Monthlies no longer specify gender

Starting with the September monthly pass, gender (M/F) is no longer specified. Was there something that precipitated this change? I expect it put conductors in an awkward position where they needed to presume a person's gender in order to enforce the rules about pass sharing, so I'm not surprised it's gone. For all the years I've been commuting, only once have I witnessed a conductor scolding a passholder about not matching the gender printed on the pass.

actually it still shows in punch strip towards right top.

It must only be for those passes not bought at a machine, as the machine no longer even asks the M/F question..

There are some people that no longer identify as male or female, so MNR had to adjust its policies to reflect this. I'm sure the dozens of weekly lawsuits MNR was threatened with regarding discrimination also pushed their hand to bring about this change. For a time it was the #1 customer complaint that the company received. MNR changed this policy internally last year but went back and forth on it for a while. It seems as if it is official now, though it was official the other times they changed it back and forth as well.

While I admit I'm an outsider looking in, I have to ask, what was the point anyways? It's not like someone was going to use the pass to get into the city, then carrier pigeon it back out to someone of another gender for them to use. Even then, if a dad gave his pass to his son, or a mom her daughter, the gender designation would do nothing anyways.

How can it be discriminatory when customer makes his/her own choice when purchasing that monthly from machine ?
.

DutchRailnut wrote:How can it be discriminatory when customer makes his/her own choice when purchasing that monthly from machine ?
.

Discriminatory towards people who don't conform to either male or female...

there is no it, but only he or she in legaleze .
you cant go to work in fruit of loom for him one day and Victoria secret for her the next .

Well maybe the MTA realized that they should do the right thing (be inclusive at no cost to themselves) even though it was not legally required? Maybe they found it created awkward questions that the conductors might prefer to avoid?

but again it was not Conductor that made choice, the customer had to input that information themselves.
it use to be a mess when man had a monthly but let their wives use it on weekends.

You continue to be under the ignorant and odious misconception that offering the choice between "M" and "F" is satisfactory. And furthermore, the awkwardness for conductors would be precisely because they might not be able to identify someone's gender correctly.

MattW wrote:While I admit I'm an outsider looking in, I have to ask, what was the point anyways? It's not like someone was going to use the pass to get into the city, then carrier pigeon it back out to someone of another gender for them to use. Even then, if a dad gave his pass to his son, or a mom her daughter, the gender designation would do nothing anyways.

More than once I've seen kids using their fathers/mother's monthly passes even if they are the same gender. Additionally, more than once I've seen the offending person's get called out on it and charged.

Conductors can often tell when someone is using someone else's monthly. Question is, is it worth the hassle? Also people share monthlies, even when sitting next to each other on the same train. I've caught people doing that. I've had some people that I recognized that dressed according to one gender on one day and a different gender the next using the same monthly. That gets awkward, I just leave it. The problem was that it was the conductor's job to verify the gender, but in these modern times gender has become very fluid so the conductor doing his job caused some to feel persecuted for their gender expression. MNR was caught between enforcing its own rules and lawsuits from those who felt they were discriminated against.

Alright...this topic has run its course...NEXT.