This has nothing to do with Milgram’s experiments. If you don’t want to be fined, go to jail and miss your plane you comply.
Ask Milgram if he can explain why some people who work for the government love ordering other people around.
If I may translate your logic into it’s more direct meaning, you are saying if there’s something you have a right to do, like travel, but the government says you have to be coercively sexually molested to do it, then that’s all there is to it; pay no attention to the rapist, just do what he says and hope you get through it. Sorry, but that’s not good enough for me.
Milgram is all about the relationship of conscience to authority, and it definitely pertains to the TSA situation. What you did is actually confirm the reaction of one of the Milgram response groups. You are justifying TSA employee compliance with their chain of authority by shifting focus to the coercive incentives for the victims to show up and be punished for wanting to protect either their dna or their modesty, or both.
Whereas the Milgram data draws our attention to the psychology of the perpetrators of the sexual humiliation. Both factors are relevant. The original thread from which this discussion sprang had to do with a TSA agent who was having serious remorse about being under such foul, immoral orders. That represents an exploitable weakness in the regime and it should not be neglected, even when, or especially when, the victims of sexual molestation are being coerced into the situation.