Thank you so much for writing this. I was born with a disability in both hands. Luckily, it hasn't affected me too much though I had multiple surgeries as a child and adolescent. If I could, I would absolutely prefer to have two "normal" hands. It infuriates me that these luxury beliefs are being championed by anyone, let alone doctors.
In my experience, the people who insist that a disability is actually a strength have not lived with one and are ignorant of the hardships people with disabilities and their caregivers face.
Haven't they told you? You're just "differently abled"!
I remember the first time I heard that phrase wondering to myself why people in HR departments were speaking to grown adults as if they were children. I mean, I'm a lifelong liberal, but even I understand that not all disabilities are mental ones, and that the vast majority of people who have a disability do not need to be condescended to in such a way.
Such is the progressive obsession with language that we've actually come to believe we can eliminate suffering just by changing the way we talk about things. It's well intentioned, to an extent, but counterproductive all the same.
Agreed. It's cruel to define someone by a disability they have, but it seems worse than useless to pretend (and insist that everyone else pretend) that a disability is not a disability. Either it's not a disability (and thus requires no additional accommodation) or it is and we should stop being neurotic about how we talk about it.
It's interesting, and not coincidental, that this came out of an article about trans issues. I think there's a connection between this expansive definition of "eugenics" and some kinds of trans activism, based on a philosophical error. (It might well have an official name, I'm not sure.) It's a confusion between looking at one's self retrospectively and looking at the future of someone else (often a hypothetical future person). A person with a disability understandably doesn't want to think of themselves as having lesser intrinsic value as a person, or to focus unnecessarily on the negative aspects of their disability (especially when it's immutable). But some advocates turn that into a strange proscription on pre-emptively avoiding that disability or ameliorating it early on, as we see in this piece. The debate among deaf (or "Deaf") people about cochlear implants is another good example of these concerns.
I think some of the rhetoric of trans activism is similar at a philosophical level. An adult who has transitioned and deems it a good choice retrospectively (which is their call) then presumes that such a step is helpful or necessary proactively for another person (often a minor), who may not share the same traits, and (under the affirmative model) cannot "ethically" even be differentially diagnosed. (There often seems little or no recognition of the basic statistical fallacy involved in predicting what should be done for one group based on the experiences of a different, retrospectively selected group.) And as in the disability case, I think there's a lot of emotion involved on the part of trans activists, due to the understandable desire for them to vindicate their own choices, which then gets projected on others.
Superb article. I was particularly struck by the idea that the discounting of disabilities and limitations as mere differences is a wealthy person's privilege (and not even then). The dismissal by these researchers of harmful effects to the fetus due to testosterone administration during pregnancy is simply horrifying.
Almost all humans are eugenicists in truth. Most just don't admit it. Consider mating behavior. Men and women prefer 'attractive' mates. What does 'attractive' mean? Mostly (but not entirely) eugenics.
The vast majority of Americans would regard ‘reducing disability’ as a reasonable NIH goal. However, they don’t count. The ‘woke’ fanatics UD (Utterly Dominate) the debate. The ‘woke’ fanatics may be small in number (they are), but the are very elite (hence powerful) and very noisy. To use an obvious analogy, the vast majority of Americans regard being overweight as both unattractive and medically dangerous. However the ‘Fatphobia’ nuts dominate the debate. Since, the ‘woke’ control essentially everything (the media, Hollywood, academia, K-12 Education, NGOs, SV, Tech, Wall Street, the FBI/CIA/military, corporate America, etc.), the recent ravings of the NIH are no surprise.
My biggest concern is the stifling of progress to relieve stressors caused by profound disability and disease pathology. Even if, the highly individualistic and identity-centric culture of the moment has led to disability advocates seeing even positive status changes as threatening, the selfishness and dissonance to impede curative work for individuals truly hoping for a better life, should not be given serious weight when considering the goals of therapy based research.
Perhaps theirs is a dysfunctional expression of a hyper-focus on inherited traits and status acquired without control or contribution, within a society that has gone beyond acceptance and equity, to celebrating and rewarding disadvantaged groups. Or equally possible, a misguided emotional defense against the crushing acceptance of an incurable condition, which I suspect is a refrain sung higher in those populations who really have no real options, as opposed to those with accessible treatment who are busy working to get better.
The concept of curing a disease as a negative attack on an individual’s identity is not only frightening and illogical, but sadly not uncommon if you consider the large numbers of people opposed to vaccination and other accepted treatments in favor of folk medicine internet misinformation, or even plain quackery. Education, outreach, and other social interventions that promote access to preventative and social support should be applied equally with disabled advocates who would limit others opportunities of a better life for no reason but selfish ones.
Thank you so much for writing this. I was born with a disability in both hands. Luckily, it hasn't affected me too much though I had multiple surgeries as a child and adolescent. If I could, I would absolutely prefer to have two "normal" hands. It infuriates me that these luxury beliefs are being championed by anyone, let alone doctors.
In my experience, the people who insist that a disability is actually a strength have not lived with one and are ignorant of the hardships people with disabilities and their caregivers face.
Haven't they told you? You're just "differently abled"!
I remember the first time I heard that phrase wondering to myself why people in HR departments were speaking to grown adults as if they were children. I mean, I'm a lifelong liberal, but even I understand that not all disabilities are mental ones, and that the vast majority of people who have a disability do not need to be condescended to in such a way.
Such is the progressive obsession with language that we've actually come to believe we can eliminate suffering just by changing the way we talk about things. It's well intentioned, to an extent, but counterproductive all the same.
Agreed. It's cruel to define someone by a disability they have, but it seems worse than useless to pretend (and insist that everyone else pretend) that a disability is not a disability. Either it's not a disability (and thus requires no additional accommodation) or it is and we should stop being neurotic about how we talk about it.
It's interesting, and not coincidental, that this came out of an article about trans issues. I think there's a connection between this expansive definition of "eugenics" and some kinds of trans activism, based on a philosophical error. (It might well have an official name, I'm not sure.) It's a confusion between looking at one's self retrospectively and looking at the future of someone else (often a hypothetical future person). A person with a disability understandably doesn't want to think of themselves as having lesser intrinsic value as a person, or to focus unnecessarily on the negative aspects of their disability (especially when it's immutable). But some advocates turn that into a strange proscription on pre-emptively avoiding that disability or ameliorating it early on, as we see in this piece. The debate among deaf (or "Deaf") people about cochlear implants is another good example of these concerns.
I think some of the rhetoric of trans activism is similar at a philosophical level. An adult who has transitioned and deems it a good choice retrospectively (which is their call) then presumes that such a step is helpful or necessary proactively for another person (often a minor), who may not share the same traits, and (under the affirmative model) cannot "ethically" even be differentially diagnosed. (There often seems little or no recognition of the basic statistical fallacy involved in predicting what should be done for one group based on the experiences of a different, retrospectively selected group.) And as in the disability case, I think there's a lot of emotion involved on the part of trans activists, due to the understandable desire for them to vindicate their own choices, which then gets projected on others.
Superb article. I was particularly struck by the idea that the discounting of disabilities and limitations as mere differences is a wealthy person's privilege (and not even then). The dismissal by these researchers of harmful effects to the fetus due to testosterone administration during pregnancy is simply horrifying.
I researched this a bit. Testosterone is considered to be a teratogen. See "Fury over 'insane' call to let pregnant trans men take testosterone despite risk to babies - as woke, Government-funded researchers claim gender-affirming care is more important than having a 'normal' kid" (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-12314559/Pregnant-trans-men-able-testosterone-despite-defect-risk-babies-living-right-gender-important-having-normal-kid-claim-woke-researchers.html). Quote "The US Food and Drug Administration classifies testosterone as a 'Category X' while pregnant."
Almost all humans are eugenicists in truth. Most just don't admit it. Consider mating behavior. Men and women prefer 'attractive' mates. What does 'attractive' mean? Mostly (but not entirely) eugenics.
The vast majority of Americans would regard ‘reducing disability’ as a reasonable NIH goal. However, they don’t count. The ‘woke’ fanatics UD (Utterly Dominate) the debate. The ‘woke’ fanatics may be small in number (they are), but the are very elite (hence powerful) and very noisy. To use an obvious analogy, the vast majority of Americans regard being overweight as both unattractive and medically dangerous. However the ‘Fatphobia’ nuts dominate the debate. Since, the ‘woke’ control essentially everything (the media, Hollywood, academia, K-12 Education, NGOs, SV, Tech, Wall Street, the FBI/CIA/military, corporate America, etc.), the recent ravings of the NIH are no surprise.
My biggest concern is the stifling of progress to relieve stressors caused by profound disability and disease pathology. Even if, the highly individualistic and identity-centric culture of the moment has led to disability advocates seeing even positive status changes as threatening, the selfishness and dissonance to impede curative work for individuals truly hoping for a better life, should not be given serious weight when considering the goals of therapy based research.
Perhaps theirs is a dysfunctional expression of a hyper-focus on inherited traits and status acquired without control or contribution, within a society that has gone beyond acceptance and equity, to celebrating and rewarding disadvantaged groups. Or equally possible, a misguided emotional defense against the crushing acceptance of an incurable condition, which I suspect is a refrain sung higher in those populations who really have no real options, as opposed to those with accessible treatment who are busy working to get better.
The concept of curing a disease as a negative attack on an individual’s identity is not only frightening and illogical, but sadly not uncommon if you consider the large numbers of people opposed to vaccination and other accepted treatments in favor of folk medicine internet misinformation, or even plain quackery. Education, outreach, and other social interventions that promote access to preventative and social support should be applied equally with disabled advocates who would limit others opportunities of a better life for no reason but selfish ones.