Gender and Aviation Security - What's the issue?

It's another busy day at the airport. Hundreds of passengers are making their way through security to go airside. A person passes under the archway metal detector and sets off the alarm. A male security officer uses a hand-held metal detector to conduct a secondary sweep. The HHMD also alarms. 

The passenger is then invited to step aside to undergo a quick pat-down to establish what caused the alarm. As the officer is about to start the pat-down, the passenger announces;

“Excuse me; I’m a woman.”

“But Sir, your appearance is that of a man and your travel document identifies you as male.”

“I identify as a female. I’m transitioning” comes the reply.

So what happens next? 

ICAO is silent on this issue. I suspect most national aviation security programmes are likewise silent. There is no agreed international protocol, and neither is one likely to be forthcoming soon. Let’s face it, the issue of gender and transgenders is sensitive and controversial.  Thus achieving any consensus amongst ICAO’s 191 members is near impossible. Each State has its take on this issue. 

Security controls are there to check for weapons or illegal substances, but gender becomes an issue when scans or pat-downs reveal an unexpected attribute. Transgenders are sometimes wearing bindings or prosthetics that give rise to suspicion of concealment. 

Some nations are seeking to tackle the issue. The TSA has issued this video on the subject. I mention Canadian procedures later. 

The legal position varies nation to nation. In Hong Kong, the Courts have ruled that gender gets assigned at birth. It’s recorded on your identity card. Thus, in strictly legal terms and applying the current protocols, passengers are searched by the same gender. But it’s very different in other countries. In Canada and elsewhere, folks self-select their genders. I don’t want to get into that whole debate. My aim here is to consider the implications for aviation security. 

In reality, airport security staff have been screening transgenders for years probably unaware of their status. Likewise, the vast majority of transgenders have passed through security without issue. 

The need for physical searching brings the challenge. The protocol is usually men searching men, and females searching females. Yet, when someone identifies as a non-binary gender what to do? Some places have a relaxed attitude. Indeed, recently in Shanghai, I was physically examined by a woman. I had no objection to that, although I noted male security agents did not search females. In some cultures, it’s acceptable for women to search men but not vice-versa. That’s another dimension to the equation.

In most of the jurisdictions I’ve researched, if your travel document states you are male, then a male will search you. What if the person identifies as neither. Perhaps then the passenger and the security staff can agree on an approach. For example, have a female search a male who identifies as female. Although, you need to be sensitive to employee attitudes. Religious or cultural grounds can cause them to be uncomfortable. Plus fearful of allegations, staff may disagree to the role.

The Canadian Air Transport Security Authority issued a directive in September 2016, that instructs officers on how to handle physical searches. Under their procedures, trans-passengers can request a search by a male or a female officer, or they can request a "split search," where a female searches one half of the body and a male officer searches the other half.

Late last year, I ran a focus group that considered these issues. We sought to tease out the problems intending to find solutions. In the end, technology may remove the need for a physical search, and then the issue goes away. Already full-body scanners are available, and their efficacy continues to improve. 

But, even technology has its limitations. The programming of some full-body scanners is according to sex.  Staff get an alert if the scan shows a prosthesis, chest bindings or a biological anomaly. 

So what to do? Well, as I see it, you have a couple of options. None is an ideal solution although paramount is the staff showing the right attitude: sensitivity and politeness. Private screening, the current option, can avoid embarrassments. But who should search who?

To address staff concerns, it may be possible to have a cadre of officers who have no religious or cultural objections to the role.  Then subject to the passenger knowing who is doing the searching, we resolve the issue. For example, a man asserting he’s is transitioning to a female is searched by a female staff member with consent.

The Canadians in their protocols state "Never ask if someone is transgender or transsexual.” "Instead, when a physical search is required, and you are unsure about a person's gender status, ask them if they would prefer that a male or female screening officer searches."

One thing struck me from my focus group. Younger officers tended to be more relaxed about this issue. They didn’t have some of the reservations older security officer’s expressed. 

Another option that my focus group explored is the airlines operating a notification service.  Passengers with special needs in this area could pre-book a security clearance through a courtesy channel.  The channel would operate with specialist staff. Although, I suspect this would attract criticism of favouritism from the general public. 

Engaging with the transgender community would be a good idea to hear their views. The online research I’ve conducted suggests that they fear most for their dignity. Besides, drawing attention to them at security can raise sentiment in other passengers. One person reported suffering abuse on a flight having had their transgender status revealed. That’s not acceptable. Agitated passengers have potential impacts for broader safety and security considerations. Folks getting angry in flight is not something we wish to see.    

Be honest, searches may cause practical difficulties when transgenders are involved. And yet, security must be maintained while the dignity of the individual protected. Staff sensitivity appears to be the critical issue. Once you get that right, security won't be compromised, and the passenger is facilitated.