kris40k said:
Sorry, looking back I was too short and not clear enough in what I meant. You say that we do not have a method, and I believe we do. Forgive me if I'm wrong on this, but my understanding is that in regards to sex reassignment therapy, varying based on country/location/laws, its pretty much common that before certain treatments such as HRT or SRS that observations from qualified health professionals help determine if someone is "in their right mind" and that it is an appropriate choice of action for the individual both physically and emotionally.
Honestly, my concerns are less about that than the coercion angle. This, at least, is a solvable problem, and one we are actually pretty good at when we listen to what scientists have to say instead of insist our prejudices are valid despite evidence otherwise.
For example, the current system for SRS (and often HRT) are ridiculously over cautious. They are closer to pointless obstruction than due diligence. Again, because people insist on applying a perspective to a situation they cannot understand. With the proven benefit of HRT and SRS along with the strong track record such a strict gatekeeping system is no longer called for and it should be relaxed.
That said, assuming we can be rational about the issue at hand, a strict gate keeping system would certainly be appropriate to start along with studies to gather data on long term happiness and all that. Even if we can't understand the perspective we can collect accurate data that gives us predictive power, telling us how these things turn out. Once we knew better we can find the common signs of someone who is a poor match and the gatekeeping system can be significantly relaxed.
Additionally, the fact is that entering something like a slave contract would not be necessarily permanent. It could be dissolved by the state if it determined that the person is actually unhappy with the arrangement.
And, ultimately, the person is making their own decisions (at least up until the contract is made.) We let people make all sorts of horrible life ruining decisions all the time with no justification more than "well it's their decision." And I think that is right (with the note that it is also right to help them put their life back together if they ask.)
We let people join cults, for heaven sake, as long as the cults are not too abhorrent.
I propose that similar efforts, in addition to possible other methods (such as a background check) could be done to ensure that people are not being coerced or otherwise manipulated.
In practical terms I don't think that would be effective enough, but if that could be assured than the biggest problem I have with the whole idea goes away. And really, that is just a matter of technology.
You make a good point that were a system in place, it would likely be abused by those of less moral fiber. And do not get me wrong, I find forcible slavery to be disgusting and a horrible crime against humanity. However, the same can't be said about consensual slavery. I bring up, however, that we don't outlaw marriage just because some spouses beat or victimize their other spouse. Marriage isn't wrong because some abuse the institution of it. Forced marriage? Sure, in western countries that is outlawed. Consensual marriage? Of course not.
I honestly have a lot of problems with marriage and how it is currently handled and especially how it used to be handled (despite being married myself.) I've seen serious abuse of marriage to trap and abuse people (not just women). Marriage being in place without strong laws (and correct social attitudes) about divorce was a bad idea. And marriage is still quite problematic.
But it is also a major component of our society. We couldn't remove it or ban it now if we wanted to, and I am not sure we would want to. The best we can do is repair it.
Marriage has less potential for abuse and it was still horribly abused.
Now, I will concede that as you mentioned, slavery has, and probably will would it brought back in a consensual manner, be abused. You don't just slip this through as a rider in a budget bill. Something like this would have to be approached carefully. I do think that the similarities between consensual marriage and consensual slavery are close enough to warrant a look at whether or not limiting, outlawing, or otherwise blacklisting as "mentally disturbed" an individuals emotional and sexual needs just because we, ourselves, feel its "weird" is really just and humane.
The problem is I do not believe we could, as a society, approach it carefully and rationally. We would fuck it up. I mean, can you imagine trying to push the "slavery bill" through congress? Even if you could get the support to make it happen it would be a shit show. No way that gets through in a reasonable form. 95% of the people would be too angry to think about it straight and the rest would be looking to abuse it.
This isn't like equality rights, you can't just say "and now them too." We would have to build up an entire new set of laws and regulations. And I just don't see that happening. At least not directly. But I could see it happening in a round about way.
I made the point when all this started about advanced artificial intelligences and how we should approach their rights.
A sufficiently advanced AI should have all the rights a person does. In particular, I would argue that an AI should have the right to self determination, even if what they do with that self determination is be a tool, so long as sufficient protections are in place to prevent abuse (I just don't think we are capable of that yet, maybe as society progresses). No creating AI's specifically to the end of them agreeing to be tools, regular checkups to ensure it is getting the respect it deserves, etc.
Basically, we are saying "but it is a person in every meaningful way! If humans get rights, so should this person!" and then it has rights. But because we have different prejudices towards software than towards humans it isn't hard to imagine software wanting to be a tool and it is given the right to become one if it wants to. Then you apply the reverse argument. "This person has this right, why not humans too?"
Yet we didn't accept that civil unions were "close enough" for homosexuals, now did we? Somehow telling someone that its "ok, they can keep 'pretending'" to act out what they need for emotional and sexual fulfillment or needs comes across as a bit ... too much.
Well, like I said, I can't make that call. I can make the one about civil unions though seeing as it affected me directly. My problem with the civil union was the blatant "separate but equal" approach. It was ludicrous to purpose that any such union would ever be equal in practicality to marriage, especially because of the place in our culture in which marriage resides. Separate literally cannot be equal in this case.
But I really don't know what these people actually think. It would not surprise me at all if some somewhere existed. I would be interested in their views on the subject. They might very well be satisfied with the current possible arrangement even if they wish it could go further.
