A while back, I made a post comparing people who solicit for designer donor eggs to Nazis. As always, art and humor can never find ways to be as awful as real life. Lookie what we have here from Sunday.
But why do you assume only the skin color request matches the parents physical traits? The only people who think Caucasians as a whole are supposed to have blond hair and blue eyes are Nazis, but every blond haired and blue eyed mother out there expects their own baby to have a relatively reasonable chance of having blond hair and blue eyes (much more so if the father has the same).
You're assuming secret Nazis when the much more reasonable assumption is you've got a blond haired blue eyed mother who wants to have a child that looks like its her own. In the same way it's unnatural for a black couple to have a white child, it's also unnatural for a couple with brown hair and eyes to have a little blond blue eyed baby.
He's assuming blond-hair-and-blue-eyes-ism is correlated with nazism.
He's right.
Why aren't people specifying that they want babies with roman noses, or detached earlobes? Why are these specific identifiers the ones which are called out? Why not height?
You're engaging in a naturalistic fallacy, and your notion of race is similarly fallacious. "Whites" and "Blacks" are not a race (unless you ask a Nazi.)
Because these are dominant physical traits. And they did specify height. Seriously...
The naturalistic fallacy requires an ethical component. When talking about what color a baby of a pair of parents should come out, it's pretty damn natural. That mothers want babies to look like they are naturally theirs is simply a statement of truth, not an ethical judgment.
Lastly, are you sure you're reading the right definition of race?
"an arbitrary classification of modern humans, sometimes, esp. formerly, based on any or a combination of various physical characteristics, as skin color, facial form, or eye shape, and now frequently based on such genetic markers as blood groups."
What makes them dominant traits? You've got a chicken/egg problem.
It is natural that people do X... used to argue "it isn't wrong that people do X"-- sounds like a naturalistic fallacy to me.
By what standards does a mother decide (or specify) that a baby looks like her own?
Right. "Blacks" are not a race. They can be arbitrarily reclassified into any number of groups, and classifying races based on skin color is something which was formerly done.
They're dominant because they're highly noticeable. People simply notice hair and eye color more than nose structure or earlobes.
Amoral and immoral are entirely different ethical statements. A mother may wish to avoid question regarding the origin of the baby so as to live a "normal" family life. Not good, not bad, just an issue she doesn't wish herself or her child to deal with.
You may be surprised when viewing official racial demographics then, since "Black or African American" is very much a racial designation.
How far away do you have to be, in good light, to spot someone's eye color?
How far away do you have to be to spot whether someone has earlobes of a particular shape or a nose of a particular shape?
You're wrong.
As regards demographics, you're wrong there as well. That isn't the definition of race you were using, or the one you presented. That form is asking after origin and self-identity (that is why there is a separate slot for 'hispanic').
Again, define: would be instructive.
eg: Race is often seen to be an arbitrary, socially constructed category. This is not to say that there are not differences between people, but that the means by which certain peoples have been distinguished, categorized and subordinated across history, are usually spurious.
I'm not assuming secret Nazis. I'm assuming self-absorbed people who, even if it was pointed out to them that this might be even a tiny bit odd, would put it right out of their mind. And don't you forget that no matter who the egg comes from, the child will have traits of the father. If the parents are as homogenous as we both think they are, the genetic makeup of the biological mother is almost irrelevant - the kid will be predisposed to have the traits they're looking for anyway.
What sort of genetics are you working with? I'm not aware that they even know the full extent of the genes involved in determining eye color, let alone some study that indicated children look like their father rather than their mother.
If you mean that if the father and mother are homogenous there will still be a 50% influence, Caucasian is an exceptionally broad racial classification, and can very much include individuals whose genetics, even when mixed with the father, would produce children quite obviously not from the mother.
I'm not aware that they even know the full extent of the genes involved in determining eye color
You must have skipped High School Biology that day. It's more complicated than sex determination, but pretty well known.
Suppose there's a young, thin, attractive, white, blond haired, blue eyed, straightedge, 5'2" physically active woman who was born into poverty, raised herself up by her bootstraps and went to college, is now in the process of financially conquering sub-Saharan Africa, and is too busy to have children on her own. Don't you think it's a little bit dumb that this couple outright rejects her eggs?
I have no problem with a couple that takes all the applications and picks the photo that looks like the prospective mom's sister. But when you outright reject everyone who fails to meet an arbitrary set of criteria (the fact that they list both "some form of college education" and "some form of post HS education" should raise a flag here), you've left ordinary tribalism behind and wandered into something ill-advised, if not downright unsavory.
Not that it is the repository of all knowledge, but I went to Wikipedia after your statement, and the editors there are pretty convinced the full extent of the genes responsible for eye color are not yet known. And no mention at all of the father's genes dominating the result. In fact the only mention of genes dominating was the reference to the recessive nature of blue eyes.
I do think arbitrary cut-offs can filter out people who should be very desirable, but it's not so much unsavory as a little foolish and fussy. One would think for a decision of this magnitude that spending some time reading through applications wouldn't be a problem. Of course maybe 5'3" is already of the short side of things (if she's 5'10") and they're already going to be confronted with the choice between the smarter 5'3" woman and the 5'9" lookalike.
I did find the duplication of education requirements rather amusing, especially since they were education requirements.
I said pretty well known. Brown is dominant, blue is recessive, hazel and other common varieties do follow family lines but are less obvious, and truly multicolored eyes only happens in cats. It's not 100% known how people who are XXY manage to survive pregnancy, but most people would say sex determination is "pretty well known".
And no mention at all of the father's genes dominating the result.
Yeah, I was gonna let that slip of yours slide, but since you insist: I didn't say that the father's genes would dominate. I said that since it's pretty obvious these people are already pretty homogenous, it isn't necessary to double up on the desired traits.
I read into that possibility with the discussion concerning a baby from a mixture of Caucasians being quite likely to be obviously not from a homogeneous couple.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-16 04:45 pm (UTC)You're assuming secret Nazis when the much more reasonable assumption is you've got a blond haired blue eyed mother who wants to have a child that looks like its her own. In the same way it's unnatural for a black couple to have a white child, it's also unnatural for a couple with brown hair and eyes to have a little blond blue eyed baby.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-16 05:10 pm (UTC)He's right.
Why aren't people specifying that they want babies with roman noses, or detached earlobes? Why are these specific identifiers the ones which are called out? Why not height?
You're engaging in a naturalistic fallacy, and your notion of race is similarly fallacious. "Whites" and "Blacks" are not a race (unless you ask a Nazi.)
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-16 05:38 pm (UTC)The naturalistic fallacy requires an ethical component. When talking about what color a baby of a pair of parents should come out, it's pretty damn natural. That mothers want babies to look like they are naturally theirs is simply a statement of truth, not an ethical judgment.
Lastly, are you sure you're reading the right definition of race?
"an arbitrary classification of modern humans, sometimes, esp. formerly, based on any or a combination of various physical characteristics, as skin color, facial form, or eye shape, and now frequently based on such genetic markers as blood groups."
What definition are you using?
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-16 05:47 pm (UTC)It is natural that people do X... used to argue "it isn't wrong that people do X"-- sounds like a naturalistic fallacy to me.
By what standards does a mother decide (or specify) that a baby looks like her own?
Right. "Blacks" are not a race. They can be arbitrarily reclassified into any number of groups, and classifying races based on skin color is something which was formerly done.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-16 06:08 pm (UTC)Amoral and immoral are entirely different ethical statements. A mother may wish to avoid question regarding the origin of the baby so as to live a "normal" family life. Not good, not bad, just an issue she doesn't wish herself or her child to deal with.
You may be surprised when viewing official racial demographics then, since "Black or African American" is very much a racial designation.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-16 06:16 pm (UTC)How far away do you have to be to spot whether someone has earlobes of a particular shape or a nose of a particular shape?
You're wrong.
As regards demographics, you're wrong there as well. That isn't the definition of race you were using, or the one you presented. That form is asking after origin and self-identity (that is why there is a separate slot for 'hispanic').
Again, define: would be instructive.
eg: Race is often seen to be an arbitrary, socially constructed category. This is not to say that there are not differences between people, but that the means by which certain peoples have been distinguished, categorized and subordinated across history, are usually spurious.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-16 05:11 pm (UTC)The next time you listen to some Rage Against the Machine... why don't you fucking listen to some Rage Against the Machine?
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-16 05:29 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-16 05:34 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-16 05:35 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-16 05:57 pm (UTC)If you mean that if the father and mother are homogenous there will still be a 50% influence, Caucasian is an exceptionally broad racial classification, and can very much include individuals whose genetics, even when mixed with the father, would produce children quite obviously not from the mother.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-16 06:14 pm (UTC)You must have skipped High School Biology that day. It's more complicated than sex determination, but pretty well known.
Suppose there's a young, thin, attractive, white, blond haired, blue eyed, straightedge, 5'2" physically active woman who was born into poverty, raised herself up by her bootstraps and went to college, is now in the process of financially conquering sub-Saharan Africa, and is too busy to have children on her own. Don't you think it's a little bit dumb that this couple outright rejects her eggs?
I have no problem with a couple that takes all the applications and picks the photo that looks like the prospective mom's sister. But when you outright reject everyone who fails to meet an arbitrary set of criteria (the fact that they list both "some form of college education" and "some form of post HS education" should raise a flag here), you've left ordinary tribalism behind and wandered into something ill-advised, if not downright unsavory.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-16 06:30 pm (UTC)I do think arbitrary cut-offs can filter out people who should be very desirable, but it's not so much unsavory as a little foolish and fussy. One would think for a decision of this magnitude that spending some time reading through applications wouldn't be a problem. Of course maybe 5'3" is already of the short side of things (if she's 5'10") and they're already going to be confronted with the choice between the smarter 5'3" woman and the 5'9" lookalike.
I did find the duplication of education requirements rather amusing, especially since they were education requirements.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-16 06:34 pm (UTC)And no mention at all of the father's genes dominating the result.
Yeah, I was gonna let that slip of yours slide, but since you insist: I didn't say that the father's genes would dominate. I said that since it's pretty obvious these people are already pretty homogenous, it isn't necessary to double up on the desired traits.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-16 06:40 pm (UTC)