I think transgendered and intersexed individuals will probably see laws guaranteeing their rights and protecting them from discrimination in the next decade. It’s easier to sympathize with someone who has an inborn trait, and now that homosexuality is an acceptable topic for public discourse, the rest should follow. Our understanding of neural architecture and anatomy, the ability for affected individuals to speak out without automatic fear for their lives (though fear of ostracism, job loss, and scorn are still inevitable), and the growing acceptance that, so long as you don’t hurt anyone else, you can be who you are all work towards making this timely and relevant.
I think we’re going to hear more about polyamory and true polygamy, but I don’t think it’ll get very far. At least not for a couple of decades.
I think concerns about how animals are treated at CAFOs, the environmental concerns, and the health concerns of eating meat from animals which lived in circumstances they never evolutionarily adapted too stand a good chance of leading us away from the meat heavy diet most of us (including myself) indulge in. More than that, I think our growing attachment to pets and the disgust most of us feel when we encounter stories of animal abuse mean that we’ll see more legislation to protect animals, and when those laws intrude on what more politically and culturally conservative people consider their property rights, there will be some fireworks.
Maybe persons who fall into the autism spectrum disorders? Forcing employers in sales, retail, or service industries to hire folks who aren’t gregarious and lack social skills and the charm we used to associate with customer facing positions. I don’t particularly want Sheldon Cooper to slam my pizza and beer down and charge off with my unfinished salad clutched in his impatient hands, but I suppose I wouldn’t deny him a tip for being less accommodating than say…a flirty Hooters waitress. But finding employers who would give unemotive, hyper-analytical people a service job could require a heavy duty advocacy campaign.
Gay rights still have a long way to go, but transgender and intersex issues have to be “next” (really concurrent). It’s a shame we live in a country where many of our states do not recognize sex changes as legally meaningful, that people can’t use whatever bathroom fits with their internalized gender, etc.
After/during that I think the other big social change we’re going to see is the legalization of several drugs, with funding going from law enforcement and jail cells to rehab clinics and the like. Well, that’s my ideal. “Drug users” aren’t really a specific class of people though so this might not go right in with the intent of your OP.
The big gay (first use most of heard of the word “gay”) breakthrough was Boys in the Band - 1968 - which included what was, undoubtedly, the first time many saw one man kiss another in a sexual content.
This was preformed on the Purdue (not exactly cutting-edge) in 1971 - I was there. It was followed by gay and lesbians sitting at tables at various fairs, getting few takers, but generating noise.
6/28/69 saw the Stonewall riots - wherein the customers of a (real dive of a) gay bar fought back when the cops came into bust the place up (again).
That’s 40 years, kids - a disgraceful pace for a place which considers itself the bastion of “Freedom”
But people with autism (on whatever level of the spectrum) are not constitutionally disadvantaged as are those who are GLB or T. There are no ‘laws’ that prohibit someone with autism engaging in any activity that the rest of the populace enjoys.
Echoing others, I would say the option for the elderly and those with intractable or terminal illnesses to end their lives (at their own behest or with the aid of someone pre-planned) will be the next big legal reform.
What, did I miraculously arrive via time travel to a future when women are no longer treated as human incubators against their will? Was I simply having bad dreams about forced, medically unnecessary, transvaginal ultrasound exams, increased restrictions on birth control for purely religious reasons, and decreased access to sex education? Was I on vacation when men ceased to have inordinate control over what a woman can do with her body?
The Republican party, bolstered by its minions in America’s Christian institutions, is actively and feverishly drafting and passing as much legislation as it can to force their moral authority and religious strictures onto women, punish women for the audacity of believing their sexual rights are equal to men, and shame them for having and, heaven forfend, acting on, sexual desires in the first place. Heck, the so-called morning after contraceptive (Plan B) pill is not even an abortifacient as it prevents conception, but that hasn’t stopped political and religious leaders’ countless attempts at getting it banned since it was introduced, on the grounds that it’s something it’s not.
Also, why, other than a desire to further curtail women’s sexual expression, do political and religious figures have a problem with birth control?
And let’s not forget about the thousands of women who will have diminished access to appropriate healthcare because of a disgusting political campaign to crush Planned Parenthood.
I think we need to step back, open our eyes, and begin to address the real and growing challenges to women’s civil rights today before we start looking for a new group to right wrongs for in the future.
Place of birth is the last remaining indelible group membership against which all nations, even modern progressive democratic nations, habitually discriminate. You can’t discriminate on the grounds of race (i.e., where their ancestors were born), you can’t discriminate based on where their parents were born, but you can sure discriminate on the basis of where they were born.
I see this changing as world population hits its peak and starts to decline - particularly in the rich West. At the moment there’s a lot of anti-immigration hysteria, based on the fear that there’s all these poor people out there in the world who evilly and sneakily want to gain the right to live in a peaceful stable country, work, buy stuff, bring up their kids … all the things we automatically gained the rights to on the basis of our place of birth. We fear that if we let them in, it means we will have less stuff to go round - our standard of living will go down, we might even become poor ourselves - something we’re not willing to contemplate even to save other people’s lives.
However, as world population reaches its peak and starts to shrink, the dynamic starts to change. All governments like to have their populations at least static, if not expanding - if nothing else, you get more respect for being “in charge” of more people. So all of the more wealthy countries will start to accept more and more immigrants. Of course some countries - US and Australia for instance - already have a significant culture of immigration, and it doesn’t stop us having plenty of anti-immigrant hysteria of our own. But the power is still significantly our way - there are millions of people who want to come in, we only want a few thousand each year, we can pick and choose. As populations start to go down in less wealthy countries, the ratios start to shift back in favour of people who want to move, hopefully the hysteria will start to go down, we will realise that there’s really no difference between someone who wants to move from Kabul to Melbourne or someone who wants to move from rural Alabama to New York, and both should be perfectly allowable.
I hope it’s the American people who can’t afford huge health insurance premiums. The people who have to avoid routine care because, above the huge insurance premium, they can’t afford the co-pays, deductibles and all the other charges. The people who have to face being financially destroyed by the healthcare/insurance/prescription/legal industries if they should end up in the hospital.
I’ve seen this view mentioned before, but I don’t get it. Maybe it’s just a joke referencing the annoying faux-disabled people we sometimes have to deal with? I know there are “militant” neuro-atypical people on the internets, but I’ve always figured they have as much influence as any other neck-bearded wackjob group. But I guess this is your point. Thirty years ago, most Americans thought gay people were also marginalized weirdos.
I hope we don’t see this country fighting “neuro” wars. That would be totally retarded.
I hope not. I suspect that for many people that would translate to persuading other people to exercise that right. I have cared for elderly people who would say things like “I should just die and get out of your way”. They are just looking for assurances that they are not in your way. Imagine their surprise when they are dropped off at the local suicide parlor.
The USA will never be like Weimar Germany. Not that bread won’t hit $15K a loaf; but when it does, we won’t blame the Jews: we’ll blame the people whose “poor life choices” prevent them from coughing up $15K.
You assume that this period or era in our history is the best or the pinnacle?
If anything is probably one of the low points morally, ethically, socially, politically, philosophically and so on.
About the only advantage we have is scientifically/technology and even then for each step we move forward, we regress three steps morally.
The threshold is whether the issue is out of someone’s control or not.
Race, gender, nationality - you can’t control those
Sexual preferences, diet, unhealthy living - you can control those
If we coddle people whom live bad lifestyles, then all bets are off. Whomever can stick their nose in and have the audacity to claim they should get special privileges - sure enough there will be someone to take up the mantle.
I hope you realize that you are absolutely dead wrong about sexual preference, unless you mean it in some way other than gender attraction or identity.
Trans rights (I’m including intersex rights under this term) is the next big thing because both the rights movement and acceptance has started to snowball, and I think it’s about hit “critical mass.” Rights for my people have advanced more in the last 4 years than the last 40 or 50, and social acceptance is one or two orders of magnitude improved than just 10 years ago.
In the last year alone we’ve had major policy decisions and court decisions at all levels (Macy v. Holder) of the government, and it’s now common for large companies to include protections for “gender identity and expression.” I could NOT have come out and started my transition from an intersex person to female in 2002; I would not have been able to face the social pressure, and it’s doubtful what would have happened with me at work.
The employment lawyers I’ve spoken with believe we’re long past the tipping point for trans rights at this time. The President of HR at a Fortune 100 company who personally spoke to me at a meeting said:
It’s now relatively easy to be recognized legally as your correct gender via US Passport, drivers license, and even other permits such as CCW (I was the “pioneer” for my state issuing a new CCW permit based on gender change, and worked with the AG’s office to set up a procedure) Courts are more and more used to transpeople changing their name, and more often are approving the change without a hearing or any delay - in fact, due to the sensitivity to employment issues, courts will sometimes expedite trans name changes (my name change took an incredible 6 days from filing without a publication requirement nor a hearing, instead of the 3-4 months it normally takes!).
As more and more people see success stories of folks coming out and having 100% acceptance at their workplace and among their family and friends, then more of the hidden trans people out there will come forward. It may still suck to be me, but it sucks much less than at any time in industrialized human history. I predict that within 10 years transpeople will be socially accepted at the level that lesbians and gays are now (or better), and will enjoy full workplace, educational, and public accomodation protections across the US.
Tell us, please, which regressing morals are linked to which scientific discoveries and achievements.
Fewer diseases? Cured diseases? Heart transplants? Computers? Your own computer and having it connected to the internet? TV? Radio? The telephone? The electric telegraph? Square-rigged sailing ships? Flint and steel? The wheel?
Please forgive that portion of humanity whose morals have fallen into the Pit thanks to anti-polio vaccine, the light bulb and opening a fridge door.
I would say that Atheists will be next. They are currently the most feared/hated group in the USA right now. They pretty much have to keep their mouths shut if they want to hold any type of public office.
