- Joined
- Dec 15, 2022
It's not really about the technological research, it's more laying the foundation for the ideology through influence, which includes doctored research.I always hear this but how much irreccovorable research could there have been at that point really? On surgery and troons in the 1940s? Normal surgery research wasn't lost, and troons are troons.
Yes, they were trying to do womb transplant (killing at least one danish man) back before the nazi's burned their clinic. Take John Money. The facts of the case speak strongly against him and what he's done. But for decades his research was cited as an example of how raising reimer as a girl was an astounding success. John Money's falsified research is extensively cited. But this happened in the 60s/70s. So that's how the ideology was set back 30 years or so.
Without the sexual institute being burned, Hirschfeld would have been one of the pioneers that laid the groundwork.
-----
The fundamental problem isn't whether we know how to attach say a human ear to the back of a mouse. The fundamental problem is that there's an ideology being promoted that there are men/women that would benefit from being physically transformed from one to the other. To make that common, you have to convince the public that people benefit from this. To convince the public, you have to convince the thought leaders that people benefit from this. To convince the thought leaders of something that goes completely against common sense and current scientific understanding, you have to convince the youthful intelligentsia that people benefit from this. Because they will be tomorrow's thought leaders. And since these are not quite as gullible as most people would think, you need a backlog of studies that prove that people benefit from this, which is why this process takes decades.
Last edited: