is dedicated to the acceptance, medical treatment, and legal protection of individuals correcting the misalignment of their brains and their anatomical sex, while supporting their transition into society as hormonally reconstituted and surgically corrected citizens.
Springfield, VA, USA. Those of us born transsexual ("Classic", HBS, whatever) had (or still have) a correctable medical condition.
Despite the preexistent nature of our birth condition, critics on both the social left and social right often characterize our striving for surgical correction as an example of making a wholly optional lifestyle choice.
But how can that be so when it is a medical condition identified at birth? And why should the critics be in control anyway? Shouldn't the right to personal liberty prevail?
The story of human social development contains within it an important component: a continuing desire for enhanced abilities and improved prospects. These yearnings can take the form of formal religion, scientific investigation, or political activism. All of them, and more, can reach fruition as positive contributions to human progress or write dark and terrible chapters in a downward spiral toward sociopathic authoritarianism.
Transsexuals, like people everywhere, try to find their way in the midst of bewildering attempts to corral and categorize them for processing by those who set themselves up as their judges. But let's leave the potential oppressors out of the discussion for a moment and consider the debate that goes on among ourselves. Do we really want to know the origin of a misalignment between our brains and anatomical sex?
Adobe Flash Player not installed or older than 9.0.115!
Eugenics Movement. Adherents of eugenics ("eugenicists") advocate intervention to ensure the transmission of "favorable" human hereditary traits to ensure the optimization of human beings. Eugenicists regard their motivations as altruistic, a matter of social responsibility.
They mean to create more people who are healthy and intelligent, figuring they will be more efficient (which saves resources) and homogeneous (which in their view would alleviate human suffering).
Opponents argue that eugenics is an immoral social philosophy that depends on pseudoscientific trappings for its persuasion. Critics like G. K. Chesterton ranked eugenics as one of the great modern evils.
Video: Time 09:33
Some say no, it does not matter. What matters is what we do about it. Besides, the more detailed the knowledge of our birth condition becomes, the more strident becomes the objection of critics to our existence. What would happen if our critics could control the information? Would we be hounded out of society or worse, pinned wriggling like a butterfly on an examining table?
I certainly agree with one part of that: I had no choice in how I was born, but I did have final say in what I did about it. We do this in a culture that values motives more than actions, effort more than results, and impugns design on simple acts of charity. If discussion surrounds birth defects, breast cancer, a broken leg, or any number of medical conditions, critics are mainly silent. However, matters of sex and gender can raise accusations that lifestyle choices and indulgent desires guide our actions.
Where do these accusations come from? Are such motives so imbued in our culture that everyone's actions are automatically suspect? And what of those who do not conform to the expectations of those who would coerce social development to satisfy their own ends?
Egalitarianism vs Competition
Americans (and others) have struggled since the nation's founding to reconcile egalitarian principles with desires for competitive superiority. The USA's historical narrative tells the tale of America's struggle to both eliminate slavery and the unequal treatment of people on the basis of sex, race, medical conditions, the circumstances of their birth, and other arbitrary criteria.
And yet, we still find the residue of European class-consciousness plaguing our deliberations. Some authoritarians among us cloak their condescension in pseudoscientific politics, while other authoritarians game the system to gain artificial advantage. We wind up with a sorry list of excuses by whiners for what is, at best, rude behavior. At worst, we live in peril of a takeover by genocidal maniacs.
In the end, otherwise dissimilar people have underlying assumptions that are very nearly interchangeable when they decide to engineer social development. We all have our personal favorites. Consider how this plays out in actual practice and the differences and similarities in my example list of outrages:
creationism, the designated hitter, falsifying scientific data, gender studies,
Washington, DC, USA. The typical US election for president and congress is a hard sprint toward the finish line. Everything is under tight control, with campaign appearances scheduled for friendly audiences at a considerable ...
Fairfax, VA, USA. As a very small and confused girl, struggling with the mystery of my birth, complicated by fire and falling debris, surrounded by the walking wounded of my family, and lacking the vocabulary for any of it, m...
Weston, CT, USA. On 14 December 1807, a "globe of fire" flashed south across Vermont and Massachusetts, culminating in three loud explosions at 6:30 in the morning over Fairfield County, Connecticut.
In their everyday lives,...
Fairfax, VA, USA. The essence of America and what we can bring to the world lies before us, but you wouldn’t know it from the behavior of Democrats and Republicans. The two great engines of our political will ignore the pub...
Fairfax, VA, USA. Ashley Love is the latest in a long line of personal targets identified by Autumn Sandeen for deconstruction, serving no purpose other than fuel for Sandeen’s perpetual self-aggrandizement.
I have nothing...
Fairfax, VA, USA. Whoever we were and whatever we did before transition, the tasks we now face go beyond the bromides of I can get on with my life and I can just be who I am or These days, I can just be.
Children are out the...
Fairfax, VA, USA. The existence of transsexuality is beyond dispute, as evidenced by the large absolute numbers of people who are hormonally reconstituted, surgically corrected, and successfully transitioned into society.
Ge...
Fairfax, VA, USA. We find ourselves swimming in an alphabet soup of heightened expectations in what appears to be a favorable political climate. [N1] Democrats have several legislative proposals pending, but they control the ...
Fairfax, VA, USA. Those of us who live in a democracy have much to be proud of, given the thuggish record of authoritarian regimes. But every democracy requires continuous engagement with securing liberty and extending the be...
Fairfax, VA, USA. TS-Si.org sustained and defeated a Distributed Denial-of-Service (DDoS) attack designed to prevent access by our users and disable certain site features.
The confirmed attack destination was the article ent...
Fairfax, VA, USA. My personal portion of TS-Si.org, Looking Glass, usually carries some weighty meditations on daily life, cross-cultural issues, science policy, allusions to important announcements (e.g., Suzy Cooke's blog),...
Fairfax, VA, USA. Reports of a transsexual gene? The New Scientist recently flashed a breathless headline: 'Transsexuality gene' makes women feel like men, with an accompanying article by Linda Geddes. [C1]
This inaccurate r...
Every so often, a scientific advance comes along that provides a wedge into rationality by dilettantes. Consider the study of genetics. It is, of course, just one step in a series of advances that brought us entreé into the genome.
In biology, the entire hereditary information of an organism is encoded in DNA (or, for some viruses, RNA), including both the genes and the non-coding sequences of the DNA.
A genome is all of an organism's DNA.
We have only begun to understand all of this but that doesn't stop people from advancing questionable social practices — or worse — resurrecting some of the darkest chapters of human folly.
Social movements often do not wait upon facts, so following along on the initial genetic insights came the pseudoscientific field of eugenics. It was simplifying and attractive to have human heritability reduced to the level of simple arithmetic:
A + B = me,
except when a D is around that trumps C and you get
A + B + D = me.
The best part was that this could map easily into a laundry list of specific traits we do not like in others, such as big noses, small breasts, swarthy complextions, or even the elements of disliked political positions. Anyway, it ignores the calculus of the genome.
Adherents of eugenics ("eugenicists") advocate intervention to ensure the transmission of "favorable" human hereditary traits to ensure the optimization of human beings. It is a social philosophy that depends on pseudoscientific trappings for its persuasion. Eugenicists regard their motivations as altruistic, a matter of social responsibility. They mean to create more people who are healthy and intelligent, figuring they will be more efficient (which saves resources) and homogeneous (which would alleviate human suffering).
Self-righteous Eugenicists
Sir Francis Galton formulated the term eugenics and defined its modern study in 1883 [N1]. Galton drew on his misunderstanding of the work done by his second-cousin, Charles Darwin. From the beginning, a group of All-Stars lined up with support. At various times, its supporters included such figures as Charles Elliot, William Keith Kellogg, Margaret Sanger, George Bernard Shaw, H.G. Wells, and Emile Zola.
The geneticist Charles Davenport (1866–1944) was quite popular in his time. The World Magazine published a sensational article in 1907 called The Man of Mystery Who Is Searching for the Secret of Life that launched a lot of interest [N2]. In 1911, he published Heredity in Relation to Eugenics [N3].
Davenport's book was one of the first — and most prominent attempt — to summarize human genetics after Gregor Mendel [N4].
Davenport's ideas for improving 20th century society were very influential. The book was a foundational text for what had become a widespread eugenics movement in the United States, embraced as an accepted academic discipline at many colleges and universities.
The textbook propelled eugenic ideals in the early part of the 20th century to the point that, by the 1920s, nearly three-fourths of high school social science textbooks taught eugenic principles.
The year 1911 also marked the first appearance of Frederick Winslow Taylor's influential monograph on The Principles of Scientific Management [N5].
Taylor devised scientific management as a form of industrial engineering which, along with industrial psychology, moved management theory from early time-and-motion studies to the latest total quality control ideas.
Taylor's work was widely read and became the clarion call for the efficiency movement. This suited the eugenics movement, based as it was on their goals on improving human capabilities and productivity (as they saw them).
The eugenics movement thrived in this atmosphere. Prestigious organizations lined up to support and fund eugenics, including such major players as the Kellogg Foundation, the Carnegie Institution of Washington, the Harriman family, and the Rockefeller Foundation. Eugenicists gained a global venue with three International Eugenics Conferences (London, 1912; New York, 1921 and 1932).
There had been a gathering reaction to the increasing complexity of modern life throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries. After World War I, Americans confronted booming growth rates in its major cities and absorbed numerous waves of immigrants from southern and eastern Europe. The Great Migration of Southern blacks and whites was underway and labor tensions were very high. The advance of industrialization and a burgeoning population made many wonder if modern societies were even governable. In reaction, overtly violent groups such as the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) preached nativism, racism, anti-Catholicism, anti-Communism, and anti-Semitism. But many other groups, like the eugenicists, joined in with programs of their own.
Eugenicists proposed a variety of means for achieving their goals, with a strong focus on selective breeding, exclusion and isolation, and enforced sterilization. The US congress passed an immigration law in 1924 that excluded the people of Eastern and Southern Europe that eugenicists branded as inferior. The US Supreme Court even ruled 8-1 in 1927 that the forced sterilization of unwilling men and women was constitutional [6].
The scientific reputation of eugenics began its decline in the 1930s when Ernst Rüdin incorporated eugenic rhetoric into Nazi racial policies. The post-war world was justifiably spooked by the likes of Hitler, Mao, Stalin, and the Japanese War Lords.
Since World War II, the public and the scientific communities associate eugenics with suspect practices. Eugenics has been used to justify enforced racial hygiene, state-sponsored discrimination, human experimentation, forced sterilization of supposed "genetic defectives", and killing off populations that have been institutionalized for a variety of perceived shortcomings. Eugenics was used to rationalize certain aspects of the Holocaust and the extermination of undesired population groups.
Eugenics In A New Disguise
Eugenics, using genetics to "improve" the human condition, never really goes away, but takes on new disguises. The ideals have long been rejected, but the issues remain and resurface from time to time. Apologists continually raise reformatted questions and concerns about the exact meaning of eugenics and what the modern era might have to say about its ethical and moral status.
Contemporary academics have started in on new contributions to the debate, most recently in a book called Davenport’s Dream: 21st Century Reflections on Heredity and Eugenics [N7]. The essays discuss such things as human evolution, genetic variation, nature versus nurture, the sources of mental illness, and other contemporary concerns. True to post-modernist relativism, some of the authors try to redefine eugenics in a new, more socially acceptable, manner.
In their preface, editors Jan Witkowski and John Inglis write that Davenport and his contemporaries tried to solve problems, while addressing the moral and ethical choices presented by eugenics. But the editors conclude that such issues "… remain a source of public interest and cautious scientific inquiry, fueled in recent years by the sequencing of the human genome and consequent revitalization of human genetics.”
This sort of analysis leads some apologists to argue that state-sponsored eugenics intiatives are so 20th century. Today, they argue that eugenics has returned as a form of individualized self-help. Modern eugenicists focus on genetic counseling, prenatal testing and screening, birth control, in vitro fertilization, and genetic engineering. Couples can select an embryo that more nearly meets their specifications, abort a fetus that does not, choose the preferred sex of their offspring, or whatever. Even so, the desire to impose one's personal preferences on society has become de rigor among fundamentalists.
Critique Of The Dark Side
Opponents argue that eugenics is immoral. G. K. Chesterton was an early critic of eugenics; in 1922, he expressed his displeasure in Eugenics and Other Evils: An Argument Against the Scientifically Organized State [N8]. Chesterton was isolated in his criticisms by the intellectuals of his time. He ranked eugenics as one of the great modern evils, delivering a prophecy that eugenics would lead Germany, the land "from which the ideal of a Superman had come" to a catalog of crimes. When the eugenicists identified Jews and the Slavs as biologically unfit, the Nazis agreed. We know how that came out.
A common contemporary criticism is that the flawed foundation of eugenics leads inevitably to unethical measures. For instance, if measurements of a racial minority group shows that it is, on average, less intelligent than the majority racial group, then they are more likely to be subjected to a punitive eugenics program rather than applying the program to the least intelligent members of the population as a whole.
Left-leaning academics take it as a conventional wisdom that the identification of, and emphasis on, specific genes will result in genocide. The right-leaning sort tend to focus on individual genes. Their arguments can, at times, sound like the old "biology is destiny" arguments. Both sides ignore the genome, which often results in the selective use of genetic information to service their ideologies.
Marxism and Nazism had opposite positions. Marxism ignored race, denied the existence of genes, and denied human nature any status as a meaningful concept. Nazis used distorted and falsified genetic information for state purposes. In the end, both ideologies led to genocide.
Despite their separate explanations, what really mattered to such people was an imperative to coerce humanity (eugenics or social engineering) and coerce human development. In that way, the "superior" races or classes can triumph over their "inferiors". There is little evidence that the situation has improved very much.
Any social philosophy that drifts away from verifiable evidence can result in ethical abuse. At times, some Christians have denied civil liberties to populations they do not favor, burned heretics at the stake, and justified all manner of predatory acts. However, Christians do point to a bright side: some have advocated the abolition of slavery, poor relief, and other social initiatives. If anything, the flaws in Christendom derive from an unseemly silence in times of injustice. This is such a time, the time when our concerns are largely ignored or suppressed.
And what about transsexuals?
Certain politicians, social commentators, and activists deliberately have at transsexual-born men and women because they see us as disposable. They blur meaningful categories, which has the effect of ignoring the medical needs of transsexual people and lumps us in with cross-dressers and the like.
And disclosure? Transparency would be best, but the dark promise of eugenics lies just around the corner. We have already seen what bigots on all sides can do with their current tools. Imagine what they will try if our genetic information should come under their gaze. The potential for abuse is enormous.
As before: I had no choice in how I was born, but I did have final say in what I did about it. So did we all, but I can well understand why some of us try flight under the radar to avoid detection — I respect and protect anyone's decision to pursue a stealthy existence.
For me, and for the many others who depend on us, I choose to remain visible and fight.
Notes[N1] Sir Francis Galton F.R.S. (16 February 1822 — 17 January 1911) was a half-cousin of Charles Darwin. He was an English Victorian polymath, knighted in 1909.
[N2] The Man of Mystery Who Is Searching for the Secret of Life that sparked a lot of interest.The World Magazine. 1907. Archive source: American Philosophical Society, Dav, B:D27,Ser 2,CSH-ERO.
[N3] Heredity in Relation to Eugenics. Charles B. Davenport. Ayer Co Pub (1972). ISBN-10: 0405039468; ISBN-13: 978-0405039461.
[N4] Gregor Johann Mendel (July 20, 1822 — January 6, 1884), an Augustinian priest, was a scientist credited as the father of genetics. His study of trait inheritance in pea plants showed showed that the process follows a set of verifiable laws (later named in his honor). The full significance of Mendel's work was not recognized until the turn of the 20th century, when it led to the modern foundation of the discipline of genetics.
[N5] The Principles of Scientific Management (1911). Frederick W. Taylor. New York: Harper & Row. 1967. ISBN 0-393-00398-1.
[N6] Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927). The ruling upheld a Virginia statute that instituted compulsory sterilization of the mentally retarded "for the protection and health of the state." The ruling effectively endorsed negative eugenics — an attempt to improve the human race by eliminating "defectives" from the gene pool. Many critics argue that the case was flawed in the first place since it depended on questionable, and perhaps falsified, data. Pierce Butler (March 17, 1866 — November 16, 1939) was the only dissenting Justice. Butler did not write a dissenting opinion, a practice that was much more common then than now.
[N7] Davenport’s Dream: 21st Century Reflections on Heredity and Eugenics. Edited by Jan A. Witkowski and John R. Inglis. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press. 2008. ISBN 978-087969756-3
[N8] Eugenics and Other Evils: An Argument Against the Scientifically Organized State. G. K. Chesterton. Ed. Michael W. Perry. Inkling Books: 2000. ISBN-10: 1587420023; ISBN-13: 978-1587420023
Article UpdateThis article was updated on 14 September 2009. The update includes minor edits and one major change in terminology.
The original version relied on experimental use of the term Harry Benjamin Syndrome (HBS) to convey the fundamental idea of transsexualism. That is, we are talking about a birth condition characterized by the misalignment of a person's brain and anatomical sex, currently solvable only by a reconstituted hormonal balance and surgery.
Like others, I have tried out various phrases to get this across: transsexual, people born transsexual, classic transsexual, HBS, etc. Each approach has its own merits, but all share the burden of transgender encroachment and forcible redefinition to meet unrelated goals.
The central concerns of this column do not depend on the original vocabulary so I am content for now to update it with a more traditional approach. I will have more to say about this in a future column.
I wish transgenders well, but TG activists who happen upon these words should not misinterpret their intent: there has been no change in my (or TS-Si's) core dedication to the acceptance, medical treatment, and legal protection of individuals correcting the misalignment of their brains and their anatomical sex, while supporting their transition into society. We are not you.
Ms. Sharon Gaughan is a Co-Founder, Principal, and Managing Editor of TS-Si. She also is a columnist for the TS-Si website. Sharon's signed articles contain her own opinions and do not necessarily convey an official position of TS-Si, its partners, or affiliates.
The TS-Si News Service is a collaborative effort by TS-Si.org editors, contributors, and corresponding institutions. Sources can include the cited individuals and organizations, as well as TS-Si.org staff contributions. Articles and news reports do not necessarily convey official positions of TS-Si, its partners, or affiliates. We welcome your comments. Use the form below to leave a public comment or send private correspondence via the TS-Si Contact Page. We will not divulge any personal details or place you on a mailing list without your permission.
TS-Si is dedicated to the acceptance, medical treatment, and legal protection of individuals correcting the misalignment of their brains and their anatomical sex, while supporting their transition into society as hormonally reconstituted and surgically corrected citizens.
Genetics
The TS-Si News Service is a collaborative effort by TS-Si.org editors, contributors, and corresponding institutions. Sources can include the cited individuals and organizations, as well as TS-Si.org staff contributions. Articles and news reports do not necessarily convey official positions of TS-Si, its partners, or affiliates. We welcome your comments. Use the form below to leave a public comment or send private correspondence via the TS-Si Contact Page. We will not divulge any personal details or place you on a mailing list without your permission.
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Show/hide comments
Show/hide comment form
The TS-Si News Service
and the TS-Si Research Service are collaborations of TS-Si officials, staff, contributors, and corresponding institutions. The contents do not necessarily convey official positions of TS-Si or its owners, participants, partners, or affiliates.