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.
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.
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.
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.