SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
U.S. Airlines to Offer New Gender Options for Non-Binary Passengers
Air travelers who want to will soon be able to choose a gender option other than "male" or "female" when buying their tickets.
The new "undisclosed" or "unspecified" options are meant to make things easier for travelers and airlines as a growing number of local, state and national governments issue identification documents with alternative gender choices, according to Airlines for America, a trade group that represents many major United States carriers.
"U.S. airlines value a culture of diversity and inclusion, both in the workplace and for our passengers," the group said in a statement.
The Transportation Security Administration requires that travelers have gender markers associated with their tickets that match the identification documents they present at agency checkpoints. The new standard will make it easier for passengers who are gender nonconforming to travel with documents that more accurately represent their identities.
Delta Air Lines, which left the Airlines for America trade group in 2015, will also offer the new options.
If you're even flying at all, I'd suggest picking "Undisclosed" or "Unspecified" simply as a way to mess with the TSA.
Also at The Daily Beast, MarketWatch, and USA Today.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday February 18 2019, @02:22PM (3 children)
You can still get on some trains without verification of your name (not sure about cross-country buses). I expect feds/Congress/TSA to ruin that in the coming decades. Probably if high speed rail takes off.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Monday February 18 2019, @02:48PM
> You can still get on some trains without verification of your name
WTF? You have to have name verification on *trains*
Land of the free my arse
(no name verification on domestic flights in the UK, let alone trains)
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday February 18 2019, @06:15PM (1 child)
Part of the reason they don't worry as much about trains: It's a heck of a lot harder to hijack a train. For starters, there's the problem of getting to the controls and the engineer, which often isn't easy or obvious. Second, once you get there, what are you going to do, demand that the engineer take the train to Libya? Third, if you somehow got that far, the fact that the train is on the ground, has to follow the tracks, and exactly which tracks they're following is controlled outside of the train, means that it's much easier for appropriate authorities to respond to the threat you present. Sure, you might kill a few passengers or something, but you aren't going to be able to do any really serious damage.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday February 18 2019, @06:34PM
True, a lot less deadly than a weaponized airplane. But you could do a lot of damage by bombing one of the cars, perhaps derailing the whole train and getting a 100+ kill count. There's also lots of situations where you have many people standing crowded together, ready to be gunned down.
But what we do know is that logic and reason don't necessarily drive decision making.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_involving_railway_systems [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Madrid_train_bombings [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Mumbai_train_bombings [wikipedia.org]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]