Christin Milloy:

Rise up and seize equality

Transgender People are Completely Banned From Boarding Airplanes in Canada

The shit hit the fan in the trans blogosphere last night, when it came to light that there is a disturbing new section in the Identity Screening Regulations used in airports throughout Canada. Simply put, Transgender People are Completely Banned From Boarding Airplanes in Canada.

The offending section of the regulations reads:

5.2 (1) An air carrier shall not transport a passenger if …
(c) the passenger does not appear to be of the gender indicated on the identification he or she presents;

Although this obviously discriminatory smear of regulation did not come to significant public attention until very recently, it apparently came into effect on July 27th, 2011.

It is important to note that these regulations are not actually a piece of legislation, which would have had to pass through readings and votes in the House and Senate (which is probably why it went unnoticed until now). Rather, the Identity Screening Regulations are a set of rules implemented unilaterally by the Ministry of Transportation, as part of Canada’s so-called Passenger Protect, which is essentially the Canadian Federal Government’s equivalent to the U.S.’s “no-fly” list.

Minister of Transportation Denis Lebel is, of course, a federal Conservative MP appointed to the cabinet position by Stephen Harper.

So what does this mean? Well, in order to change the ‘sex’ designation on a Canadian Passport, the federal government requires proof that surgery has taken place, or will take place within one year. So for non-operative transgender persons, for gender nonconforming (genderqueer) persons, and for the vast majority of pre-operative transsexual persons, it is literally impossible to obtain proper travel documentation marked with the sex designation which “matches” the gender identity in which they live.

In the eyes of the honourable Minister of Transportation, that makes trans people unfit to fly in Canada.

It is interesting to note that this regulatory adjustment occurred immediately following the federal election in 2011. In the previous parliament, Bill C-389, a bill to amend the Human Rights Code to explicitly enshrine protections against discrimination for transgender people, had successfully passed in the House of Commons, only to die on the Senate floor when Harper declared a Federal Election (thereby dissolving parliament).

Is the timing of this disturbing and blatantly discriminatory regulatory adjustment merely a coincidence? That is up to you to decide. However, the negative impact on trans people is crystal clear, and we need to take action now.

What You Can Do:

Facebook Group: À bas l’interdiction aérienne transphobe—Against Canada’s trans flight ban

Recommended Further Reading:

Air Canada confirms they must comply with transphobic law (Jennifer McCreath)

Canadian Department of Justice…Here comes Josie!! (TranssisterR8TO)

UPDATE – JAN 30 17:51

I want to stress that as yet, I have no confirmed cases of a trans person actually being refused boarding. However, as I commented on leftygirl’s blog this afternoon:

Regardless of who may be slipping through the cracks due to matters of convenience or due to individual cases of ignorance on the part of the airport gateminders, the regs are the regs. And the regs ban trans people explicitly by their definition. We cannot allow regs which judge people based on how they “appear” to be gendered; it is unacceptable.

UPDATE – FEB 2 – Transport Canada Caught in Misinformation — Response to Media Contained Embarrassing Error (new article)


  1. Viktoria Belle
    Monday, 2012.01.30 at 12:59

    I am very appalled by this so called “rule” we as candians pride ourselves in accepting peoples of all kinds. and placing prejudice on transgendered minority is the same as pointing blame on someone whom is of ethnic minority as well.
    The Canadian government would never ban someone from flying because they were born in, lets say a third world country, a country embedded in violence, a country surrounded by terrorism, yet immigrated here for a better chance at life. So why ban a human being, a citizen or not, whom is attempting to live a better life for themselves.
    This lacks human dignity and compassion any argument for this “rule” i wont even call it a law, has no bearings or substance.
    I would hope we as a Canadian government would have been more diplomatic then this.

    • dc88
      Monday, 2012.01.30 at 18:13

      I am as appalled as you are that the law exists. However, your parallel with ethnic minority is off the mark. The law doesn’t say transgendered people cannot board, it just states that your ID must match your appearance. If a person of one skin colour attempted to board with a passport that stated that he or she had a different skin colour, then yes, that would raise a red flag, and no, that person would not be allowed to board. A person who is genetically male but identifies herself as female should be allowed to designate herself as such on her passport. Then there would be no discrimination. That’s where the law really needs to be changed.

      • SK
        Monday, 2012.01.30 at 20:32

        Well, it’s a good thing Michael Jackson isn’t still alive and trying to fly in Canada!

        • Mel
          Friday, 2012.02.24 at 10:58

          and this sort of banter makes hate filled laws like this seems humorous to the general population.

          • Michael
            Wednesday, 2014.08.20 at 14:02

            Its not hate filled it has nothing to do with discrimination the point of the rule is to ensure people are not posing as someone they are not.

        • sc34441
          Wednesday, 2012.06.13 at 22:20

          MJ never had a sex change operation, never changed his gender and he flew on private planes….

          • ivy
            Tuesday, 2014.08.19 at 06:57

            they mean that since michael jackson had vitiligo his skin color changed and if your skin color is changed it would raise a red flag.

      • Jason
        Monday, 2012.01.30 at 23:29

        “A person who is genetically male but identifies herself as female should be allowed to designate herself as such on her passport. Then there would be no discrimination. That’s where the law really needs to be changed.”

        No disagreement here, but it’ll never happen. Here in the UK, you have to jump through hoops to get it to happen- and here it’s a lot easier than anywhere else I’m aware of. You don’t, however, have to have had any surgery (although if you haven’t, you do need to explain why- such as, money, or time, or medical complications etc.) You also need to have lived as that gender for at least two years- and the hardest part is that you have to have documentation to prove it.

        My point, I suppose, is that the law and the courts have no desire to make it easy for us.

        • Ivy
          Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 20:09

          Thats saying that we have to live by society’s view of gender, which is bull 🙁

        • Jax
          Monday, 2012.02.06 at 19:21

          I can tell you that in Australia we can change all relevant identification to that of our true gender. This is ofcourse only done post operatively and is actually not that difficult to do. As Russell Crowe once said “God save the Queen, God bless America but thank Christ for Australia.” We can be an uptight bunch down under but we are also a very accepting bunch too. I send my love and support to my Canadian sisters and brothers who are affected by this silly but harmful rule. One has to wonder that slippery slopes begin somewhere and sometimes in the most ‘benign’ ways.

          • Tuesday, 2012.02.14 at 01:33

            What wisdom from Russell Crowe–he managed to praise the three largest heads of the colonial hydra in one foul sentence.

            The genocides of the aborigines of the British isles, the Australian continent, and the North American continent could not be better summed up by that gladitorial fool.

          • C.
            Monday, 2012.05.21 at 21:55

            Well, uh, not every trans* person wants to medically transition, or have any kind of operation on themselves. So.. not all trans* people can change their info.

        • Some guy
          Sunday, 2014.08.17 at 19:00

          In the United States, one just needs a letter from a doctor stating that transition is “complete”, whatever that may mean for the person. The person does not have to state any reasons why they are non-op or pre-op. There is also no two year “full time” requirement.

          So all the trans person needs to do is fill out a passport application and send it in with a letter from a doctor.

          Here is a copy of the form letter for the regular, 10 year passport:

          “I, (physician’s full name), (physician’s medical license or certificate number), (issuing State of medical license/certificate), am the attending physician of (name of patient), with whom I have a doctor/patient relationship.

          (Name of patient) has had appropriate clinical treatment for gender transition to the new gender (specify new gender male or female).”

        • Em
          Monday, 2014.08.18 at 07:56

          My experience of getting a passport in my new name and gender in the UK was relatively easy. All I had to do was provide them with my original birth certificate, a letter from my GP stating my intention to permanently transition away from my birth gender, and a my statutory name change document (which I got for free from a local lawyer). Oh, and some new photos as well, but that’s normal if you’re applying for a new passport anyway. It was quite a painless process, and one I did within a couple of months of starting to properly transition.

          On topic, I fly around twenty times a year, and as an openly transgender person, it’s an unpleasant experience from start to finish. Going through security, if I sound the metal detector then I always get asked what my binder is and why I’m wearing it. Despite getting a new passport, no one ever sees the gender written on it either, so I’m constantly misgendered. I suppose there are just inconveniences compared to these, frankly ridiculous, restrictions. I know plenty of transgender people that openly present very clearly as one gender, yet who travel with documents clearly stating their birth gender. Why the gender or biological sex of a person is relevant to travel, I really don’t know. I guess the solution would be to have no gender or sex indication on passports at all.

        • Anon
          Monday, 2014.08.18 at 17:15

          Luckily, that’s only for changing your birth certificate. All you have to do to change your UK passport is to present “a letter from your doctor or medical consultant confirming that your change of gender is likely to be permanent, and evidence of your change of name – eg a deed poll”

          There’s no non-binary gender marker available, but for binary-identified trans people changing your passport is relatively easy, and you certainly don’t have to go through all the rigamarole of getting a GRC.


        • Jak
          Monday, 2014.08.18 at 20:33

          Jason, in order to get a passport with the correct gender marker on it in the UK you don’t need a GRC. All you need is a letter from your GP saying that you are trans/going through treatment for GID, your deed poll and your old birth certificate.

          You need two years worth of proof and paperwork and letters from three different docs to get your GRC.

      • Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 03:11

        On the surface, I agree with you, but dig a little deeper. Not everyone falls into a gender or sex binary.

        What about biologically female people who identify as female, and have ovarian cysts or other conditions that cause them to grow facial hair? People whose gender and sex match but are simply androgynous? Women of ethnicities which don’t match widespread European standards of “femininity”? No airport personnel should be looking at someone and deciding they look “too male” or “too female.”

        If their face matches, their face matches. The end.

        • Ivy
          Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 20:10


        • Gabi
          Thursday, 2012.02.02 at 11:37

          You know, this struck me as well. Even as a cisgendered woman, I get asked if I’m “a boy or a girl” with regularity. I volunteer at a local museum, and kids aren’t as inhibited about that stuff as adults are. If an airport official decides that I’m not feminine enough to match the ‘F’ on my passport, then where does that put me? Putting on extra lace and earrings to fly?
          Am I too andro to travel? I know governments are ridiculous, and laws about national insecurity exacerbate that, but adding a special gender-conformity line is too much.

        • Bethanie
          Tuesday, 2014.08.19 at 20:40

          Exactly my thoughts

      • Stefan
        Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 08:41

        Im appalled that you are appalled by this law and can’t think for yourself. A passport first of all: doesn’t read Gender…It reads Sex…a genetic male can identify themselves as female and vice-versa…that would be gender…but sex denotes your biology, not your gender – they are two different things but thats why they ask your sex not gender.

        Second of all, the law is designed to ensure the safety of the passport. If everyone looked different on their passport it would be impossible to tell if it actually belongs to that person. The law is read this way to ensure that if someone has appeaance altering surgery, that it is reported so that their identification can be changed accordingly. Just like if their address or name changes. If someone has facial reconstruction they would have to undergo the same process.

        This law is not hating on transgendered people. It is not discriminatory, it is actually very sensical in a way that DOESN”T discriminate. It is all these morons who take this blog at face value who make the law offensive. This is not offensive, and this blog is misleading. Think for yourself people.

        • Christin
          Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 13:40

          If the government saw Sex and Gender as distinct, and offered a Gender designation instead of a Sex designation on ID, then maybe this wouldn’t be an issue.


          • paige
            Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 15:01

            actually offering gender instead of sex would be a huge issue. sex is biological, what parts you have how you are physically constructed where gender is a social construct. it is much more controversial to ask someone to describe theirself based upon the constructed views of society.

        • Thalia
          Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 14:21

          If the law enabled transgender people to update their passport without problems, I would agree that this would not be a big issue. But as it is, it is not possible to update your passport. Therefore, this *is* a big issue, and is clearly discriminatory.

          • Sean
            Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 14:52

            This is not an issue. Because this regulation does not define “gender” as the difference in feminine and masculine traits. The regulations define “gender” as “sex”. Which means you are not being discriminated on your definition of “gender”. You are being identified as the correct sex which was listed on your ID. It is not necessary to insert another field called “gender” which is arbitrarily decided by the user. It is only necessary to realize that the definitions of the words in the regulation may differ from your preconceived definitions.

        • Opinion
          Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 15:49

          Nice to see someone who is not all emotion and understand the law. It’s too easy to cry discrimination at any headline. Read the story properly. It is strictly a case of security, not discrimination. If I change my facial look, I’ll have to have another passport, that’s all there is to it. It’s everyone, not only transgendered people.

          • Forsythia
            Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 20:01

            And what to intersex people do? Got a “rational” answer for that? Or do you even know what an intersex person is?

          • Jane Emery
            Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 21:16

            Where does it say anything about FACIAL contradictions?! the only thing this law cares about is your gender/ sex appearance compared to a single letter on ID. If it’s goal is security it fails, and in case no one has figured it out anything that gives people a loop hole which they can pass their hate through they will. Any women wearing pants could legally be denied the right to fly if the guy taking the ID felt like it.

          • Sunday, 2014.08.17 at 16:09

            that person seemed the most emotional of anyone who posted – I didn’t see any other commenters using words like “morons”

            anyway, he’s not as clever as he thinks. he’s wasting words on people thinking something is offensive and claiming they’re mistaken – buddy, people know if they’re offended or not, and if they are? it is. but the complaint is not that this law offends, the complaint is that it harms.

            biological sex binary is an arbitrarily selected aspect of an individual’s physical self to police and make pertinent. if it isn’t presented as a category on the identification, as many things are not (length of toenails, hairstyle, tonsils or appendix present), then it cannot be a locus of identity fraud. You can just remove it from the equation.

            Just because some people don’t see things the same way you do – especially people who have quite evidently actually spent time considering the matter that you haven’t, and who may have it impacting their lives which you quite evidently do not (except inasmuch as you benefit from the status quo) – doesn’t mean they can’t think for themselves, that they’re taking this blog at “face value,” or that they are morons. You are being unkind for no reason and it reflects poorly on your character, Stefan. Ask yourself why advocacy for trans issues makes you so angry and hostile.

        • Ivy
          Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 20:11

          But its saying that if you’re genetically female then you have to dress and appear accordingly as society’s view of female

          • Ivy
            Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 20:13

            srry u was trying to reply to stefan, not you

          • Nerodon
            Tuesday, 2014.08.19 at 01:28

            No, this simply means that airport personnel can use their judgement to see if someone is trying to disguise themselves as a different sex to match their passport. (Which in this case means they are not the person on the passport)

            Any raised flag can be easily cleared without problems if you are truly the person presented on your passport. But even I would be questioned if my passport had hair and beard on the picture after I shaved it all off, it wouldn’t be based on my gender, but the idea is the same.
            It’s meant to catch potential criminals, any wrongful refusal of service solely on perceived gender/sex would be considered discrimination and is punishable by law.

        • Ivy
          Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 20:14

          But its saying that if you’re genetically female then you have to dress and appear accordingly as society’s view of female

        • Jane Emery
          Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 20:53

          This post is ridiculous… your gender/ sex argument is opinion not fact, there are a lot of people who still consider them synonyms and plenty of government documents use them as such. Also you could easily have the law dictate that someone not matching their passport photo is denied flight instead this explicitly states the determining factor to be a gender marker on the ID so it actually does the opposite ie. So I can look like a female in my photo but if my marker is an “m” then I need to dress differently in order to comply here? so now I look different then my photo. Your argument makes little logical sense and maybe you should learn to think for yourself instead of parroting hate mongering fear.

        • Michael
          Tuesday, 2014.08.19 at 05:29

          If your statement held true then we would have to have at least a third sex designation for those that are biologically both sexes. But there isn’t such a designation. It is the two designations that is the real problem. And as it was mentioned before how does one determine what “sex” another person is. Is it by appearance? Do we pull people’s pants down? Or do we ask them to identify themselves within one of the two categories that are called sex? It is not as simple as biology.

      • Cain
        Friday, 2012.02.03 at 22:07

        Transgender people. NOT transgendered.

        At least get these basics right before ffs. It isn’t that hard, and it avoids people being hurt to triggered.

        • Marie
          Tuesday, 2012.02.07 at 21:30

          I’ve heard both words used and think it has little difference. It is like saying transsexual instead of transsexed – both are used and accepted generally. Both can be used as nouns or adjectives and some have multiple spellings (transexual/transsexual). Some people just say trans woman or trans man (trans people). Transgender(ed) really doesn’t say much anyway as it encompasses all gender variant people as an umbrella term. Personally, I think transgendered is a better term than transgender because it can be matched with woman or man whereas transgender can imply a third gender when one doesn’t want to be recognized as such. And then there is bi-gendered, omni-gendered, etc. Yep terms, we have a lot of them. Intent and tone are more important.

          • Christin
            Tuesday, 2012.02.07 at 21:58

            Hi Marie,

            Cain is right. “Transgendered” is not a word (because transgender is not a verb).

            And I’m afraid I’ve never heard anyone use the word “Transsexed.”


        • Laura
          Monday, 2014.08.18 at 22:20

          if that triggers you, you need therapy.

          • Mykell
            Wednesday, 2014.08.20 at 01:22

            What an ableist comment.

        • Dakota
          Wednesday, 2014.08.20 at 11:17

          Quit screaming “trigger” over everything.
          A trigger isn’t something that makes you uncomfortable.
          A trigger is something that causes panic, and even panic attacks.
          It is not anxiety, or being uncomfortable.
          A trigger is not “I don’t like this, this makes me uncomfortable”.

      • MoonBeam
        Tuesday, 2014.08.19 at 10:31

        Not exactly. I thought the same at first, until I read further. It wasn’t merely talking about outer appearances matching said gender on Identifications, it also said that if you haven’t had the “corrective surgeries”, or have physical proof that those surgeries will occur within one year, you aren’t allowed to fly.

      • Chloe
        Tuesday, 2014.08.19 at 13:06

        but that’s the problem, it says how you APPEAR. Not every trans person is passing. Some trans people aren’t passing yet because they are mid transition (a very long process I might add) and some simply because they were unable to start the process early enough in life. If a person doesn’t start by their mid thirties then there is a drastic difference in the effectiveness of the hormones. So you’re dooming anyone who doesn’t appear to be as the gender they identify. Remember the rule doesn’t say that their ID has to match, in fact it specifically says that if their appearance doesn’t match the id then they are to be denied. It doesn’t even mention what gender you identify as or were assigned at birth. The rule is designed to circumvent those things in order to be discriminatory.

    • PeytonsBoys
      Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 19:17

      Why are you saying “we as canadians pride ourselves in accepting poeples of all kinds”……..

      Where have you been??

      This isnot just a trans gender comment so don’t take it personally but honestly think about how “us Canadians” accept people…..

      For future reference, please don’t mistake “us Canadians” for the government and assume all Canadians openly accept people into our country.

      I’m Canadian and beleive we should only accept people into this country under the age of 40 who have an opportunity to contribute to the economy for 25 years minimum. Bottom line…..

    • Viktoria is an Idiot
      Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 23:09

      Viktoria with a K? really. How can anyone take you yuppies seriously.

    • Tuesday, 2012.02.14 at 01:30

      A country embedded in violence? Uh oh! Does that mean all Canadians won’t be allowed to fly?

    • Samuel
      Wednesday, 2014.08.20 at 11:58

      This is kind of stupid. People. the point of a passport or piece of ID is to be able to IDENTIFY you. If you appear to not be of the gender shown on your ID, then quite obviously you should be barred from flying. Who knows if it’s identity theft? next time, I’ll steal some girls ID and say hey, this was me before I did operations. Of course that won’t work. People. you have to start bringing LOGIC and your EMOTIONS together. I’m not against transgendered people flying, or utilising air service, in fact, I highly recommend it. But please, for everyone’s safety. don’t start shouting discrimination whenever there’s something that bars you. Just set the gender to male or female to align it with your operated self.

      • nicole
        Monday, 2015.08.24 at 17:03

        what if some people choose not to have the surgery due to other issues infection is a huge risk diabetics have a very high problem when it comes to surgery for if a diabetic gets a scratch on his/her foot and it gets infected they could loose their leg or they could die depending on where the cut is gets infected

        • Christin Scarlett Milloy
          Tuesday, 2015.10.06 at 15:57

          Precisely. My genitals and my surgical status and my decisions are my business and not the government’s.

    • Telzey
      Friday, 2014.08.22 at 07:48

      It is sad for me to hear that Canada is following the path of bigotry. I had always thought that Canada was a bastion of free spirited people that prided themselves as accepting of all. I guess things change. Sometimes change is just not good. Very sad.

  2. Monday, 2012.01.30 at 13:37

    That is absolutely appalling! I have transgender friends. And while some might not now be the prettiest girls, they are still entitle to live their lives.


    • Nola
      Monday, 2012.01.30 at 16:55

      Your comment is transphobic and therefore equally disgusting. Gross.

      • Bujinkan
        Monday, 2012.01.30 at 17:56

        How is this statement transphobic? It appears to be nothing more than an honest, if somewhat harsh, observation.

      • Monday, 2012.01.30 at 18:47

        I dont think this is transphobia, sorry. More, it’s a comment on the “we’ll give the pretty girls a pass because they’re so CUTE and maybe I’ll get lucky!” mindset that one can very easily find these days.

        • Dollywitch
          Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 09:17

          You’re right it’s not transphobic, it’s misogynistic. Why does how pretty they are come into it? How is that relevant?

          • Timothy
            Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 18:54

            It’s not relevant, but who cares?

      • JBrianH
        Monday, 2012.01.30 at 20:04

        I’m just going to say Nola’s comment sounded real hateful, then two out of five comments followed Nola’s lead. A shame.

        • And then there were none
          Monday, 2012.01.30 at 22:23

          The combo breaker award goes to JBrianH for managing to undermine the majority voting power by calling out inadequacies in human context and human observation!

        • Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 07:29

          I think there’s a difference between hate and badly chosen words. Sometimes you gotta throw a rope, dude.

          To save a second post, I kind of agree with the rule in the Canadian airports, in terms of preventing say an illegal im/emigrant, on escaped convict or even a terrorist, that rule is a necessity.
          However I would agree that perhaps it would need a little bit of refining in order to compensate for transgendered people. Perhaps more toward changing gender options for I.D. so that it is descriptively accurate.

          All in all, this whole story seems more an administrative mess up than an intentional discriminating action.

          • juan
            Wednesday, 2012.02.01 at 02:39

            you are right, the biggest terrorist was in Canada recently, kissing and hugging with harper: george Bush

        • b.g.
          Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 11:21

          Nah, actually I’d say that Nola’s comment was right on the money, Beth’s was derogatory, and you’re a tone troll.

      • Robyn
        Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 11:37

        I think this is a case of “I don’t think that word means what you think it means”.

        It’s a comment on attractiveness, not passability. A bit mean and probably a bit honest? Yes. Transphobic? No. Lighten the hell up.

    • Heather
      Monday, 2012.01.30 at 18:38

      Would you make that comment about all women born female ???. I don’t think so, a bit ignorant if you ask me. What do your Trans friends think of your comment?

      • Hannah
        Monday, 2012.01.30 at 20:04

        Have you heard the way many women talk about each other? It wasn’t kind, but the problem is more related to sexism (yes, I know the commenter is a woman as well) than transphobia.

    • Angela
      Monday, 2012.01.30 at 18:48

      WOW. Your comment is absolutely problematic.

      • JBrianH
        Monday, 2012.01.30 at 20:06

        Sorry, maybe one out of five.

    • Leo
      Monday, 2012.01.30 at 21:58

      To all the shocked repliers of this both: the cruel fact of the world is that not every single woman on this Earth is beautiful, and neither is every woman. Nothing about this observation is sexist or transphobic – it is a fact. Another fact is that every person is beautiful to someone, and ugly to someone else. This is not transphobia. Transphobia would be invalidating the gender of the transwomen for to their looks that do not match person A’s beauty standards.
      Beth is not implying they are poorly crossdressing men – Beth said some of them are not the prettiest of girls to her eyes.
      It is also transphobia if you think that it is alright to say someone does not look good to you if they are cisgendered, but that every transperson is good-looking simply because they are trans. Positive discrimination is still discrimination. You do not know if these women are beautiful. It may not seem like an important or even appropriate matter, but in the end, this is the core of the original question: their looks DO matter in Canadian flight regulations. These women may very well be turned back from their flights because they’re not attractive to another person’s eye, simply for that reason. They are definitely more in danger in terms of discrimination than the beautiful model type, who will have an edge to slip through because they are “more attractive”.

      • Leo
        Monday, 2012.01.30 at 21:59

        Note to self; Don’t post when tired.
        “Shocked repliers to this POST” and “neither is every man”.

    • C.
      Monday, 2012.05.21 at 22:03

      uhhh.. actually, your friends are GORGEOUS girls, and they should be told that everyday.
      I wouldn’t be your friend if I was them. Barf.

    • Chloe
      Tuesday, 2014.08.19 at 19:50

      “pretty” or beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and no woman should be forced to live up to another’s idea of what looks good. No woman, cis or trans, should have to look one way or another to be validated.

    • Chloe
      Tuesday, 2014.08.19 at 19:50

      “pretty” or beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and no woman should be forced to live up to another’s idea of what looks good. No woman, cis or trans, should have to look one way or another to be validated.

  3. Monday, 2012.01.30 at 14:43

    Here’s what I don’t get:

    If I typically wear my hair long, and I decide to shave it, I am responsible for updating my photo identification to match my new look. This isn’t new and it isn’t shocking.

    If I identify female, and I choose to style myself in a way that is typically identified as “feminine” (in terms of attire, makeup, hairstyle, or whatever else), then I should be allowed to have my photo identification reflect this. Even if we are still fighting the laws that force me to put “male” on my passport, it should be pretty clear that the photo in my passport is me.

    So, it shouldn’t matter if it says “male” on my passport, the gate agent should be able to look at my photo, look at me in person, and say “Yup, that’s a match.”

    I can only imagine that the regulation’s *intention* (an admittedly failed one) was to stop people from boarding who look “male” (or “female”), when their passport photo is showing someone who looks “female” (or “male”).

    But I might be too generous and forgiving.

    • Christin
      Monday, 2012.01.30 at 16:31

      Yup, the regulations are indeed ridiculous. Photo and name match should be enough. Sex and Gender should not even be present on government ID!

      Thanks, Greg.


      • Jor L
        Monday, 2012.01.30 at 20:50

        I disagree. I think both sex and gender should be placed on the id so that people can be identified and addressed by the honorific of their choise, even if they do not appear to belong to that honorific.

        Plus, maybe a majority of the populus may come to understand the difference in the words “sex” and “gender.”

        • Chas
          Monday, 2014.08.18 at 20:44

          No. That’s a terrible idea. It would force trans people out in spaces that are unsafe.

      • Joel
        Wednesday, 2012.02.01 at 10:35

        You can opt to have your gender listed as “X” when applying for a Canadian passport, making this whole argument a moot point.

        • Christin
          Wednesday, 2012.02.01 at 13:15

          Not true.


    • anne
      Monday, 2012.01.30 at 23:13

      Fully agree with this one.
      If the intention was that someone has to match their photo, then it does, to some degree, make sense.
      However, if you look nothing like your photo, whether it’s because of a change in gender, or otherwise, then you are in DISGUISE. It this is the law’s intention, then it should be worded as such.
      Wording left to interpretation is the problem, whether it’s put into practice or not.

      • Nerodon
        Tuesday, 2014.08.19 at 01:39

        Which is exactly why we can say that this is a call to action based on misinterpretation.

        In practice since 2011 there have been no reported issues.

        All that’s being done here is nitpicking at a line in a piece legislation that never ended up being a problem to anyone in “practice”.

        A call that misguided zeal.

    • Alice
      Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 00:11

      Or you could just be sane. Seems reasonable after all. Best guess is they did not create the rule to cause problems for transgendered people and more just as a rational matching the identification with the right person measure.

    • Andy
      Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 09:19

      This is not a discrimination issue. It’s to prevent identity theft. If you appear as a transgender person on your ID, no problem.

      • Christin
        Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 13:37

        Andy, Trans people have no options such as that. The government won’t change a trans person’s ID unless they’ve had surgery, which not all trans people have access to (or even want).


        • Nerodon
          Tuesday, 2014.08.19 at 01:49

          You can always change your photo on your ID if your appearance no longer matches. In fact, you should always do that if you plan to travel and do in fact look very different if you want to avoid problems.

          That goes for any kind of appearance change, not just sex/gender.

          You can’t legally mark your SEX as the one that you aren’t yet. Despite your own interpretation of your own GENDER/SEX, the SEX is a physiological part of your identity that is still considered an objective FACT. Such as eye color and height.

          All of that, in the end, won’t keep transgender people from going on a plane if their passport is truthful and representative. And no, there isn’t a single person who won’t let a transgender person enter a plane if they prove they are who they are. If it does happen, then that’s the time to speak up, the law as it is, is merely a bit uncaring about the fact that some people do in fact look different than their indicated sex.

          Is that a major problem? I think there are bigger fish to catch than trying to change this particular piece of legislation…

    • Heather
      Wednesday, 2012.02.01 at 06:26

      The problem is, this little rule opens up the floor for that call to be made, based on “gender appearance”. For someone to bar a “woman” from boarding who has a buzz cut and/or facial hair. Or a “man” who has long hair and is wearing a dress. It doesn’t say anything there about matching your photo–which would make sense, like you said, matching the PHOTO on the passport should be an important thing–it says “match the gender”. If it had come into effect in 1991, I’d take it as old rules that nobody enforces, someone needs to fix’er up. In 2011, it is discriminatory, because honestly, it legalizes discrimination against transgendered people.

      • Nerodon
        Tuesday, 2014.08.19 at 02:07

        But the fact remains that it can’t. A law about this small part of Transport Canada legislation can’t go ahead and credit discrimination. Some rules/laws do seem to contradict, and some hold more credence than others.

        If there was a law that says I can refuse service to people I find dangerous or suspicious It wouldn’t allow me to refuse service to a visible minority just because I feel that they are dangerous and suspicious.
        That’s called racial profiling, it’s illegal. The law also says I can’t discriminate against race. Which law is right?

        Is my own personal judgement above the law that says I can’t profile that way?

        Obviously the airport clerks can’t discriminate due the fact that a person is a different gender. The law isn’t intended to screen transgender people but intended to catch potential criminals changing their appearance to match their false documents.

        Even though it sounds that someone could use that law as an excuse to discriminate, they’d be wrong and would be breaking the law.

  4. Monday, 2012.01.30 at 15:37

    Next week’s edition of Planet Maz Radio will carry a headline article about this blatantly transphobic rule. Where are these people living? The Dark Ages? They need a right royal kick in the ass! Then ask them point blank to give one good reason why transpeople should be treated as a danger to airline safety and I’ll bet you that they can’t come up with one proper and true reason (unless you count transphobia which the vast majority of people would not count!). OK, rant over! Check out broadcast details on the web site and any questions or comments can be emailed to xxx

  5. Monday, 2012.01.30 at 15:54

    I’ve just thought of something. If I flew to Canada for a holiday, would I be able to get onto my flight home to the UK being as I am a transperson? Come to think of it, would I have to parachute off the plane and catch a bus or train into Canada? If they can come up with such a stupid rule in the first place, I wouldn’t put it past them to insist on the parachute rule!!! There will be more on Planet Maz Radio

  6. Claudine Bonner
    Monday, 2012.01.30 at 16:10

    I’m curious, has anyone provided evidence of any cases where people have been denied the right to board as a result of this rule?

    • Christin
      Monday, 2012.01.30 at 16:29

      Not that I am aware, but that does not mean it hasn’t happened.

      I will be flying very soon. I will report my experience.


      • Janice Sinclaire
        Monday, 2012.01.30 at 17:06

        I have friends who have flown with this problem and there was no problem. Another one will be flying this weekend I’m thinking all will be good. It does make me personally nervous though. Glad I can not afford to go anywhere!

  7. taylor hart
    Monday, 2012.01.30 at 16:13

    In a way I understand why this is in effect, because if they do not look like the person in their passport photo how can they verify it is them. They should be allowed to change their to what they look like now.

    • Christin
      Monday, 2012.01.30 at 16:28

      Hello Taylor,

      Trans people are not prevented from updating their *photo* on their passport, however they are prevented from updating the “sex” marker. What is at issue here is that passengers are to be refused if they do not “resemble the gender indicated,” meaning a person presenting as a man but whose passport reads “F” will be refused… no matter how manly their photo or how much it looks like them.

      This is dangerous discrimination.


  8. christine
    Monday, 2012.01.30 at 17:12

    I’m curious to know who’s to judge what gender looks like. Way to keep us in the little boxes.

    • Regan
      Monday, 2012.01.30 at 21:31

      Herehere! It’s utterly flawed. Gender has no place in government/private regulation.

  9. Angela Erde
    Monday, 2012.01.30 at 17:18

    I wonder how the enforcers of this regulation treat intersex people?

    • Jason
      Monday, 2012.01.30 at 23:39

      I think the better question would be how intersex people are treated by law, and how easy it is for them to change their legal gender if necessary.
      Of course, if an intersex individual was operated upon in their youth to make them appear cisgendered, and they feel the gender “chosen” for them was incorrect, they would- I assume- have to take very similar paths to a transperson.

      However, if an intersex person appears male but has F on their passport- or vice versa- it sounds as though that could bring the regulation into play. The regulation (whilst awful) sounds fairly simple. The question is more the general legalities on the legal gendering of intersex people, which has nothing to do with this regulation (as it appears to me.)

      • Locke
        Friday, 2012.02.03 at 03:52

        The law doesn’t recognize that intersex people exist (neither does my spellchecker). We are, to them, men or women with a birth defect. There is no option on IDs or anywhere else in the law for us.

        And yes, when surgery is preformed non-consensual at birth they end up having to take similar routes as the transgendered.

  10. Lynn Goralski
    Monday, 2012.01.30 at 17:27


    Do you know how this rule affects international (transgender) passengers with say a US Passport and residency, that can pretty easily travel up on a US carrier? Is that US carrier now prohibited from bringing that same person back home if the gender marker and their appearance do not match? Or does this only apply to Canadian Citizens? Just curious as I live in the US and have relatives in Edmonton. As much as I love Edmonton, would hate not to be able to come home after a visit.


    • Christin
      Monday, 2012.01.30 at 17:30

      That’s a great question, Lynn. I’m sure theoretically it affects screeners at any gate in a Canadian Airport, however anecdotal evidence thus far indicates that actual refusal of boarding isn’t a common occurrence.

      Mind you, I am not nor do I profess to be any sort of legal authority. You would probably be best advised to call the airline you’re planning to fly in Canada with to make sure.


    • Shirley Marquez
      Monday, 2012.01.30 at 19:48

      The effect on US citizens is slightly different, as one is not required to have SRS to get gender changed on a US passport (see ). It would still affect people who aren’t yet ready for a change of legal name and gender, but are living as a gender other than their legal gender.

      • Dani Cailin
        Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 13:52

        Depending on how they interpret it that may not matter. It reeks of biological essentialism and gender policing. If you do not match the mark on your documents according to whatever criteria they are using you must be refused access to the plane.

        That means people who are identified by scanner or inspection to in any way not match their gender marker regardless of whether their presentation matches or not can have issues.

  11. Tammy Buchanan
    Monday, 2012.01.30 at 17:28

    I think this rule is in place for a good reason. Instead of looking at who it might offend, look at who it protects. If people aren’t put through a thorough process, anyone could claim they were someone else or disguise themselves and skip the country. It’s not like they said trans people can’t fly ever. They just have to go through the proper procedures just like everyone else. Last time I flew, it was a nightmare and I didn’t have any of those issues to get through but I’m glad we have the security we have for many reasons so I’m not going to complain about the precautions taken.

    • Christin
      Monday, 2012.01.30 at 17:36

      I choose not to remain silent when my rights are threatened.


    • Brandi Rae Kaup
      Monday, 2012.01.30 at 18:24

      Actually, it’s exactly like they said trans people cannot fly ever–certain trans people at least. If said trans person does not want an operation, and so lives as one gender while legally denoted another, then according to the wording of this regulation, that person cannot be allowed to fly.

      • Christin
        Monday, 2012.01.30 at 18:49

        You got it, Brandi! Hit the nail on the head.

        Making the point that it might not have actually happened yet doesn’t change the fact that it could happen, or that these regs are inappropriate.


        • Evangelina
          Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 16:14

          Isn’t this a little storm in a tea cup? For the genuine full time transvestite, all he has to do is have the picture on the passport or ID papers matching the image he is presenting. Albeit the sex marker opposite the image presented. There will then be no problem with him traveling. The wording says that the image presented must match the one on the document. So what are you all getting in a lather about?

          This isn’t about aesthetics, it isn’t about transphobia it is all about ensuring that you are indeed the person your documents are denoting.


    • Sarah
      Monday, 2012.01.30 at 23:44

      It will keep trans people from flying a million times before it will divert its first rogue flyer from boarding. Believe it.

    • Jason
      Monday, 2012.01.30 at 23:48

      Firstly, before you comment on the “proper procedures” that a transperson would have to go through in order to change their legal gender and therefore be legally able to fly, I suggest you look at them. In all countries, it’s complicated and potentially highly expensive. In some it involves a risky, painful, expensive and potentially lengthy surgery which not everyone is able- or willing- to undergo. Note, here in the UK that surgery costs upwards of £50k. That’s about $80k.
      This is one hell of a step beyond the “proper procedures” anyone else has to undergo, especially when it could take many, many years to be in a position to undergo that surgery- if ever.

      Secondly, if a person has gone to the effort of changing their name, and then changing their name on their passport, AND changing their photo on their passport to one that shows them as the correct gender, I hardly think they are “claiming to be someone else” or disguising themselves to “skip the country”. That’s hardly an intelligent or valid argument.

      In short, not only does it have the potential to remove the right of a transperson to be treated with the same respect and rights as any other individual, it does not offer any “protection” from people “claiming the are someone else” or “disguising themselves”. It is discrimination, not protection.

    • Vendrus
      Monday, 2012.01.30 at 23:54

      By this logic, if you look Middle Eastern you should be happy to be automatically stopped and searched without reason other than appearance, on the basis that it’s protecting people against the minority few.

      As for disguises – this rule only talks about an appearance/stated gender mismatch. It’s possible that a terrorist might have a female passport and be male, but I suspect they’re an even smaller minority than pre-op trans*

    • Si
      Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 13:44

      We would not want people to run away from our country?

    • Thalia
      Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 14:25

      Does it come with a limitation that says if you are shown as bald but now have hair you can’t fly? If you’re shown as fat but now are thin, or vice versa, you can’t fly? No? Then this isn’t about identifying the person based on the information in their passport.

    • Debbie
      Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 23:40

      So I guess this rule would apply if my picture showed me as brunette but I changed to blonde. Oh wait! I’d probably be expected to update my DL or whatever every time I changed my look – NOT!

  12. Susan
    Monday, 2012.01.30 at 17:29

    Please! This is NOT meant to be anti-trans, but to make sure that (for example) a woman doesn’t buy a ticket for a man in the attempt to hide who’s actually flying. YEARS ago, a friend tried to give me his seat on a flight that they refused to refund, & the [expletive deleted] ticket agent informed us that she was writing in the sex on the ticket so that I could not use it!!! & when I say “years ago”, I mean over TWO DECADES!

    • Christin
      Monday, 2012.01.30 at 17:34

      Whatever the ostensible justification, the effect is undeniably discriminatory and detrimental to trans people.


      • James
        Monday, 2012.01.30 at 18:57

        In the article, and in this reply, we see a bigger issue Christin – you clearly view this as being an example of a targeted hatred, as opposed to poorly thought out regulations. Why else would you bother to claim that the justification is ostensible? Or, for that matter, making the title of the article a misleading lie?

        The justification they presented for the implementation is fairly concrete. In order for it to be considered “ostensible”, we would have to assume that there was some ulterior motive as to why they implemented this regulation in the first place. Something of which there is no proof.

        Now, if it comes out that this was instigated solely to be detrimental and to intentionally discriminate against the aforementioned groups, then I will apologize and tell you that you struck the head on the nail.

        Otherwise, I’ll continue with my present opinion, following that this is another poorly formed security and financial regulation in an industry that has some of the greatest faults in both areas, and has unintentional detrimental effects to specific groups that need to be addressed.

        Simply put, Transgender people have tighter regulations on boarding airplanes in Canada. After all, if Transgender people were completely banned from flying (something you admit in your article is not the case), then there would be a fair bit more media coverage on this topic.

        • Christin
          Monday, 2012.01.30 at 19:01

          I used the word ‘ostensible’ because I find the supposed justification unsupportable and unreasonable in the face of the harm it causes.

          The title is not a lie; according to the letter of the regs, trans people (excluding the lucky post-op minority), are indeed completely banned from boarding an airplane at the gate.

          Air Canada has also confirmed they are bound to abide by these regulations.

          As I’ve said before, the intentions are wholly irrelevant. It’s the impact alone that justifies the outrage and taking action against this injustice.

          Thank you for your comment.


          • James
            Monday, 2012.01.30 at 19:34

            I understand exactly why you used the word “ostensible”, and made that apparent in my comment. My point was that you’re using strong words and strong sentences in poor ways – in fact, my last post gently made this point.

            And yes, the title is a poorly worded lie. You’re saying that every transgender is banned from flying. It says something that is not true. You had to modify the title in your last post to include a “lucky” group that you overlooked in order for it to be true, and you didn’t bother to include the pre-op group who have gone through proper channels in this “lucky” group.

            Do you know statistics on the number of post-op trans-gender people who have passports or other forms of identification, and didn’t bother updating them to display their new sex? Or, why these “lucky few” who do have updated identification need to be “lucky”? And that isn’t quite as small of a percentage as you would have us believe.

            Or did you just go and assume that all transgender persons are, by their nature, too lazy and secretive to update their information? What a horrible view you must have of transgender persons. I’m outraged.

            Basically, I find that you have reacted poorly to this issue, as I have to your response, and your article and argument shows this, as my response does. Your points are thoughtful and valid, and I do agree with many of them – but the way you’ve decided to present this issue is also equally poor.

            Though you are correct in saying that a specific group is much more severely penalized than others, I disagree with your outrage. You admit yourself that you have no cases of this actually preventing a transgender individual from boarding a plane – this implies that the airlines agree with your view of the regulation. So why the outrage?

            Now, if I walked to an airport and saw a couple dozen transgender persons leaving without being allowed on the plane, I’d see a point to an outrage.

            15 million children die every year from starvation. That’s a child every two seconds. That’s worth an outrage.

          • Julia
            Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 01:49

            As someone with dual citizenship with a country that *does* in fact allow the changing of genders *without* invasive genital surgery, whom have allowed me to update my other passport to reflect accordingly, I now very seriously have to consider the prospect of basically foregoing my Canadian citizenship just to travel abroad, unless I take a boat, drive, or walk.

            With regard to the issue of nobody actually reporting being prevented from boarding, the issue of nobody reporting is moot. If you knowingly get on a plane that you’re not permitted to board, you are entirely and solely responsible for that act. If it results in a fine, jail time, criminal record, or whatever else, then you are the only person to blame. The bottom line is that if you cannot ignore a regulation or law if you know you’re breaking it.

            This is a really awful step in the wrong direction and sets the precedent that if you cannot afford surgery, can’t have it for medical reasons, or simply don’t want it period.. then you might as well be a prisoner. Agree to radical surgery or bid adieu to the free world.

            Who was the idiot who let this become official?

          • Dani Cailin
            Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 14:13

            James, in your reply to this you make the mistake of associating “lucky few” with “going through proper channels.” They do not equate. Nor is the assumption that everyone who “goes through proper channels” will not have an issue. Only 25% of trans people have SRS/GRS. For the vast majority there is no availability, contraindications preventing it, or it is just not necessary for that person to be able to live a full and complete life. However ignorant people who do not understand use SRS/GRS as a gatekeeper to validate our personhood. Following the standards of care does not ensure in any way that we will come out the other end fitting your limited ideas of a binary world.

            The way the regulation is worded I could be denied access to a plane in Canada because all my documentation has my presented gender on it but I have not had SRS/GRS. It is not covered by my health insurance and I have not managed to save $20k to pay for it out of pocket. Even those who go through your “proper channels” according to the NHS will spend years of their lives ambiguously in conflict with documentation or binarist regulations.
            I believe when it is examined they will find that this regulation is in violation of international human rights laws as interpreted by the international human rights court because it is specifically directed at transgender people in a misguided belief that everyone that does not present as the people creating the regulations believe they should is now a terrorist.

  13. Miniar
    Monday, 2012.01.30 at 17:44

    Seems like an unfortunate choice of words with an unintentionally discriminatory/noninclusive effect/function.
    I hope they remedy this as soon as possible.

    (Course, wouldn’t need “fixing” if getting yer documentation wasn’t so damned hard to change to represent you accurately.)

    • JBrianH
      Monday, 2012.01.30 at 20:08

      Um.. didn’t follow a word of that.

      • Jason
        Monday, 2012.01.30 at 23:52

        Changing your gender legally is extremely complicated, and it’s very difficult to get the correct gender marking on your passport. If it was easier, there would be no problems with your passport saying one gender, and you clearly appearing the other.

      • minna
        Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 06:54

        Too many big words for ickle you? 🙂

  14. Billy Budd
    Monday, 2012.01.30 at 17:49

    I’m just going to paste what I posted in another discussion about this article, with only this addition:

    Christin Scarlett Milloy, you are increasing intolerance. Please think before you speak.

    Alright. Chill out, everyone, and look at what actually happened, and what actually is happening.

    I just read the rest of the Identity Screening Regulations ; you know, the thing that gives the thing we are all screaming about context?

    It is not “blatantly discriminatory”. Seriously, is this issue not intense and political enough without manufacturing strife?

    What it almost certainly is, is a thing that was written without being fully thought through. I hate to break it to everyone, but a lot of the time, people just aren’t thinking about LGBTI at all. The adjacent provisions prohibit boarding on account of other things that might suggest the ID is not legit, and no one is upset about them.

    One of those provisions is “(b) the passenger does not appear to be the age indicated
    by the date of birth on the identification he or
    she presents;”

    Anyone heard of progeria? Check it out:

    Are we up in arms about them not being permitted to board? They do not look their passport age, after all. No, of course not. Not because we feel they should be discriminated against, just because we didn’t think of it.

    Sure, the clause needs to be changed. Or, as another option, the legislation surrounding how one goes about changing the gender on one’s passport needs to be changed.

    Just because a thing is bad, however, does not mean it is “blatant discrimination”, or “intentional discrimination”. Hell, it may not even be discrimination. There are different definitions for “gender” still in the common parlance. If by “gender” the passport control official understands “sex”, then it may be unlikely that any discrimination will occur at all, even accidentally.

    • Christin
      Monday, 2012.01.30 at 18:14

      That’s part of the problem though, isn’t it Billy? That as you point out, people are seldom mindful of how their rules and regulations might impose undue hardship on a disadvantaged group. When the Federal Government does it, it’s flat-out discrimination. Intentional or not, it is what it is and it must be fixed.


      • Billy Budd
        Monday, 2012.01.30 at 20:54

        Yes, it is what it is, and must be fixed.

        Crying “Wolf” adds nothing to the debate but alienating sympathetic main-streamers.

        I very particularly quoted your use of the term “blatant discrimination” for a reason.

        1. brazenly obvious; flagrant: a blatant error in simple addition; a blatant lie.
        2. offensively noisy or loud; clamorous: blatant radios.
        3. tastelessly conspicuous: the blatant colors of the dress.

        1. shameless or impudent: brazen presumption.

        By using that sort of terminology, you are informing as to the intention of a third party to yourself, an intention which is not knowable to any of us. However unknowable it may be, it seems highly unlikely that the intention is as you have implied with your wording.

        Once again, so that I am not mis-represented as happens so very often ; I think the wording of the regulation has to change. It is my considered opinion that the intention of the regulation is perfectly good. Further, it is my considered opinion that your article, while not actually hate-speech, certainly promotes a form of reactionary intolerance, and weakens the momentum that we seek to build.

        • Dani Cailin
          Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 14:27

          “a blatant error in simple addition” – intent?

          Your own definition and semantic argument over the volatility of the outrage does not match your intent argument. There is no need for intent for something to be blatant. It merely has to be obvious and clearly visible.

          To those who are oppressed it is apparent. Whether that oppression is predicated upon harmful intent or simple ignorance is inconsequential. The impact and oppression is the same.

          I do not see “die cis oppressors” in the speech above but merely outrage over something that was put into regulations on a NATIONAL level without consideration for the population it would impact. If in fact this was implemented in ignorance and lack of consideration then the correction is to gain enlightenment and reconsider. However if the reaction is to defend the oppression and even justify it without even trying to gain the knowledge about how it impacts the oppressed, then it is in fact with intent and blatant.

    • BlackBloc
      Monday, 2012.01.30 at 20:33

      >>a lot of the time, people just aren’t thinking about LGBTI at all

      Yes. And that’s discriminatory. This is a case in which the rights of people are simply brushed aside as unimportant, to the point they are not even *thought of as rights*.

      • Billy Budd
        Monday, 2012.01.30 at 20:57

        Your statement is factually incorrect, BlackBloc. Not thinking about someone is not discriminatory, unless it can be demonstrated that everyone, or almost everyone, or almost every other group, has been specifically considered.

        In the example I put forward, there is a clinical disorder known as Progeria, which, by the letter of the regulation, would prevent a sufferer from boarding.

        By your lights, BlackBloc, by failing to get up in arms about that oversight, you are being discriminatory.

        Either your position is inconsistent and incapable of standing up to logical assessment, or you are being hypocritical. One of those two things must be true.

        Which would you prefer it be?

        • BlackBloc
          Monday, 2012.01.30 at 21:07

          No. It means *the law* is discriminatory against people with Progeria.

          Wow, it’s almost like there is an history of social discrimination against people with disabilities as well!

          Logic. You fail at it.

          • Billy Budd
            Monday, 2012.01.30 at 21:22

            Really? Did you have to go to an ad hominem?

            I would have been happy to discuss. I just really hate it when someone has to go to a personal attack.

            Whether you agree with my conclusions or not, “Logic. You fail at it,” is clearly an inflammatory comment, and has no place in an intelligent discussion.

            I was rather hoping we could kick some ideas around, and possibly even learn something from the exchange. Instead, I am walking away, with the very clear impression that you’re only here to have your opinions validated, possibly (preferably?) to the detriment and denigration of others.

            That makes me just a little bit sad.

            Look, if you decide you’d like to engage in an exchange of ideas without personal attack, then make it known. Otherwise, I’ll not engage again. If you wish to claim that as a victory, go like the clappers.

    • Jason
      Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 00:04

      Progeria isn’t really a fair example.
      Firstly, it (apparently) occurs in approximately 1 in eight MILLION live births. Also, people with progeria have about a third to a quarter of a lifespan than the average of someone who does not have it, cutting down the amount of people in the population with progeria to somewhere in the region of one in every fifteen to twenty-five million. (I can’t say those numbers are accurate, but from the figures I just quoted, seem a reasonable guess.)
      The amount of people who are affected by gender dysphoria (or GID, whichever you prefer) has been changing a lot in recent years, but the last quote I heard was that it was about one in five thousand. I don’t know if that was true, as it is extremely difficult to get an accurate number, and the numbers will vary wildly depending on the acceptance of the culture towards transpeople.
      The first point is that progeria is incredibly rare, and GD/GID is almost common compared to it.

      The second point is that progeria is a disorder, and I imagine there would probably be medical paperwork to alert people to the fact that the person suffers from it. That would give the traveller with progeria proof of their disorder to back up their identification- as well as providing medical information (if any) which may be necessary or useful in a medical situation.

      I can’t comment on the rest of the provisions, because I don’t know them- but I don’t feel the example you provided as a comparison really works as one.

    • Wednesday, 2012.02.01 at 12:49

      Billy you are correct – This is NOT at all a transgendered/intersex issue. The Government hasn’t gone out and specifically targeted individuals as per suggested. Again a problem of “education” and a marker of need to take the opportunity to educate, not bar-rate and play blame game on anyone. This is a social conditioning of which needs to bring greater awareness, education and language to areas of social inclusion. Thus illustrating in a communicative and toned down approach – “You get way more bees with honey…” . This is NOT done purposely to discriminate – but to a system that protects everyone when flying. The system obviously needs to be improved, moreover not just for issues of “gender” screening either. There is no story here, other then the need to create further education around many “diversities” that the current policy does not reflect. Full Stop…!!

      • Wednesday, 2012.02.01 at 13:03

        Two more points… When I read many of the posts as well, which saddens me greatly, the concept that LGBTI person(s) are disadvantaged groups/community. We are at times our own worst enemies. Live your life, as you wish those to perceive you –

        There are so many people who live with physical and psychological disabilities each and every day. Many having to self-cathidor themes as they wake. I could not imagine. I realize each and everyday, how lucky I am, and that my diversity I am, so blessed to have in comparison. It is this typed of negative projection the media loves to feast upon, it is not a true image of gender of the positive aspects of of living in a place of varied gender. How you project, effects all of us… and in this case, creates great hurt for so many. Before you speak out, ensure you think of everyone else. What has been done here, is untrue, moreover instead of an education moment and furthering and developing a stronger relationship with the Federal Government, you’ve only hurt it for further opportunities in the future.

        Thoughtless!! And towards those of us who have in-fact been working federally and Internationally to make such gains for everyone else.

    • Erin
      Thursday, 2012.02.02 at 03:30

      Progeria is incredibly rare, occurring in about 1 in 8 million births.

      So, I consider that as 1 in 8 million people have this.
      Canada’s estimated 2012 population, according to Wikipedia, is 34,734,000
      In practical situations, I doubt that the *counts on fingers*…4 people in Canada with progeria are going to be stopped from flying. Mostly because they will have doctor’s notes and certifications pouring out their ears.
      Oh, wait, I kept reading. There are 80 known cases in the world.
      The world.

      A trans woman is not going to have a doctor’s note.
      A trans woman is being judged by someone arbitrarily.
      I like jeans and t-shirts, short hair, and have small breasts.
      I am female, sex and gender, but remind me not to move to Canada.

  15. John
    Monday, 2012.01.30 at 18:04

    The whole idea that gender has to be indicated on your ID is ridiculous. I tried to use my government issued military ID that I had to get finger printed to get and because it didn’t have my gender indicated on it at the time (it has since been reissued with gender), I couldn’t use it at times. I have to add that I am a man, identify as a man and look exactly like my picture.

    I’m all for security but as long as the picture and name match, shouldn’t be an issue in my opinion.

    • Billy Budd
      Monday, 2012.01.30 at 21:29


      It does seem a little silly. In defence of the policy, it is required under the ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organisation) standards. Whether they are right or wrong (and I do agree they are a little silly, and need updating) the existence of an international standard has a lot of value, and is likely the cause in this case.

      • Joel
        Wednesday, 2012.02.01 at 10:52

        Yes, and the ICAO standards also allow you to identify your gender/sex with an “X” – but I seem to be the only one on this thread determined to rant over and over again about that fact.

        • Christin
          Wednesday, 2012.02.01 at 13:14

          Canada does not allow this, Joel. Not sure where you are getting your information from.


  16. John
    Monday, 2012.01.30 at 18:14

    Are you certain that this is meant to be discriminatory? Honestly, this sounds more like someone blindly copying and pasting some boilerplate legalese about identity verification. I’m not denying that it’s stupid, but I think that leaping to the conclusion that someone is actively persecuting transgender individuals is premature.

    • Christin
      Monday, 2012.01.30 at 18:17

      Whether intentional or not, the effect is the same.


  17. Monique
    Monday, 2012.01.30 at 18:14

    It doesn’t protect anyone. This has nothing to do with genuine security concerns; you are still required to match name and photograph identification, regardless of gender match. Identity of the individual flying cannot be hidden by changing the gender. This is openly, deliberately and appaullingly discriminatory with absolutely NO valid justification.

    I am neither trans/intersex nor Canadian, but the fact that this rule doesn’t affect me personally doesn’t make it okay. People need to stop ignoring discrimination just because it isn’t against them. All discrimination is an assault to all human rights.

    • Christin
      Monday, 2012.01.30 at 18:18

      Monique, you are a fantastic human being. Please keep making the world a better place by means of your presence in it.


  18. Daven
    Monday, 2012.01.30 at 18:20

    Now wait a second…..I am an openly gay man who is probably the biggest complainer about LGBT rights but, don’t forget, it didn’t say transgendered people can’t board a Canadian plane, it says that you must look like the gender specified. Canadian airlines are only trying to protect from terrorist who will do anything, including dressing up as a different gender, in order to do what it is they intend to do. In order to fly, if that means transgendered people have to go along with it in order to fly, then so be it or don’t fly. I think it’s a small price to pay. Hate me if you will, but this is my opinion and mine alone. Cheers

    • Samson
      Monday, 2012.01.30 at 20:06

      Daven, I’m not commenting with a confrontational intent, however I just wanted to point something out:
      It’s not easy to just “go along with it”. In many cases trans folks have undergone HRT (hormone replacement therapy), which can drastically alter body shape, muscle mass, facial hair, voice etc. So they could hit the gates with an ID that says female, but be visibly male to the employee at the gate.
      It’s not something you can simply put on the back shelf just to make flying accessible.

    • deven
      Monday, 2012.01.30 at 20:47

      I have never looked like the gender specified on my identification. Yes, I am trans,but am pre everything.We dont always look like what people think we are supposed to.Ugh!

    • Jason
      Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 00:13

      As Samson says, you can’t “go along with it”. If I got a passport now, if would say “F” on it. However, the picture would very clearly show a man. With a beard and a generally male (if youthful, beard excepted) face.
      How would I be able to get around that, if I were to visit Canada? Would I have to shave off my beard, wear make-up, attempt to find clothing to disguise my male body shape, hope I don’t look like a man in drag (which, by the way, I would be and would look like) and also hope I don’t have to speak as my voice is most definitely male? Say I did all of this- pretending to be someone I was not, in order to board a flight (and if that was my only choice I’d just stay home and not go to Canada)- I would NO LONGER LOOK LIKE MY PICTURE.
      You see the problem. The problem is that my picture would clearly be male, I would clearly be male (and if I tried to look otherwise, between my face, my body, my voice and my name I would look and sound like a male in drag, not a female) and my gender marker would be female. According to this regulation, I should not be able to board a flight in Canada. End of story.

      By the way, if a person wanted to “dress up as a different gender” to fly, there would be the slight problem of them not matching their ID, or their name being of a different gender.

    • Grypo
      Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 09:43

      You’re saying, basically, that transgendered people shouldn’t act so transgendered, if they quit life wouldn’t be so hard for them.

    • b.g.
      Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 11:23

      Plenty of gay cis men have no clue about oppressions that don’t affect them.

  19. Monday, 2012.01.30 at 18:21

    if these laws are lawful laws, then its of no consequence to these people to change thier ids to read the gender the gender displayed.

    • Christin
      Monday, 2012.01.30 at 18:51

      But trans people are not allowed to change their ID so easily, Daniel. That is part of the problem.


    • Ringo
      Monday, 2012.01.30 at 23:02

      Someday, I’d like to meet a nice guy and be a father. In order to get an ID that matches my “display” I need to have surgery that would prevent that, so should I have to chose between wanting children or boarding an airplane?

  20. Harley
    Monday, 2012.01.30 at 18:22

    Get over yourselves, people! I’m trans, and I have no problem with this. Nobody is actually going to stop you because you’re trans. It’s so that random people can’t get on the plane using somebody elses identity.
    Everybody takes offense to things the second they could POSSIBLY be used against them. This article even says it hasn’t been used against a trans person.
    So don’t act like somebody was kicked off a plane for being trans or something ridiculous.

    • Christin
      Monday, 2012.01.30 at 18:47

      I, and many people, still believe it is of concern to us, Harley.


      • Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 00:15

        It’s a pretty big concern to me and my wife. I am a US citizen, born as female and currently live as female, but I identify as genderqueer. I transitioned as far as I was going to (took testosterone for many years so that I could pass as either male or female) and lived as male for many years. My doctor wrote a letter for the DMV saying that I had transitioned so that I could legally change the sex on my ID, so that I could get legally married.

        This means that the passport I need to get to go to a convention in Canada this May, for an organization which I’m on the board of trustees of, will probably say male too. I can get into Canada just fine, but will I be able to leave? I can present as male, but as a short, long-haired, non-op person, especially if they have those full body scanners or do a pat-down, I may not pass. If I get “clocked” as physically female, I risk not being able to leave the country, or a huge delay in leaving, which could mean missing more work than I have available to miss.

        If the TSA in the US has taught us anything, it should be that while MOST of the time you won’t get called out on something like this, in any individual situation there’s no telling what kind of havoc one often clueless and cranky security person will choose to wreak, or how much they can fuck with your day even if they let you on the plane at the end of it.

  21. Alyssa
    Monday, 2012.01.30 at 18:34

    Okay, so let’s be real. I’m as much for equality as the next dyke is, but I don’t think this article somewhat skews the actual point of this rule. No where in this does it say anything regarding actual transgender people, nor is this rule made to discriminate. I think, rather, it is an exercise of safety and precaution so that someone with the wrong identification doesn’t get on a plane.
    If you read the other statutes in these Regulations, they also say:

    (a) the passenger presents a piece of photo identification and does not resemble the photograph;
    (b) the passenger does not appear to be the age indicated by the date of birth on the identification he or
    she presents;
    (d) the passenger presents more than one form of
    identification and there is a major discrepancy between those forms of identification.

    Now, this article MAY be a call for a way for a trans person to obtain what would work as “proper” identification, and also, there are no reported cases. So, this is my opinion. As a liberal myself, and all for equality, this article skews what I believe the intended purpose is.

  22. JBrianH
    Monday, 2012.01.30 at 18:42

    A forewarning, to everyone; if you are planning to board an airline, anywhere in the world, correctly address any misguided “authority figures” you might come across, and, dress planning to do that, or assist anyone who might be having difficulty. Most likely, people will follow before long.

  23. Jonathan
    Monday, 2012.01.30 at 18:46

    While I’m not inclined to believe the intent of the regulation was to discriminate against the transgendered population but to help screen against possible malicious intrusion, it does expose a remarkably shortsighted (read “ignorant”) view of our society on the part of the bureaucracy in general; and of the shortcomings of the identification forms and regulations currently in use. And while I see the slippery slope involved in having special identification issued for transgendered passengers, it would be a quick solution to an admittedly inexcusable oversight. I would be interested to hear what others think about that concept – having documentation listing a registered gender preference of a traveling individual.

  24. Bobbie Jo justice
    Monday, 2012.01.30 at 18:50

    they can try that with me……ONCE

  25. Monday, 2012.01.30 at 18:53

    I am now imagining a scene where Denis Lebel is trying to board a plane.

    Official: “I’m sorry, sir, but you cannot board the plane today.”

    Lebel: “Why not?”

    Official: “You don’t look right, sir. Your identification says that you’re a human male, but from what I can see, you’re a pusillanimous little fart in a man-mask. Can you please come with me?”

    Lebel: “Don’t be silly.”

    Official: “You gave me this power, sir. Please don’t complain if I use it.” >>snaps on a rubber glove<< "Please don't resist. That tends to make the whole ordeal more uncomfortable for both of us."

    • Ilsa
      Monday, 2012.01.30 at 19:57

      Just wanted to say that this made me LOL (literally, not figuratively).

      Thank you for making me have to look up ‘pusillanimous’. 🙂

      • Christin
        Monday, 2012.01.30 at 20:00

        Hi Ilsa! 😀

        It’s nice to see you post here. Welcome to my blog.


  26. Marcus
    Monday, 2012.01.30 at 18:59

    I don’t understand why you’re all so upset. If you present an ID that says you’re a woman and a man shows up, the airport has every right to be suspicious. If you’re a man, your ID should say male. It doesn’t single out transgender people or prohibit them from travel.

    • Christin
      Monday, 2012.01.30 at 19:13

      Marcus, Transgender people are legally prevented from getting ID that represents them properly. In other words, Men are forced by law to carry ID that still says “F,” and Women forced to carry ID that says “M.” That is why it is a problem.


      • Para
        Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 01:28

        In Fairness, Christin, that’s simply not true.

        In Ontario, you can easily switch the gender on your driver’s license with a doctor’s note. And yes, a driver’s license will allow you to board a plane for any domestic flights – a passport is not required.

        • Christin
          Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 14:21

          So your point is that trans people are only really technically banned from international flights?


      • Sean
        Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 09:38

        Surely you mean.. Men are required to carry ID that says “M”, and Women are required to carry ID that says “F”. Unless you actually believe that we can decide our own gender?

        If you don’t look like what your ID is presenting yourself as, the officials at the airline have the right to deny you service. This is sound policy. Should a pre-op transgender person show up at the airline while living their life as a woman, but still has the physiology of a man, they should present themselves in such a manner where that would be discernible to the official. This ensures that the airport security can do their best at physically identifying all of the passengers. The sexual dimorphism of humans is not debatable.

        • Christin
          Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 13:36

          Sorry Sean, not everyone’s Sex matches their Gender.


          • Sean
            Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 14:41

            You are failing to acknowledge that the regulations in question do not define “gender” as the differing characteristics of the masculine and feminine in society. The policy defines “gender” as you would describe “sex”. Check your passport, drivers license or any other government issued ID and you will notice that the field is titled “SEX”. They are used interchangeably for the purposes of this regulation. Understanding the terms and their definitions (whether they be the same as your definitions or not) as used in the regulations is paramount.

  27. Monday, 2012.01.30 at 19:06

    More of Harper’s machivellian, underhanded method of getting his own way…


  28. Tilly
    Monday, 2012.01.30 at 19:06

    This is ridiculous. If a terrorist is going to the trouble and risk to get a fake ID, they’re going to make sure the info resembles them. End of story.

    • brenda
      Wednesday, 2012.02.01 at 05:16

      well worded indeed. As my doctoral advisor used to say, the government always implements solutions that are orthogonal to the problem.

  29. Jay M
    Monday, 2012.01.30 at 19:10

    It’s never stopped anyone from boarding.
    Probably shouldn’t refer to LGBTI as a “disadvantaged group”, unless pity is desired.

    How is this a problem? If you’ve had an operation, just carry the paperwork, or deal with the passport office on changing the gender shown.

    If you haven’t had an operation (for example, a male with male parts but dressed as female), then they only care about the parts… you’re the gender of the parts you carry, in the eyes of the law. Nobody will stop you from boarding because you’re dressed like the opposite gender, which is why nobody has had any problems with this to date.

    Just like anyone who has to have proper documents for certain things (ie. a name change), in no way does this actually inhibit anyone from air travel, which is what the original post explicitly states.

    Usually I’m 100% against whatever crazy stuff Harper is up to, but if you think he called a Federal election to avoid some trivial detail like this, you’re delusional.

    • Christin
      Monday, 2012.01.30 at 19:12

      The suggestion was that the regulatory change took advantage of the fact that C-389 has not passed yet, Jay. Such regulations won’t hold up once protections for Gender Identity are enshrined in the Human Rights Act.

      And as to your comment regarding body parts… I want to avoid a world where genital examination is a part of my boarding procedure.


      • Jay M
        Monday, 2012.01.30 at 21:39

        I hear what you’re saying, but as others have pointed out, the intent of its inclusion had absolutely nothing to do with transgenders… It’s just something that hadn’t been taken into consideration as part of the regulation.

        I don’t really see, either, where it prohibits transgenders from actually boarding a plane. Perhaps it could be more clear, but again, nobody has had any problems with this so far because it isn’t the intent of the written word. It is perfectly within reason to say that, in general, you can’t use a passport for someone of a different gender, with the soul intent being to prevent fraudulent use of passports.

  30. Wow..
    Monday, 2012.01.30 at 19:12

    This is such a bullshit article, read what it actually is people or look stupid.

    • Christin
      Monday, 2012.01.30 at 19:18

      It does take a certain awareness of the issues involved in order to fully comprehend the danger it represents to trans people.


    • JBrianH
      Monday, 2012.01.30 at 20:40

      Speaking of bullshit, wow isn’t a real name… ya stupid wow.

  31. jen
    Monday, 2012.01.30 at 19:17

    OMG, get over yourselves people!! This is not discrimination, but a security measure. Nowhere does it say that transgendered people will be denied boarding.

    It’s unfortunate that we live in a world where we have to have such strict security measures to avoid getting blown up. And as much as I hate being inconvenienced, I prefer that over lax regulations that could compromise my safety.

    My passport photo had a picture of me with long, black hair. I had cut my hair into a pixie cut and dyed it blonde. I travelled with this passport for several years without anyone questioning me. Not long ago, an observant security person questioned me on my passport photo and I had to go through rigorous questioning and provide other pieces of I.D. In the end, I was allowed to go through, and told to update my photo. I was more than annoyed. But now that I think about it, I’m surprised it took that long for anyone to notice!

    I agree with some other posters, that perhaps the real issue is the fact that transgendered people should be allowed to change the sex indicated on their passports to the one they identify with. And then, as long as the name and picture match, then there shouldn’t be an issue.

    While the majority of us are nice, law abiding citizens, security personnel don’t know you. The only thing they have to go by in order to verify your identity is your I.D. Let’s look at the real issues, and find ways to make this process easier rather than cry prejudice.

    • BlackBloc
      Monday, 2012.01.30 at 20:54

      >>It’s unfortunate that we live in a world where we have to have such strict security measures to avoid getting blown up.

      It’s unfortunate there are still people dumb enough to think that this security theater saved a single life since 9/11.

  32. Idiots all of you
    Monday, 2012.01.30 at 19:20

    It was put in place to prevent people using fake passports.

    You are minority. Accept that the world doesn’t revolve around you. On top of that cut yourself up all you want but you’re still what you were born as.

    • JBrianH
      Monday, 2012.01.30 at 19:58

      Hey, cut yourself up and trash it.

    • deven
      Monday, 2012.01.30 at 20:52

      Really? That’s the comment you are going with? Really?

    • Amy
      Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 09:40

      I couldn’t have said it better myself!

      • Amy
        Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 09:40

        That last comment was to the OP… not Brian

  33. Dweedle Dum
    Monday, 2012.01.30 at 19:27

    The rule doesn’t say a goddamned thing about transgendered people not being allowed. It’s telling you that transgenders need to update their fucking passports.

    • Christin
      Monday, 2012.01.30 at 19:32

      …which they are NOT ALLOWED TO DO. Pretty sure I mentioned that in there somewhere. :/

  34. Fionnuala
    Monday, 2012.01.30 at 19:28

    Sheesh. The title of this article is absolutely ridiculous, and it is things like this which don’t help our case. You all need to get over yourselves. I’ve seen this law characterized as “transphobic,” “hateful,” and “bigoted.” It is none of those. Could it use a tweak? Sure. Is the sky falling? No.

    I happen to be a trans person. And I also happened to board an airplane in Canada… twice!!! since this law was passed.

    • lele
      Monday, 2012.01.30 at 19:42

      thank you for seeing the truth, just thank you.

  35. Nate
    Monday, 2012.01.30 at 19:44

    Um hello if your Id says your of one gender but really your not clearly your lieing it’s bull shit I now if your Id said trans gender that would be a different story you just want the rights of both genders?

    • Christin
      Monday, 2012.01.30 at 19:46

      Some want both, some want neither, some want one or the other. Pretty much the only thing we all agree on is it should be none of the government’s business. Imagine that! Gender, no longer rubbed in the face of the masses.

      Oh, what a contrary bunch are we!

      Thanks for your attempted contribution, Nate.


      • Christin
        Monday, 2012.01.30 at 19:53

        Besides, my friend, do you mean to suggest that persons of differing gender do, or should, have rights which differ from each other?

        What about gender equality? Why shouldn’t gender equality also include those who are gender variant? Please employ critical thinking.


  36. Jason T
    Monday, 2012.01.30 at 19:47

    If you’re a dude looks like a lady…look like a lady when you go to get your identification in the first place. The sentence of subject states that if you’re impersonating someone that you are not…you can’t get on the plane. I like to walk around naked but I can’t do it everywhere or I get arrested. Put your man pants back on for 8 hours and then change when you get off of the plane.

    • Christin
      Monday, 2012.01.30 at 19:57

      That is not an option for some trans people, Jason. Look up “transsexual standards of care” and “transsexual real life test.”

      Besides, being forced to “put (one’s) man pants back on for 8 hours” is an indignity… a discriminatory human rights violation.


    • Kes
      Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 08:58

      This isn’t about “dudes who look like ladies,” this is about ladies who were born with unfortunate crotch tumors, and gentlemen who were born with bad cases of gynomastica. Getting one’s ID changed is usually something that happens late in the process, for a number of bureaucratic and psychological reasons. Transitioning is hard, real hard, and especially when you’re in the middle of it, your appearance can fluctuate between looking masculine and feminine. Furthermore, you have to have SRS, which is optional to a lot of people, to change that little marker that states what the government recognizes you as. So, no, getting your ID changed is not as simple as you pretend to be.

  37. JBrianH
    Monday, 2012.01.30 at 19:49

    Dude, sorry… what the Hell was that shit? (“Nobilis Reed”) Bought a thesaurus and that’s how you use it? That guy is why censorship can be a damn burden. Jock-Pervert. Anyhow, I think an ID regulation shouldn’t ever be necessary. In whatever the case, this is my idea for it. A basic statement of usual relationship status, and one of 2-6 variables for dress style, would probably be the best option, and can be changed 4x/yr to 1nce every 2 years. Limited for use in passports, and perhaps public transportation, in countries where the situations remain so drastic as for doing something such as that. If enforced for use on driver’s licenses, you’re basically asking to add hate crime violations on every instance of one of these individuals if mugged, and just – enough people wouldn’t remain standing down for that, across the whole world, simply for the most part from knowing and/or remembering their Mothers, Fathers, sisters and cousins. Goodbye, and “Reed”, watch what flows out of your mouth.

  38. Holly
    Monday, 2012.01.30 at 19:51

    There are two real problems here:

    a) this “seemingly well-intentioned” regulation actually points out why trans people should be able to change the gender marker on their ID much more easily, regardless of operative status. If the government intends to use the gender marker to visually verify the holder of the ID, then people who are presenting as male must be able to easily have a M on their ID and vice versa; otherwise you’re just asking for ridiculous problems.

    b) however, the whole use of gender markers on IDs in generally is ridiculous for this exact reason. For one thing, no person who posed an actual criminal or terrorist threat would simply try to use ID with a different gender marker than what they appear to be. Spotting gender incongruities is simply not an effective screen for true threats or even major fraud. For another thing, IDs these days all have photos, which wasn’t the case when gender markers were introduced. A color photo of decent resolution (like any modern passport) is a hundred times more effective for verification than the vagueness of a gender marker. Finally, gender markers are binary and people’s actual gender expressions are not. The regulation asks security officers to do something which there’s no way to train anyone to do reliably 100% of the time — know on sight which gender box someone fits into. For a small but significant percentage of people, you simply are not going to be able to guess — and if you are guessing, then the whole point of this security verification has already failed.

    The real long-term solution: eliminate gender markers entirely from ID, because they’re pointless.

    The short-term solution: leverage this SNAFU to allow Canadian trans people to change gender markers on ID as easily as say, trans people in Spain can. Heck, even in the USA trans people can now change gender marker on passports without any surgical requirement. (Any medical “clinical treatment” will suffice.)

    Not really a solution that helps anyone in any tangible way: getting rid of this regulation, or making it clear that trans people are allowed to get on planes regardless of the regulation. I’m pretty sure trans people are still getting on planes.

  39. JBrianH
    Monday, 2012.01.30 at 19:52

    Mmm.. Nate, in most countries both genders have equal rights. I’d like to, but I haven’t regularly seen anyone opening the door for a lady in a long time.

  40. Jemima
    Monday, 2012.01.30 at 19:59

    I don’t think this rule is against Transgender …I think it is just the airport/border control doing their job…..if you don’t look the same as your passport picture then their is….. AND SHOULD BE AN ISSUE…..if you have changed your “look” THEN UPDATE YOUR PASSPORT!!!
    Don’t make this about discrimination! As it clearly to me is not!

    • Christin
      Monday, 2012.01.30 at 20:07

      Jemima, it’s about the gender designation (M or F), not the photo resemblance.

      The regulation says even if the pictures are a match, that the person should be refused to board if they don’t look like the gender specified on the passport.


      • Joel
        Wednesday, 2012.02.01 at 10:38

        Somewhat incorrect, you can now also mark your gender as *X* on a Canadian passport – which makes this original article’s point moot, and somewhat sensationalist.

        • Christin
          Wednesday, 2012.02.01 at 13:15

          Can you support your assertion with proof that Passport Canada accepts this? They do not (although, Australia does).


  41. Jemima
    Monday, 2012.01.30 at 20:01

    PS, I am also going through the
    Just thought I should mention that.

  42. Madison Tully
    Monday, 2012.01.30 at 20:07

    I think this is a missunderstanding. It probably has more to do with a terrorist issue then Trans people. I am a post Trans person. I was born male. Had the surgery and now no longer fit into the Trans community.

    In the 2.5 years I fell under a Trans title I NEVER had an issue with flying, I only travelled within Canada but not once did I get any static from anyone.

    Has anyone got an actually statement from any of the air lines or is this just someone bored at home looking for something to cry about.

    I listen to the Out Q station on Sat Radio and haven’t heard one mention about this. They cover Canadian issues as well as the states.

    • Christin
      Monday, 2012.01.30 at 20:10

      Check the link to Jennifer McCreaths blog. We have confirmation from Air Canada that they are obligated to follow the regulation.


      • Madison Tully
        Monday, 2012.01.30 at 21:01

        I read it. You still make no sense. Your take on it is very slanted. The way it’s worded it’s a bigger issue if you still have your birth anatomy and your pass port has your identifying gender and you were stripped searched that would be an issue.

  43. Alex Richard
    Monday, 2012.01.30 at 20:22

    I feel ~90% confident that this is a security/administrative measure, the same as preventing somebody from boarding if their name doesn’t match the name presented on their boarding documents, and not something aimed specifically at the transgendered. This is especially true given the rest of Section 5.2 of the regs, which cover a couple of other blatant photo ID comparisons. In addition, I don’t think that this law even technically bans the transgendered from travelling; the word appear has multiple meanings, and if one used “Seem; give the impression of being” then the transgenedered could easily give the correct impression by, you know, talking to the security personnel.

    I’m ~65% confident that no transgendered person will ever be blocked from flying under this measure; if any are, I feel ~90% that the Canadian government will immediately change the law to more accurately reflect its intentions, and issue a full public apology to the individual in question.

    Hanlon’s Razor: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.

    • Billy Budd
      Monday, 2012.01.30 at 21:50

      Alex Richard,


      That is all.

  44. Chelsea
    Monday, 2012.01.30 at 20:45

    Why does all this effort and time have to go into “outrage” instead taking the time and educating people about what the problem really is here. There has been not a single record of a transgendered person being denied travel. So you say no matter the intention the effect is the same. There hasn’t been any effect! No one that you know of has been hurt or effected. Dont get outraged, we all see the problem. Start a petition, use this attention your getting and have the gender on the passport or ID removed. We can use our words in a civil manner and make a difference I believe. You have people backing what you believe but we need to go about things more intelligently. Try being less dramatic. Just saying.

  45. Elisa
    Monday, 2012.01.30 at 20:55

    I may understand why they would pass something like this, for security reasons possibly, but that does not excuse that these are people with rights. I’m from Canada and I never expected something as discriminating and lazy as this bill. I’m truly disappointed (and Harper is a real joke). Really, it should just be verified by photo ID, simple and done.
    And for trans that are in transition, they should just drop their pants as a “fuck you” to the whomever is harassing them at the airline, seeing as nothing is personal in the security airline world. 😛

  46. Lethia
    Monday, 2012.01.30 at 21:04

    Although this regulation has a significant and detrimental impact on the transgendered community, I honestly believe it was not targeted at them. rather, the law is meant to deter possible attempts by terrorists to board flights (a male in a burqa could easily hide weapons). While it is very true a woman could do the same…and anyone from any religon/ethnicity/nationality ect could be a terrorist (not trying to stereotype simply pointing out the common threat perceived by security at this particular time). The regulation is most likely intended as a red flag try and stop possible attacks.

    That being said, the regulation is too broad especially given the impact on the transgendered community and should be removed or changed.

  47. Monday, 2012.01.30 at 21:08

    I work at a airport ,,I agree with this.

  48. Alex
    Monday, 2012.01.30 at 21:14

    This really bothers me.

    And I’m talking about the name of this post. I totally agree that the statute in there needs to be looked at again, no doubt. But that topic is misleading and hurts the purpose of it. This article wasn’t written just to inform – that is quite clear. It’s not a news article it is an opinion piece and anyone who holds the same piece of mind is certainly going to agree with you no matter what.

    Anyone with an alternate frame of mind however – isn’t going to budge an inch and this is the sad part about this. By posting an eye catching topic that makes you go “What!?” and then entirely contradicting that by pretty much having to state “well, no I haven’t heard of this happening at all” when it’s been in effect for over half a year now – just looks bad. It looks really bad and instantly tears down a huge section of the argument that you predicated the whole thing on.

  49. Monday, 2012.01.30 at 21:30

    these Identity Screening Regulations shouldn’t be allowed to fly

    just wrong

  50. John Hancock
    Monday, 2012.01.30 at 21:38

    Completely unacceptable!! Get this changed Mr. Lebel!!!!

  51. Ted Stewart
    Monday, 2012.01.30 at 21:40

    The entire section needs to be read to get context.

    “5.2 (1) An air carrier shall not transport a passenger
    (a) the passenger presents a piece of photo identification
    and does not resemble the photograph;
    (b) the passenger does not appear to be the age indicated
    by the date of birth on the identification he or
    she presents;
    (c) the passenger does not appear to be of the gender
    indicated on the identification he or she presents; or
    (d) the passenger presents more than one form of
    identification and there is a major discrepancy between
    those forms of identification.”

    It provides a list of plausible reasons why somebody doesn’t fit the description on their ID. It doesn’t target transgendered people any more than it does people who recently got a hair cut or who look young/old for their age.

    If it’s being used to target transgendered people, then we have a problem. Until that time, arguing about it serves no purpose.

    We could, instead, be talking about how gender is presented on government ID, and what the process is to change it. That’s a valid thing to change, as it presents real problems as opposed to theoretical ones.

  52. mattm
    Monday, 2012.01.30 at 21:45

    Here is the full deal:

    5.2 (1) An air carrier shall not transport a passenger if
    (a) the passenger presents a piece of photo identification and does not resemble the photograph;
    (b) the passenger does not appear to be the age indicated by the date of birth on the identification he or she presents;
    (c) the passenger does not appear to be of the gender indicated on the identification he or she presents; or
    (d) the passenger presents more than one form of identification and there is a major discrepancy between those forms of identification.

    (2) Despite paragraph (1)(a), an air carrier may transport a passenger who presents a piece of photo identification but does not resemble the photograph if
    (a) the passenger’s appearance changed for medical reasons after the photograph was taken and the passenger presents the air carrier with a document signed by a health care professional and attesting to that fact; or
    (b) the passengers’s face is bandaged for medical reasons and the passenger presents the air carrier with a document signed by a health care professional and attesting to that fact.

    Notice 2(a), in which a doctor can sign a note allowing the person whose identity has been altered to pass through checkpoints. This is to make sure that transgendered folks, amongst others, can still fly. They are presenting a document from a respected professional assuring the destination country that it is in fact a legitimate citizen and traveler and not someone hiding their identity (a very legitimate concern in this day of human smuggling).

    Also, lets look back at 5.2(1). The article seems to avoid mentioning that folks that look a different age or that are remarkably different from their photo will also share in the bad luck. Age and sex are the two best ways to fool someone into thinking you’re someone else.

    It’s just a security measure, it’s not a direct attack against transgendered folk as this article seems to hint at…

  53. Tay
    Monday, 2012.01.30 at 21:46

    This doesn’t just affect trans people. What about intersex people? There’s no provision in our ID laws for intersex people to be marked intersex. So does this mean intersex people are in danger of being refused the privilege of air travel?

    I’m am not intersexed, but I have ALWAYS looked androgynous enough that people have ALWAYS had questions about what sex I was. I have female parts. I have had full out arguments with people who do not believe I have female parts. Does this mean it’s unsafe for me to attempt to board a plane? This is frightening, to me, because I can’t HELP the fact that I don’t look like a girl. I also can’t help the fact that, despite being very nearly 25, I am regularly mistaken for a 14 year old.

    I am female-to-neutrois. There’s no gender marker for androgynous. So what the hell am I supposed to do?

    Whether this rule is meant to discriminate against people or is meant as a safety rule is irrelevant. The fact is that, one day, some human being in a security position will be bored or too big for his or her britches or will be on a power trip and on that day, some unsuspecting transgendered, intersexed or just plain old androgynous traveler is going to be targeted under this law. That person will be terrified and will be unable to go on a family vacation or an important business trip.

    It doesn’t matter the intent of the law. It only matters what the law can do. And this law can make a serious mess of things, as it’s written.

  54. Practice over Principle
    Monday, 2012.01.30 at 22:00

    Ok, while I understand you’re concern Christin that this law may in some circumstances be used against trans people in order to prevent them from flying (Which would be blatantly discriminatory as well as appalling), as you said, this has yet to what does your outrage boil down to? The lazily/poorly worded statement in the regs? As long as it is not directly affecting trans canadians, they why the issue? Principle? Threre are all kinds of ridiculous laws in the canadian system which have not been adjusted or changed because they are NOT PRACTCED in reality. Eg. It is illegal for minors to walk with untied shoe laces in a Saskatchewan town. Alberta: “a piece of wood may not be painted”, and “all businesses are required to provide rails for horses”. Ontario: “It’s illegal to climb trees”, and “that no more than 3.5 inches of water is allowed in a bathtub”, and in my home province of BC it is forbidden for 5 or more women (family exempt) from living in the same household as this constitutes a brothel. Despite being written law, these regulations don’t cause unrest or uproar because law officials use DISCRETION and therefore, they are not actively practiced! So again, why the outrage and negative reaction to something that (to mine and your knowledge) has yet to affect, let alone discriminate any transgendered Canadian anywhere? Why not give the benefit of the doubt and wait too see if any case like that actually arises? As I said, I completely understand your concern, but not your outrage or accusations. The regs were poorly thought out at best, and could quite possibly result in the disallowance of a trans person boarding an airplane..but apparently I could quite possibly be arrested for painting wood in Alberta. No harm, no foul I say. Speaking of harm and foul, to cap off my comment, there is obviously SOME reason why this rule was created, and based on anecdotal evidence it was NOT to prevent trans people from flying, but to prevent dangerous persons from disguising their identities. So until a trans person actually experiences an issue, I ask this: how would you feel if a terrorist (man or woman) did happen to approach the gate and the official had a strong feeling that this person was disguising their identity and may be a potential threat, but has no choice but to let them pass?? A plane full of people dead because the regs didnt give the official the power to prevent said terrorist from boarding? Discretion is the key here, and so far it seems as though it is being used in a responible and not a discriminate manor. Practice over principle.

  55. Monday, 2012.01.30 at 22:03

    Thanks for reposting the link to the petition. I have come under attack for making it in the first place, since this rule hasn’t actually been used against a trans person, but my logic is that since it is on the books, eventually it will be used, probably in a way that puts a person at extreme risk, and then the community will rally together and express outrage once damage has already been done. Why not get rid of it before it comes to that?


  56. Monday, 2012.01.30 at 22:15

    Thought you might be interested in reading some further thoughts on this whole mess:

  57. Rooney
    Monday, 2012.01.30 at 22:20

    Maybe this explains why airport security passed me through one of those new scanning machines in December last year. I was carrying a male passport, presenting as a woman.

  58. karmen
    Monday, 2012.01.30 at 22:32

    I’m pretty sure that as long as your photo is an accurate representation of you, there shouldn’t be a problem. Canadians are required to update their photo at least every 5 years minimum.

    I have difficulty believing a man with feminine attire would be refused as long as his documents clearly support his identity. The only thing is if he had facial reconstruction to enhance features to an unrecognizable amount.

    It’s intended, I believe, for someone very obviously a man with a very obvious female on his passport. It would be like me using my brothers passport, it wouldn’t work. However, if I pursued manly features and attire and still had the female version of myself on my passport, it might be questioned, but my facial markers would still prove it is me.

    If its that much of a concern, just make sure your passport photo is up to date!

  59. Rosemary
    Monday, 2012.01.30 at 22:43

    Stephen Harper= Reinhard Heydrich

  60. Madison Tully
    Monday, 2012.01.30 at 22:52

    My friend looked into it further. This is what she found.

    (2) Despite paragraph (1)(a), an air carrier may transport a passenger who presents a piece of photo identification but does not resemble the photograph if
    (a) the passenger’s appearance changed for medical reasons after the photograph was taken and the passenger presents the air carrier with a document signed by a health care professional and attesting to that fact; ”

    This is where the carrying letter stating one is in transition comes in handy. It really hasn’t changed that much and for whatever reasons, it caught someone’s attention.

    So thank you for causing panic amongst the community so you could pick a fight that didn’t need to be fought. And this has. Itching to do with domestic flights. So there was NO complete Ban you wrote in your heading.

    You owe the government and Mr Harper an apology. And you should loose the privilege of doing a blog.

    • clpolk
      Monday, 2012.01.30 at 23:20

      but not *every single transgender person* is in “transition” as you have defined it here – that is, able to carry a doctor’s note stating that s/he is transitioning.

      You’re assuming that any transgender person living in a country without universal health insurance, like…oh I don’t know, The USA…would have the cash money to put down in front of the right doctor to *get* that note. and that’s a bad assumption. My dear friend in California who is a Canadian doesn’t have health insurance and so he’s not seeing a doctor, and that doesn’t mean he’s not transitioning, and my best friend who I love lives in fucking TEXAS where they will never, never change the sex on his birth certificate EVER, which means he can never come up here to visit me.

      Hell, my good friend right here in town can’t fly under this law, because she can’t find a doctor who will help her. In canada! This is so much BS it should be composting the roses.

      and let’s not forget that a lot of people think a lot of lesbians look like men, something i’ve heard a million times. WHICH IS RIDICULOUS AND STUPID IN SO MANY WAYS. do you honestly trust the rhodes scholars doing identity screening to not refuse lesbians under this rule? because I’m nostalgic for the days when I was that naive, but I can’t even remember how long ago that was.

      • Dan
        Wednesday, 2012.02.01 at 20:26

        clpolk, I feel I must point out one small error in your post. Transgendered people living in Texas can, in fact, change the gender on their birth certificate. I don’t know where your friend got his information, or how long ago, but it is simply not the case.

    • CJ
      Monday, 2012.01.30 at 23:38

      Please read the text of the regulation as it is written (reproduced below) before you dismiss legitimate critiques simply because “your friend said so”.

      According to the regulation as it is written, even a medical letter would not permit an air carrier to allow a passenger to fly if their *gender marker* on their ID did not match their appearance.

      5.2 (2) pertains specifically and exclusively to (1)(a). This means that someone with progeria for instance (the example Billy Budd cited above) would be allowed on the plane with a medical letter.

      However, 5.2 (2) does not address (1)(c) or (1)(d). Read the text of 5.2 (2)– it refers specifically to someone who *does not resemble their photograph* but says nothing about any other information on the ID card.

      This means that according to 5.2 (2), a passenger can use a medical letter to explain why they do not match the picture on their ID (e.g., transition), but it *does not* provide any help to passengers who do resemble the picture on their ID, but do not match the *gender marker* (F or M) on their ID. It also does not provide any help to passengers who have different gender markers on different pieces of ID (who are disallowed on planes by virtue of 5.1 (1) (d).

      You owe Christin an apology.

      Text from the Identity Screening Regulations:

      5.2 (1) An air carrier shall not transport a passenger if

      (a) the passenger presents a piece of photo identification and does not resemble the photograph;

      (b) the passenger does not appear to be the age indicated by the date of birth on the identification he or she presents;

      (c) the passenger does not appear to be of the gender indicated on the identification he or she presents; or

      (d) the passenger presents more than one form of identification and there is a major discrepancy between those forms of identification.

      (2) Despite paragraph (1)(a), an air carrier may transport a passenger who presents a piece of photo identification but does not resemble the photograph if

      (a) the passenger’s appearance changed for medical reasons after the photograph was taken and the passenger presents the air carrier with a document signed by a health care professional and attesting to that fact;

    • Ringo
      Monday, 2012.01.30 at 23:56

      Appearance is not the same as gender.

    • Zi
      Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 00:22

      I’m sorry, but that section does not take into account transgender people who have not undergone surgery or any other genderqueer people whose appearance does not conform with the sex on the piece of I.D.
      Besides, the real problem is not the paperwork. When the government asks for a person’s sex or gender on an I.D. form, they only give two options, and not everyone fits into the gender binary.
      Also, I disagree. Technically, under this section of the law, anyone who does not look cis-gendered will be prevented from boarding. It is worded in a very straight-forward manner, and there is no way to misunderstand it. Nor are there any loop-holes in order to circumvent this law.
      That’s all I have to say on that issue. Except for NO, no one owes Stephen Harper any sort of apology for maybe upsetting him. He’s a politician, I’m sure he’s had worse things said about him. His government made this problem, they can bloody well fix it.

    • Khat
      Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 02:18

      The only problem with that is that the exception clause A only provides a means to get out of having a photo identity that does not match. It *specifically* caters to the photo. My psychologist’s letter would help me there. However, it has been confirmed with Air Canada that if they find a discrepancy with the Gender Marker on your ID (which you cannot change before surgery and which most people need to take a plane to go get) they can and MUST deny you passage or face a fine of up to $25’000 if it is brought to light that they have let a pre-operative trans person fly who still has their legal birth marker. The offending trans person is also liable to a fee of up to $5’000 if caught – all it takes is one disgruntled worker having a bad day.

      This is not a problem for US residents as most can get a passport with their identified sex now after having undergone HRT. It is not so for Canadian residents – the only way to have any form of ID with a corrected gender marker before surgery is on the passport, and requires that you have a note from the surgeon that says you will have surgery within X amount of time, where X has to be less than 12 months. Every province otherwise requires you to have undergone surgery to update your ID, and furthermore from Quebec experience, it can take an entire OTHEr year post-surgery before the government finally updates your ID.

      While this may seem all good and well, it does nothing to change the fact that I *still* don’t even have a date for surgery after 11 years, thanks in large part to the Quebec medical system being completely pants-on-head retarded when it comes to transgender people. I live on $10’000 per year, meaning that even if most people could get by without a problem, all it takes is *one* bad day with a guard who decides to be a stickler for technicalities for me to be stuck having to pay over half my yearly livelihood.

      With this in mind, I certainly owe Harper absolutely nothing, especially considering he and his party are the *SOLE* reason I do not yet have access to equal rights in Canada. And if there was nothing to hide in these new regulations, they would have passed them in parliament like other laws, not through backdoor politics by updating the “no-fly” list via the Ministry of Transport (Currently a Conservative MP) during parliamentary summer break while nobody would be aware of it. I have contacted the NDP about this (the party I actually voted for) and they were not even aware of these new regulations until we brought it up, and now they are just as outraged as we are about it, because it took them a whole 5 minutes to see exactly how it would put a lot of us pre-operative people in an amazingly dumb bind.

    • Ros(s)
      Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 04:54


      As Christin has restated numerous times, *we are not talking about APPEARANCE*.

      Transgender people who have not had, or do not want, surgery (*and there are lots of them*) can update their passport PHOTOS all they want, and present at the security gates LOOKING exactly like their photos, BUT…

      …if I turn up with my full beard, matching the full beard in my photo, but under Canadian law I cannot have anything in the *gender marker field* on my passport other than “F”, the regs state that *I cannot board the plane*.

      Will people just please read the damn article?!

      • Joel
        Wednesday, 2012.02.01 at 10:44

        Apply for your passport, and under ICAO standard (which Canada have adopted), you can use “X” as your gender marker.

        • Christin
          Wednesday, 2012.02.01 at 13:14

          That is not correct, Joel.


    • stella_r
      Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 07:02

      @Madison Tully – The qualifying statement “despite paragraph 1(a)” is of course relevant to paragraph 1(a) and not to paragraph 1(c), which is the paragpraph being discussed by this blog.

      It’s worth reiterating the exact wording of the regulation:

      “5.2 (1) An air carrier shall not transport a passenger
      if…the passenger does not appear to be of the gender
      indicated on the identification he or she presents;”

      Dissecting this rule we get the following:

      1. What is relevant here? The appearance vs gender individcated on the ID.

      2. So if the person checking your boarding card at the boarding gate perceived you to be not the gender indicated on your ID, then you run the risk of not being allowed to board the plane.

      3. This is not a simple “picture” and “face” matching. This is a matter of the boarding gatekeeper’s perception of a passenger’s gender vs the gender indicated on their passport.

      The question here is whether this policy is fair and just. Indeed, there is a need to increase airport security but this concern should be weighed and balanced against other issues.

      I’m against using gender as a primary identifying feature of a person as it is not unique to each person. Because it is not unique* to each person, gender is not a decisive indentifying feature. The purpose of security identification is to match identity to person. Fingeprint and retina scan serve that purpose as they are unique to each person.

      (*When I say unique is this: X is an exclusive feature of A. Female or Male is not an exclusive feature of anyone.)

      Lastly, it does not matter whether or not this rule has been applied or not. The point is it is there. This is an unfair rule and can affect not only Canadian travellers but other travellers as well.

      Requiring people to carry with them a letter that they are transitioning is not a good policy.


      1) not all trans people get approval from medical professionals before they transition – and of course, they have the right not to;

      2) trans from other cultures don’t follow the same “medical” model;

      3) this add unnecessary burden to the passenger. If you are going to say for security purposes, well then refer to my argument about the unreliability of gender as the unique identifier of a person.

    • Sandy
      Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 07:19

      Agreed. And when people fuel fires like this, ones that are completely reactionary and not necessary, it means that our letters to our MPs are going to be less valuable when we write for something that actually needs it.

      We will be assumed to be a lot of illinformed reactionaries.

    • SHADEN
      Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 08:56


    • Ricardo Miramontes
      Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 09:41

      Even if what you say is true regarding the implementation of the regulation, that is a canard. The fundamental issue of safety of passengers is what is at stake here. Given the multiple ways to ensure passenger safety, such a regulation over-reaches. Regarding the “privilege” of doing a blog, it is interesting to see that there are those in Canada who, like some in the US, are willing to ban speech with which they disagree. Fortunately, there are those on both sides of the border who have a more encompasing view of democracy.

      • Christin
        Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 13:34

        That’s why I’m not censoring any comments, Ricardo. I’m reading them all, but I’m not censoring any.


    • James
      Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 13:47

      I read on as well. While there may be people who do not have a letter or something else healthcare related signed regarding their trans-status, and while acquiring this may document may be a hardship for many, the discussion on this board is exactly why I read as much of/about a piece of legislation as I can, and encourage others to do the same, before commenting on it.

  61. Brenda French
    Monday, 2012.01.30 at 22:56

    I am a corportate pilot and a trans woman. Now I do not go thru public security but most of the security people know me. Wonder when my aircraft is ready to depart if they’ll let the pilot on? I will have to start asking around and see what thety are doing…….

    This is a rule that needs to be fixed

  62. Monday, 2012.01.30 at 22:56

    I’m curious–wouldn’t the reg be subject to constitutional challenge as violative of the Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms? (i.e. the right of mobility). I’m not licensed to practice law outside of California and Nevada so I’m not sure if I’m applying US constitutional concepts where it’s not appropriate. Also, in general does each province get to decide whether or not its citizens get to amend their driver’s licenses or ID’s or is that determined federally? Finally, how can we transfolk in the U.S. best assist your advocacy efforts to get the reg changed? Thank you for your work and all best.

  63. Jeanne
    Monday, 2012.01.30 at 23:08

    As a matter of fact it looks like having a doctors, letter stating that you are transgender would be a good thing to show there is a medical reason.

    5.2 (1) An air carrier shall not transport a passenger if


    (a) the passenger presents a piece of photo identification and does not resemble the photograph;

    (b) the passenger does not appear to be the age indicated by the date of birth on the identification he or she presents;

    (c) the passenger does not appear to be of the gender indicated on the identification he or she presents; or

    (d) the passenger presents more than one form of identification and there is a major discrepancy between those forms of identification.

    (2) Despite paragraph (1)(a), an air carrier may transport a passenger who presents a piece of photo identification but does not resemble the photograph if


    (a) the passenger’s appearance changed for medical reasons after the photograph was taken and the passenger presents the air carrier with a document signed by a health care professional and attesting to that fact; or

    (b) the passengers’s face is bandaged for medical reasons and the passenger presents the air carrier with a document signed by a health care professional and attesting to that fact.

  64. Monday, 2012.01.30 at 23:26

    Please read the law. Even if your appearance matches your photo (as mine does), if you’re Intersex and so unable to get your birth certificate and documentation corrected so it matches your genitalia, the airline is forbidden by law to let you board.

    Should they do so, they are subject to a $25,000 fine on each occasion.

    Biologically, I’m F. Anatomically, F. But my Birth Certificate says “boy” and that cannot be changed, no matter what. May passport says ‘F’ too, so I have inconsistent documentation – another reason to prevent me from boarding.

    And should some kind-hearted soul decide to let me board anyway, they leave their company open to prosecution.

  65. Enrique
    Monday, 2012.01.30 at 23:44

    How about if you have a penis you are a man and if you have a vagina you are a woman. Put down the dress and stop chopping off your dicks, weirdos.

    • Christin
      Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 14:35

      How about you self-immolate and GTFO my blog.


  66. Ben
    Monday, 2012.01.30 at 23:48

    You’re a blessed human for answering the string of ignorant, transphobic comments on this post, Christin.

    • Christin
      Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 14:26

      I believe fiercely in freedom of expression.


  67. Jennifer
    Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 00:00

    So what is the Harper like?? In the US, we’re(those of us enlightened) not sure if he is your George W Bush or Hitler???

  68. Ringo
    Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 00:10

    The part that scares me is not whether this has happened or is even likely to happen, but that it is completely within their rights to keep me from boarding an airplane because I am unable to change the gender marker on my brith certificate unless I have surgery I don’t want, don’t need, can’t afford and which would keep me from having children.

    Yes, I know that we’re unusual and may get overlooked, the law may not have been targeted at transpeople but it has the potential to affect us.

  69. Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 00:44

    This whole post is fucking retarded. Oh boohoo, you read a regulation wrong and automatically thought that people give enough of a shit that you dress as the opposite of what you are.

    It’s all about the security, brah. If you want to change the ID regulations, you should write a post on that. It MIGHT be more valid…less of this Chicken Little bullshit that you’re trying to pull now.

    • Christin
      Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 14:24

      Hello Stupid (nice name),

      Trans people don’t ‘dress as the opposite of what they are.’ They were born as the opposite of (or as not precisely) what they are. And Canadian Pasports do not allow them to reflect that.


  70. meh
    Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 01:15

    Seems to me its just bad phrasing in the regulations, which are clearly not being adhered to anyway!

  71. Grant
    Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 01:23

    Billy Budd, I feel like you and I would get along very well 🙂 You have a real knack for staying objective that probably 99% of people will never get.

    There are two types of problem with most of the responses here. Almost all of the responses are either

    A)Clearly unable to look at issues objectively when they have any possible connection to LGBT.


    B)Failing to see the inherent flaw in this law.

    Group B is group A’s fault though. If you had attempted to explain what was wrong with this law in a concise and understanding way, group B wouldn’t exist because they wouldn’t have to react what they are seeing as “crazy liberal talk.” As soon as you started throwing around phrases like blatant discrimination, ridiculous, prejudice, etc. you turn something that was clearly an oversight into a divided issue.

    You create your own opponents….

  72. Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 01:50

    Obviously, this is nothing but a harmless security measure, written by someone who has just never ever heard of transgendered people. The people making a fuss out of this should take a page from the sock puppets sensible transgendered folk who’ve posted here. There’s no need to be dramatic, just because you’re technically not allowed on an airplane.

    Seriously, you have feet, right? What’s stopping you from walking to your destination? Nothing, that’s what. So grow up.

    You’re all going to feel really silly when this regulation thwarts a terrorist attack, and the terrorist hijacker’s on the television going, “I would have gotten away with it, too, if I hadn’t made the tiny mistake of listing the opposite gender on my passport.”

    Ayup. you’re going to feel really silly then.

    • Christin
      Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 14:18

      Are you for real?


  73. Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 02:46

    as a transexual, the thing about this law is it isnt transphobic thats whats scary about it, its much much worse

    this law bars trans people yes, and a whole score of other people

    this basically says that every man has too look 100% male, and every women 100% female

    which excludes a huge amount of people, the other thing is why???? where is the justification of this law

    a sad but true fact is most terrorists dress as normal as possible because funny thing when ur performing some illegal activity you dont want too draw attention too yourself bye being different

    “and what did you come dressed as wedensday??” “a serial killer they look like everyone else” the adams family

  74. Mike
    Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 03:29

    There are tons of responses that I haven’t read through, so pardon me if somebody has already made this point:

    The purpose of this regulation appears to be in place so that a man can’t don a burqa and pass himself off as a woman or a situation similar to that.

    The idea that a transgendered man or woman should fall under scrutiny due to this regulation is preposterous and anybody with a remotely cogent reading of the law should understand this.

  75. Tom
    Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 06:40

    It might be an idea to add the following line to the end of your quote..

    Please read the second part…. I do agree that the term “medical reason” does give the wrong impression but it was written this way not to agree with either side… I hope you are able to rethink your argument as it isn’t as cut and dry as you make it sound….


    (1)(a), an air carrier may transport a passenger who presents a piece of photo identification but does not resemble the photograph if
    (a) the passenger’s appearance changed for medical reasons after the photograph was taken and the passenger presents the air carrier with a document signed by a health care professional and attesting to that fact; ”

    • Ros(s)
      Tuesday, 2012.02.07 at 04:34

      We are not talking about the photograph! We are talking about the gender marker!

      If you show up looking F, exactly identical to your photo which says F, but your passport proclaims M, you’re screwed. Documents signed by health care professionals won’t help you one iota.

      Can people please damn well READ THINGS PROPERLY?

  76. Jennifer
    Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 07:05

    I agree with the majority view here in that I don’t believe these rules are intended to discriminate against transgendered people. However, the way they’ve been drafted could well allow for discrimination in the name of security.

    I’m transgendered and, though I’m neither Canadian nor have I travelled to Canada recently, until I changed my name, photo and gender marker on my passport three years ago (we’re allowed to regardless of surgical status in the UK), I used to fly with my old ‘male’ passport as ‘her’ all over the world and, in particular, to the US many, many times. I never had more than the occasional “is this you” or “Madam, I think you might have picked up your husband’s passport” from immigration/security personnel anywhere. However, it worries me that the new regulations could potentially give some security/immigration official with who knows what axe to grind a pretext upon which to cause a transgendered traveller grief. Immigration officers and to a slightly lesser degree airport security have almost unlimited powers to stop, search and refuse access and you argue with them at your peril. Fortunately here, the worst abuses of power seem somewhat reined in by the ECHR.

    By the way, it’s my understanding that the gender marker on international travel documents has to be there because the US authorities, who tend to have the the final word in these matters, have insisted upon it.

  77. Sandy
    Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 07:17

    I don’t thins was intended to be single out transgendered people, but to prevent people boarding who are in disguise for more sinister reasons. It’s for security. They either need to add an exception somewhere (which Madison Tully may have found) or alter it, but I don’t think it’s freak out worthy.

  78. Lauren
    Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 07:26

    Regarding the use of a carry letter.

    I think it needs to be pointed out that not every one has a carry letter for numerous valid reasons. For example,

    – they are not trans, but rather gender variant in an other number of ways.

    – they are on ‘do it yourself’ hormones (they are getting their hormones without a doctors consent)

    – they are non-operative and non-hrt, but choosing to live full time. Being trans doesn’t mean you have to take hormones. (being trans doesn’t even mean you have to pass)

    – People transitioning under through the CAMH are required to live full time prior to being giving hormones, and would therefore not have a carry letter either.

    Whatever the intention of this act, whether it’s an oversight in an attempt to reduce the possibility of terrorism, or whether it’s an outright attack on trans people, isn’t really the point.

    The issue is that, in it’s current format, this Aeronautics Act *COULD* be used, very effectively, to discriminate against trans people. Any arguments about discrimination having not occurred yet are moot. It will only take one transphobic airport employee for it to happen.

    On the topic as a whole, I find it demeaning that these identity screening regulations give power to someone else, over us, to determine our gender. I believe it to be fundamental that we have sole responsibility to determine and define our own gender – these regulations undermine that basic right.

    I also am disappointed with the trend of transphobic, and anti-trans sentiment that has be prevalent in the past few years when our current Canadian government has been in power. This includes these sets of regulations, as well as the constant conservative opposition to human rights bills such as Bill C389, and the current Bill C279.

  79. Al
    Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 08:41

    Fuck Canada! I will not be going there while this law is in place. If they don’t want our money then fine. I won’t forget.

  80. Kathy Bramley
    Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 09:14

    Was it trying to stop people wearing face-covering religious/tribal dress because of the probably grossly exaggerated reports of terrorists fooling people – but without saying so – they took a calculated decision they’d rather offend LGBTI!? And anyone else! It isn’t always easy being Canada!

  81. Lisa
    Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 09:22

    No one owes the Harper Conservative Government an apology. The Government should be careful to remember that policy is not judged purely on the wording or sentence structure but also on the understanding and implementation.

    So, does it mean that all trans people cannot fly. I would hope not…but it only takes one air carrier to make that call to cause a violation of someone rights. A position they should not be in.

    And if it’s clear that there is potential the violation of a person’s right, it is responsible governance to make changes to such rule. The Canadian society should not settle or allow the violation of one’s right in order to spur the rewrite policy but rather the changes to the regulations should come from the government showing leadership, or if they are not capable than from civil society.

  82. Ricardo Miramontes
    Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 09:32

    WOW! In spite of Canada’s well-known reputation for tolerance and civility, regulations like this can be created in the present. It has the flavor of German’s gender purification laws in the days of the Third Reich. What is the Harper government going to do next? Dennis Lebel and Stephen Harper should be ashamed of themselves for giving Canada this black eye in the view of tolerate people everywhere.
    Ricardo Miramontes, San Diego, California

  83. Caerie
    Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 09:42

    A point that I haven’t seen addressed yet: If someone decided to enforce this, it wouldn’t simply have an impact on those who are pre- or non-op and haven’t had gender indicators on their ID changed.

    This is giving the power of the “gender police”! Someone could be post-op, have all of their ID switched over to match their gender identity, and if someone decided to enforce the regulation, all they’d have to say is, “You don’t look like a real woman to me.” In fact, someone who is post-op (or gender nonconforming in any way) would probably be the real target in situations like this.

    All it says is that if the person doesn’t appear to be the gender on their ID they can be barred passage. Not “if the person doesn’t present” as that gender. Not “if the person doesn’t have the genitals” associated with that gender. Appear. Any woman with masculine features or man with feminine ones, regardless of if they’re post-op trans or cis, could be targeted.

    It’s the gender police.

  84. Susie
    Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 09:44

    Thank god for Madison Tully! I really wish people would keep a level headed perspective on such things as this.

  85. Dyann J
    Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 10:10

    Here we go another person making Mountains out of ant hills.

    Taking away the issue that this person is transitioning from male to female, lets look at the issue from a different perspective.

    If any of a person’s paperwork does not match, they will likely be refused entry into any country. If the paperwork says the person has blue eyes, and in reality they are brown, they can be refused entry into the USA. It is that simple.

    Canadians have forgotten the USA is still very paranoid right now.

    Now returning to this topic, I have not crossed the border since 2004.

    I have chosen to do this because; as a former bus driver who crossed the border on a daily basis; I have seen the way the Canadian and US governments handle people who are Transgendered at the borders.

    It is embarrassing and many times they violate the human rights code, all in the name of security.

    My new Limousine Company knows I won’t cross the border and they know why. They have been very supportive.

    I am not getting my passport nor will I cross any border, until all surgeries are completed and I am anatomically correct.

    I do feel empathy for this person, but had they done a little research, they would not be in this predicament.

    This may seem unemotional and even callous, but I have no sympathy for such outrageous sense of entitlement and acts of stupidity.

    However, I am just another person with a computer and an opinion.

    • Christin
      Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 13:33

      That is indeed very callous to any trans person for whom surgery is not an option, Dyann.


      • Joel
        Wednesday, 2012.02.01 at 10:55

        In the meantime, just have your gender listed as “X” on your passport (Canada will allow this, not sure about US)

  86. Lori A
    Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 11:05

    The thing to recognize here is that this isn’t going to impact the average TG person because they aren’t going to have earned their way on to the ‘no-fly’ list. If you’re on the ‘no-fly’ list then I hope you are subjected to a very detailed search.

    I think you bring a valid point to light, but your scare tactics (headline) caused me to question the rest of your information. I only found your blog because my daughter shared your outrage so I investigated to see if it was something we needed to tackle.

    So, while I thank you for bringing to light a potential LGBT issue, I certainly don’t look forward to calming down a very angry teenager who has been misinformed.

    • Christin
      Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 14:15

      Maybe she understands the potential threat to our rights better than you do.


  87. mattm
    Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 11:27

    Oddly, after copying and pasting the whole 5.1/5.2, the comment did not pass the moderator. Perhaps because it points out very clearly that this is a security measure and that changing one’s age or general appearance are also covered (you need to get a new picture if you lop off 3 feet of hair, as well, but no one is saying there’s prejudice against long haired folk). Perhaps also because, as the last person to comment points out, there’s even a clause saying that all you have to do is carry around a doctors note and good to go. This clause is there specifically to cater to and avoid prejudice against transgendered folk and other folk that have had to change their appearance for one reason or another.

    • Christin
      Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 14:13

      The moderator has to sleep sometimes, mattm. I’m not censoring any comments. It just took me some time to get to yours. Yours should be appearing by now.


    • Ros(s)
      Tuesday, 2012.02.07 at 04:44

      The photo is not the issue. It’s the gender marker that’s the issue. Please read things properly.

  88. helen
    Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 11:31

    When you work for the airlines and you have experienced ypur friends being murdered by terrorists you see the other side of the coin. Being in transition is a temporary state for you. Change your id to ypur current gender and travel afterwards. People attempt to take an airliner about once every six months and kill all on board and people on the ground. No its not heavily covered in the press. When I a woman who is born female fly they ask me if I am female
    I am very feminine but they have to ask anyway. Like it or not your ge der is part of your identity . This is how you like everybody else in the world is compared against the terrorist web site. Pregnant women in their last few weeks of pregnancy are barred from some fliggts. When you buy at ticket you are buying a ticket with a certain amount of ‘ conditions of passage’. Its the most government regulated industry in the world. Just change your gender on your id and fly all over the place if you want. No one gives a damn if you are transgender or not. They do give a damn if the ID doesn’t match the passenger because they have to make sure you aren’t a terrorist.

    • Christin
      Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 14:11


      It’s not so easy for trans people to “change your id to ypur current gender and travel afterwards.” You suggest that trans people simply “Just change your gender on your id and fly all over the place if you want.”

      If you do some actual research (or even just read the entire article I posted) you will realize that ID simply cannot be changed the way you seem to think it can.


  89. Michael
    Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 11:47

    While Madison Tully seems to have taken way too much pleasure in pointing out that this article was wrong for pointing out that something else was wrong, I generally agree with their jist.

    The basic rules of verifying someone’s identity applies the normally unchanging information on the ID card, such as height, eye color, age, gender, facial appearance, signature, etc. This doesn’t mean that Canada is saying it’s wrong for any of these things to change, it just means that you need your ID updated, or you need something that explains the difference. How else can they prove you are the person who is supposed to be flying?

    If you’re going to raise such a ruckus about the gender term, why not also point out that anyone who has changed height, age, eye color and signature are also completely banned from boarding airplanes? Because you know it isn’t true.

    Sooner or later, the world is going to get better at handling gender issues, and the advocates are going to forget to stop fighting everyone. Really, we need to stop giving the world reasons to resent us.

  90. Heather
    Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 12:07

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t there a field for “sex”, but not “gender” on Canadian passports? I’m not familiar with any official, government ID that actually lists a gender…

    • Christin
      Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 14:07

      You’re absolutely right. That’s why this is a problem. The law requires the gate staff at airports to judge a person’s gender presentation based on the sex designation on their ID. That’s why this is a problem.


  91. Radical Centrist
    Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 12:35

    FYI, if you want action on this via the petition route, don’t waste time promoting an e-petition as the Canadian House of Commons does not accept or recognize e-petitions. You have to petition them the regular way – paper with real signatures, using the proper format and language etc. As far as the Canadian parliament is concerned, e-petitions don’t exist.

  92. Douglas Baker
    Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 12:51

    Give me a break. This is such a joke. It is NOT aimed at transgender and is simply a security measure.. ridiculous how stupid people can be. pick a fight worth picking, to do with a real issue, BUT for goodness sake STOP making stupid, UNTRUE statements.

  93. Joy
    Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 13:04

    I’m trans myself and I understand the concern, as well as the need for changes. I cannot agree in this case that this is a deliberate and blatant act of hate by the government against transpersons and I think protraying it as such doe not help us.

  94. Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 13:24

    I don’t know how Canadian laws work as i live in the Uk but over here you are allowed to change your title and name at 16 and sex at 18.

    I’ve never got in trouble for putting myself down as male and in school i was allowed to go as Jayden and male dispite having nothing legal back then, meh i guess Uk are better with trans people.

    If in Canda you’re not allowed to change your sex, then yeah that is discrimination :/

    People you need to stop putting trans people in boxes. You also need to remember that not ever trans person feels the WANT or NEED to have lower surgery. People think all transistion is about is genitals and it’s so much more ( trust me ).

    • Christin
      Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 14:01

      Indeed, Jayden!

      Thank you.


  95. DM
    Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 13:26

    “5.2 (1) An air carrier shall not transport a passenger if …(c) the passenger does not appear to be of the gender indicated on the identification he or she presents” > Maybe I’m missing something here – this does not indicate (to me) that transgender people are banned from Canadian flights…it says specifically that if the person does not appear to be the gender listed on his or her passport then he/she may not be transported. I think someone’s trying to pick nits here (and cause an unnecessary shit-show) Did anyone bother to contact “the Honourable Minister of Transportation” and ask for definition?

    • Ros(s)
      Tuesday, 2012.02.07 at 04:46

      “it says specifically that if the person does not appear to be the gender listed on his or her passport then he/she may not be transported.”

      Yes, and who do you think that’s going to be in the majority of cases? Transgender people! Obviously!

      Someone IS trying to pick nits here. It’s you.

  96. Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 13:35

    A big thank you Christin. As long as that is on the books it can be dragged out and used. Used against anyone. The person in control could be a big transphobe, a right wing Christian, or just a bully. To require a carrying letter is pure discrimination in itself. Like having to bring a marriage document to the hospital to prove that I can go into my partners room. Let’s get rid of all bull laws that put us down and stop passing and playing up to the master.

    Good Job and again thank you.

  97. Laura
    Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 13:42

    Trans phobia ..Shame for the Canadian law and for the people who make this problem ..Even in east Europe are not happening this thinks !

  98. James
    Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 13:45

    The next piece of the legislation reads as such: (2) Despite paragraph (1)(a), an air carrier may transport
    a passenger who presents a piece of photo identification
    but does not resemble the photograph if
    (a) the passenger’s appearance changed for medical
    reasons after the photograph was taken and the passenger
    presents the air carrier with a document signed
    by a health care professional and attesting to that fact;

    If you have a letter regarding trans-status, it might be a good idea to carry it if you travel in Canada.

  99. scf
    Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 14:23

    This is much ado about nothing. Get a sense of perspective.

    The rule was put in place for obvious reasons, in order to weed out people trying to disguise themselves (ie use a fake passport). A transgendered person’s appearance is not a disguise. As long as a transgendered person is honest about their biological gender as indicated in their passport, then they will not be blocked just because of the way they dress. It is the word “appear” that is causing the confusion. The word “appear” is often used in a general context to indicate not someone’s appearance, but someone’s actual identity.

  100. Elliott
    Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 14:50

    To DC88, saying the law that doesn’t allow trans people to change their gender is the problem: yes and no. But what of someone who appears between genders? What of someone who identifies as a woman, but dresses “like a man” and for all purposes looks like one? What about gender-queer people? Why should the gender on your ID matter at all if you are who you say you are? I’m trans, and I’d like my ID to be able to say male–but if I didn’t want it to, I think I’m also entitled to that right.

  101. Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 15:04

    In my opinion, we need to look at the bigger picture here (and this may have already been said).

    they probably didn’t even realize what they were implying when they wrote that regulation
    (seems like a standard security regulation – to keep people out of they don’t look like their picture/eye color doesn’t match what is stated on their passport etc.)

    what this tells me personally, is that they need to stand back and take a long hard look at the process they require people to go through in order to qualify for sex changes.
    they make them dress like the opposite sex and “live like the opposite sex” for a year, right? .. and until they are completely changed over, they can’t change their sex on their govt issued ID.
    and even when they ARE allowed to, it is a long and humiliating and difficult process JUST to get that M changed into a W or vice versa.

    big picture, big picture!

  102. Sara
    Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 15:16

    The statement “Trans people can fly if they just present as the sex on their ID, so it’s not discriminatory” makes as much sense as “Gay people can get married to someone of the opposite sex, so anti-same-sex-marriage legislation isn’t discriminatory”.

    Is that really how Canadians feel about human rights? Thank God, turns out you’re no better than America.

  103. Curiosity
    Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 15:23

    Waht about hermaphrodites? Waht gender will they be and can they fly. Their sex is often chosen by the parents at birth for thier birth cetififcates. But that doesn’t mean that it is the way they lean to in behavior. There really could be an invasion of privacy here.

    • Curiosity
      Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 15:25

      sorry about the spelling.

  104. Robyn
    Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 15:30

    Cripes, no wonder I try to stay away from most activism blogs. They tend to blow it way out of proportion and then the comments are filled with petty little side arguments having to do with the phrasing of a commenter and NOTHING to do with the actual topic.

    Sorry OP, but as grabbing and froth-building as the title is I really don’t think trans folk are COMPLETELY BANNED from boarding planes in Canada. This act has been around since July and so far there have been no reports of such. If it was directly about discriminating trans people why haven’t they also banned trans people from crossing the border in to America by other methods (car, bus and train)? No…I think you fell in to a trap by seeing the word “Gender” under the context of someone being looked at as one or the other and started up the rage chainsaw.

    Something to be concerned about? Yeah, as the future could lead to something bad. But something to cry war over? No. NDP seem to be on it and will also be bringing in C-279 (formally C-389) back up for discussion.

    tl;dr It seems pretty obvious that it wasn’t intended to discriminate against trans people and probably didn’t even consider the consequences for them. CALM. DOWN.

    • Everett
      Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 18:35

      you are a clown. intentions do not matter; only their consequences. it is a law totally ignorant of gender politics, that failed to consider that people might look different from their apparent given sex; where the issue of transgendered folk comes up, a sidenote about post-operative transgendered people addresses it; and in a situation so clearly filled with gender politics, they might have thought to get someone who understood gender politics well enough to know that wouldn’t be enough to provide some perspective. but of course this is not the case; the idea that transgendered people even exist in the first place is so fargone to the writers of this law as to essentially be irrelevant. and that is no good.

  105. Amy
    Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 15:35

    This is not a matter of not allowing Transgenders to board airplanes it is to prevent another person from using your identification and boarding the airplane by simply saying they are transgendered.

    Good job Canada

  106. Crystal
    Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 15:53

    I might be wrong with this, but couldn’t the “of the gender indicated on the identification he or she presents;” be referring to the gender assumption one might make from the photo? As stated it is sex that is indicated with the f and m designations (so genitalia).

    So a case were this might be relevant to airport security – A picture for the passport where the transgender individual (lets go with MtF) appears female in the photo, but as indicated by the sex has not undergone a full surgical transition. In the picture there appears to be breasts, but there are several different ways a man can have the appearance of breasts in a photo, some of which are not permanent. The person bares a resemblance to the female in the picture, but appears and presents themselves as male for whatever reason. The guard is aware from the indication of sex that a surgery has not taken place, and so it would not be unreasonable to conclude they are the person on the picture, in fact it might be more of a jump to say they are not, but several characteristics they might use to judge if it is indeed the same person are harder to distinguish with the change in gender appearance. This person would not be allowed to board because their gender does not match that indicated in the picture.

    And while I’m no big fan of the idea of strip searches in general if there is a legitimate reason for an individual to undergo such a procedure it does make a certain amount of sense to be aware of the persons biological sex.

    I don’t know, I guess it just seems a little silly to me to have the distinction between gender and sex, and then not make that distinction when reading into the letter of a rule or law when the letter of such a thing is what is being contested rather than the spirit (which is what seems to have been honored up to this point).

    That said there are still things that could be improved, and it is certainly an area that could use clarification.

  107. c n
    Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 15:56

    i have one question ..what stopes some one identifying as the opposite sex from witch they were bore from being just as human as some one who identifys as the gender they were born ?

  108. Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 16:53

    It’s too early to say for sure.

    We have to be careful about leveling the accusation that we’re “completely banned” from airlines, especially since we don’t know yet if that’s how this regulatory change will play out. It’s been around since July, there’s been no reports, and some of that can be explained by the delay in implementation, but we’ve not experienced a total ban — at least not yet. There is even a portion that could be interpreted as an intended exemption.

    It’s true that with the way it’s worded, it *appears* to be a ban. The wording is definitely concerning, especially because it would mean that if an airline allows someone to board with an incongruent gender marker, they’d be in violation of federal law. But we don’t know that the implementation will play out this way, yet.

  109. div
    Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 17:02

    Ok, so they can’t get /on/ planes. Can they get /off/ planes?

  110. Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 17:25

    Same rules for all – The rules for boarding an aircraft apply to all passengers equally, regardless of culture, religion or sexual orientation.

    Please read the complete Regulations (, especially paragraph 5.2(2)(a). If, for medical reasons, a passenger’s facial features do not correspond to the photo on his or her identification, the air carrier may authorize the passenger to board a plane if they provide a medical certificate relating to this.

    We are not aware of any case of a transgendered or transsexual individual in possession of a medical document who has not been permitted to board an airplane since the publication of the Regulations in 2010.

    • Christin
      Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 18:30

      Transport Canada,

      What about trans people who are non-operative, or pre-operative without medical supervision, and so have no medical documentation to present?

      What about Genderqueer people, who don’t necessarily identify as trans, and who may express themselves in a way that does not “match” their passport Sex designation?

      You need to take into consideration that your regulation targets a huge swath of the gender variant community, and not everyone has access to medical documentation to justify their existence to the gate attendants.

      Remove, or re-word the regulation so that people are compared with their name and photo, and not judged based on whether the gate guard thinks they look like the gender which corresponds to their passport Sex designation.


      Christin Milloy

    • Marie
      Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 19:00

      This is the type of none response that I have often received when approaching a minor bureaucrat in a government office. It is the programmed none response stating the law is fair for all people, with out actually addressing the issue at all or even giving though to the very context of how the question or complaint has been issued.

      Truly a sad state of affairs Transport Canada.

  111. Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 17:25

    Les règlements sont les mêmes pour tous – Les règlements pour l’identification des passagers aériens sont les mêmes pour tous peu importe la culture, religion ou l’orientation sexuelle.

    Veuillez vous référez au règlement complet ( surtout la section 5.2 (2) (a) si l’apparence du passager a changé pour des raisons médicales après la prise de sa photo photo d’identification, le transporteur peut transporter un passager si celui-ci présente au transporteur aérien un document qui est signé par un professionnel de la santé et qui en fait foi.

    Nous ne sommes pas au courant d’aucun cas de quelqu’un transsexuel ou transgenre avec un certificat médical qui s’est vu refusé un vol depuis la publication des règlements en 2010.

    • Christin
      Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 20:08

      Transports Canada,

      Qu’en est-il des individus transgenres ou transsexuelles non opérés ou tous ceux qui ont entrepris des démarches pour être opérés, mais qui n’ont aucun certificat médical à présenter, peut-être parce qu’ils ne sont pas sous les soins d’un médecin?

      Et qu’en est-il des individus qui expriment une identité de genre qui soit non conforme (e.g., « genderqueer ») mais ne sont pourtant pas des personnes transsexuelles, ou bien tous ceux qui s’expriment d’une façon qui ne s’accorde pas avec le sexe désigné sur leur carte(s) d’identité.

      Vous devez prendre en considération que votre règlement affecte un bon nombre de personnes transgenres, transsexuelles ou ayant une identité de genre non conforme. Beaucoup entre nous n’ont tout simplement accès à aucun documentation médical pour se justifier devant les gardiens de gare, ou n’ont pas les documents médicaux nécessaires pour un embarquement légal tel que stipulé.

      Éliminez ou révisez le règlement tel que chaque personne soit comparée avec son propre nom et sa propre photographe, mais sans que les gardiens de gare ne doivent évaluer son expression de genre vis à vis le sexe désigné sur sa carte d’identité.

      Vous devraient avoir honte.

      Christin Milloy
      Traduit par CJ Chasin et Julie-Maude Beauchesne

  112. Tammy
    Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 17:25

    When did Canada become a cruel uncaring country? This country was suppose to be about acceptance and doing the right thing no matter what our neibours down south think. I do believe that there was a war fought so we would not be American so why are our policy’s American Makes me sick. Time for some better leadership in our country

  113. Everett
    Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 18:09

    can we give up the facade that there’s any progressivism left in our country, now, and get to work on changing that.

  114. Goju Suzi
    Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 18:33

    I don’t get the logic behind how it’s something that could be used by nefarious types. Like, if you have a passport that has a picture which looks exactly like you, then it’s either you, or it’s a fake, in which case you could have got a fake with the correct gender. I simply cannot see a scenario where a terrorist manages to get hold of a passport that just so happens to match in every aspect except gender.

  115. Goju Suzi
    Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 18:41

    Also curious: here in the UK, we have certain photo regs, so for me I have to tie my hair back and take off my glasses for the photo, but in reality my hair will be loose around my face with glasses on. I see several comments about cutting hair and the like requiring new photos, but here at least they rely on the face itself, not the hair style or specific make-up colouring. Over there, do they really care more about having the same hair clip as in the photo? Seems a little silly. Although, if security is that incompetent that they can’t recognise someone just because they parted their hair on the wrong side, that might explain the inane restrictions.

  116. jared
    Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 18:59

    Oh my lord how is a person TRANSGENDERED if they have not had their sexual parts changed? Would you not just be cross dressing? If you intend to fly and you have a penis, do not dress like a woman and get on your flight. No discrimination there at all. On your passport it says male your genitalia is male therefore you are male. You may think you are a woman but that is all it is a thought. Once you have a vagina instead of a penis then you are a woman and have crossed the gender bridge. In this case you are legally able to change the passport and hence no problems. Quiet frankly “I believe” I am better at the job of Prime Minister than MR. Harper but does this actually make me Prime Minister, NO!!

    In reality no one is being discriminated against as thinking you are is different than actually being!!

  117. Steven Howard
    Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 19:13

    It seem’s as if discrimination will allways be apart of this world in one form or another. All we can do is hope that one day that all people can learn to accept each other as we are… as there is not two of us alike… live and let live. You would think that in this day in age that people would have learned how to get along with each other but there has to be some one who think’s there better that will have the power and try and use that power to dictate our live’s to us. This word “minority” should not even be used to lable people… as we are all human and have been born into this world and we all should have the right to live a life that we have chosen and be who we are with out some one trying to slap us down for it.

  118. Eden
    Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 20:53

    As a transgender…I really feel ofended with this law…its just unfair in every sense!!! What? Am I now a criminal because how I look? Whar a shitty way of think…

  119. Tim
    Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 21:10

    Cry me a RIVER! You can’t just change your sex. You CAN’T. No matter what science can do you are what you were BORN as. So suck it up. I agree with this 90%

    My 10% disagreement is from the fact that transport Canada will let you change your sex legally if you provide proof. Thats stupid. You should NEVER be legally allowed to change your “sex”.

    • W
      Saturday, 2012.02.04 at 11:32

      Tim, so because you hate trans people you think we shouldn’t be allowed to board a plane?

      Besides, you are on the wrong side of history. Within your lifetime the rest of the world WILL grow more tolerant to trans people and you can’t stop it.

      You suck it up.

      You cry me a river.

      Get used to us. We’re not going anywhere.

  120. Msconduct
    Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 21:34

    Maybe all the people who think the law is no problem because no trans person has yet been stopped from getting on a plane should take the time to think about what impact the mere existence of the law can have. Why should trans, intersex, or androgynous people have to be afraid to get on a plane in case it happens to them? I doubt the law was intended to be discriminatory, but what matters is that it is.

  121. Anna
    Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 21:37

    A passport is an INTERNATIONAL travel document. Having both a “sex” and “gender” categories on the passport could provide very problematic where countries that are less open minded than us are concerned. Hell, even some places in the States aren’t very “trans-friendly” let alone fundamentalist countries in the middle-east and Africa. A lot of those places consider homosexuality a crime. It’s not nice and it’s not fair, but it is a fact. So that puts an end to the sex v. gender argument. As for the timing, it is a little suspicious, however for a rule that has been in place for 6 months and there has been no reported denial for travel for transgendered people it seems like a very odd way to descriminate against trans people. People love to blow things out of preportion, and that is when people stop listening. If you start screaming about descrimination, people (ie. the ones whose opinions/authority you are trying to change) will chalk it up to “those crazy gays/trans/women/ethnic minority, etc.” Instead of jumping to crazy conclusions why don’t people band together to come up with a logical way to deal with airport safety that doesn’t adversely effect any given group of people. I think the point of this rule in the beginning was about security and nothing more. Sometimes policy makers don’t think of every possible condition when it related to things that don’t occur as often as other things.

  122. Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 21:54

    does your social insurance number change if your sex does?

    • Christin
      Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 22:06

      Not that I am aware.


  123. Mariann Spehar
    Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 22:23

    Intolerance is inexcusable. Thank you for blogging and thank you for including ways to help. I’m writing to my MP, Hon. Denis Lebel and signing the petition.

  124. Jamie Wods
    Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 22:46

    Usually I wish I could emigrate from the USA to Canada. The US is fast becoming beyond conservative to outright fascist. And to think the conservatives call President Obama a fascist or a communist. Those are polar opposites. I also like how Canada has universal health care when we don’t here in the US.

    Anyway, in June 2010 Mara Keisling of the National Center for Transgender Equality announced new US State Dept. rules which allow far more trans persons to change the gender marker on their US Passports. The new rule as amended in December 2010 simply require an MD or DO to write a letter stating we’ve had appropriate gender treatment. This was not defined and no information on hormones or surgery need be in the letter.

    Typically for domestic, within the US air travel, including Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico and US Virgin Islands, we need only show a state-issued ID card or a drivers license to board a plane. The problem comes in that each state has varying rules on changing gender markers on these forms of ID. In Wisconsin, a carry letter from a therapist is all that’s needed But other states require surgery.

    Seems to me, Canada should change its passport rule to somethng along the order of what we have in the USA.

  125. Jon Jones
    Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 23:19

    I think society has more important things to worry about, than whether a ‘chick with a dick’ is allowed on a plane. Take the bus.

  126. Malenga
    Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 23:39

    Gender and sex are completely different things; gender is what you associate yourself with, while sex is the body to which you were born into. If you’re going to discriminate based on who they see themselves as, then why don’t they just write a rule saying “We will not allow males to board if they are wearing a cowboy hat.” or “We will not allow females to board if they aren’t wearing a poodle skirt.” They’re both equally stupid and behind in the times, so why should we be discriminating?

    Canada is known for being accepting and peaceful as they can be, but can still kick booty when needed. Why do we have to kick the asses of people who were born into the wrong sex? It’s just so unfair, dumb, and it needs to go away.

  127. Shelli
    Wednesday, 2012.02.01 at 01:09

    Not just trans folk! What about the chemo patient, who’s passport shows long hair, but is now bald, or with a cropped do? It’s RIDICULOUS to pass a federal law that allows discrimination based on what someone looks like!

  128. Linda
    Wednesday, 2012.02.01 at 06:42

    Seriously folks, get a grip. If one of us chooses to present ourselves as a woman to the world even though we are actually a male and this is our normal appearance then it is imcumbant on us to have our passport picture taken that way although if you are pre-op your sex on the passport will still say male, as it should, no problems at all and I know this for a fact. Having to still declare what sex you are on your passport, until such time that you are no longer that sex, IS a security issue and it is working as it should. I suggest that we move along to a real issue and quit making hay over nothing to see here. Shelli, I change my hair more often than my underwear and I am a frequent flyer, I have never had a problem because they can clearly see on the photo that it is still my face. If the day should arrive that I look so significantly different than my photo I have two choices: either get a new photo done for my passport if the changes in my appearance are not reversible OR have secondary ID ready and know that because of this that I might get a hassle. People SHOULD resemble their photos clearly enough to be identified for crying out loud, that is why pictures are required and it is about security.

  129. B Rock
    Wednesday, 2012.02.01 at 09:35

    i think this is totally unfair to said group of people.. I dont claim to fully understand each and every one of their situations but some people are born with both gender hormones and such an individual could be both male and female or otherwise known as shemales.. Lets say such individual hasnt been fortunate enough, financially to be more specific, to be able to afford such an surgery as a sex change.. Or lets say they were going to a different nation to avoid a waiting list for such.. I mean we can never really know what a person is going through.. We should be way past things such as these.. Laws that discriminate against people.. THERE IS SEGREGATION IN THIS NATION..OF DOMINATION!!! But whats even more disgusting to extract of of this situation is the fact that there is a underlying hint of sexism because it shouldnt really matter whether a person is female or male when travelling.. Is there a bigger threat from the “other” gender.. I mean its been said that males a physically stronger than females but lets throw that out the window and assume the best scenario which would be that after such disastrous events as that of 9/11 all possible measures are being taken to avoid any sort of interference with the safety of passengers. In short, this is a shock coming from a nation like canada.. something should be done to fix this unfairness #realtalk

  130. Wednesday, 2012.02.01 at 09:49


    I just want to let you know that Denis Lebel also has a new Facebook page:

    Go there and tell him what you think.

    • Christin
      Wednesday, 2012.02.01 at 13:24

      That’s a GREAT idea, Jocelyn! I’ll add the link to the article.


  131. bob
    Wednesday, 2012.02.01 at 10:07

    Yeah that’s very smart and those rules are great.
    Transgender AREN’T normal people.
    They need help, and are at risk of going crazy in a plane.

    that’s not discrimination.. it’s for our security… i repeat.. transgender AREN’T normal.. they are psychologically unstable and at risk..

    • Christin
      Wednesday, 2012.02.01 at 13:16

      I think that might be “snakes” you’re thinking of. Trans folks are usually fine on a plane.


  132. Mike
    Wednesday, 2012.02.01 at 10:19

    Wow. Follow the link to the regulation supplied in this blog post and read section 5.2 (2) and the exceptions (hint: doctor’s note accepted).

    • Christin
      Wednesday, 2012.02.01 at 13:16

      Not all trans and genderqueer folks have access to medical documentation, Mike.


  133. Chels
    Wednesday, 2012.02.01 at 11:25

    There’s nothing wrong with a rule being there that ensures that people are using the proper identification and aren’t just stealing someone else’s. A picture is there because they don’t know you, it’s not discrimination based off their appearance. They just want to know that it is YOUR I.D and no one else’s. Stop over-reacting. I do agree that the criteria for being able to change your sex on your passport is ridiculous, but this law wasn’t created to discriminate against transgendered people. Transgendered people are still free to fly wherever they want to, whenever they want. I’m no fan of the conservatives and their policies but this was probably just a badly written law that they’ll go over and re-write like they did with that hoo-hah cause a few weeks ago with the gay couples who get married in Canada having their marriage status “revoked” if it’s not legal for them to get married in their native country.

  134. postmartinista
    Wednesday, 2012.02.01 at 11:57

    I agree with you folks that it Is a discriminatory law; however, my guess is that the law was put in place to prevent people who are not a part of the trans community from concealing their “identity” from the police by changing their appearance. They should have thought more carefully when writing the law, but my guess is that it’s intent was not malicious.

  135. Jordan
    Wednesday, 2012.02.01 at 12:34

    This is not discrimination it’s a security regulation that is now required for all international passports within Canada, US and the EU.

    What is the problem here is the differentiation between sex and gender. The passport sex is not discrimination because it is based on your gender at birth.

    If you change you sex via surgery, your passport can be changed easily IF you fill out the correct forms and get the correct signatures etc. It is no different than filling out a status card application.

    Whether or not you feel you are female or male, you are still biologically the sex which you were born. I’m sympathetic i am but it’s a simple matter of how sex is defined by the bureau of statistics.

    For the US argument, they state gender not sex on their passports. The gender on the passport is not based solely on their birth certificate but other documentation.

    A lot of trans gendered people come through the border without issue. Facial structure is still the same, so is weight, eye colour, hair colour etc even if they are dressed as the opposite sex.

    In the future this discussion will be eliminated by biometric passports which will not list a sex.

    This should be a fight with the bureau of statistics, not with the transport minister…

  136. Patt
    Wednesday, 2012.02.01 at 13:39

    The law says “gender”. In the 21st century, gender is no longer a 2-boxes-fit-all concept. (It never was; but now the option is there of not pretending anymore–honesty is possible). This law can, and will, be used to hassle and detain people who are gender-nonconforming.

    The problem of not matching your passport picture anymore is a common one. The gender-nonconforming person is no more confusing than one who changes hair color, facial hair, or skin tone. The gender-nonconforming person is not more dangerous that anyone else who has changed in appearance. Policing by appearance is a fallacy in terms of security. Time to update everything–ideology, technology, and, perhaps most importantly, the post-911 paranoia that keeps justifying stupid laws that claim to be about security but are really about conformity.

  137. Teresa
    Wednesday, 2012.02.01 at 16:24

    The headline for this article seems to be bogus. Yes the rule is in place to deny anyone who does not present as the same gender as their ID but has this happened to any transgender person? Has any transgender person been given any grief when trying to board a flight because of this new regulation?

    It does present the potential for discrimination and it should be addressed but let’s be careful not to off the deep end on this until it happens. I suspect you’ll never see this occur because the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has jurisdiction here. While gender identity and gender expression has not yet made into the Human Rights Code of Canada, they have ruled “There is a significant body of human rights jurisprudence that has found that discrimination on the basis of transsexualism constitutes sex discrimination.”

    My two cents.

  138. Leslie Langford
    Wednesday, 2012.02.01 at 17:09

    It’s hard to take seriously a set of regulations that are incapable of distinguishing between the concepts of “sex” and “gender”. Such blatant ignorance is truly disturbing. Besides, short of subjecting me to a CAT scan to probe my brain and – perhaps my innermost thoughts – I defy any airline boarding agent, customs official, or airport “rent-a-cop” operating one of those security scanners to determine what gender I am simply by looking at me.

    I also love the reference to “Aerodrome” in the preamble to these regulations. How archaic is that? This sounds like something out of the 1930’s. Am I now to expect that Charlie Chan might be a fellow traveller as we embark on our leisurely voyage to Europe via Zeppelin?

    Our legislators need to give their heads a shake and join the rest of us in the 21st century.

  139. chanel
    Wednesday, 2012.02.01 at 18:09

    I am a trans woman and I exactly look like a girl in my photo ID, but the problem I am pre up trans and ID says M, I will travel soon and I am scare :)now ???
    Please help ~

  140. Adela
    Wednesday, 2012.02.01 at 18:50

    This is stupid and its messing with people freedom! What I find ad is that i went to Canada in 2006 and the airport people in Montreal treated me like the lady I’m in fact i never before had any issues traveling. On the contrary I’ve been well attended all over.

  141. Chantelle
    Thursday, 2012.02.02 at 00:47

    Ugh – trannies are freaks, I wouldn’t share a plane with them so this benefits me 🙂

    • Christin
      Thursday, 2012.02.02 at 01:46

      You can ride on the wing.


    • Steven Howard
      Thursday, 2012.02.02 at 02:16

      Thats ok Chantetelle I would rather be a freak then to be ignorant! people are people and if we allow some one to take away the right’s of any certain group of people then it won’t be long befor they take your right’s as well.

  142. Thursday, 2012.02.02 at 04:18

    While I’m concerned that this rule is subject to the sort of interpretation you’ve claimed, Chris, I’m not persuaded that it’s the spirit of the rule. More than likely the rule exists foot protect us from those who might obtain false documentation or attempt to board a plane in disguise.

    I don’t minimize that there is a legitimate concern and even ignorance in this wording, but rather than reacting with outrage, let’s temper our response so it’s more likely we are heard and our concerns fully considered.

    We do need to maintain the spirit of this rule, but there needs to be clearer language that is sensitive to the distinction between a person assuming a disguise for nefarious attempt and a person who lives with a gender identity that is incongruent with his or her reproductive organs.

    Thursday, 2012.02.02 at 05:04

    It is 1st time I’ve heard about transgender people. However if one produces the surgery proof, then it is no big deal.The current day technology should be embraced by all because anything to the contrary may be seen to negate technological advancement.

  144. Thursday, 2012.02.02 at 05:25

    Now, I have a vagina… Will this mean I will be denied the right to fly if I am wearing pants? Or do I have to wear a skirt to appear my “gender”? How about a bonnet and a petticoat?

  145. Sean B
    Thursday, 2012.02.02 at 07:16

    After reading most of your post, I found myself getting lost and way off topic . I dont understand the transgendered lifestyle , but In no way do i feel that their rights as a Canadians should be taken away . I dont feel that is what is happening here . Your id must be you as you stand , remember this it to help you , as well as to keep the people off the plane that may seem like a threat in some way .Not saying transgendered people are a threat . But these people dont know you, they see millions of people come and go yearly,they have rules they have to follow and due to that i feel they were following the rules put in play and in not way do i find this against the law or discrimination. p.s if you dont like the goverement ,then get off your ass and vote cause i garuntee most of you didnt vote . I also do not believe that harpers office is to blame for this MISUNDERSTANDING cause that is what this boils down too …..

  146. Euan
    Thursday, 2012.02.02 at 17:10

    Yes, this is exactly what I’m experiencing. Although I don’t see myself as a genderfluid person, I am undergoing HRT and yet to have a surgery so there is a big difference between myself right now and myself in legal documents like passports. I wish to work or travel in other countries as male but the passports do not allow me. Technically I can still travel but I will feel myself threatened every time. I thought passport would be changed at least with HRT but they actually do required a full SRS which makes life even harder for people who doesn’t really want to or cannot undergo SRS.

    • chrinfinity
      Thursday, 2012.02.02 at 17:19

      Euan, thank you very much for sharing your story with us.


  147. Thursday, 2012.02.02 at 18:49

    Discriminiation against people with disabilities, race, disorders, sex, etc. is wrong! However …

  148. reyl
    Thursday, 2012.02.02 at 23:43

    I’d like to mention first that this policy is nothing new. It is merely a formalization of a type of harassment that trans and gender variant people have to deal with every day. It is the reason that I didn’t travel outside the country for several years, until I could get the sex on my passport changed. Travelling should not be a reason for fear and harassment, but these types of attitudes are the reality out there.

    The rule is faulty to begin with, since it states if a person doesn’t match the *gender* on their identification they must not be allowed to travel. In fact, all identification designates *sex* and not gender. The rule could be more fairly applied if gender was gathered from the picture, which is easy to update. Match your picture, then you’re good to go. However, what the officials are going to do is make assumptions about gender based on the person’s legal sex, which is very problematic. The rule needs to be re-written to prevent harassment of trans and gender variant people. Using sex markers to determine gender is faulty and prevents some people from travelling if the regulation is applied that way.

    I would like to see identification policies changed to remove sex completely, since only my physician requires that information. However, ID standards are set internationally, and that is unlikely to change worldwide.

  149. Shaun
    Friday, 2012.02.03 at 14:59

    This statement must be understood in context

    Section 5.2 (1) An air carrier shall not transport a passenger
    (c) the passenger does not appear to be of the gender
    indicated on the identification he or she presents;

    However the next section says

    (2) Despite paragraph (1)(a), an air carrier may transport
    a passenger who presents a piece of photo identification
    but does not resemble the photograph if
    (a) the passenger’s appearance changed for medical
    reasons after the photograph was taken and the passenger
    presents the air carrier with a document signed
    by a health care professional and attesting to that fact;

    Now this is NOT legal advice, however, “transgendered” is recognized as a medical condition according to the DSM-IV. So what this means is that if one identifies as transgendered they would simply require a medical note proving ones status and at that point there would be no issue boarding a plane. These sorts of issues are protected under the various Human Rights Codes in Canada.

    Canada is a very open minded and liberal country, so please do your research before making a judgement.

  150. karolina
    Friday, 2012.02.03 at 16:17

    denying on board a plane is just too much; thats human rights violation; if they want a proof that im male coz my passport says M i will gladly show them my penis. voila! are we clear now!

  151. Nakisa
    Saturday, 2012.02.04 at 04:22

    You’re being ridiculous. This regulation isn’t about telling someone they aren’t really that gender. We’re talking about passports, which have the sole purpose of identification for security purposes. Say a terrorist was being searched for, and there was reason to believe that this masculine-looking person was trying to board a plane. If that person’s identification number and other information in the security databases listed them as female, then security officers would have no idea who to look for. So you see, it has nothing to do with trying to tell people that they are not the gender they feel, or in any way targeting transgender people. It is solely about physical characteristics used for security purposes.

    Not to mention that if a person’s identity is so wrapped up in an “F” or “M” on a piece of paper, then I have a hard time taking their identity stresses seriously.

  152. Ellygirl
    Sunday, 2012.02.05 at 00:51

    I’m transgender MTF I live in the southern US and I hate it here. I always highly of Canada. Even as an escape from this hell hole but with this new Regulation I’m not so sure. I hope that it gets resolved. It has gotten attention even this far south. So please keep up the awareness. I would love to help in anyway possible.

  153. mb
    Sunday, 2012.02.05 at 03:58

    i consider myself pretty damn liberal and also a huge feminist. i believe in human rights to the max but when it comes to transgender people, im not so sure where i stand. what i do know is that getting breast implants does not categorize anyone as being a woman and if you want to have the right to be one then you better get yourself a vag too. cause isnt that the best part of being a woman anyway? this is beside the point. if women from the muslim cuture shouldnt be able to wear a burka when doing their citizenship ( totally agree) then what makes trans gender people think they are any different? in this world we live in, wouldn’t it be safer if we all sucked up and showed our true identity even if it was for just a simple plane ride? we all know there is always some one that will take advantage and do evil with the privileges that we are given. So stop complaining, if you haven’t committed to mutilating your genitals to whatever gender you chose to be, then the is no way in hell that you deserve to be call it.

    • Christin
      Sunday, 2012.02.05 at 04:15

      I read an interesting article this week which suggests that bigotry and prejudice are statistically correlated with low IQ.


    • Joanna Phipps
      Friday, 2012.04.27 at 14:41

      How about those of us who have been on HRT (in my case Estrogen, Progestrone and Spironolactone) for several years and for whom the only use of that thing between our legs is going to the bathroom. I live my life as a woman and my gender is not questioned by anyone I meet. My provincial drivers license says Female but that is all I can get because of the archaic requirment that a person MUST have surgery before immigration and passport records can be changed. I have been in transition for over two years and lets face it after this length of time 99% of us are not going to detransition.

  154. Nancy
    Sunday, 2012.02.05 at 12:30

    Mb ~ you are not even qualified to be classified as the human species…speaking of evil and pots calling kettles black…Cinderella…your shoe fits…

    This is what happens with low cognition….

  155. Genna
    Monday, 2012.02.06 at 06:50

    This is the first step to making us all have to wear the mark of the beast tattooed on our arms or the FEMA brain implants.

    And remember,…it’s for out own good.
    George Orwell told us that

  156. Rachel
    Wednesday, 2012.02.08 at 15:08

    What about pushing for eye/fingerprint identification scanning on passports. So regardless of what an individual looks like, the passport will identify the person by their unique eye and/or fingerprint scans. I know I don’t plan on having SRS surgery ever. I understand this solution would only be useful for domestic flights, but at least that’s a step forward in freedom from discrimination based on looks and legal documents.

    • Christin
      Wednesday, 2012.02.08 at 20:02

      This would be a violation of our privacy rights, Rachel.

      I am against a Federal biometric database.


  157. Kris
    Friday, 2012.02.10 at 19:00

    This article is so disturbing it makes me feel sick. I cannot believe how much of a backwards step this is and how clear this discrimination is set out, with no attempt to even smudge the meaning behind it. The people developing these policies are so ignornant.

  158. Katie Bradford
    Monday, 2012.02.13 at 09:59

    1. Most people have absolutely no certainty about other peoples’ gender (or sex). We all judge each other by secondary sexual characteristics (hair, body shape, voice, etc.) and clothing. None of these are absolutely determined by chromosomal sex.
    2. What goes on our passport isn’t determined by sex either. The M/F is copied from our birth certificate which is determined by the shape of our genitals as judged by the midwife in a 5-second check many years ago.
    3. Sex is supposedly determined by chromosomes. When did you last have your chromosomes checked? The only person in the world whose chromosomes we all know about is Caster Semenya the South African runner.
    4. None of the above has anything to do with your risk to airport security. It is quite arguable that the riskiest people to take on planes are high-testosterone men with beards, and M on their passports.
    The airline regulation is a complete nonsense, unable to identify real risk and offensive to us transgendered guys who just enjoy wearing frocks, let alone our recently transsexual friends who are still struggling with makeup and heels.

  159. Claire
    Thursday, 2012.02.23 at 00:54

    It is incredible Canada would do this. It is so blatantly unfair!

  160. Ingrid
    Friday, 2012.02.24 at 21:34

    Which mean that any transgendered that has not accepted castration to become legally the sex they are, is being refused to sit on a flight???

    Oh Canada, oh Canada, oh shamefull…

  161. Tuesday, 2012.02.28 at 09:14

    its realy cool

  162. Ariel
    Wednesday, 2012.02.29 at 21:33

    While this law certainly has problematic implications for transsexuals, I sincerely doubt that it is discriminatory in nature. This makes perfect sense from a security standpoint; transsexuals aside, this is a great and practically obvious way of determining if someone is using a fake ID. I would strongly hesitate to conclude that this law is discriminatory before considering the far more likely option – that the lawmakers simply hadn’t thought about the implications it would have on transsexuals. I would wait to call foul on this legislation until a politician actually says that transsexual people should not be allowed to board airplanes.

    • Christin Scarlett Milloy
      Thursday, 2012.03.01 at 03:44

      Politicians need to consider the secondary effects of the rules they make. Intentional or not, the regs are worded in a way that bans trans people from airplanes.


      • Ariel
        Thursday, 2012.03.01 at 04:44

        Then you, as a concerned citizen, are doing the right thing by pointing out the secondary effect of this otherwise unoffensive clause. Politicians are not perfect, and they sometimes fail to see the implications that others might consider “blatantly obvious”.

        • Thursday, 2012.03.01 at 05:11

          To call that an “otherwise unoffensive clause” (you probably meant to spell that “inoffensive”) is incorrect. Being completely insensitive to people–so blind that you don’t even think about their existence when making national policy–is the very definition of offensive.

          Furthermore, if anyone should consider the “secondary effects” of their actions, it is politicians setting in stone regulations that effect an entire nation. Politicians have aides, committees, time and resources to study these things, as well as functioning brains. Doing this is either an unforgivable error or an act of vulgar bigotry.

  163. Glad I Did Not Stay In Canada
    Sunday, 2012.03.11 at 06:28

    Seriously? Imagine a terrorist who presents in cross-gender clothing! Could you imagine yet?

    Trans people who feel free to present in their desired gender are usually so happy that they want to live forever! Why would they want to blow up anyone?

    Only some mindless senseless ignorant bigot of a bureaucrat or politician could come up with rules against travelling presenting “cross-gendered”.

    It is those trans people who cannot be themselves who want to commit suicide. So scrutinize those who travel looking exactly per their gender marker on their ID and seem very upset about something! Spare the cross-dressed ones please!

    I was a landed immigrant in Canada. I had a foreign (non US) passport showing my gender as male (at birth) and hence my immigrant visa showed the male gender marker, although my US state drivers license showed my female gender (which is how I live in the US).

    My Canadian state refused to give me a drivers license with my female gender marker based on my US drivers license. They insisted that my license would indicate that I’m male until surgery unless I got my national passport updated.

    However I do not need surgery – my wife loves me exactly as I am and I like my body exactly as I am now, and nobody who knows us knows me as anything other than a lesbian woman. My brutal country of origin is never going to update my national passport. We were married after I changed my name but before I changed the gender on my drivers license, so we are a legally married couple in the US although the US still debates gay marriages.

    I did not want to encounter discrimination in Canada with no ID which matches my gender in daily life, so I moved back to the US where I at least have a female drivers license and where I could apply for the green card. Canada wasn’t ready for me!

    The drivers license is the key ID in common use in daily life and it must reflect the gender of a person as commonly known to acquaintances, employers, etc.

    Whatever photo appears on the ID can be scanned for facial bone structure analysis, which should authenticate the person’s ID at airports regardless of gender expression.

    This is just another one of those ridiculous rules only meant to discriminate and which serves absolutely no other purpose!

    • Poppy Ann
      Saturday, 2012.11.17 at 06:07

      if you had to apply for a green card to work in USA i think you must not be from the US to start with so which country did you start from? i know here in UK it is not difficult to get your passport changed to your gender and not show what your sex is as i just recently did it with just a letter from my doctor stating i was about to go to a gender clinic plus a deed pole that i typed out myself and had two friends witness now all my ID states my new name and title as Miss and on any that have either sex or gender it states female which is what i present as even though i could not pass as female i have not had any problems with this, if you get stopped at an airport due to presenting as your gender and not as your birth sex then just say my sex is ***** and my gender is **** and they are opposite from each other the security people are not their to cause problems just to weed out any potential threat. i have travelled many times in the past with no problems..

  164. Brianne Chabassol
    Friday, 2012.05.04 at 12:50

    I have 25 years working on Search and Rescue Aircraft, Fixed and Rotarty wing. I have been flying since I was 22 years old, Cubs, Cessna 172’s, Gliders, Piper 140’s . I have even built my own homebuilt aircraft, an Aeronca Champ sort of creature for anyone who understands these things.
    So very soon I will be unable to fly on a Commercial Carrier.
    Im thinking of upgrading my Ticket to Commercial , If I can’t be a passenger I will fly the carriers machine.
    Transgender people need to lead change for all GLBT people , Lets beat them on this one.

    • Christin Scarlett Milloy
      Saturday, 2012.05.05 at 04:52



  165. tyson sangst
    Saturday, 2012.05.05 at 16:19

    Well, I’m Canadian and I sure wouldn’t wanna be sitting next to a Tranny! But to be logical, how can one identify a person by i.d. when they look at their picture and their male but they see a wanna be female.

  166. X
    Thursday, 2012.05.24 at 05:14

    People pissing their pants over this really need to get a grip, this isn’t an attack on people who are afflicted with an identity crisis, this is clearly a precaution against people attempting to avoid/escape measures for justice. If I commit a crime, and try to flee immediately (pretending to be woman) – and get caught.. Well, now they have grounds to detain me, meaning I would probably be caught for the crime.

    I’m also assuming this is some gay dude’s blog, so I imagine plenty of gay folk frequent this blog… Sorry to say, but as science currently dictates, transgender is a disorder – these people need help as it is. It’s not the same as sexuality, it’s entirely different and transgender has serious, life destroying repercussions. Don’t feel bad for Trannies because they’re persecuted.. Pity them because they need serious psychological help.

    • Christin Scarlett Milloy
      Wednesday, 2012.05.30 at 21:03

      Once again, a demonstration of the ignorance of the masses serves to obviate the need to depathologize trans and gender variant identities.

      Homosexuality was also once considered a disorder.


    • X2
      Tuesday, 2014.08.19 at 02:47

      Wow, your ignorance is astonishing

  167. Danna Waldman
    Tuesday, 2012.05.29 at 23:33

    The section reads, “the passenger does not APPEAR to be of the gender indicated on the identification he or she presents;” (caps mine). The human rights violation of the section is clear. The final decision as to whether a person is the gender (and yes, it is the gender, my sex is nobody’s business) is clearly open to subjective interpretation of that person’s appearance. I flew with my daughter when she was eleven and had short hair, and a flight attended misread her gender. Does that mean that they should have thrown her off the plane at some point or refused her boarding. Yeah. If it could happen to her, then it can happen to you. Read the section again until you have some understanding about what it actually means in real life for real people. Oh, and you don’t want to sit next to a tranny? Guess what? Most of the time, you will never see us coming. We are everywhere…heh heh heh.

  168. Lauren Monique
    Thursday, 2013.09.26 at 07:55

    As a NONOP trans gurl living and working full time as a female in the US, I want to put MY two cents’ worth in the pool.
    1. Terrorists or anyone with ulterior motives coming through airport security is NOT going to try and impersonate the opposite gender. Even seasoned transsexuals have some nervous anxieties. To believe a terrorist, smuggler, or other person with ill intent would be apt to impersonate a female is ludicrous. Their intent and goal would be to attract as little attention as possible and not be attracting attention.DUUUUHH!
    2. In the US airports it not necessary for someone to appear to match the gender indicated on their identity document. They ARE required to be treated and respected as the gender they present themselves and may go though additional screening. A lot of people perceive the US as being super stringent and intolerant, however it seems certain people in positions of authority in Canada have personal issues against tgurls and are demonstrating their intolerance for transgender people.

    • Christin Scarlett Milloy
      Thursday, 2013.10.17 at 21:34

      Agreed on all counts.

  169. Tuesday, 2014.02.11 at 14:40

    Hello, I just wondered if that policy had finally changed for the better, please let me know.

    • Christin Scarlett Milloy
      Wednesday, 2014.02.12 at 05:31

      Nope. Not yet.

  170. Cassandra
    Monday, 2014.08.18 at 05:29

    Just a thought; Is there really a law how a gender would typically appear ? Isn’t there only one way to check the gender of a person ?

  171. Danna Waldman
    Monday, 2014.08.18 at 20:07

    The international regs which the government is citing DO NOT mention anything restricting gender-variant people. International regs even go so far as to recognise a third kind of gender, something which Canada does not have in any way.
    This is provable fact.
    Once again our government is spreading lies and hiding behind the PM’s skirts.

  172. 123456788abc
    Tuesday, 2014.08.19 at 09:29

    I know it seems harsh but i understand the rule. They arent saying they cant board the plane they just want the gender to match. Someone commented about not being feminine enough, thats not the issue. If your passport says you’re a woman but you say you’re a man that is a security issue. If someone got on a plane with false id and committed a crime people would be up in arms, that is a risk when you let someone pass with invalid id.

  173. Keith
    Tuesday, 2014.08.19 at 16:38

    I read a lot of conjecture. I’d like to hear from transgender people who were stopped from buying a ticket or from boarding a plane. 1st person account please, not “I heard that…”. Just curious how much this is a real problem as opposed to a potential problem or an affront.

  174. Cody
    Tuesday, 2014.08.19 at 18:42

    If you read it rightly it says that if the person isn’t the gender that it says on their id (passport) so it’s saying if the guys white but his passport says he’s brown they won’t let him on not that all transgender people are banned. Learn to read dumb shit

  175. Danny
    Wednesday, 2014.08.20 at 02:45

    You people are idiots. They aren’t trying to discriminate against trans gendered people. They are trying to match peoples looks with thier passports for security purposes so that no one bombs a plane

  176. Oceanman
    Wednesday, 2014.08.20 at 23:48

    I agree, that is a dumb rule. But are there reports of it being implemented and trans persons actually being prevented from flying during the past three years?

    • Christin Scarlett Milloy
      Tuesday, 2014.08.26 at 16:40

      I’m researching this recently. However, even if there aren’t, we do need to eliminate this hateful and ignorant regulation.

  177. RIP
    Thursday, 2014.08.21 at 05:59

    So what about cisgendered women that look like men? RIP

21 Trackbacks

  1. By Queerbodies and text « Sexy Brain Pie on Tuesday, 2012.01.31 at 14:36

    […] Here is the blog that caught my eye–>… […]

  2. […] var mydate=new Date() var year=mydate.getYear() if (year < 1000) year+=1900 var day=mydate.getDay() var month=mydate.getMonth() var daym=mydate.getDate() if (daym Hello there! If you are new here, you might want to subscribe to the RSS feed for updates on this topic.Powered by WP Greet Box WordPress PluginSource: – Tuesday, January 31, 2012 » Transgender People are Completely Banned From Boarding Airplanes in Canada No Crossdressing While Crossing The Border: Canada Bans TRANS-Portation! If Your ID Says Ken, Barbie… […]

  3. By Sharing the love « The Lady Garden on Friday, 2012.02.03 at 23:47

    […] What the hell, Canada, we thought you were cool. Transgender people banned from flying. […]

  4. […] these regulations should not be challenged; in fact, we must challenge them. However, before making dramatic over-statements about the issue or drafting petitions over it, let’s take a moment and think about what’s really going […]

  5. […] unto himself) posted a link that piqued my interest immediately with the following headline: Transgender People are Completely Banned From Boarding Airplanes in Canada. The article goes on to talk at some length about a change in Canada’s regulations last year […]

  6. […] other hand, the dialogue, which you can see in the Washington Post or Huffington Post or many blogs dedicated to trans themes, foregrounds a wider public consciousness (if not perfect understanding) […]

  7. By Kink In Transition | Madison Kink on Monday, 2012.02.06 at 21:04

    […] there has been a few stories about transgender individuals in the news: threats of violence and bans on airlines.  Stories like these bring up a lot of responses as a Trans advocate.  There is a strong desire […]

  8. By Flying While Transgender | Forget The Box on Saturday, 2012.02.11 at 10:39

    […] Last week, the transgender blogosphere exploded in response to the July 29, 2011 changes to the Canadian Identity Screening Regulations. The focus of this attention was section 5.2 (1) of the regulation, which reads: “An air carrier shall not transport a passenger if […] (c) the passenger does not appear to be of the gender indicated on the identification he or she presents.” The regulation is notable for two reasons: first, many Canadians have finally found something about airport security that breaks through the fabled ‘mildly annoying’ barrier, and; second, it absolutely smacks of social conservatism. Many are calling the regulation out and out discrimination against transgendered individuals (a sentiment held by trans activist Christin Milloy). […]

  9. […] Canadian regulations specify that an air carrier may not transport a passenger who “does not appear to be of the […]

  10. […] article, Transgender People Completely Banned From Boarding Airplanes in Canada, posted 1/30/2012 HERE. Ms. Millory’s follow up article, If No Trans Person Has Been Stopped At The Gate, Why is This […]

  11. […] This and other clauses were added July 29 last year, but were first brought to light last month by blogger and politician Christin Milloy in a Jan. 30 post. […]

  12. By Passports and Fear « Bacon and Whiskey on Tuesday, 2012.04.03 at 20:29

    […] your footsteps! Not only are we trying to take away the right of choice for uterus bearing people, restricting mobility rights for people who don’t “look their gender”, but our BC Liberals are increasingly cutting back funding for arts, education, and anything else […]

  13. […] Civil Rights,Discrimination,Kyle Knight,Legal Issues,News,Politics This week bloggers exposed a regulation passed in July that could effectively bar transgender, transsexual, and gender non-conforming […]

  14. […] force us into one category or another, and leave no room for anything else. Even getting around, especially by air transit, isn’t allowed if your body doesn’t fit in with the powers that be. The Identity […]

  15. […] And although this feature specifically deals with gay conservatives, it is instructive to note the attitude of conservatives to the “T” in LGBT From the network-wide alarm bells over Jenna Talackova’s participation in a beauty pageant to Michael Coren’s almost weekly tirade over some otherwise insignificant issue involving transgender people, the sentiment among conservatives are clear. Or do we need to remind you that the Harper Government imposed Identity Screening Regulations which…. […]

  16. […] Chris Milloy reports on shockingly ridiculous new identity screening regulations that make it almost impossible for transgender people to board planes in Canada. […]

  17. […] au Canada. Elle est même passée inaperçue jusqu’à ce qu’un blogueur transgenre la mette sur le devant de la scène fin janvier. Depuis le 29 juillet 2011, les compagnies […]

  18. […] dernier au Canada. Elle est même passée inaperçue jusqu'à ce qu'un blogueur transgenre la mette sur le devant de la scène fin janvier. Depuis le 29 juillet 2011, les compagnies […]

  19. […] I sat down to begin this column an e-mail came in from my friend, Dr. Sandra Cole. Had I seen this blogpost by Christin […]

  20. […] in Flugzeuge gelassen werden, deren soziales Geschlecht mit dem Eintrag in ihren Ausweispapieren übereinstimmt. Trans­personen, die ihren Pass noch nicht geändert haben oder das noch gar nicht dürfen, […]

Post a Comment

Your email is never published or shared. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Christin Milloy