Americans for Truth about Homosexuality, an anti-gay hate group, called for the banning of “self-acknowledged homosexuals” from the security screening position. Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, states that same-gender pat-downs are meant to reassure travelers and make them feel more comfortable. But Americans for Truth about Homosexuality raises the question, “isn’t it just as inappropriate for a ‘gay’ male TSA agent to pat down male travelers as it is for a normal, heterosexual male TSA agent to pat down female travelers?”
I think this concern stems from the belief that homosexuals are less likely to be able to control their sexual urges, that they won’t be able to avoid getting turned on by performing the pat-down, and that they are less likely to behave professionally. It is also interesting to note that Napolitano says that same-sex pat-downs are meant to protect women from being groped by men, while the AFTAH is mostly concerned with “normal” men being groped by homosexual men; so that it appears that people need to be protected mostly from the male TSA agents. Additionally, Napolitano’s statement has to do with how the person being patted-down feels, while the AFTAH worries more about how the person doing the patting-down will behave, both assuming heterosexuality. The AFTAH’s assumption of heterosexuality as the norm positions homosexuality as a threat.
Responses to the AFTAH article pose the question: What is it about same-gender pat-downs that is supposed to make us more comfortable? Perhaps it is because we assume that this reduces the likelihood of feeling violated or that someone with the “same parts” is touching us. But really same-gender pat-downs are an imperfect solution or create a false sense of guaranteed safety. Also, it seems clear that the AFTAH has not considered gay and lesbian travelers – would they also like to ban them from being patted-down in the off-chance they will enjoy it? So while the group acknowledges the illegality of discriminating against people based on their “sexual orientation,” they argue that self-identified homosexuals should not be placed in positions that perform pat-downs so they will not be put in “sexually compromising situations,” even arguing that it is somewhat irresponsible for the TSA to not know which of its employees identify as homosexuals. And I think they’re being serious.
I think that Alex brings up several very important points in this post about Americans for Truth about Homosexuality. After reading this post, I went to their website and explored a little, as well as reading the article about which Alex has written, and was shocked at some of the content contained on their website. It is clear that AFTAH is putting forth a view that homosexual TSA agents should not be involved in pat-downs, but it is just as clear that AFTAH has not really thought through what it is saying.
ReplyDeleteIn addition to the issues that Alex raised about AFTAH’s stance (should homosexual travelers be patted down by members of the opposite sex? For example), it seems that AFTAH has not thought about the damaging affects of forcing people to out their sexual identities or preferences in a professional and public environment. It seems that AFTAH would truly not care about the damaging affects to homosexuals of having to out themselves, and that they would assume that no one would have an issue stating their heterosexual identity, which AFTAH clearly views as the governing norm of today’s sexuality. From reading this article and looking around their website, it seems to me that AFTAH simply wants to target homosexuality in any form that it can find it, as there were articles against individual homosexual advocates and writers, articles against gays in the military, etc.
Also in the same article about TSA screeners, AFTAH brings up their views about the army’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy in saying “In the same vein, the Army should no more force normal male soldiers to shower and bunk with homosexual male soldiers than it would force females soldiers to bunk and shower with their male counterparts”. This betrays that AFTAH’s focus is not so much about specific situations and how to make TSA screening more comfortable for everyone, but it is about the fact that homosexuals could possibly be touching heterosexuals, which, from reading their website, they think could possibly ‘contaminate’ or otherwise harm the ‘normal’ heterosexual members of society. I think that this sentiment is only strengthened by AFTAH’s reference in this article to the law which prevented discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in federal agencies, including the TSA, as “pro-homosexual” instead of anti-discriminatory.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe argument of AFTAH and the larger anti-homosexual movement seems to be about protecting public space from the supposedly aggressive "homosexual agenda." These activists fear that homosexuality cannot be kept in the private realm where all sexuality supposedly belongs, but instead will force sex into inappropriate scenarios. The activists assume that, excluding those deviant homosexuals, there is a clear demarcation between public non-sexual spaces and private spaces that might be (hetero)sexual.
ReplyDeleteAlong the side of their website, AFTAH lists their biggest Issues. Most are explicitly related to homosexuality, but one stands out: "Public Sex in Your Neighborhood?" The implication is that sex belongs in privacy, and that homosexuals inappropriately bring sex into the public.
Neighborhoods, supposedly, should be nonsexual. So should the military--the ultimate public institution--as well as public schools, where anti-homosexual activists rail against queer teachers and "queering" curriculum. "Traditional" marriage need not be sexless, but still it is a public institution supposedly under attack by gay-rights activists--not content to enjoy their behavior in private, they insist on taking over a formerly hetero public institution.
So while it can be useful for gay-rights advocates to emphasize that no one should intrude on what two adults consensually do in the privacy of their own home, this strategy can ghettoize homosexual identity to private spaces and leave us confused as to how gay people can be respected as gay people in public.
And then there is the pat down, which should be nonsexual for everyone's comfort. I don't think the issue is necessarily that AFTAH activists believe that homosexuals are less able to control their sexual urges--heterosexual men are still considered unfit to pat down women, so they're not getting any credit for controlling urges--but rather that the presence of homosexuality dangerously blurs the boundaries between a nonsexual public space and a sexual private space.
It's not totally misguided; it's worth trying to figure out how to work towards sexual safety in public spaces. When Oberlin pushed for all-gender bathrooms near the 'Sco, I appreciated the effort to be progressive and inclusive, but also felt protective of all-girl bathrooms. I don't pretend that all-girl bathrooms means that no one there is attracted to girls, but there is a solidarity and refuge in women's bathrooms, especially at bars, that is comforting in the midst of a highly sexualized space.
The problem is, things aren't as simple as AFTAH would like to believe. It's not the fault of homosexuals that sexuality isn't strictly private. On AFTAH's website I found no concern for creating safe spaces for women, who routinely endure catcalling, sexual harassment, and various reminders that other people are sexually attracted to them whether they like it or not. There may not be clear boundaries for doing so, but maybe we can have a conversation about how to be in public, where people don't suddenly drop their sexual desires, and still feel safe.