4 ms·

Handedness is a fact. I'm left-handed, but my passport doesn't need to say so. Why is it 'sensible' to include this? Shall we include my favourite foods as well

Handedness is a fact. I'm left-handed, but my passport doesn't need to say so. Why is it 'sensible' to include this? Shall we include my favourite foods as well?

delusion 5y ago
Here's an analysis of the utility of the sex marker in the context of calls for its removal, by the New Zealand Passport Office: https://www.icao.int/Meetings/TAG-MRTD/Documents/Tag-Mrtd-21/Tag-Mrtd21_IP04.pdf https://www.icao.int/Meetings/TAG-MRTD/Documents/Tag-Mrtd-21... They note several negative outcomes if the sex marker were to be removed - some excerpts: > Border authorities would be less able to establish the context of a passenger's travel and do risk assessments before passengers arrive. Knowing the passenger's gender is useful in determining if someone matches the profile of a person of interest. This cannot always be done using a passenger's name because some names are unisex. > A significant problem for border officials is the detection systems used to process passengers would be less reliable. Automatic systems such as watchlist checks would bring up more false matches if a passenger's gender information is not entered in border control systems. Excessive false alarms may undermine security as officials are more likely to ignore alerts if they are constantly dealing with false matches. These false matches would also decrease the speed passengers are processed. > Upgrading and modifying software would impose significant costs on border authorities and airlines. Ongoing costs would be high as the systems used to read travel documents would have to handle processing the two types of travel documents for a significant period of time. If ICAO made not displaying the gender field mandatory, this period would be around 10 years. If displaying the gender field became optional, this period of having to modify software to process the different types of travel documents would be indefinite. > The common secondary use of travel documents to provide identification in non-travel situations may be undermined if the gender field is removed. People issued a travel document that does not display their gender would lose an official way to prove their gender. This may be inconvenient where someone is required to provide an official document that displays their gender, perhaps to access a service restricted to only males or females. The same doesn't apply to whether a person is left-handed or right-handed. Usually, that information is recorded nowhere.
- Majromax 5y ago
  I don't think that "it would be expensive to maintain the software" is a tenable counter-argument to a claim that a gender-neutral option (or optional gender) is important in preventing discrimination. In particular, all of your quoted arguments would proceed identically with `s/gender/race/`. However, race is not something we specify on passports currently, and a call to add the field would be solidly rejected.
  - buckfast 5y ago
    Could you explain your arguments in more detail please? I don't see how permitting an 'X' marker for sex will reduce discrimination. Depending on the country the passport holder is entering and its border control policy, it may well increase the risk of being discriminated against. I also don't really understand what parallel you are attempting to draw between sex and race - they're very different types of classification, in many ways. For example, sex is either male or female, and typically easily determined by fundamental biological features - but how would you even begin to usefully classify race, and from the global, international perspective expected of passport documentation?

Handedness is a fact. I'm left-handed, but my passport doesn't need to say so. Why is it 'sensible' to include this? Shall we include my favourite foods as well?

delusion 5y ago

Here's an analysis of the utility of the sex marker in the context of calls for its removal, by the New Zealand Passport Office: https://www.icao.int/Meetings/TAG-MRTD/Documents/Tag-Mrtd-21/Tag-Mrtd21_IP04.pdf https://www.icao.int/Meetings/TAG-MRTD/Documents/Tag-Mrtd-21... They note several negative outcomes if the sex marker were to be removed - some excerpts: > Border authorities would be less able to establish the context of a passenger's travel and do risk assessments before passengers arrive. Knowing the passenger's gender is useful in determining if someone matches the profile of a person of interest. This cannot always be done using a passenger's name because some names are unisex. > A significant problem for border officials is the detection systems used to process passengers would be less reliable. Automatic systems such as watchlist checks would bring up more false matches if a passenger's gender information is not entered in border control systems. Excessive false alarms may undermine security as officials are more likely to ignore alerts if they are constantly dealing with false matches. These false matches would also decrease the speed passengers are processed. > Upgrading and modifying software would impose significant costs on border authorities and airlines. Ongoing costs would be high as the systems used to read travel documents would have to handle processing the two types of travel documents for a significant period of time. If ICAO made not displaying the gender field mandatory, this period would be around 10 years. If displaying the gender field became optional, this period of having to modify software to process the different types of travel documents would be indefinite. > The common secondary use of travel documents to provide identification in non-travel situations may be undermined if the gender field is removed. People issued a travel document that does not display their gender would lose an official way to prove their gender. This may be inconvenient where someone is required to provide an official document that displays their gender, perhaps to access a service restricted to only males or females. The same doesn't apply to whether a person is left-handed or right-handed. Usually, that information is recorded nowhere.

Majromax 5y ago
I don't think that "it would be expensive to maintain the software" is a tenable counter-argument to a claim that a gender-neutral option (or optional gender) is important in preventing discrimination. In particular, all of your quoted arguments would proceed identically with `s/gender/race/`. However, race is not something we specify on passports currently, and a call to add the field would be solidly rejected.
- buckfast 5y ago
  Could you explain your arguments in more detail please? I don't see how permitting an 'X' marker for sex will reduce discrimination. Depending on the country the passport holder is entering and its border control policy, it may well increase the risk of being discriminated against. I also don't really understand what parallel you are attempting to draw between sex and race - they're very different types of classification, in many ways. For example, sex is either male or female, and typically easily determined by fundamental biological features - but how would you even begin to usefully classify race, and from the global, international perspective expected of passport documentation?