Article from November 2011: 'Eugenics and the practice of transgendering children'

[RainWithSunnySpells]

https://theconversation.com/eugenics-and-the-practice-of-transgendering-children-3838

It ends:
'Decades after the sterilisation of the unfit was mostly abandoned, a similar practice is increasingly being carried out on children who are considered to be innately “transgender” because they are disobeying culturally acceptable gender roles.
As happened with eugenic practices of the past, many progressive people including many feminists, feel that transgendering children is a reasonable practice and have not yet begun to criticise it.'

What I found interesting was reading the article and the comments given what is happening now, 12 and a bit years later.

Thank you, interesting point!

I have been told in the past that it is impossible to compare Gender Affirming Care with Eugenics because people want and ask for GAC. However that view does depend on the sterilisation of people due to E being always imposed on someone who does not want it. There is evidence that sterilisation did occur through choice (or coercion) as shown below.

There is evidence that sterilisation did occur through choice (or coercion) as shown below.

At the risk of sounding like Hardy's Father Time, I never felt other than a burden to my parents. They spoke as if we'd imposed ourselves on them and they'd had nothing to do with it. We drained their finances. Except that nobody could ever mention the daily alcohol consumption or betting habit that we couldn't afford.

One of my siblings fell below the high education achievements of the rest of us (nothing to do with our chaotic and dysfunctional lives with bouts of homelessness, of course). My father was known to say, "How could I have fathered that?".

Given the levels of self-esteem we had, and the previous emphasis on the heritability of addiction, it would have been trivially easy to persuade us to be sterilised.

I read on here somewhere the phrase "trans away the gay" ...

That's what's happening to many children and teenagers. There's now considerable evidence that these children are being persuaded that their complex feelings / pubertal angst means they've been born in the wrong body & changing sex is the solution. Left alone many of them would grow up to be lesbian / gay but instead they're put on a one way path to transitioning.

I dont think that parents or guardians collluding with a medical solution to trans identity is about eugenics, because eugenics imply a conscious decision to sterilies someone because they are thought not to be good enough to have children, or from some sense of a country must only have inhabitants of some supposed "pure blood".

However, it isn't surprising that a well known revolutionary feminist like Sheila Jeffries would go for an eye catching headline. But would have thought her feminism would be enough to argue against medicalising trans identities.

I thought she had had a book recently published but cant find it. This is her web site https://sheila-jeffreys.com/

Also this interview which shows how much more entrenched TRA dictats are now. Julie Bindel interviewing Sheila Jeffreys in the Guardian!! https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/jul/02/gender.politicsphilosophyandsociety

Yes, internalised homophobia and medicalising normal human development is rife. As is a lack of how autism presents in girls in particular. Plenty of homophobic parents (see Mermaids story) would rather have a trans 'daughter' than a gay son. TV reality show, 'I am Jazz' illustrates this perfectly and horrifically.

We're letting down a generation of vulnerable children with all this. Happening in plain sight and we're unable to stop it.

This US story is an harrowing example of a homophobic parent not accepting her toddler son’s gentler more effeminate ways (compared to his more macho older brothers). She actually admits beating the tiny child for liking the ‘wrong’ things then when aged 4 he not surprisingly begins to speak about ‘going to Jesus’ she relents and decides God gave her a girl.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cuIkLNsRtas

Eugenics, to my mind, can be both the kind of conscious control that we think of with the Nazis etc, which is an authoritarian approach.

But it can also be done at an individual level due to ingrained social ideas and values. Like daughters exposed at birth because the family values boys more. Or sometimes, because they know that the reality is they cannot afford the ruinous costs of another daughter and must have a son to secure the future of the whole family. Social and economic pressures, and values around things like physical or intellectual abnormalities, can drive the decisions of a whole society, but at an individual level. The result is the same, the non-valued characteristics are removed from the population.

I still consider that that's a eugenicist way of thinking and living, and in a way it's almost worse than a situation where an evil elite are pushing these things on others, because it's completely accepted as normal by most.

But those supporting medical transitioning aren't doing because they think the child shouldn't have children. They think they are doing something positive, and no doubt would be part of any medical experiment to give men fake wombs etc..

The medicalisation is seem as positive and affirmative of the "trans" child. An immediate response to something happening now. There is no thought of the future eg long term medication and yes no children.

Although we now many trans men have babies and some trans women have fathered children.

Eugenics is having a negative concept of the person being sterilised.

Trans surgery is seen as positive and affirmative. Potential procreation is part of their perspective.

There are some parents who would rather their children “changed sex” than tell everyone their kids are gay. We all know it’s not possible to change. And the drugs have not been tested over time. Whilst there are real instances of gender dysphoria- they are not at all common. It’s social media peer pressure and social contagion. Look at the websites of “Trans regretters” or “Transman scottnewgent” They have an excellent working knowledge of this.

Removing the fertility of hundreds of thousands of autistic kids sounds pretty eugenics-y to me.

the medics know this is an effect. And they do it anyway.

And they do it anyway.

All sorts of treatments have side effects.

It is just silly, and undermines the fact that there are people who believe in eugenics, to try and say that either parents or medical staff and starting people off on a medical pathway of transitioning because actually their motive is eugenics.

The fact that some people and children aware of this side effect of medical transitioning, just shows how captured members of the public and the medical profession are by the trans narrative.

I have no idea why Sheila Jeffries thought raising this red herring would in any way help undermine the arguement for medical transitioning.

Particularly as this forum is for GC feminists/ism, would have thought the GC feminist arguement was itself more than enough to challenge to trans narrative.