Blue eyes do not cause a genetic disorder though. Once we get better at gene editing, we would be able to stop intersex and transgender people from happening. We can fix it.
You'd be for that, right? Hopefully you won't be against it just so you have a class of victims to prop up.
Well, let's assume there is a simple and singular genetic cause (not all heredity conditions are purely genetic, and even those that are can be a complex interaction of multiple genes)...
There is a hesitancy to do such a thing for a few reasons:
i)
There is general discomfort with eugenics. In some cases there are genetic disorders which lead to immense suffering and often premature fatality where no one would shed a tear if they simply disappeared from the gene pool. In other cases, it's harder to say where lines should be drawn and what statement that makes. It's also hard to know what ramifications there would be. For instance, the skin colour we generally refer to as 'white' has a much higher predisposition to skin cancer. Why wouldn't we want to reduce this risk by selecting for darker skin? If we did, what further complications might arise? How far would we go to optimize newborns and how might this affect the genetic diversity of the species? I understand that is a slippery slope fallacy, but I do think it contributes to a feeling of general uneasiness regarding this form of eugenics.
ii)
It has a vaguely genocidal feel to it. In the hypothetical case where we removed whiteness from the gene pool, it would likely be classified as a genocide of sorts. Transgender identities? Perhaps not, but it feels similar. I have an odd perspective on it. If you asked me if, given the chance, I would redo my life as a cisgender person, I'd say no. Despite the pain and sacrifice it has caused, it feels too much like erasure of who I am. Yet if I were to have a child and a doctor could guarantee they would be cisgender, I'd consider it. It's not that I would feel a transgender child would be inferior or any less worthy than any other; it's just hard to know that that child would have to make sacrifices and endure hardships which could otherwise be avoided. It becomes a complicated question about what it would mean to remove part of the diversity in the human population, and whether it would be better to do so, or if it would be better to learn to better recognize and embrace it.
iii)
Resource allocation. Despite the level of theoretical knowledge and practical ability we have in medicine, it's not like we're at a point where we can run endless tests and treatments on all pregnancies. Of all the potential causes for concern, how high would transgender identities rank?
Personally, I don't really care if someone refers to the underlying cause of my atypical gender identity as a 'defect' or as divergent, aberrant, deviant etc. The problem is, people seem to quickly lose the context in which these terms are used. Medically and statistically, I am an outlier and it results in some measure distress and discomfort. But the idea that I have a 'disorder' of sorts gets taken too far. People try to use it to treat me as generally inferior when I am certainly not. It's been used to disqualify me from vocations and positions for no valid reason. It's used to treat me as if I am morally inferior, which is utter fucking nonsense. It's used to treat me as if I have cognitive, psychological or physical defects I don't have. It is just generally stigmatized.
Terms like 'defect' in reference to a genetic trait, perhaps, become imprecise because they take on a shit load of cultural baggage. Terms like 'disorder' with regard to gender identity similarly suffer and end up replaced with 'dysphoria' which is more specific to where the disorder lies. And so it goes, slowly and painfully as we realize our language has an awful lot of baggage based on antiquated world views and prejudices.
