> and would run the risk of watering down the opprobrium attached to the term "eugenics" by including a thoroughly unobjectionable practice

At the risk of touching things one is not supposed to say in this culture - wouldn't it be good to tone down that opprobrium, or at least cleanly separate out the things that are actually evil from things that are not? The connotational baggage carried by the term "eugenics" tend to infect serious discussions around genetic diseases and genetics in general, and people end up equating e.g. permanently curing genetic diseases (by removing them from the gene pool) with mass mutilation or murder of undesirable individuals (which is the evil part of the as-commonly-understood eugenics).

As a kind of metareply to all my repliers, I'd suggest that it would probably be easier to find a new word for the safe stuff than try to un-destroy "eugenics". Just starting off with "Let's try to come to a more nuanced understanding of 'eugenics'" is roughly equivalent to "Let's try to come to a more nuanced understanding of 'Nazi'" (and for once the metaphor isn't even that strained because there is a real, pre-existing relationship there); from a very academic perspective, it is a worthy goal, but nowadays, not even actual-factual academia is willing to be that academic.

Fair enough.

> and would run the risk of watering down the opprobrium attached to the term "eugenics" by including a thoroughly unobjectionable practice.

The opprobrium shouldn't attach to "eugenics", it should attach to "forced eugenics".

If some people are incapable of making the distinction, well, some people are incapable of making a distinction between male homosexuals and pedophiles, too. There's only so far we can carry an unfounded hatred of an extremely broad concept due to a tiny, distinguishable special case within that concept.

I am not sure I understand your analogy (male homosexuals vs pedophiles). Why blending together a sexual preference towards one's own sex, and a preference towards children?

It's an analogy founded directly on history. In the past, it was common to not see a distinction between male homosexuality and pedophilia. I'm absolutely certain some people still see the world that way. In short, it doesn't have to make sense, because it's historical fact.

To see this in film, watch the Sid Davis classic "Boys Beware":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boys_Beware

> The film equates homosexuals with child molesters and hebephiles, repeatedly describing homosexuality as a mental illness. True to the stereotypes of its time, the gay men in the film have mustaches, sunglasses and/or bow ties.

https://archive.org/details/boys_beware - Original

https://archive.org/details/BoysBewarecolorizedVersion - Colorized

https://archive.org/details/BoysAware - Remake

I do not get it. Because in antic Rome it was acceptable (or common) for men to have homosexual relations with young boys you are still making the link between these words today?

"heretic" and "science" or "monk" and "psychopathic torturer" are synonyms as well?

I'm just using the connection as an example.

And it doesn't have to make sense to you. It's historical fact.

What doesn't make sense is to take a 2000 years old cultural norm and apply it to today.

Would you call a black man "negro" today? It was a normal word back then. Good luck explaining the historical context.

There are plenty of historical facts which are just that :a historical fact with no connection to today.

One could call this "eugenics" in the same way you could when women disqualify short men as romantic partners for concerns about having short children.