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

On May 25, 2026 at 8:39:45 AM MST, "zendejo" wrote
<[email protected]>:

> 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.

True. Though using his tech / ideas does not necessarily mean they were
aligned. But they WERE aligned.
> 
> 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.

A good read and an important part of history many in the US ignore.

-- 
It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.