Since when does ANYONE, even a grown, adult human, have the right to use someone else’s body?

Never. And since not even adults get this right, why should a fetus?

Case closed.

I compliment you on this one, it is really quite clever. It is also a kind of wedge issue, in which you force people who might otherwise recoil in horror at transhumanistic ambitions to join your side.

But you set the facts up just a bit too neatly for my taste when you say “Transhumanists and like-minded bioethicists recognize that somatic rights are individual rights. That means that, unless they harm someone else directly, you should be able to do as you please.”

The problem is that you restrict the harms that one might cause to others as those that arise directly. Why do your responsibilities to others end with direct harms? I suspect the answer is because your argument would be weakened (perhaps not fatally, but certainly substantially) if indirect harms to other are taken into account.

Let’s take the example of healthcare resources. I don’t know if you have been to a hospital lately, but in my experience they are all running on empty, whether in the USA with its vaunted private healthcare system or here in Canada with its oft derided public system that provides quantitatively measurable excellent outcomes. Healthcare costs are among the most rapidly rising expenses that society faces. Diverting resources from those who are ill to those who are well has effects, albeit indirect, and some of those may be detrimental. Hence your hedge about ‘direct’ effects. As this is a comment stream, I will be brief here, but I will point out that this is but one example among many that merit the attention of the ethical branch of the transhumanist community.

If the community were really serious about this issue, perhaps they could follow in the footsteps of the physicians and take a pledge: First, do no harm.

Kyle was right on all points of his article. I would like to add its always ULTRA conservatives who are against ind. rights ironically. Life is short and there are billions of humans on the planet, get out of others business. We all know the truth. The people who oppose the initial topics brought forth in this article and who oppose transhumanism/extropianism are Super religious, uneducated or just not that intelligent. Im not saying all, its just highly probable they are one of the three. Some far right conservatives are so indoctrinated, their not dumb but believe so much bs. Im not being political here in no way. Just saying what i here and observe.

Thanks Kyle

I’m interested in your claim that the pre-Elightenment view of the body was not one of discrete corporeality. Can you point me to some of your sourcing for that comment? I would argue that that may have some bearing on Islamic views of the body and even the views of the body in Confucian societies, both of which are not as highly individualistic as Western societies, though Asian nations are having to adopt individualist practices to gain the ‘Asian tiger’ economies that they have had the last 40 years. I’d like to read some more on that concept.

On your second point, I would say that harm causation could only matter if the harm was direct and obvious. The only gray area should be when there is a social or contractual obligation that the somatic freedom contradicts, such as the parent to child obligation or the obligation in certain sporting events to not use performance enhancing drugs.

This is, by the way, where I have to disagree with the author on his article. In my view, a woman’s right to her body does not give her right to terminate the life of another, even if that other is growing inside of her. She has a perfect right to avoid getting pregnant, but once pregnant, I feel that her right to take a life ends. This, once again, begs the question of when a fetus becomes a life, which is where the debate should stay.

My (mostly former) faith says that it is at conception (though plenty of members of my faith have disagreed), but I won’t seek to impose my faith on anyone else. I don’t have an answer to this, so I’m staying out of it entirely and leaving it to wiser ethicists than I (who is not really an ethicist in any wider of a context than that we are all ethicists in our daily lives).

Finally, I agree that the social context (as I mentioned above) is important, but not determinative. We are the society that we want to be, whether we like it or not. If we don’t choose to be the society we would LIKE to be, then we are stuck with what we collectively want. I would rather push for a society of greater freedoms and less requirements on the individual for “society’s good”. Frankly, I think that society should be for the good of everyone, which means that it should only very rarely have to squash or burden a minority for the sake of the majority.

I would agree, however, with one of the comemmentors above that gay marriage (which I totally support, despite the slightly depressing bourgeoise implications thereof) could not be argued for from somatic rights, as it is a legal contract with no particular implications for one’s right to engage in gay sex. I would suggest that the inclusion of gay marriage under the rubric of somatic rights may be to conflate the right to freedom from corporeal intrusion with the right to enter into contract. Both are important liberal goals, but need not be grounded in the same moral principle.

Equally, though pro-choice, I think it is naive to suggest that somatic rights could not, by some arguments, be extended to foetuses or the unborn (it would then be a question of balancing two sets of somatic rights, a balance which in most cases would perhaps come out in favour of the mother).

To these issues, I should like to raise two related problems which somatic rights, as stated, may need to address in order to thrive as a foundation for bioethical thinking.

1) Ahistoricism. My background is in the history of medicine, primarily in the history of the body. As such, I tend to view references to ‘your body’ or ‘my body’ as somewhat ahistoric, or at least lacking in historical awareness. The idea of a human body belonging to the individual, a body which is closed off from the world at large, a physically discrete entity, is entirely the invention of eighteenth century Enlightenment thought (see: Barbara Duden, “The Woman Beneath the Skin”). Previous to the modernist mode of corporeal thought that emerged with the Enlightenment, the human body, at least in Europe, was seen as being in a constant state of flow and flux with the wider world. The idea that one could simply do something to one’s body which did not impact upon the rest of one’s world, would have been alien.

The Enlightenment ‘closing off’ of the human body was, in part, a process by which the body was prepared for industrialisation. As a discrete physical entity, the body becomes ‘homo oeconomicus’, a productive individual unit whose labour could be measured and valued, and for which the individual was solely responsible. This is the body upon which the biopolitics of Enlightenment thought is founded. This is the historical foundation for the ‘your body’ upon which somatic right rest: a body which is entirely sealed off from the rest of the world.

All of which historical peregrinations are to say that ‘somatic rights’ may need to posit an awareness of the historical processes by which our contemporary conceptions of ‘your body’ are based. Similarly, some note should be made of the potentially negative aspects of the discrete modernist body, namely the way in which, as a discourse, it locates responsibility for the body with the individual, rather than with socio-cultural factors. The modernist body is a vital plank of neoliberal economic thought.

2) The key part of somatic rights as stated seems to be that you can do whatever you want to your body as long as it doesn’t harm anyone else. This is an attractive idea, but to work it would require a rigorous examination of a) harm metrics and b) harm causation.

Metrics – how much, and what kind of harms can be caused by someone’s somatic right to alter their body? How would we decide whether someone’s emotional distress (at, say, a tattoo of the word ‘fuck’ on their child’s elementary school teacher’s head) is weighted more or less heavily than said teacher’s somatic rights? Rare are the somatic choices which actually physically harm someone else, but plentiful are those which may result in emotional distress. The argument against considering emotional distress as a valid metric tends to be that such distress is grounded in socio-cultural prejudices (against, say, homosexuality, sex in general etc.), which is fair enough, but we need a very clear process for explaining why we discount some form of distress but not others (we’d probably count the distress at the ‘fuck’ tattoo as valid, no?)

Causation – as I suggested, most of the ‘harm’ caused to others by somatic alterations are not physical, they are (often prejudiced) emotional reactions to difference. These, though, are questions of immediate harm which can be traced directly to one person’s encounter with another’s somatic choice. What though, of more distant harms, ones in whcih causation is less clear? Consider, for example, cosmetic surgery to enhance a woman’s breast size. There is no obvious physical harm to anyone else, and no immediate causation of harm. However, it could be argued that by undergoing breast enhancement surgery, that individual has reinforced certain unjust stereotypes about how women are supposed to appear. In exercising her somatic rights she may not have caused immediate harm to anyone, but she has arguably contributed to a discourse of unjust, sexist, patriarchal appearance standards which regularly harm millions of women every day. One might make the same argument about, say, the use of skin-lightening creams amongst people of African descent.

The point I am trying to make here is that, as a couple of the other commentators have said, ‘somatic rights’ as a useful idea would have to consider the social embeddedness of the idividual who is exercising those rights. It is very difficult to consider any somatic act which is not somehow embedded in the social fabric and which does not confirm or challenge just and unjust discourses of appearance, economics, or power.

I think I’ve gone on quite long enough; the length of my response is tribute to the fascinating nature of the original post, and to my general sympathy with its aims. What I’ve presented here are intended to be criticisms which may strengthen, rather than undermine, somatic rights.

@Jumblepudding

The idea that all people should be forced to go through puberty as dictated by their unmodified hormones borders on abuse in many cases. It dooms many Male to Female spectrum individuals to a degree of masculinization that may never be able to be undone regardless of the amount of funds invested and the amount of pain endured. This can prevent people from getting a decent job and being able to live everyday life in reasonable safety. Electrolysis alone can cost 15k-30k , is painful, sometimes leaves scars and can take years. Facial feminization surgery is expensive, painful, has health risks and varying success. I’m not saying that delaying and/or stopping puberty is correct in every case but that in some cases it may be appropriate and can allow the individual to have many more options later in life.

@Archwright

Your short version covers a lot of ground but one important point slides by. For some individuals the body issues are as important or maybe even more important that the social/gender issues. A lot of research is being done on the brain’s map of the body and how conflicts between the two occur.

I know of many folks who do not fit well into the mainstream binary gender roles but have a strong sense of how their body should be and consequently a strong need to change their body. Some do not have the financial resources to follow the existing standards of care which are only recommendations and or requirements for medical practitioners to belong to certain organizations. Most doctors follow these standards to protect themselves from possible malpractice claims not because of any legal requirements. Still, many patients receive hormones and also surgery with minimal red tape. Some travel around the world in order to do so when necessary.

Do we really need to be protected from ourselves? Do we have to talk about all the restrictions placed on us in order to somehow impress people that our desires are legitimate. Truth is that we are frequently prisoners of convention and other people’s thoughts far above and beyond the current extent of the law.

Thank you so much for being calm and intelligent. So many people let their opinions get in the way of seeing things as they actually are. I am a family member of a person who is undergoing gender therapy to become a member of the opposite sex and as much as we could tell her that we love her and respect her just the way she is; this is what she wants and is a much happier person with each step she takes toward becoming male. Who am I to take that away from her? Where does it say in the Constitution that I can control what someone else does to their own body? I’m so glad to have read your short response because I can see now that there are people out there mature enough to educate themselves and let science speak.

Regarding the ‘think of the children’ bit: most children will develop a male or female gender identity and learn the difference between the two whether or not they have someone chanting in their ears about it. Thus, I do not see a problem with allowing children to choose their gender presentation. Research shows that most cross-gender behavior in childhood has no bearing on adult gender identity. Tomboys and sissy boys alike grow up to lead productive lives and have no trouble distinguishing men from women (except maybe in East Village…).

Though I find Anderson Cooper a bit…dramatic, I do recommend his report on the ‘sissy boy experiment’ (http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/06/07/sissy.boy.experiment/index.html) for an example of how forcing children to conform to ‘appropriate’ gender behaviors does not do them, or anyone else, any favors. We have a pretty exhaustive body of evidence that you cannot beat, cajole, or otherwise operant-condition the gay or trans out of someone.

If you mean children with intersex conditions, micropenis, or circumcision accidents who receive surgical ‘correction’ in infancy and get raised as the most ‘convenient’ gender, pretty much everyone considers that unethical now. In fact, most of these individuals struggle with persistent depression and eventually opt for SRS…much as transsexuals do.

As for a transsexual child who believes firmly in her girlhood despite the fact that she has a little boy’s ‘parts’, no amount of gender policing will change that. At best it will silence her, for a time; at worse it will instill a lifelong sense of self-loathing like that which leads so many transsexuals to commit suicide.

When I meet a woman (trans or otherwise!), I do not know whether she has natural breasts augmented by HRT, silicone implants, or a bra stuffed with socks. Nor do I need to know, unless I intend to sleep with her. If knowing affects how I behave toward her, then my parents probably should have worried more about something other than my choice of clothes or my favorite color.

Well-argued for the right to self-determined freedom. BUT reproductive rights do not only involve the self. Just as you would not allow a four year old total freedom of choice over the body, abortion and other reproductive issues are more complex than this simplistic argument.

@Diggy

Never thought of this. It is interesting to think about.

@Erl, Joel

I totally agree. While I agree with pro-choice for the most part, I think there are some boundaries and protocols that must be followed for just this reason. I can say “my head, my choice” when I hop on my motorcycle and choose not to wear a helmet, but really, if I drop the bike and police need to be dispatched, roads blocked off, etc, I’m not the only one who is impacted. I think a good starting point for things like suicides/euthanasia/etc would be to follow the lead of our (very much imperfect, but better than the historic alternative) justice system. We get a panel of experts and peers together to help decide whether or not a criminal is guilty and what the consequence is. For example, in terms of right to suicide, I don’t feel someone should be able to go ahead and try to kill themselves the second they feel really sad. If someone really didn’t want to live their life anymore, and could justify this to psychiatrists and a panel of their peers after having the chance to really reflect and seek help, I don’t see why they should be denied the right to choose the status of their life.

My question was not to whether it was possible to pass legislation.

You didn’t address my thoughts on the abortion issue as far as ‘my body, my choice’ goes…does that mean you agree with me??

The brain has a map of the body. It’s how we know where our arms are without looking. It’s what keeps us upright when we walk. It’s what prevents us (usually) from whacking our appendages into door frames. The two senses that govern this are Proprioception and Kinesthesia.

Sometimes these senses don’t work as expected. When an amputee ‘feels’ his lost arm, it is because his proprioception tells him that his arm is still there, despite the quite obvious (to the rest of us) evidence to the contrary. This can happen with perfectly healthy-bodied people as well. Sometimes (due to any number of factors) the mind creates a map for one gender, and the body goes right on developing a different one.

There are many ways to reconcile these body/mind dilemmas. For amputees, like my example above, cybernetics are in development which should, in time, let him be whole again. His body and mind will no longer be at odds. For the transgendered, things are more complicated. One solution is therapy alone. Occasionally, the body and mind can be reconciled though counseling alone. Occasionally, the patient can be made to overcome his/her dysphoria (this has led some people, yourself included no-doubt, to view gender identity disorder and body dysmorphic disorder as the same thing. They aren’t).

For many, simply being accepted as a member of the target gender is enough. Change hair, change clothes, change a pronoun, minimize the appearance of certain assets, and the problem disappears. You would not believe how many transgendered people do this. It’s cheap (medical treatment is expensive). It’s reversible. And sometimes it’s all you can do, since many health issues make surgery and hormones impossible.

One step further are those who go on hormones. Going this far legally, and ethically requires therapy. (The laws vary by state and country, I can only speak for Maryland) It also, generally, requires the patient to live for a year in the target gender to see if it works out. With a good medical doctor, these therapies aren’t any more dangerous than hormone replacement therapy for people who’s sex matches their gender (like men with low testosterone, or women who take birth control).

Then there are those who get surgery. Every doctor will recommend that the patient have lived with their target hormones for years before any surgical procedure is even attempted. (Some laws limit this as well) There is sound medical reasoning for this. The number of possible surgeries are far too many for me to list here. They all entail some form of risk.

Ask yourself, would anyone go though that much hassle if they had any other option?

All of this does not even cover intersex conditions (of which there are many), or androgen insensitivity (sex chromosomes indicate male, but the body will not respond to testosterone).

So, that was the sort version. Glad you’re still here. Look at wikipedia, bilerico, gender identity groups, etc for more information. You’ll find many, many dry academic articles and many more blogs on this topic. If you have an interest in this, for or against, you owe it to yourself and the other side to do the research.

I imagine that for those who are pro-life, they see the fetus/mother relationship in a similar fashion to conjoined twins, while those who are pro-choice would see the fetus as having less of a claim than a conjoined twin. But that seems like it could place the argument of abortion outside of the somatic rights concept.

There’s a big difference between the people who commit suicide in order to get attention or because they dispair, and those who have truly nothing but pain in in this life. Either way you slice it, I think a large amount of counseling is important.

You do realize that a key aspect of marriage is authorizing someone other than yourself to control the disposition of your body should you become incapable of doing so. Should I suffer some grievous injury that puts me under for weeks or fall into a coma that lasts years or die, I would want to make damn sure that someone I trust has control over my while I’m out. The only person I trust aside from myself is my partner, and there are many hospitals which would deny him the power to choose for me (even though we are technically married).