Re: Concerns about Singapore

Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> Sun, 10 April 2016 15:01 UTC

Return-Path: <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C08012D1D8 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 08:01:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BNrvxNrgrdG2 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 08:01:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-x230.google.com (mail-yw0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AE4B212D1A5 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 08:01:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yw0-x230.google.com with SMTP id t10so182767694ywa.0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 08:01:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=bvXG6/GCR/LSmPGOhvHqIMhJkD3yGII77kvIXIpSIDc=; b=HXGObJ0Ovjy+YzY+xf9dUObouWL9fYq/wgiThqDwly6+mnrfh4Ec2T7hGhHHaJm0Dz 0sw+7OhlSlFzPn/NgztVjMX73VbMVQOrKH0PbT2iHY8r8Ob6o728RadprszpbzcYLXJB kAcwE2u0BPiOzmstQoSzL+S2lUdfy4crdFvY/Z3jJ0zbz+kIfiv8LSrqI+CHtPJkKOQX we7h0DVLRbevwQ7l9OXdD6KULey77tsTTPW31wWrg/J5j5bWMJpDVy9koTjRqx7YVjFq 8lQVJwyvYQRxe/qz3tqFRklkmKE+LaIHXXJzTyGbz9uPc+LaKJ+ZZVhqrJJdq5bziMi3 +NSQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=bvXG6/GCR/LSmPGOhvHqIMhJkD3yGII77kvIXIpSIDc=; b=KpRYvWuKVErD6ZvErz6KtoCVb9kmdNAd7ci1dDoaF9Yd4if6VyxDCwETPWOLBup1sd DMvT71cs9rkGBEDIBUTmEmw+AUA0DDkkRQTZYTvQP3eAhKLuz25LMJN2a2dY3N4Wa+ek wWaj/ZHMzaOnYvVYnz14OB0bTcCB4IA5divK/tgYBwCV18mLndvYmkVd22MupwDybxiJ 5AUOKjuhNfBBzGhoNbu/AUSjpGoH5ZzqY4+CD9TFwOzu3A6v5OGw6v219URbva+jiA5w UpsXZxR7vY7BUq0IzXqyHkiPFXe4JA/paAWa9SKQwZNqwDZoVHQWnxkpKxK586rc9fXl QMjQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJL1xJagXP3FRonBPRYOsBqO/bdBNaIKI6QZOYFug6G1iO5JjoCPPuwOQD/twI2Y9NyvwJKqviR7JSrZ6Q==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.129.2.9 with SMTP id 9mr9862522ywc.78.1460300471894; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 08:01:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.37.207.211 with HTTP; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 08:01:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.37.207.211 with HTTP; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 08:01:11 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20160410063603.6283348.44889.10575@blackberry.com>
References: <0D914666-C3D4-4CCE-AD5E-4E5B34EA1A73@piuha.net> <20160407182936.GA21340@pfrc.org> <CAB75xn780nNDjGa_Cc222J20-+1CCHt09Xp8KHzaK=n0xx51pg@mail.gmail.com> <5706B100.9040509@mnt.se> <CAB75xn6fmj84ROUtG5eUB3GerHx83hrEr3w5vSADY_g=BRg5FA@mail.gmail.com> <9B723FB0-6B93-4C85-ADD9-D423F873CF08@virtualized.org> <20160409155300.6283348.41255.10529@blackberry.com> <ADC8666A-436C-4AD4-BD48-9277601069F8@gmail.com> <20160410063603.6283348.44889.10575@blackberry.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2016 12:01:11 -0300
Message-ID: <CAKKJt-cjYe-FgRW9n-Ve7KWPq2ALYUDwQb=nuAHONQFpbGb8Fw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Concerns about Singapore
From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Andrew Allen <aallen@blackberry.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1140be12e48b56053022b28a
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Gk1BziV5ylg4A7gHsBcaE0ZY0ws>
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2016 15:01:14 -0000

This has been a wide-ranging conversation that I've been content to watch
quietly, but Andrew just stepped on the land mine ...

On Apr 10, 2016 01:36, "Andrew Allen" <aallen@blackberry.com> wrote:
>
>
> That's why I proposed that IETF check with the hotels that this isn't
going to be an issue. The other potential issue I foresee which needs
checking with the authorities is if there will be a problem with customs
and immigration forms with questions regarding marital status and number of
family members traveling with you.

Bingo.

I've been coming to the IETF since 1996, and I know a fair number of GLBTQ
IETF participants, but I knew most of them for years, and in a few cases
for more than a decade, before realizing that.

For my GLBTQ friends from the US, it has been relatively recent for most of
them to live their lives openly.

The gay man who automatically came to IETF meetings even ten years ago with
no "paper trail" ten years ago is now much more likely to show up with a
paper train now.

If he shows up with another man with the same last name, the same address
on IDs, each other as emergency contacts on every form that asks for that,
and (for extra credit) one or more kids with the same last name in tow,
it's a lot harder to miss in 2016 than it was in 2006, and at least some of
that is still visible even if he leaves the family at home.

Our friends who were forced to suffer in silence until recently would have
a much more difficult time doing that today, even if they wanted to.

Spencer