pineknollshoresking said:I'm not saying the two are comparable; rather, how science can be flawed and perceived sound. That is why science is something I take with skepticism...Civilized said:pineknollshoresking said:
What science do you think this was?
Point well taken Cary, although I think the analogy is imperfect, as most analogies are.
Eugenics involves trying to improve the gene pool utilizing forced sterilization, marriage prohibitions, or at their worst human extermination of populations deemed inferior or unfit to reproduce.
The fundamental distinction between eugenics and transgender transitioning is the transition is seen not just as voluntary but as desirable by the person undertaking it AND the idea of not transitioning is causing the person significant emotional distress.
Involuntary, inhumane, and in some cases torturous or fatal is fundamentally different than voluntary and desirable and distress-relieving.
I hear you. And mores change over time too. How eugenics was judged 100 years ago is definitely different from how it's judged now.
How gender transitions are judged 100 years from now may well be different than how it is judged today.
I don't think that difference is as much science-related as it is underlying ethics though.
In the case of eugenics, there was a clear violation or robbery by the state of the consent, reproductive rights, or in worst cases the life of those affected. It was putting the perceived good of the state or population over the individual.
What is the ethical analogy here? How will gender transitions, especially of younger people, be judged differently in 100 years than now?
The situation is certainly absent the issues related to the consent or rights or life of those affected since transitioning is voluntary and desirable and intended to be distress-relieving and completely focused on the well-being of the individual, as judged by that individual and the team of trained experts around them.
