Forums:
Taxonomy upgrade extras:
Discussion on the legal consequences of a hypothetical new scientific discovery.
I'm not sure if this is the best place to put this. I'd like to start a discussion (that possibly could become controversial) regarding a hypothetical situation. You could as well call it fiction :)
Starting assumption:
Medical science makes a breakthrough and it's now possible - but rather expensive - to 'build' a new body for someone. That body doesn't need to be of the same sex, so apart from being helpfull to counter various handicaps and diseases, it could also help with gender issues.
Questions (feel free to invent other options if you don't like those I mentioned):
Who do you feel should be allowed a new body of the other gender ?
1) everybody who can pay for it
2) everybody who can pay for it, but for transsexuals it should be free/cheap the first time
3) it should only be allowed for transsexuals
4) changing gender that way ? That should never be allowed to happen! (I doubt anyone here feels this way, but I'm sure in the big bad world out there, many will think so)
How should marriage and children affect the permission ?
1) it should not be allowed for those who are married
2) it should be allowed for those who are married unless they have children
3) it should only be allowed for those who are married if the partner agrees
4) it should not be allowed for those who have children even if they are not married
What should be the minimum age to qualify for such body ?
1) there should be no minimum age
2) as long as the person is old enough to express their desire it should be allowed
3) the person should be at least 10 years old since younger children sometimes have temporary desires to be the other gender
4) the person should be a legal adult
What should be age of the new body ?
1) it should always match the age of the original body
2) legal adults should be free to choose their new age but they should remain legal adults. Younger people should remain the same age.
3) anyone switching gender should have the option to be put at the start of puberty so they can "grow up" in their new body. They would be hold to the same rules as others of that age regarding their rights. (School, smoking, drinking, sex, ...)
4) anyone switching gender should have the option to be put at the start of puberty so they can "grow up" in their new body. They would still be considered their original age for legal purposes. (ie: they would be considered adults for crimes committed, are allowed to drive a car, ...)
5) anyone switching gender should be forced to start at the beginning of puberty so they can "grow up" in their new gender. This would not apply when switching back to a gender you previously had
What educational uses should be possible ?
1) during puberty, each child should be allowed with parental consent to spend some time (eg: one year) in the body of the other sex. This should count for some credit.
2)during puberty, each child should be forced to spend some time (eg: one year) in the body of the other sex. This would benefit the understanding between sexes later. (note: there's a story like that out there. I'm begging forgiveness from the author if she feels I'm stealing ideas here)
3) parents should be allowed to change the gender of their child according their wishes as an educational tool, regardless of the opinion of the child
What correctional uses should be possible ?
1) it should never be used as punishment
2) male sex offenders should be put in a female body for the duration of their penalty
3) male sex offenders should be put in a female body and denied permission to switch back for some time. That would BE the punishment (ie: no jail)
4) male sex offenders should be put in a female body and denied permission to switch back ever
5) all prisoners should be put in female bodies for the duration of their time in jail. It's easier to manage space that way since all prisons would be for women and it would also discourage male prisoners from trying to escape.
6) why use this expensive method for prisoners ? A bullet is so much cheaper ! (*just kidding, don't flame me*)
What other consequences of this new tech would seem acceptable to you ?
1) males who get a new female body are allowed to compete in female sports
2) schools are allowed to accept only students of one gender. This doesn't discriminate because the student could change to that gender
3) job offers are allowed to be only for one gender since the person applying for the job has the option of changing their gender if they really want it.
4) it is ok to give men and women different rights since anyone is free to make the choice
5) crossdressing should be illegal since you have to option of wearing those clothes in the body of the right gender
6) same sex marriages should be illegal since couples have to option to be male and female
7) it should be possible for single males to temporary become female in order to have a child
8) it should be possible for gay couples to have one partner temporary change sex to have a child together
9) a marriage where one partner changes sex is automatically annuled
10) changing sex without permission of your marriage partner is considered adultary
11) children of the same parents have equal rights, regardless which parent was the mother and which the father
12) sex changes on pregnant women are illegal
and so much more ...
The discussion I had in mind would be mostly regarding the gender aspects of the situation. I know there are a ton of consequences that have nothing to do with gender. If you really want to, then feel free to address those too. The subject of same sex relationships is definatelly related. You might have also noticed that I mentioned age a few times above, since that has a major effect on how you can express your sexual life. The age of consent and the age of majority are two major barriers (which happen to be the same age in my country at the moment but can differ elsewhere).
I'm also very well aware of the racial consequences, but please let's not go there. I like a controversial discussion, but I hate to think I started World War III.
My First thought
Is just what does expensive means? Just how exclusive is this new technology. Obviously the rich and powerful would flock to it building themselves new younger bodies. The other question that comes to mind is how the various religious groups would react.
Back to the question of just how expensive it could mean that rather than try and repair a heart with a bypass or other procedure it might be easier to just get a new body. IE: Rather than repair the old junker just trade it in for the this years new model.
I think it would be just as difficult to get a cross-gender body as SRS because of prejudice. For parents to have this power over their kid's gender is a potential cause of trouble. I think because of more than one person's story of being intersexed and the 'Rents deciding one gender is more worthy than the other. I might be wrong, but it is my opinion. Someday it might be okay and possible for children to experiment with being different genders but with today culture I think there is still way too much intolerance. Just look at how many look down their nosies at the Metro-sexual movement. You have to be one or the other in society's eyes.
Interesting Question!
Hugs!
grover
The problem with SRS
As I understand it, the reason it's so hard to get permission for SRS is due to the fact that it can't be turned back. Those new bodies would remove that objection. Of course it's always possible the doctors will think of a new reason to make it a painfull road.
The rich always gain to most from any new and expensive toys. But if you put some legal limits on it (only one time a younger body is allowed and only in case of a gender change; body changes have to be at least 1 year apart in time; body changes are not allowed over a certain age) it would limit the advantage of the rich over the poor somewhat.
My idea of giving the parents power over their kids gender was based on the assumption that parents try to look out for what's good for their children. Maybe I'm naive in believing so, but I would think most parents do.
I agree that todays culture is too intolerant to allow changes like I descibed in a short time. But it's my believe that once the tech is in place, the legislation will have to follow. I know it's very well possible to outlaw things that hurt nobody (like same sex marriage and polygamie) but I also know that this will result in those laws being broken on a large scale and being protested violently. Change takes time, but it's inevitable.
Hugs,
Kimby
Hugs,
Kimby
My own opinion
I guess since I started this, I better also give you my own feelings regarding the issue.
I do feel the option to switch gender should be available to anyone, but it should be cheap/free for transsexuals the first time. In reality this could of course be addressed at the same time as other problems so there might be another medical reason to get a cheap or free new body. In light of possible overpopulation it might be a good idea to put a maximum age on the permission to get a new body. It would also be a good idea to set some minimum time between changes like a year.
For someone who's married, I'd say that permission from the partner would be needed to change sex. Changing without permission would allow the partner to break the marriage. I would not give the children a say in this: they didn't get to choose there parents when born either. (Well, I have to admit having read a book that claimed that children DO choose their parents...)
I feel that parents should be free to put their children in the body of the gender of their choice, but I also feel that if their child has a strong dislike for being in the body of one gender, it would be considered child abuse to refuse the change. Considering what's known about children today, I'd say that no child under the age of about 10 could be diagnosed as being transsexual. Of course that's assuming science didn't find a good way to detect that too. So body changes below that age should be fully paid by the parents and they should also be forced to keep money available to change back their child to the other sex in case it experiences major distress regarding its new gender.
Regarding the age of the new body, I believe that nobody should be able to 'skip' age. In light of preventing overpopulation, being reduced in age should be limited to one time only to give the person the change to grow up in a body of the other gender and only available for legal adults. Age should be reduced at most to the time around the beginning of puberty for the body. If the age of the new body is below the age of majority, the person is one again considered a child with all the consequences regarding rights and duties. This means that it should one again be the responsability of parents (could be different from the original parents), have to go to school, would be considered underage for driving, drinking, smoking, sex and whatever else is limited by age in the country.
For educational use, the idea of one year in the body of the other sex sounds like a good idea. It would be nice to have it as a free choice to make, but I fear that in reality this would result in a very negative attitude towards those brave enough to accept that challenge. The only reason that it would work well is to force the issue without exceptions. So no stupid things like "my religion doesn't allow this" (which would be no doubt the case for those religions treating one gender significantly worse then the other). While I would make the first sex change non-optional, I'd allow the student to postpone the change back or refuse it entirely.
I know that this idea will probably get a lot of negative feedback about how I should not inflict the pain of being in the body of the wrong gender to those poor students. I like to point out some things in my defense. Firstly, it's currently assumed that most of the population is capable of living in the body of the opposite sex without major distress. Secondly, by knowing in advance that this is a time-limited thing, there should be a lot less negative feelings about it. And lastly, those who feel very bad in the body of the opposite sex are - in my opinion - also those who have the most need of learning the lesson.
For fighting crime, the body swap option is probably too expensive to use against relatively short time prisoners. I see some possibilities with long term prisoners being put in bodies of weak-muscles women. It would result in removing gender issues in those prisons, making the prisoners easier to handle and discouraging escape attempts. After all big mr macho is probably not going to want to walk around in his bad neighbourhood as a weak women. He *knows* what could happen...
Changing the sex of female sex offenders isn't going to accomplish much, but for male sex offenders it could be a major wakeup call. Those who didn't listen to the wakeup call could be kept as women indefinatelly although it might be showing more mercy for some of them to simply kill them. I'm sure there are some who'd consider it a fate worse then death. One could give them the choice ("Serum or death" ;) another idea stolen from a story)
I would give the person in the body the rights and duties linked to the age and gender of the body in all aspects. This means that someone in a female body should be able to compete in female sports. It also means that if you live in a country that has a draft, you'd be the victim of it in a male body. (I'm very opposed to drafts, but that's another subject entirely). I would reconsider a lot of the gender discrimination legislation. In a world where one is free to choose their gender, I see no reasons to object to clubs or schools limiting access to only one gender. I can also accept that certain professions would be open to only one gender. I see no reason to change my views regarding same sex marriages (I approve of every expression of love regardless gender. I even see no reason to limit that to only two people but once again that's another subject). The situation does allow for improvement in the situation male gay couples (and lone males) who desire to have a child as long as they are not afraid of giving birth themselves.
It would of course be a very bad discovery for all our models: everyone could look like the cover of Vogue now.
Hugs,
Kimby
Hugs,
Kimby
Ever read John Varley?
A noted Hugo Award-winning sci-fi author, many of his short stories and novels are set in a post-alien invasion Solar System where the human race has been kicked off of Earth and live in various colonies and cities scattered around the Solar System. To the point, they have the sort of body-changing abilities you mention. Take a look at the link for the Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Varley_(author)
One thing I'd like to comment on. You wrote "If the age of the new body is below the age of majority, the person is one again considered a child with all the consequences regarding rights and duties. This means that it should one again be the responsability of parents (could be different from the original parents), have to go to school, would be considered underage for driving, drinking, smoking, sex and whatever else is limited by age in the country."
Why? The whole purpose of underage restrictions is because the brain is not mature enough to handle the decisions involved in acts such as those you mention. Yes, I know that there are some mighty tall children around and some small adults, but given our current system, a limit based on physical age is the only one that can be reasonably used. As well, the lack of experience in the world limits the abilities of a child to function in it. (For a good explaination of this, try reading George O. Smith's "The Fourth R", which is about a boy who's intellect is enhanced by a prototype mental educator machine. Yes, I'm a sci-fi nut!)
But none of this would apply to an adult inhabiting a young body. The mind has the experiences and the (alleged) maturity to allow the person to think and act for themself. If the adult is judged to have been legally competent and educated to the minimum requirements of the state, then the size of the body would be irrelevant. To do otherwise would open up a can of worms. If I change from male to female, would the State be able to require me to be on birth control until I am judged fit to have children? Or posit a form of conscription for women: "We need colonists for Pluto, so all newly-made women will be required to have two children apiece, which will be raised until 18 in State-run homes, then they will be sent to the Pluto colony." Who decides what rights the transplanted person has, once it is decided the adult-to-child transplants lose their adult civil rights? That would be the proverbial camel with it's nose in the tent.
Big Brother, anyone?
Withheld
They know they can survive
No I haven't read John Varley...
... but I have read Iain M. Banks, in whose Culture novels humans have the (engineered) ability to change sex at will (slowly, it's a months-long process), and there's a societal expectation that at some point in their lives everyone will be a father and a mother at least once.
But anyway, to your main point, being a child is more than just being little. I would have thought that if you are inhabiting the body of a child, the brain your consciousness is inhabiting is also, now, that of a child, unless you're talking about a literal surgical brain transplant rather than consciousness-transferral (and even then, hormones from the body will act on the brain). Whatever the memories of that consciousness, the immaturity of the *brain* will tell.
I try to do this in Game Theory. Paul's a 22-year-old still-closeted TS whose consciousness is transferred to the body of a young adolescent. It's actually the body of a young adolescent *elf* and as such is more than twice Paul's age, but what tells is the physical immaturity of the brain as well as the body. She keeps catching herself acting out with rankly adolescent behaviour; tantrums, storming-off, saying hurtful things, being self-centred and defensive, etc. *despite* the fact that her memories of being grown-up mean she knows better.
There's actually a scientific basis for this, recently discovered.
There's Also...
...James Alan Gardner's SF novel "Commitment Hour", positing a society which requires its young people to change sex on a yearly basis while growing up before making a permanent choice when they reach adulthood. (As I recall, they don't have to change every year, but they're required to try out both during adolescence before deciding.)
Anyway, I remain convinced that it would be no easier to suppress something like this "for the good of humanity" than it's going to be to stop us from genetically engineering our children in another generation or two. Any restrictions on getting younger, changing multiple times, etc., will be easy to get around for those with the money and inclination.
Eric
To be young again
Withheld,
I guess I better explain in detail why I find it best to consider those in younger bodies to be legally bound by their new age. There are several reasons I can imagine for this to be the case:
1) the reason to allow someone to select a younger body when changing gender would be to give that person the opportunity to grow up and learn about the expectations society has regarding the new gender. I believe that with the ability to select your gender those expectations might drift even further apart then is already the case today. It seems reasonable to me to allow someone to learn about their new place.
2) The best way to learn that lesson seems to me to follow the same road as was followed by a 'genetic' person of the other gender. This means having the full experience of growing up while interacting with others of the same (physical) age. Keeping the rights of the previous body would separate the individual from those who should be the new peers. Giving someone in any group rights beyond those of the others is an excellent way to make him/her an outcast. It would also announce for all the world that this person used to be an adult of the other gender, something I feel should be considered medical confidential.
3) Adults might have more rights regarding certain things (driving, drinking, smoking), but being considered a child would also protect the individual in some situations. Example: nobody really cares all that much when two children are involved in a fight, but if one of them was to be considered an adult... There's also the matter of sports: those are almost always divided in age categories.
4) Linking rights to the physical age also makes the live easier on those who need to check age limited issues. Would you really want bartenders, club bouncers etc to have to consider the possibility that the person looking like a 12 year old is in fact to be considered older ? It would open the way for real 12 year olds with access to nice forgeries to be taken seriously.
5) Lastly, there's always those who would abuse the situation if you're not carefull. No doubt it would take only a very short time before some rich sex industry boss saw this as a way around the laws considering child porn or even child prostitution (after all there are places where prostitution is not illegal) and started paying poor adults to become children of the other sex so he could gain from it. I know that you could argue that there should be no reason to object to this since there are no 'real' children involved, but I still find the possibility rather disturbing.
Some of the points at the end of your post are puzzling to me. Why should the State require you to take birth control pills ? I don't think there's a country anywhere that requires this from girls today, so I see no reason why this would suddenly change. The Pluto thing is more of the same. It's not because someone doesn't have adult civil rights that the state can do whatever they like with that person.
Your Pluto scenario is akin to the military draft that exists in many countries today. It's up to the people to decide how much they allow the state to dictate. In my opinion military draft is already too much, but I'm sure your Pluto draft would result in a lot more protests. Not that it's currently needed: we seem to have a bit too many humans on the planet right now :D
Hugs,
Kimby
Hugs,
Kimby
Societal Change
To take the last first: Why? Because the State could! Once it becomes possible to abridge somebody's Constitutionally-guaranteed rights, then whatever the State deems "correct" can be done. As far as I'm concerned, neither major political party nor any of the myriad minor groups can be trusted not to circumvent the civil rights of some group or another, either for their own good or for the greater good. I just used those two possibilities as examples. The removal of an adult's civil rights because they change their body is, as I said, the camel's nose under the tent.
You really should read Varley! His society has evolved a whole new outlook based on the relatively easy ability to change appearance and gender at the whim of the individual. The details he presents are fascinating.
As to the adult in a child's body: like the way Varley does it, I would see this as the "installation" of the adult's memory and personality into the physical brain of the younger body. So there would be no loss of ability. If the individual wanted to experience life as a child of the opposite sex, he or she could. Varley even has "playgrounds" where these individuals can have their adult side repressed, placed under lock and key, so to speak. But this is their decision, not a government mandate.
Most of your objections fall under the idea of this technology introduced into today's society. Varley has posited a new society evolved around this technology, where most of your objections are moot at that point.
But to comment directly on your #5, have you heard about the furor surrounding the movie "The Tin Drum" when it became available in Oklahoma? It is about a boy, Oskar, in '30s Germany who wills himself not to grow up. The movie was classified as child pornography: "Oklahoma City authorities cited three of the film's scenes as proof of child pornography. All involve Oskar, mentally an adult but physically still a child, either briefly engaging in simulated sexual activities or observing them." For more details, check this website:
http://www.wsws.org/arts/1998/oct1998/okc-o14.shtml
Life imitating art, or art imitating life?
Withheld
They know they can survive
Other stories
Something like this was tried in Utah and a judge there (at the suggestion of a video store owner) put a stop to it by offering to post in the newspaper the customer list for all supposedly pornographic films rented in the county, which would have blown the heck out of any community standards definition of pornography. The judge admitted his name and his wife's would be on the list. :)
Political types suddenly lost interest in supporting the crusade. :) Utah judges are a quirky lot.
- Erin
= Give everyone the benefit of the doubt because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact.
Hmm... Body switching
Who do you feel should be allowed a new body of the other gender ?
1) Everybody of legal age who can pay for it. It's hard to say what the legal age should be. I'd say 18. I'm not too hot on the idea of gender switching at say, 12 - 17 unless there is a compelling reason. Being a boy or girl loses some of its special meaning if anyone can do it at any time, and there can be only one youth, presumably, so a gender switcher at an early age would miss out on some of his youth experience as either a male or female. For exceptions not of legal age, it *might* be a parental/child decision -- like a nose job is today -- but that's a debatable point. Offer loans to the parents if the person needs the funds and there is a compelling reason, or make it a medical expense, if legit.
How should marriage and children affect the permission ?
Allow it for all. It's a marriage breaker, though. Automatic divorce unless the spouse agrees.
What should be the minimum age to qualify for such body ?
The person should be a legal adult unless there is a compelling reason, such as a valid gender issue.
What should be age of the new body ?
Legal adults should be free to choose their new age but they should remain legal adults -- unless the process rendered them a mental adolescent or less.
What educational uses should be possible ?
None, unless there is a valid reason, such as a psychiatrist becoming a child to interact effectively to a young boy or girl. (From a book by John Varley) :)
What correctional uses should be possible ?
1) it should never be used as punishment. (It would bring up all sorts of "cruel and unusual punishment" issues; the "punishment" may not be a punishment to some; and isn't this treatment supposed to be expensive? Exception: in some cases, give a prisoner with a long prison term an option of locking them into an older body with no rejuve possibility. That would save the taxpayers some money. From a similar concept in a story I'm writing.)
What other consequences of this new tech would seem acceptable to you ?
1) males who get a new female body are allowed to compete in female sports (Why not, unless they have some genetic advantage?)
2) schools are allowed to accept only students of one gender. This doesn't discriminate because the student could change to that gender (Single gender schools should be fine regardless, making the issue moot. However, any requirement that forces someone to change gender without a valid reason, is, in general, discrimination, because the process is expensive.)
3) job offers are allowed to be only for one gender since the person applying for the job has the option of changing their gender if they really want it. (Iffy area. It depends on the job. A Hooter's girl, maybe; a programmer, no.)
4) it is ok to give men and women different rights since anyone is free to make the choice. (The sexes already have a different set of rights, but I know what you mean. I see no reason to abolish equal rights simply because of sex.)
5) crossdressing should be illegal since you have to option of wearing those clothes in the body of the right gender. (Huh? Sex changes are okay, but you can't wear a dress?)
6) same sex marriages should be illegal since couples have to option to be male and female. (No.)
7) it should be possible for single males to temporary become female in order to have a child. (Sure.)
8) it should be possible for gay couples to have one partner temporary change sex to have a child together. (Why not?)
9) a marriage where one partner changes sex is automatically annuled. (Annulled, no. Divorced, yes. There's a legal difference.)
10) changing sex without permission of your marriage partner is considered adultary. (No.)
11) children of the same parents have equal rights, regardless which parent was the mother and which the father. (Not sure what you're getting at. Why should a child's rights change because of who his father or mother is in any situation? Do you mean inheriting an estate?)
12) sex changes on pregnant women are illegal. (Hmm. I would think so -- if the woman was using that as an "out" to get around an anti-abortion law.)
"Happiness is when what you think, what you say, and what you do are in harmony."
Mahatma Gandhi
"Happiness is when what you think, what you say, and what you do are in harmony."
Mahatma Gandhi