowded elevator is similar to playing football.
Although, the second time I think it actually got me through security faster, so that was cool.
If someone runs their hands up my inner legs until their hand touches my labia, and perhaps parts them so that they’re touching my vulva, even though my pants, if I have not specifically consented to that touch, what has just occurred if I haven’t been molested or sexually assaulted?
And it’s disingenuous to suggest that this is always physically harmless. For people with PTSD who are triggered by an invasive physical search (not a pat down, a pat down involves patting, not fingers run through your hair and over your face and stroking all over your body) there is harm, and it can be physical if that harm manifests as a panic attack. When someone has vomited, their heart is racing, they’re drenched in sweat and hyperventilating, they have, indeed, been physically harmed.
And what about the rest of us? Those of us who have been talking for years about how TSA procedures single out people with disabilities for more invasive and frequently disrespectful treatment? People who have been talking for years about how lack of training for TSA agents about medical issues could kill a person one day and it’s only providence that hasn’t seen it happen yet? People who have been raising the alarm for years about what TSA-forced outings could mean for gender variant people? Do we get a pass allowing us our outrage? How about those of us with PTSD who are concerned about more than being “inconvenienced?” Are our complains legitimate enough for you?
You have the right to request that an agent change gloves. You don’t have the right to demand it nor the right to refuse to be touched until they do. They can ignore your request and there is no written protocol protecting passengers if the TSA agent chooses to do so.
Opt Out Day was rendered moot because the TSA opted to turn off the Rapiscan machines in a lot of airports or simply waved those who opted out back to traditional metal detectors, in the name of keeping the long lines moving.
Thre are binding policies that say that gender variant people are not to be pulled for a secondary physical search solely because the genitals seen on the scanner don’t match their presentation, but there is no way to know if that’s being followed. At the same time, there are policies that do allow obscuring garments, like chest binders, or prosthetics such as false breasts or packers to be used in and of themselves as justification for physical searches so managing one’s presentation as a trans person can become an insurmountable problem. Lastly, there is a policy that when someone must be physically searched, someone presenting as female should be searched by a female and vice-versa, but it’s pretty obvious how a gender variant person making that demand could run into all manner of problems.
Now, let’s not move those goalposts just yet. You made the comment above that was “Hyperbole much? I’ve only seen one news story referencing an incident in which the TSO actually stuck their hand down someone’s pants.” This strongly implies that you do not believe that TSA agents sticking their hands down people’s pants is commonplace. I reported that it was, and that anyone who goes to an airport and who keeps their eyes open can see it. You comment that you do keep your eyes open because it’s part of your alleged “job”, yet you don’t address further your comment implying that TSA agents are not sticking their hands down people’s pants.
So which is it: do TSA agents or stick their hands down people’s pants during the pat-downs, or do they not? Keeping in mind, I see it every time I go to the airport…
You then make this comment:
I cannot express how utterly meaningless the opinion of the average “asleep on their feet” American rabble, the majority of whom probably do not fly more than once a year, means on this subject. One may as well as the average American what they think about nuclear power.
I just talked to a relative who took 5 hour flight and got the full treatment from the TSA. He’s on coumadin and prone to bleeding when he gets the slightest cut. As luck would have it, he nicked his leg on something in the TSA line and it produced a small cut. That cut soaked an area of his pants in blood. The blood triggered the TSA agent’s full body massage mode. They made him remove his belt so they could reach in and “count his change” and his pants fell to the floor. So, he stood there, pants around his ankles as they searched him. I’m sure that traumatized every 6 year old in the line.
My 81 year old mother is on coumadin and has two artificial joints, a knee and a hip. I doubt she’ll be flying anytime soon.
If I was with her and this happened I’d probably end up locked up. Not because I want to cause trouble but because I’m not sure that I could control my anger.
Most of this isn’t an argument for no pat-downs, it’s an argument for the TSA to know what the hell they’re doing and become familiar with, and be respectful of, medical concerns. It’s different than the privacy argument - it’s a competency argument - and I don’t think you’ll find many people who don’t agree that the TSA needs better training, better protocols, and better standards for employees.
I don’t mean to focus on your post - it’s something that’s been confated a bit here, and your post was one of the more recent on point.
No matter how well medically trained they are, the fact remains that this is still the government requiring intimate embarrassing details from people in exchange for getting on a flight. And they are requiring intimate physical exams regardless of any psychological trauma involved. They are violating our rights against unwarranted search and seizure, and they are doing it in a very intimate and personal way. They really couldn’t be more invasive without doing body cavity searches.
Also, there are legitimate scientific questions about the safety of those scanning machines. The claim that they deliver less radiation than you are exposed to inflight is disingenuous at best. The amount of radiation is simply one factor. The type of radiation is also relevant. The scanners may give you less than the whole body exposure you experience inflight, but they use a softer radiation which is deposited mostly in the surface layers of your skin. Because of this concentration in a small amount of tissue, an amount that would constitute a small whole body dose may constitute a dangerous does in the tissues affected.
They are using these machines on our children and they sometimes follow that up with an intimate exam of their genital areas. Why shouldn’t we be upset about that?
The terrorist are rolling on the floor laughing. ONE time they try getting an underwear bomb on a flight, and now we’re all subject to this insanity.
Terrorist won’t follow a previously failed path. They will move on to something new. Something like taking out the SS Mickey Mouse with it’s 2000 passengers. No matter how many nut sacks you feel, you’re not going to eliminating the risk travel presents.
Which isn’t going to happen as it would require TSA to acknowledge that their selection, background, and training standards to date are inferior to those employed by retail chain stores, and that the critical work they have been performing for the last eight years to protect our nation’s vital air transportation apparatus against infiltration and misuse by the hordes of expertly trained terrorist hijackers is actually a big wad of cotton candy barely covered by an umbrella in a windy rainstorm. TSA has become the tail wagging the dog; it’s pronouncements of the necessity of implementing unnecessary, expensive, and futile methods to deter the spectre of hijacking and bombing (something its methods would not prevent any experienced and well-equipped threat from accomplishing) are their own justification in and of themselves. And the newest pronouncements–that methods employed will not be detailed or discussed because they “[do] not want to provide a blueprint or a road map to the terrorists,”–sounds suspiciously like a Terry Gilliam satire about the perils of unchecked bureaucracy.
Stranger
My post wasn’t related to whether people should be upset - I, personally, am not, but that’s just me - other people are free to have other opinions. I was just trying to point out that there are two seperate arguments (and more, of course, beyond these), one regarding whether the pat down is ‘molestation’ and one regarding how the personnel fail to treat medical conditions appropriately. Just because a TSA employee doesn’t understand a certain medical condition, doesn’t make the search more ‘molesty.’
Of course, it can weigh on the totality of the conversation - trade offs about efficacy, implementation, personal liberty, security, and the like - but to treat the topic seriously requires that we understand what arguments we’re making, and how they’re applicable to the topic at hand. I realize that this thread has strayed far from the OP, but discussing the medical concerns in the context of whether the pat downs are equivalent to sexual molestation doesn’t really add clarity to the conversation, IMO.
This is, unfortunately, probably true - but it doesn’t really make me feel like I’m being molested during the pat downs, more so when I pay my taxes…
Between the cost of the scanners and the cost of the extra labor at security, what did the couple-hundred dollar underwear bomber cost us? What kind of dollar multiplier are they getting here? Hundred million to one?
-Joe
Intimate physical exam?
All ladies supporting this, please email me a picture of your hooters at merijeek@gmail.com. Tell your friends!
-Joe, took a CPR class once, practically a doctor
I want to modify something which I said earlier to atomicbadgerrace.
I did not mean to imply anything about your job or professionalism, I meant that we don’t know what your job actually is (nor should you necessarily tell on a message board), so I mean you say you need to do this for your job, but we just have to take you at your word, since others do not have the same experience as you. That came out more snarky than intended in the original post, and I apologize.
It’s fine, no offense taken. My experiences differ from yours, I suppose. Some have chimed in to point out that their pat downs were a non-event. Some have taken to the internet to point out how violated they were. Given the ratio of "nothing to it"s vs. “TSA fondled by labia,” and my own personal experience, I’m inclined to believe that the latter is an exception to the rule.
If the new changes don’t take, there’s always room for improvement
What you consider minimal security may not be as effective as you would like. I think there’s a serious divergence here between people’s opinions on how much security they’d like versus how much risk they’re willing to take.
People are selfish; they want as much as they can get without having to pay for it. In this case, they want as much security as they can get to feel safe, to weed out the underwear bombers or the knife-packing terrorists, but they don’t understand that to do those things would either cost too much, or we don’t have the technology for it.
I understand risk. In fact, personally I think we should take more risks. But my topic isn’t about how much risk I’m willing to take, but how I don’t mind the TSA pat downs. That’s all. Anything you’re assuming about me regarding risk is unfounded.
And your bolded statement is misleading. Such a person does exist. And if you can tell me a way where we only search the guilty ones, I’ll happily put you in charge of the TSA
I don’t know what my limit is, but I know it’s not the pat downs. Yours might be, and that’s fine. I’m just saying I don’t mind it because I don’t consider them a big deal
No, that is some other asshat 
I’m fine with that. But would you eliminate pat downs completely and just stick with the old metal detectors?
@ Yog…
Metal detectors and bomb sniffing dogs plus agents trained like customs agents are trained might be the less expensive, more effective answer.
Dogs can’t catch the scent of a knife, though I’m more than willing to use them to search for drugs or explosives. Given that 9/11 was perpetrated by guys with boxcutters, I don’t harbor resentment at the TSA for trying to implement something that would have prevented that scenario.
As for trained agents, i think it has already been proposed akin to Israel’s security. But someone mentioned that the volume alone would be overwhelming. If that is true, then I don’t see your solution, as good as it is, as practical.
Knives are hardly something to be concerned about. The reason the 9/11 hijackers succeeded with box cutters was because everyone assumed it was a routine hijack, that if they played along the crew and passengers would get out of the situation safely. That’s no longer a guarantee, and some idiot waving a knife around in the cabin would get his ass kicked hard. A knife injury is preferable to letting the plane crash.
If you’re going to look for anything, look for things that have the capacity to take the entire plane down. Like, you know, explosives.