I have often thought about how the vulnerable individuals who are labeled “trans” - vulnerable for any number of reasons, but always vulnerable (autistic and/or socially awkward, gay or lesbian and feeling uncomfortable with their non-conformity, anxious, traumatized, borderline personality, etc.) - are assumed not to want or need what 99% of the world often wants (yes, not everyone, but MOST).
They don’t need the opportunity to potentially have biological children, the opportunity for genital sex, the opportunity to be free from life-long medication, and it’s fine if they have a heightened risk of all sorts of health issues, ranging from incontinence to infection to stroke and cancer. It’s all good. They aren’t like the rest of us.
They are the magical people - and many see that as a compliment, and that they are on a pedestal. They get to do things others cannot. The males in this group can swim with women and enter their locker rooms and prisons. But, Ina very real way, even that sick notion (males in female spaces and sports) is showing that we think of them as lesser. No real man should compete with women, but these aren’t real men. They are lesser. Sure, it is the women who suffer most in that scenario, but the bottom line is that the world treats these vulnerable, confused individuals like lesser beings in all ways. They don’t deserve to be given the healthcare (including mental healthcare) that the rest of the world deserves and they are so pathetic that we need to lie to them about reality.
Can you imagine telling a four-year-old that up is down or light is dark or that they should eat sugary food every day instead of fruit and vegetables and whole grains? No. Of course not. But let’s tell an effeminate little boy that he’s really a girl and, when he’s 10, we can tell him he’ll be taking chemicals next year to allow him to be his “true self” as he grows up - making sure he never experiences growing up in his healthy male body.
Same for 12-year-old girls like Chloe Cole - you’re a boy and here’s some chemicals and, oh, let’s lop off those breasts. You don’t need them!
We are harming the vulnerable and this time, we are disguising the harm as “gender affirming care” and calling anyone who objects a transphobe to shut them up.
Planned Parenthood, whatever its history, is currently committing crimes daily, harming vulnerable adolescents. Thank you for pointing this out.
You're welcome, thanks for the comment. I fully agree that 'normal' people would not be treated this badly. I note the eugenics movement deliberately marginalised people as being permanently defective, rather than being in a difficult moment of their lives, in order to justify sterilisation. As I wrote in another article, we are the true trans rights activists because we are trying to prevent harms that simply don't happen to most people.
Genspect: This article is rooted in sexism and misogyny.
It provides ZERO evidence that Planned Parenthood's involvement in the gender industry is for the intention of eugenics.
To imply such without any evidence that that is part of PP's intent today is unethical, and it seems to me, insincere, and smells anti-choice.
Genspect: terrible idea publishing a man's opinion on women's healthcare and gender identity. Why on earth would you do that? Can you not see that this article is rooted in misogyny?
Is there not a feminist among you?
Every time I read articles by men on "gender identity," such as from Colin Wright and his male guest writers, the very foundation of the article is invariably from a patriarchal perspective. It can't be changed with just a tweak here or there.
Similarly, in this blog post, the patriarchal bias is obvious in what the male author blatantly has chosen to include and omit.
Feminists are keenly aware of Margaret Sanger's involvement with and promotion of eugenics.
What's entitely missing from this article is the extreme importance of Sanger's work to enable ethical abortion for millions of women. When Hilary Clinton speaks of how she admires Sanger, that is what she's referring to, not the eugenics part of Sanger's work. Duh.
The fact that the author goes on and on about eugenics, and then that some PP staff recently (in the past decade or so) held meetings to discuss the sale of fetal body parts, which is not unheard of in medicine to use harvested tissue--all of which is important to be aware of--but includes zero about the millions of women (and men) who have benefitted from PP's contraception, abortion, and gynecological care services sure sounds like this author is actually an anti-abortion activist who wants to attack PP, not someone whose primary concern is to protect young women from the gender industry.
Also entirely omitted is the reason Planned Parenthood (PP) got into the gender identity business, or dramatically increased its involvement in recent years: the federal defunding of PP.
Without that funding, PP continue its work to provide reproductive healthcare. So when the gender industry then came calling, offering significant funding to PP, PP went all in.
Then the author drops some conspiratorial- sounding mentions, such as who Cecile's daughter worked for, as if that means anything.
I am very critical of PP and their entry into the immoral gender industry, and how shockingly readily and entirely unethically they hand out prescriptions for wrong-sex hormones, instead of making referrals to exploratory therapy.
But this highly biased, sexist smear against a women's reproductive healthcare organization by a man who, by his glaring ommissions, could care less about that work, does nothing to actually protect women's rights.
He shows ZERO evidence that PP's involvement in the gender industry is for the purpose of eugenics!
He seems only concerned with further discrediting and dismantling PP as eugenicist, not supporting it back to its reproductive healthcare mission.
Genspect, please be more careful when vetting articles, and very seriously consider publishing anything by a man about women's healthcare. This article makes you look like an anti-feminist, anti-abortion organization.
Thanks for the comment. You will no doubt have seen the disclaimer at the end of the article which explains Genspect does not necessarily agree with every article it publishes; the purpose is to start discussion.
For the record, I said nothing about the 'intention' of Planned Parenthood, which I cannot possibly know. I merely pointed out the history of eugenic abuse of people with mental health problems, both women and men, noted the apology Planned Parenthood had made because of its harms to black people, and asked the question about whether a similar reckoning would be made regarding other groups it has harmed, including the mentally ill. I include the gender medicine cohort in that description, given that medical and surgical interventions are justified and funded on the basis of a mental health diagnosis.
I don't follow your logic that Planned Parenthood uses 'gender affirming care' income to cross-subsidise abortion provision because of federal de-funding. If you have any evidence of this, I would be interested to read it. It implies gender medicine must be extremely lucrative. I put it to you that Planned Parenthood prescribes testosterone and other gender drugs because it thinks these interventions are justified, not purely for profit.
As for Hilary Clinton, I reported her words verbatim. I'm fully aware that she back-pedalled when challenged on Sanger's legacy. I still think it was odd to be so enthusiastic about her, given that, as you say, all feminists know about Sanger's racism and eugenics. I mentioned the body parts videos to point out that Planned Parenthood has enjoyed the active support of both politicians and the courts in silencing its critics.
I disagree with the proposition that Planned Parenthood cannot be criticised because of the critic's sex. Nor do I agree that critics are required to support any particular mission of the organisation in order to criticise it. As for 'smears', everything I have written about comes from Margaret Sanger's own writing, Planned Parenthood's own website, and other historical sources. If you can point to anything I have written which is objectively untrue, I will certainly ask Genspect to correct it.
You wrote, “As gender dysphoria remains a DSM-5 mental health diagnosis and treatment is funded on that basis, it is no longer possible to ignore the eugenic movement’s desire to eliminate the fertility of the ‘unfit’.” How is that not imply intent to PP?
Thanks for the question. I made the association between the historical compulsory sterilisation of the mentally ill, and the mental illness justification for medical interventions on gender incongruent people today, which can cause sterility. If Planned Parenthood did not make that connection, and is unaware of its own history, it does not necessarily sterilise gender non-conforming people with eugenic intent.
The organisation became officially self-aware of its racist legacy somewhere between 2016 and 2020, although black activists had been talking and writing about that for decades. If Planned Parenthood reviewed its involvement in 'gender-affirming care' with similar awareness of the harms caused to the reproductive rights of mentally ill people over the last hundred years or so, I would give the organisation credit for that.
I do understand that people go along with custom and practice without really thinking through the implications of what they do. The received wisdom has been that mentally ill people have few rights in practice.
Appreciate much of the sentiment here, especially about there being zero evidence of eugenic motivation behind PP’s involvement in the trans industry. However, I cannot agree with your criticism of Genspect for publishing this article. Viewpoint diversity is one of their core values and as they note at the bottom the articles published here do not necessarily reflect the position of the organization. I also think that you’re in dangerous territory when you imply that men cannot offer perspectives on issues that primarily affect women. I learned some new things about PP from this article.
Thanks for the comment. Both men and women were subject to eugenic sterilisation. I know the gender cohort has pivoted towards interventions on females in the last ten years, but men are still affected, of course.
Gender confused boys are affected by puberty blockers and cross sex hormones being given out at PP. Males are harmed by what they do, so they get an opinion. And half the babies aborted by PP are males. So there's that too.
Thanks for the comment, Susan. I note that men are also parents of daughters. I do this writing because of the gay and lesbian friends I had growing up who would probably be offered hormones today.
I don't know the sex ratio for abortion in the USA. In Asia it leans heavily to abortions of females, according to a United Nations report I read some years ago which estimated the imbalance at around 30 million fewer females alive. That number is now estimated at 142 million including all forms of femicide. https://www.unfpa.org/son-preference
I don't agree that abortion is right regardless of whether the victims are baby girls or boys. so Planned Parenthood is already a despicable organization in my opinion. And now they want to sterilize and harm those babies who are already born and are about to go through a natural puberty.. They are harming gay kids, autistic and other neurodiverse young people, victims of abuse, and generally unhappy and mentally ill adolescents. They are disgusting.
I find it interesting that an article about the history of the forced sterilisation of women is re-framed as being against women's reproductive freedom. It's as if Planned Parenthood has persuaded its supporters that any criticism of the organisation is an attack on the right to abortion itself, even when the organisation itself agrees that the criticism is valid.
I have often thought about how the vulnerable individuals who are labeled “trans” - vulnerable for any number of reasons, but always vulnerable (autistic and/or socially awkward, gay or lesbian and feeling uncomfortable with their non-conformity, anxious, traumatized, borderline personality, etc.) - are assumed not to want or need what 99% of the world often wants (yes, not everyone, but MOST).
They don’t need the opportunity to potentially have biological children, the opportunity for genital sex, the opportunity to be free from life-long medication, and it’s fine if they have a heightened risk of all sorts of health issues, ranging from incontinence to infection to stroke and cancer. It’s all good. They aren’t like the rest of us.
They are the magical people - and many see that as a compliment, and that they are on a pedestal. They get to do things others cannot. The males in this group can swim with women and enter their locker rooms and prisons. But, Ina very real way, even that sick notion (males in female spaces and sports) is showing that we think of them as lesser. No real man should compete with women, but these aren’t real men. They are lesser. Sure, it is the women who suffer most in that scenario, but the bottom line is that the world treats these vulnerable, confused individuals like lesser beings in all ways. They don’t deserve to be given the healthcare (including mental healthcare) that the rest of the world deserves and they are so pathetic that we need to lie to them about reality.
Can you imagine telling a four-year-old that up is down or light is dark or that they should eat sugary food every day instead of fruit and vegetables and whole grains? No. Of course not. But let’s tell an effeminate little boy that he’s really a girl and, when he’s 10, we can tell him he’ll be taking chemicals next year to allow him to be his “true self” as he grows up - making sure he never experiences growing up in his healthy male body.
Same for 12-year-old girls like Chloe Cole - you’re a boy and here’s some chemicals and, oh, let’s lop off those breasts. You don’t need them!
We are harming the vulnerable and this time, we are disguising the harm as “gender affirming care” and calling anyone who objects a transphobe to shut them up.
Planned Parenthood, whatever its history, is currently committing crimes daily, harming vulnerable adolescents. Thank you for pointing this out.
You're welcome, thanks for the comment. I fully agree that 'normal' people would not be treated this badly. I note the eugenics movement deliberately marginalised people as being permanently defective, rather than being in a difficult moment of their lives, in order to justify sterilisation. As I wrote in another article, we are the true trans rights activists because we are trying to prevent harms that simply don't happen to most people.
Plus ça change ......
Yep
Genspect: This article is rooted in sexism and misogyny.
It provides ZERO evidence that Planned Parenthood's involvement in the gender industry is for the intention of eugenics.
To imply such without any evidence that that is part of PP's intent today is unethical, and it seems to me, insincere, and smells anti-choice.
Genspect: terrible idea publishing a man's opinion on women's healthcare and gender identity. Why on earth would you do that? Can you not see that this article is rooted in misogyny?
Is there not a feminist among you?
Every time I read articles by men on "gender identity," such as from Colin Wright and his male guest writers, the very foundation of the article is invariably from a patriarchal perspective. It can't be changed with just a tweak here or there.
Similarly, in this blog post, the patriarchal bias is obvious in what the male author blatantly has chosen to include and omit.
Feminists are keenly aware of Margaret Sanger's involvement with and promotion of eugenics.
What's entitely missing from this article is the extreme importance of Sanger's work to enable ethical abortion for millions of women. When Hilary Clinton speaks of how she admires Sanger, that is what she's referring to, not the eugenics part of Sanger's work. Duh.
The fact that the author goes on and on about eugenics, and then that some PP staff recently (in the past decade or so) held meetings to discuss the sale of fetal body parts, which is not unheard of in medicine to use harvested tissue--all of which is important to be aware of--but includes zero about the millions of women (and men) who have benefitted from PP's contraception, abortion, and gynecological care services sure sounds like this author is actually an anti-abortion activist who wants to attack PP, not someone whose primary concern is to protect young women from the gender industry.
Also entirely omitted is the reason Planned Parenthood (PP) got into the gender identity business, or dramatically increased its involvement in recent years: the federal defunding of PP.
Without that funding, PP continue its work to provide reproductive healthcare. So when the gender industry then came calling, offering significant funding to PP, PP went all in.
Then the author drops some conspiratorial- sounding mentions, such as who Cecile's daughter worked for, as if that means anything.
I am very critical of PP and their entry into the immoral gender industry, and how shockingly readily and entirely unethically they hand out prescriptions for wrong-sex hormones, instead of making referrals to exploratory therapy.
But this highly biased, sexist smear against a women's reproductive healthcare organization by a man who, by his glaring ommissions, could care less about that work, does nothing to actually protect women's rights.
He shows ZERO evidence that PP's involvement in the gender industry is for the purpose of eugenics!
He seems only concerned with further discrediting and dismantling PP as eugenicist, not supporting it back to its reproductive healthcare mission.
Genspect, please be more careful when vetting articles, and very seriously consider publishing anything by a man about women's healthcare. This article makes you look like an anti-feminist, anti-abortion organization.
Are you?
Thanks for the comment. You will no doubt have seen the disclaimer at the end of the article which explains Genspect does not necessarily agree with every article it publishes; the purpose is to start discussion.
For the record, I said nothing about the 'intention' of Planned Parenthood, which I cannot possibly know. I merely pointed out the history of eugenic abuse of people with mental health problems, both women and men, noted the apology Planned Parenthood had made because of its harms to black people, and asked the question about whether a similar reckoning would be made regarding other groups it has harmed, including the mentally ill. I include the gender medicine cohort in that description, given that medical and surgical interventions are justified and funded on the basis of a mental health diagnosis.
I don't follow your logic that Planned Parenthood uses 'gender affirming care' income to cross-subsidise abortion provision because of federal de-funding. If you have any evidence of this, I would be interested to read it. It implies gender medicine must be extremely lucrative. I put it to you that Planned Parenthood prescribes testosterone and other gender drugs because it thinks these interventions are justified, not purely for profit.
As for Hilary Clinton, I reported her words verbatim. I'm fully aware that she back-pedalled when challenged on Sanger's legacy. I still think it was odd to be so enthusiastic about her, given that, as you say, all feminists know about Sanger's racism and eugenics. I mentioned the body parts videos to point out that Planned Parenthood has enjoyed the active support of both politicians and the courts in silencing its critics.
I disagree with the proposition that Planned Parenthood cannot be criticised because of the critic's sex. Nor do I agree that critics are required to support any particular mission of the organisation in order to criticise it. As for 'smears', everything I have written about comes from Margaret Sanger's own writing, Planned Parenthood's own website, and other historical sources. If you can point to anything I have written which is objectively untrue, I will certainly ask Genspect to correct it.
You wrote, “As gender dysphoria remains a DSM-5 mental health diagnosis and treatment is funded on that basis, it is no longer possible to ignore the eugenic movement’s desire to eliminate the fertility of the ‘unfit’.” How is that not imply intent to PP?
Thanks for the question. I made the association between the historical compulsory sterilisation of the mentally ill, and the mental illness justification for medical interventions on gender incongruent people today, which can cause sterility. If Planned Parenthood did not make that connection, and is unaware of its own history, it does not necessarily sterilise gender non-conforming people with eugenic intent.
The organisation became officially self-aware of its racist legacy somewhere between 2016 and 2020, although black activists had been talking and writing about that for decades. If Planned Parenthood reviewed its involvement in 'gender-affirming care' with similar awareness of the harms caused to the reproductive rights of mentally ill people over the last hundred years or so, I would give the organisation credit for that.
I do understand that people go along with custom and practice without really thinking through the implications of what they do. The received wisdom has been that mentally ill people have few rights in practice.
Appreciate much of the sentiment here, especially about there being zero evidence of eugenic motivation behind PP’s involvement in the trans industry. However, I cannot agree with your criticism of Genspect for publishing this article. Viewpoint diversity is one of their core values and as they note at the bottom the articles published here do not necessarily reflect the position of the organization. I also think that you’re in dangerous territory when you imply that men cannot offer perspectives on issues that primarily affect women. I learned some new things about PP from this article.
Thanks for the comment. Both men and women were subject to eugenic sterilisation. I know the gender cohort has pivoted towards interventions on females in the last ten years, but men are still affected, of course.
Gender confused boys are affected by puberty blockers and cross sex hormones being given out at PP. Males are harmed by what they do, so they get an opinion. And half the babies aborted by PP are males. So there's that too.
Thanks for the comment, Susan. I note that men are also parents of daughters. I do this writing because of the gay and lesbian friends I had growing up who would probably be offered hormones today.
I don't know the sex ratio for abortion in the USA. In Asia it leans heavily to abortions of females, according to a United Nations report I read some years ago which estimated the imbalance at around 30 million fewer females alive. That number is now estimated at 142 million including all forms of femicide. https://www.unfpa.org/son-preference
I don't agree that abortion is right regardless of whether the victims are baby girls or boys. so Planned Parenthood is already a despicable organization in my opinion. And now they want to sterilize and harm those babies who are already born and are about to go through a natural puberty.. They are harming gay kids, autistic and other neurodiverse young people, victims of abuse, and generally unhappy and mentally ill adolescents. They are disgusting.
Yes, a man minimizing the importance of women's reproductive freedom certainly did not go unnoticed by me. Thanks for commenting.
I find it interesting that an article about the history of the forced sterilisation of women is re-framed as being against women's reproductive freedom. It's as if Planned Parenthood has persuaded its supporters that any criticism of the organisation is an attack on the right to abortion itself, even when the organisation itself agrees that the criticism is valid.