Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy

On 5/24/26 9:30 PM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
> On May 24, 2026 at 6:53:51 PM MST, ""Joel W. Crump"" wrote
> <[email protected]>:
> 

>> It is anti-American to violently side with the right wing.
> 
> I wish I could agree -- but the treatment of Natives, the KKK, one drop racial
> rules, slavery, Jim Crow, internment camps, etc. The Nazis got many of their
> ideas from America. This is an eye opening read:
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-American-Model-United-States/dp/0691172420
> 
> Or an online source:
> 
> https://www.history.com/articles/how-the-nazis-were-inspired-by-jim-crow?utm_source=chatgpt.com
> 
> 
It ought not be lost that Henry Ford's famed River Rouge assembly line 
was the model Hitler adopted for the KDF/Volkswagen.

However, the borrowed off a far more sinister portion of our history - 
institutionalized eugenics:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2757926/


To understand why eugenics became a serious scientific movement in the 
1920s, it is useful to look back 20 years earlier. In 1902, Charles B. 
Davenport, then a Professor of Zoology at the University of Chicago, 
approached the Carnegie Institution with a request for $45,000 to create 
a “Biological Experiment Station for the study of evolution” on the Cold 
Spring Harbor Campus.4 His aim would be the “analytic and experimental 
study of the causes of specific differentiation—of race change.” He 
proposed to accomplish this “by the cross breeding of animals and plants 
to find the laws of commingling of qualities … the study of the laws and 
limits of inheritance.”4 Within this brief two-page proposal, Davenport 
commingles the scientific genetic approach that dated back to Mendel 
with his personal fascination with the perceived human racial 
differences of his day.

Within 5 years the Experimental Evolution Department had established 
over 100 animal stocks that included 20 mammals and dozens of insects 
(including crickets and Drosophila), and over 400 flowering plants.5 It 
took until 1910 for Davenport to begin studies on human inheritance with 
the creation of the Eugenics Record Office. Financial support came from 
Mrs. E.H. Harriman (a wealthy philanthropist), John Harvey Kellogg (the 
breakfast cereal magnate), and the American Breeders' Association. This 
association was the first membership-based group whose mission included 
the promotion of eugenics research in the United States through a 
subcommittee chaired by ichthyologist and Stanford University President 
David Starr Jordan.6,7 By 1918, H.H. Laughlin was hired as the 
superintendent of the Eugenics Records Office, which transitioned from a 
freestanding, self-supporting endeavor to a sub-department of the 
Experimental Evolution Department under the control of the Carnegie 
Institution.8 Davenport conceived of this office to mainly “serve 
eugenical interests in the capacity of repository and clearing house” 
and to “provide data adequate to making eugenical studies.”8 Their 
method was to collect family histories from “better families” and 
“subnormal families” based upon methods previously described by Galton.

By the 1920s, three major efforts pushed the eugenic agenda in the 
United States and subsequently throughout Europe: (1) The Eugenics 
Research Association with Laughlin and Davenport as leaders and in 
affiliation with the American Association of the Advancement of Science 
(AAAS). (2) The American Eugenics Society founded by Laughlin, Harry 
Crampton, Madison Grant, and Henry Fairfield Osborn with the purpose of 
promoting the eugenical movement at both the scientific and popular 
level. (3) The Eugenics Records Office, directed by Davenport and run by 
Laughlin with the express purpose of providing the scientific data to 
support the eugenics movement.

A concerted effort of this magnitude with the expressed support of the 
mainstream scientific establishment (e.g., AAAS as operator of the 
journal Science; the American Breeders' Association, which later became 
the American Genetics Association; and the Carnegie Institution) had an 
effect throughout both the scientific and governmental establishments 
worldwide. Specifically, by 1936 when both England and the U.S. genetic 
scientific communities finally condemned eugenical sterilization, over 
60,000 forced sterilizations were already performed in the United States 
on mostly poor (and often African-American) people confined to mental 
hospitals.9,10 The practice of forced sterilizations for the “unfit” was 
almost unanimously supported by eugenicists. The American Eugenics 
Society had hoped, in time, to sterilize one-tenth of the U.S. 
population, or millions of Americans.11

Laughlin's publication of Eugenical Sterilization in the United States 
in 1922 included the drafting of a “model law” for compulsory 
sterilization that was the bedrock of forced sterilization programs 
throughout the country. According to Davenport, Laughlin's “book on 
sterilization is recognized as the standard.”12 In 1930, Laughlin 
comments about the U.S. Supreme Court upholding a Virginia sterilization 
statute as, “the establishment of the eugenical authority of the 
state … [enabling] the prevention of hereditary degeneration by a method 
sound from the legal, eugenical and humanitarian points of view. … It is 
now possible for any state, if it desires to do so, to enact a 
sterilization statute.”12 A typical study prepared by Laughlin and used 
to justify these laws is excerpted below:

The Problem of the Feeble-Minded in Connecticut … the 11,962 
feeble-minded persons—the total number who came under the purview of the 
Survey—have been studied individually in reference to nine subject as 
follows: (1) sex, (2) age, (3) recidivism, (4) diagnostic class, (5) 
intelligence quotient, (6) race descent, (7) nativity, (8) citizenship, 
(9) kin in institutions. … At the present rate every inhabitant of 
Connecticut is expending … 5 and 1/3 as many dollars on the socially 
inadequate and the individually handicapped as the average inhabitant 
was spending for the same purpose 20 years ago.13

Davenport's eugenical research is very typical of countless studies 
purporting to link perceived human differences to the burgeoning field 
of Genetics. This work is best appreciated by quoting the author directly:

Successful naval officers are of various types. … The three commonist 
traits are: (1) love of sea; (2) capacity for fighting; (3) capacity for 
commanding or administering. … The performance of a man depends in large 
degree upon his inherent, inheritable traits. … The sea makes to 
different people varied appeal. … The love of the sea, sea-lust or 
thalasssophilia is apparently a specific trait to be differentiated from 
wanderlust or love of adventure. … One of the most striking 
characteristics of sea–lust is that it is wholly a male character … so 
the appeal of the sea develops under the secretion of the germ gland in 
the boy. It is theoretically possible that some mothers are heterozygous 
for love of the sea, so that when married to a thalassophilic man half 
of their children will show sea-lust and half will not.14

What is often not appreciated is that Nazi efforts were bolstered by the 
published works of the American eugenics movement as the intellectual 
underpinnings for its social policies. One of Hilter's first acts after 
gaining control of the German government was the passage of the Law for 
the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring (Gesetz zur Verhütung 
erbkranken Nachwuchses) in July 1933.15 The Nazis, when proposing their 
own sterilization program, specifically noted the “success of 
sterilization laws in California” documented most notably by the 
American eugenicist P.B. Popenoe.16 The Nazi program ultimately resulted 
in the sterilization of 360,000–375,000 persons.9 The intellectual 
linkage between the United States and Nazi eugenic programs is further 
illustrated by Davenport's presence on the editorial boards of two 
influential German racial hygiene journals, Zeitschrift für Rassenkunde 
und ihrer Nachbargebiete and the Zeitschrift für menschliche Vererbungs- 
und Konstitutionslehre.17 Sadly, with the benefit of 70 years hindsight, 
we can see the alignment of the stated goals of the Eugenics Records 
Office with Nazi social engineering programs as revealed by Davenport:

To investigate the nature of those forces or agencies which improve or 
impair racial or family-stock qualities. These forces which act upon 
immigration, mate selection and fertility, differential by race and 
family-stock quality are those which have been given most attention. In 
the field of immigration, studies have been made in Europe and America 
on the selection of immigrants have played as recruits to the breeding 
stock of the American people. Many of these researches were conducted in 
collaboration with the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization of 
the House of Rep. and the Immigration Service of the U.S. Government.18

It wasn't until 1935 that a review panel convened by the Carnegie 
Institution concluded that the Eugenics Research Office research did not 
have scientific merit, and subsequently withdrew funding in 1939.19 In 
examining this dark history of American science, it is equally important 
to appreciate that eugenics was but a small part the work of the Carnegie.