#Eugenics mention

[hellsitegenetics]

I keep reading your name as hellsite eugenics

evil hellsitegenetics blog where instead of showing you a cool bug or a coral it just gets really racist

[prokopetz]

I grew up before autism was widely talked about, but it's indisputable that nerd culture and austistic culture have always had a big overlap, and I'm not gonna lie, whenever I see folks on Tumblr arguing that autistic people are intrinsically more politically enlightened than neurotypicals, I'm reminded of Usenet chatter from twenty-five years ago talking about how nerds have physically superior brains and what we really need to turn society around is laws to prevent stupid people from breeding. I'm not the only one seeing that parallel, right?

[tabby-shieldmaiden]

My intrusive thoughts: “Hey, maybe the fact that your University graduate parents wanted you and planned for you was a sign that you weren’t actually a soul which needed to be here. Maybe that’s why you don’t intuitively understand yourself and your likes and dislikes. God didn’t push through to put you here, he just conceded to one-and-a-half mortals’ demands. Maybe that’s why you can’t stand the thought of who your “true self” could possibly be. Maybe that’s why you’re meant to be just a faceless member of society.”

My agnostic thoughts: “Or maybe you’re just tired and hungry and mad at everyone and dehydrated and about to start your period.”

[daloy-politsey]

Not this shit again

[real-fire-emblem-takes]

ok i know that crest bad and more than one crest very bad but consider this:

eugenics emblem superbaby in some unholy mecha made up of every single relic weapon

just a 12 yo completely covered in the equivalent of a roman catholic catacomb's worth of dead dragon

/

[catgirl-catboy]

Reminder that if you think some disabled people can't have sex, you support eugenics!

So long as all parties involved are adults and give informed consent, it's none of your business.

Yes, this applies to whatever disability you think it doesn't, too! End of story.

[just-antithings]

The "people should take a test to decide if they're mentally fit enough to consent" thing sounds like eugenics. Obviously it's ableist to the core, and in practice it would probably be racist and classist too (judging by tests like the SAT or IQ tests).

👆👆👆👆

[wheat-singularity]

Reading flatland

Expectation: philosophical/mathematical treatise on life in a 2d world, metaphor for our own limited perspective

Reality: polygon eugenics

[trekessayist]

Eugenics in Star Trek: a Disabled Perspective on Genetic Augmentation

Not the essay I wanted to write, to be honest, but I was scrolling through the DS9 tag and violently reminded of the dubiousness that Augments are treated with by the writers. It has never sat right with me how Augments get treated, both in-universe and by writers.

So let me start by pointing out that I think some of the Augment storylines were really well-written, and others sucked. Enterprise's Augment storyline sticks out as the absolute worst of the bunch, though apparently that was one of the better-received storylines. But I digress.

The problem with Augments is that, of course, their concept is based in eugenics. They're established in Space Seed to be remnants of a worse time on earth, people "improved" so much by genetic alteration that they believe themselves to be the superior humans, going so far as to wish to kill other humans. They're a very clear reason why genetic augmentation as a whole was banned on earth, later carrying over to Federation law as well.

This includes ALL forms of genetic augmentation, with no nuance. This becomes especially clear when it comes to Illyrians, who are banned from joining the Federation and Starfleet despite arguably genetically augmenting their own bodies for a noble purpose.

In Deep Space Nine, this culminates in Julian Bashir having to hide his status as an Augment to be able to have a career. It's clearly a sore point for him, and he really struggles with the concept of his authenticity as a person. I'm reminded of the one post talking about how Kukalaka, his teddy bear, serves as a physical reminder that even before his father took him to be augmented, he was fixing up or "healing" his teddy bear when it was broken or "sick", that becoming a doctor was in that sense the only path that felt authentic to his personality.

The other Deep Space Nine Augment storyline involves Julian's efforts to help a group of Augments who came out of the process still "defective". Which is still a great storyline in my opinion, despite its flaws.

And I understand that the Federation attitude towards Augments is an example of an idealistic society that isn't flawless, which is in many ways what DS9 represented as a whole. So I feel the storyline is very much relevant to the series.

Still, the issues it (and later Augment storylines) presents are painful to watch, especially as a disabled person whose struggles are largely genetic issues exacerbated by their interaction with one another in my body.

In the first place, while I understand the decision to outlaw genetic modification as planet earth, or even as the Federation, because I understand why the decision was made, I don't feel that that's a proportional response to what happened in the past. As mentioned before, even beneficial genetic augmentations are banned, as seen with the Illyrians. That means that for people with genetic diseases cannot get meaningful help in a time and place where that should definitely be possible.

Looking at what I experience, should I be expected to consume painkillers my entire life? Physical therapy twice a week to keep up the strength in my muscles? Spend time having ligaments and tendons regenerated every so often? When a small genetic alteration could be a cure that doesn't require repeating? Degenerative diseases and conditions will degenerate if you don't continuously control them, even in the utopia of Star Trek.

So in the first place, the complete disallowance of genetic augmentation in the Federation is harmful. But then what do you do with people who were augmented either way, as a humane and just society? Especially when they didn't have a choice in the matter because they were a child? Do you accept them and take care of them, recognising that if you teach a child it is fundamentally different and therefore deserving of ostracisation and scorn, it will start to hate those who are different from it? Will you allow them to lead normal lives, with normal careers, like normal people? Will they be allowed to have children and start families, like normal people? Will you allow them the dignity of a peaceful life?

No, why would you? The ones that turn out poorly are tossed into a hole and forgotten about! The ones that turn out well you presumably don't hear about, because they can hide it better! Ignore the problem exists, why not? Whatever could go wrong?

Which then also becomes difficult to watch as a disabled person, because that's what the "failed" Augments are, they're disabled. Whether they display autistic traits or OCD symptoms or other mental (or physical) impairments, they are disabled. They may or may not have been disabled before their augmentation, but they certainly are now. And so their treatment becomes an issue of how the Federation treats its disabled citizens. And the answer seems to be: not very well!

So the ongoing storylines with Augments, and the 'organic android' storyline in Picard season 1, are two different sides of what is essentially only a debate on disability rights, and whether or not we deserve to exist. It's a conversation that gets so little nuance from the shows, but one that requires it.

The show could have gone the nuanced route. Legalise genetic augmentation so you can regulate it. Outlaw the modification of children and those who cannot consent. Give people the choice to change their bodies, should they desire or see a need to. The better you regulate it, the more you can prevent cases like the people in DS9, the more you can use the techniques to help people, the less you ostracise the people who did get augmented or who would like to get augmented.

But instead, all sides of the conversation within the series are advocating for eugenics, for genocide. Khan and his Augments, wanted to eradicate non-Augments, who they see as lesser, as inhibited, as small. Richard Bashir, and presumably the parents of the other augments, wanted to get rid of their children's disabilities and impairments. And the Federation is trying to eradicate Augments, by denying them lives, livelihoods, by ostracising and scorning them and throwing those you can visibly tell are different into a cell somewhere you don't have to think about them.

And I, as a disabled person, would simply like to watch Star Trek without being reminded that people would want me dead.

[fancyfade]

Talia and Ra's interactions

JLA 45

Anyway this is validating some of this mid plotline.

Should note that Batman Chronicles 8, where Talia partakes in the attempted assassination of Bruce (and just decides not to do it at the end) is a case before this where Talia participated in assassination. I guess Mark Waid was reading DCUguide comics chronology for Talia, which leaves that comic out for some reason. :P

A no prize explanation could be if she considers the fact that it was just between her Ra's and Bruce and Ra's was clearly using it to test/prove her loyalty means it's different. IDK.

[stardoodledust35]

Okay I need to settle an argument with a friend (I am on those side of the mold made her homophobic for transparency)*

*my propaganda

1. There's already a precedent for it , because it made Jack Baker sexist

2. Eveline was raised by the connections who are pretty much eugenicists and work for Mother Miranda, a Catholic eugenicist, so the people she grew up around probably didn't have a good view of gay people

3. Building on the last point, Eveline, as we know, projects her feelings onto the Bakers when she infects them, and if she knew "gay people bad" then she would likely project that belief onto Marguerite

[arovaricious]

End intersex surgery

Give all bodies our autonomy

Fight against eugenics

[prokopetz]

"Oh no, [game publisher] was doing so well reforming their depiction of [biologically evil fantasy species], why did they suddenly backtrack" they didn't backtrack, bro – that was the plan all along. It's a trick.

One of the standard ploys in the gaming industry whenever they get pushback about how depicting a particular fantasy species as biologically evil isn't a good look is to do a little storyline that's like "no, see, there were some good ones, but then the bad ones killed them all; they made themselves biologically evil through self-imposed eugenics policies, so that makes depicting them like that okay".

Popular game publishers have been doing this song and dance for thirty years. Hell, Wizards of the Coast in particular has done it at least half a dozen times in that span.

[coolerdracula]

like if you’re obsessed with mr “no personality traits other than loving eugenics” maybe you don’t have to derive your online aesthetic from his actions of … *checks notes* loving doing eugenics. just a thought. maybe we don’t have to center our whole “thing” around the fictional nazi. have we considered that

[whumpinggrounds]

Writing Disability and Eugenics

Hello! Two things -

One is that I am going to tag this appropriately (feel free to @ me if I miss one) but will be straightforward in the post. This is a post about eugenics. Please do not engage with it if it is going to upset you.

Two: This is adjacent to disability, and that is what I mostly make these long advice posts about, so I’m including it in my Disability Writing Guides thingy. I will do my best to address racism in the history of eugenics, but obviously will not be able to fully address ableism and racism and eugenics in one Tumblr post. Additions are greatly appreciated! So are any thoughts, questions, or criticisms. I read all the notes on these posts and my ask box is open, so feel free to speak up <3

Vocab

Eugenics is defined as the study or practice of arranging human reproduction in order to increase heritable traits regarded as “desirable.”

Positive eugenics refers to the practice of encouraging people with “desirable” traits to have children. An example is believing that smart people should have more children to increase the number of smart people in the world.

Negative eugenics refers to the practice of discouraging or preventing people with “undesirable” traits from having children. An example of this would be forced sterilization of a person with a medical condition.

“New” or “liberal” eugenics refers to the contemporary eugenics movement and believes in enhancing human characteristics through reproductive technology and human genetic engineering. Proponents believe that the practice should be permitted, though the state should not be involved, and it should be left to informed parental choice.

“Designer babies” is a provocative term used to evoke the idea of parents selecting or “designing” their child’s genes, in order to control for everything from genetic medical conditions, to eye color or height.

Genetic engineering is the process of using lab-based technology to alter the DNA makeup of an organism. Use of this in humans is what would lead to so-called “designer babies.”

Scientific racism or biological racism is the pseudo-scientific or false belief that there is empirical evidence that proves the superiority of one or some races over others.

Racial hygiene is the racist, pseudo-scientific idea that preventing people of different races from “interbreeding” would keep races “pure” and ensure the prevalence of traits associated with that race.

Genetic screening is the process of testing people for genetic diseases to identify if they have the disease or the potential to pass it to their children.

Sterilization is a medical term referring to a procedure that renders someone permanently unable to have children. This can be performed in a variety of ways on people with any genitalia.

Reproductive technology is a broad term that refers to any technology used to aid or change reproduction. A common example is IVF (in-vitro fertilization) therapy to assist individuals struggling with infertility.

Biological or genetic determinism is the belief that genetic makeup determines everything about a person, from appearance to cognition to personality. Someone who believes in genetic determinism would say humans are “all nature, no nurture.”

Social darwinism is the theory that the principles of Darwinism also act on individuals, groups, and societies. In short, that “survival of the fittest” does and even should apply to humans, races, and societies as well as animals.

History of Eugenics

Often, the discussion of eugenics begins and ends with Hitler and the Nazi party. While the Nazis certainly were avowed eugenicists, eugenics has a history before and after World War 2. As usual, I’m going to highlight some key points, but am not able to lay out an exhaustive history in this here Tumblr post. Apologies.

Eugenics is thought to have “begun” with Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin, who believed that the human race could be improved by “selective breeding.” He believed in so-called social Darwinism, and believed that its outcomes should be expanded and refined by science. He is the one who came up with the term eugenics. It is worth noting that Charles Darwin himself strongly disagreed with his cousin’s theories.

In reality, what Galton did was give a name to a phenomenon that had existed at least since Plato, who suggested “selectively breeding” humans as early as 400 BCE. People with “undesirable” traits had been discriminated against for centuries, including in regards to reproduction. The only thing that Francis Galton truly created was the idea of eugenics as a scientific concept. 

The early eugenics movement began in the United Kingdom and spread quickly through Western and colonized countries. It was seen as a purely good thing, and was supported across the political spectrum. Consequently, many countries and governments started official eugenics programs, employing both positive and negative eugenic strategies. These included massive human rights abuses primarily targeted at historically marginalized populations, like racial minorities and the disabled.

Eugenics became associated with Nazi Germany as Hitler and his followers attempted to create a “pure” Aryan race, through both traditional eugenic methods as well as mass genocide. At the Nuremberg trials where many Nazis faced justice, it was argued that there was little difference between Nazi eugenic programs and their US counterparts.

Until this point, eugenics had been widely popular and considered in a positive light. Following World War 2, with new beliefs and emphasis on human rights, eugenic programs were shut down and disavowed, though some Western countries (including the US, but also Sweden and Canada) quietly continued their eugenic practices for decades.

Since the 1980s and 90s, as reproductive technology improves, there has been increasing discussion around use and further development of this technology. Critics fear that this will mean a new and more dangerous revival of eugenics, while proponents argue that the new technology could mean an end to genetic disease and a new era of increased parental choice.

What Does Eugenics or Eugenic Thinking Look Like?

When people think eugenics, generally they imagine forced sterilization or sterilization without full informed consent. This absolutely is eugenics, but the picture is both bigger and more complex than that.

Sterilizing someone without their consent is a eugenic practice. There are well-documented histories of this happening to low income communities, people of color, and disabled people.

It still happens today when parents or guardians of cognitively, intellectually, or developmentally disabled individuals give permission for them to be sterilized. It is still a eugenic practice to sterilize a person without their consent, even if that person would be unable to consent to having a child.

Encouraging the abortion of a certain type of fetus is a eugenic practice, even when that fetus is likely to be born with a serious medical condition.

Reminder that eugenics occurs on the population level. An individual parent who decides to abort their fetus may be acting in accordance with eugenic beliefs, but individual choice is not eugenics. Urging anyone in that position to abort their child is.

Example for clarity: Jo decides to abort their fetus because a prenatal screening showed that the child would likely be born with Down Syndrome. This is not eugenics.

Jo writes about their experience and publishes it in a local newspaper. They explain that they aborted their fetus because they felt that the fetus would be better off and because they believed it was best to choose to have “healthy” children. They advise others to take advantage of genetic screening and do the same. This is eugenics.

Widespread genetic screening, when paired with encouraged abortion of certain fetuses, can be considered a eugenic practice. If screening is conducted to prepare for a child that may have unanticipated support needs, this is not eugenic.

Creating an incentive for certain groups to be sterilized or have less children is a eugenic practice. An example would be in California, when inmates were offered a sentence reduction if they agreed to be sterilized.

Embryo selection is a process in which medical professionals performing IVF screen embryos for genetic abnormalities and only implant embryos that do not present with genetic abnormalities, even against the wishes of parents. This is a eugenic practice.

Saying certain types of people should not have children is eugenic thinking. This is not limited to racial or ethnic minorities or disabled people. It extends to pretty much any group, from religious people to drug users to Republicans.

For example: Terry believes people diagnosed with schizophrenia should not have kids. Schizophrenia is thought to have a genetic basis, so the kids might inherit it from their parent, and Terry feels that this is a bad thing. Even if they do not, she believes schizophrenic people make bad parents and that the world would be better off without schizophrenic parents. This is eugenic thinking.

Believing that complex personality or identity features can be located within specific genes is genetic determinism, which is closely tied to eugenics. It is not necessarily eugenic thinking on its own, but the question of what decisions and screenings would happen if these genes were determined is eugenic.

For example: For many years, scientists have searched for a “gay” gene which controls sexuality on a genetic level. Believing this gene exists is genetic determinism. Finding this gene and attempting to eliminate or expand it in the human gene pool is eugenics.

Believing that certain people should have more children because the world should have more people like them is eugenics. It is positive eugenics, but it’s still eugenics.

For example: Loren thinks that Canadians are kinder and more peaceful than other people. He thinks that Canadians should have more kids, because the world would be a better place if there were more Canadians. This is eugenic thinking.

Ethical Implications

In the past, the primary reason eugenics was morally unacceptable was because it was used against marginalized populations for bigoted reasons. This continues to be an argument against eugenics today - it is easy to designate a group of people as problematic and then attempt to unjustly eliminate that population through eugenic means. Deciding that the world would be better off with fewer or no members of a group is bigoted and inherently offensive.

In 1968′s Proclamation of Tehran, the right to reproduce was named as a basic human right. Thus any negative eugenic practice can be considered a human rights violation.

Some believe that eugenics policies, both positive and negative, reduce genetic diversity and will lead to an overall increase in genetic problems. Others believe that trying to create genetic lines that are “pure” and free of “disorders” could create issues years in the future by reducing population level resilience and immunity to disease.

Many people simply believe it is unethical to try to eliminate any particular group from the world.

I am not going to discuss the reasoning behind “old” or “traditional” eugenics. It’s bigotry, plain and simple.

Proponents of new eugenics believe in it for very different reasons. They argue that parents owe it to their offspring to select fetuses that are going to have the happiest, easiest lives. 

Others argue that there are some disabilities or conditions that are so painful and lead to lives that are so unrewarding, that it is better that babies who would be born with these conditions never live at all.

This may sound unequivocally awful, and from a disability justice framework, it is pretty awful. However, me reducing this argument to a Disney-villain “disabled people don’t deserve to live” would be dishonest. In thinking about this final point, and the new eugenics movement broadly, it is important to remember that there are some genetic conditions that do seem to cause relentless suffering.

One commonly cited example is Tay-Sachs disease, which is an incurable and fatal condition in which degenerative symptoms progress and kill the child, usually by age 4. Should we allow babies to be born with Tay-Sachs if it can be avoided? New eugenics says no, or at the very least, it is ethically sound for parents to be able make that decision themselves.

Think Twice About

As always I’m not going to tell anyone what to write, or what not to write. I am only saying that these are things you should think about and understand the implications of if you are writing them!

Think about the logic underlying prenatal screenings and abortion of affected fetuses. If this features in your writing, is a fear the characters have, or in any way touches your story, think about what messages your characters have consumed. What do they believe, and why? What do you believe, and why?

In sci-fi or fantasy settings, disabled people are sometimes erased because society has “progressed” to the point where people with disabilities are no longer born. Please think hard about why this would be considered the mark of an advanced society.

Selection based on intelligence or cognitive ability also counts as eugenics, as does selection based on physical attractiveness. Why are these things important? How are they measured, and who determines what the standards are?

If your story involves controlling reproduction in specific populations, think about why this is. Controlled reproduction has a very long and painful history for many racial and ethnic groups, as well as disabled populations and low income people. Especially if this is framed as a good thing, please consider what message this sends.

If complex personal features are or seem to be passed through genetics, please be cautious in how you write this. I understand how genetics works, and that it is realistic for some traits to be passed from parent to child. There are still situations in which writing about this invites speculation about the controlling of reproduction.

For example: If the child of a rapist is shown to be a rapist, it could be inferred that this behavior has a genetic basis. If the child of someone with magical powers has those magical powers, the same could be inferred. In your story, would this lead to the sterilization of criminals or the selective breeding of superpowered people? Why or why not?

If your story includes situations in which traits are diluted or lost because one group is reproducing with another group, understand that you’re introducing the principles of racial hygiene into your story. Be aware of this messaging. I’m not saying that every trait has to be expressed in every child, but the widespread dilution or loss of specific group-associated traits due to out-group reproduction is something to frame very carefully.

Resources

Caste: The Origins of Our Discontents by Isabel Wilkerson describes racism in America and is a thoughtful, thorough history of eugenic practices in the United States. It focuses primarily on eugenics as it relates to race.

This Podcast Will Kill You is a podcast that is free on Spotify and has an episode talking about eugenics, which features a researcher who primarily works on and writes about eugenics and its history.

The rest of this is all sci-fi so I’m making a separate subheader for it

Brave New World by Aldous Huxley is a dystopian sci-fi novel set in a world that has used eugenics to standardize and control the population.

Star Trek intersects with eugenic ideas a few different times over its many iterations, notably in the character Khan Noonien Singh.

In Dr. Who, eugenics is personified through the Dalek race.

The Dune series contains eugenic themes (cannot speak to the movie, talking about Bene Gesserit in the books)

In Ender’s Game reproduction is tightly controlled and children are “bred” for specific traits and abilities.

Gattaca very famously features a dystopian eugenic society.

As always, I welcome additions, questions, and constructive criticism, either on this post or in my ask box! Happy writing!

[ikoninovelist]

Have you heard? The "eeby spokesperson" finally snapped and tried to kill someone! All the proof we need that these Pokemon are dangerous, and that we shouldn't let them be out and about, let alone serving food to someone!

What are you on about? Eeby Deebys are not dangerous! Also, I think you mean "these people"?

If you had half an idea how much pride Gen takes in his craft you know he wouldn't waste food just to kill some rando! You people will just believe anything that feeds into your self-righteous hatred!

If you were looking for an ally for your sick crusade, you came to the wrong place anon. Stop being a coward and show your face if you really think you're on the side of Arceus you eugenecist sicko!