8 Comments
User's avatar
ā­  Return to thread
Freedom Fox's avatar

Thing is, Gender-affirming care really, truly is eugenics, three generations of imbecile sterilizations.

The attempts at differentiation are based in voluntariness of the person being sterilized. Buck v Bell issue is involuntary sterilization, who qualifies to be involuntarily sterilized.

But what is voluntary? Is coercion voluntary? How coercive is the school and childcare, mental health professional indoctrination and Madison Avenue marketing campaign?

Official contracts include language stating that the signator isn't under coercion or duress. Elements that invalidate consent. And contracts with minors aren't weighted with the full force of law, they cannot consent to major contractual decisions.

Yet minors are given permission to consent to sterilization?!?!

The voluntariness of sterilizing the mentally ill isn't a sturdy legal shield to hide eugenics behind. But...because Buck v. Bell remains settled law the voluntariness issue is an attempt to bypass the restrictions the decision is predicated on. Not the underlying fact that the Supreme Court agreed with a full-throated endorsement of eugenics, asserting stupid, undesirable, mentally ill people shouldn't procreate. That's what Buck v Bell says. It's only quibble with eugenics is the voluntary vs involuntary nature of it. Saying involuntary is ok under a set of conditions the state makes the case for. And "gender-affirming care" is a legalistic linguistic ad agency--inspired work-around to the Court's objection.

Expand full comment
YYR's avatar

The false threat of suicide if left "untreated" seems to violate the coersion to consent. Especially those parents who did put up a fight and lost custody or medical decisionmaking power. Interesting parallel between sex changes and covid vax, actually.šŸ¤”

Expand full comment
Freedom Fox's avatar

Deciding who controls your body, your life. What are the boundaries between you and the world outside you. Our bodies as they relate to "public health and safety," the collective's health and safety obligations vis-a-vis the individual's right to autonomy. The Typhoid Mary biological risk is connected to the risk to the collective's gene pool, a sickly (including mentally ill, antisocials) population is connected to a fetus's right to life inside the life of another and the desirability of that fetus's life to the collective. All the same area of constitutional law. It's why those cases Buck, Roe and Jacobson are usually cited in major bodily autonomy decisions.

Expand full comment
Freedom Fox's avatar

And undesirable people is what political opponents and the disobedient are lumped into under eugenics. Exactly what Germany did in the 1930's-1940's. And what Canada is doing today, euthanasia being a close cousin to eugenics.

Expand full comment
Freedom Fox's avatar

"Gender-affirming care," i.e. Buck v. Bell "Three generations of imbeciles is enough" sterilizations of the mentally ill, undesirables eugenics, and its close cousin euthanasia:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12349523/Trans-indigenous-Canadian-slams-doctors-denying-euthanasia-request-saying-death-free-agony-surgically-built-vagina.html

Expand full comment
Noelle S (Jennifer Incognito)'s avatar

I am fascinated by In re Moore, the 1976 NC Supreme Court Case upholding as constitutional the NC statute on sterilization. They briefly touched on consent but did not have to discuss because the court clearly found that the respondent and his mother had consented. They "did not attach much importance to the respondent's consent due to his mental condition, [but] his mother unquestionably is in a position to know what is best..." Since reparations, they have put out reams of information, including official lessons, condemning the act of forced sterilization and eugenics, and they focus on the issue of consent and how it might be coerced.

Expand full comment
Freedom Fox's avatar

Thanks, good information point to share!

I've not seen case law that has focused on consent coerced by authorities like hospitals, government health and mental health officials, etc. There seems to be a presumption that they act with hard power like forceful demands while individuals are the ones who use soft power, manipulation and coercion to trick family members. Not allowing for authorities to employ soft power, too, to elicit consent they've manufactured.

"Nudge" public policy has never faced judicial scrutiny. Nudge units were established across the US during the Obama administration (and in the UK under Cameron) by executive orders, bypassing public comment and oversight. Psychological mind-farkery to help government officials achieve their public policy goals without much opposition, the soft power of propaganda and, well, brainwashing, has never faced legal challenged. They wield it like a weapon against a hostile populace they occupy and rule. Not a well-informed citizenry the serve at the pleasure of.

Expand full comment
Noelle S (Jennifer Incognito)'s avatar

Reading about the Facebook files, my question is, what similar pressure was put on private employers, especially the regulated entities? My former employer had "red flag" training where managers were told to flag employees who protested government action or medical advice. Did the Biden administration in some way pressure large regulated employers to decide for their employees what was true and false? Real question- for Jeff also - is there a source of info on this? I am beginning to wonder how much farther than social media should Biden v Missouri exploring.

Expand full comment