Isabel Rodríguez
@ecomentario.bsky.social
Reposted by Isabel Rodríguez
If you're concerned about the erosion of anti racist norms and the rise of the far right, you have to factor in two solid years of bipartisan British complicity in this genocide. What do you think our government's role in this racist bloodbath tells us about the state of our political culture?
Analysts told me that they agree with @amnesty.org in that Israel's genocide in Gaza is not over.
The mass killing has slowed but the conditions for life & society have been destroyed and are not being allowed to be rebuilt.
www.aljazeera.com/features/202...
The mass killing has slowed but the conditions for life & society have been destroyed and are not being allowed to be rebuilt.
www.aljazeera.com/features/202...
Israel’s genocide in Gaza has not stopped, despite the ceasefire: Analysts
Analysts and a human rights group say Israel's genocide in Gaza has not stopped, despite the ceasefire.
www.aljazeera.com
December 4, 2025 at 2:37 PM
If you're concerned about the erosion of anti racist norms and the rise of the far right, you have to factor in two solid years of bipartisan British complicity in this genocide. What do you think our government's role in this racist bloodbath tells us about the state of our political culture?
Reposted by Isabel Rodríguez
If Jesus said harming a child is worse than drowning with a millstone tied to your neck, what do you think he’d say about slandering children by comparing them to people who are intentionally destroying the country?
open.substack.com/pub/drstacey...
open.substack.com/pub/drstacey...
Jesus Loved the Children. Which Is Exactly Why It’s Blasphemy to Compare Them to Donald Trump and Republicans
This Substack is reader-supported.
open.substack.com
November 16, 2025 at 6:20 PM
If Jesus said harming a child is worse than drowning with a millstone tied to your neck, what do you think he’d say about slandering children by comparing them to people who are intentionally destroying the country?
open.substack.com/pub/drstacey...
open.substack.com/pub/drstacey...
Reposted by Isabel Rodríguez
Childism is one of the most socially acceptable forms of dehumanisation.
Do you have any extremely niche, but serious, ethical stances?
October 21, 2025 at 6:25 AM
Childism is one of the most socially acceptable forms of dehumanisation.
Reposted by Isabel Rodríguez
children are human beings. that's what almost everybody refuses to acknowledge. they are /people/. and hating people for who they are is actually pretty uncool at best
September 25, 2025 at 1:30 AM
children are human beings. that's what almost everybody refuses to acknowledge. they are /people/. and hating people for who they are is actually pretty uncool at best
Reposted by Isabel Rodríguez
they are not burdens or distractions or inconveniences. they are /people/
September 25, 2025 at 1:31 AM
they are not burdens or distractions or inconveniences. they are /people/
Reposted by Isabel Rodríguez
We have a childism problem. Replace the word “disabled person” with the way we talk about kids:
“I can’t stand disabled people.”
“I live a disabled person-free life.”
“This restaurant/apartment complex is abled-people only.”
“No disabled people at our wedding.”
“They should have abled-only flights.”
“I can’t stand disabled people.”
“I live a disabled person-free life.”
“This restaurant/apartment complex is abled-people only.”
“No disabled people at our wedding.”
“They should have abled-only flights.”
September 25, 2025 at 5:43 AM
We have a childism problem. Replace the word “disabled person” with the way we talk about kids:
“I can’t stand disabled people.”
“I live a disabled person-free life.”
“This restaurant/apartment complex is abled-people only.”
“No disabled people at our wedding.”
“They should have abled-only flights.”
“I can’t stand disabled people.”
“I live a disabled person-free life.”
“This restaurant/apartment complex is abled-people only.”
“No disabled people at our wedding.”
“They should have abled-only flights.”
Reposted by Isabel Rodríguez
“It’s not abuse when I hit my disabled mother. It’s called discipline! How else is she gonna learn how to behave?”
“You can’t go to your grandpa every time he calls out. You will spoil him. Tell him good night, and lock him in his room. Only go in to change his diaper but don’t make eye contact!”
“You can’t go to your grandpa every time he calls out. You will spoil him. Tell him good night, and lock him in his room. Only go in to change his diaper but don’t make eye contact!”
September 25, 2025 at 5:47 AM
“It’s not abuse when I hit my disabled mother. It’s called discipline! How else is she gonna learn how to behave?”
“You can’t go to your grandpa every time he calls out. You will spoil him. Tell him good night, and lock him in his room. Only go in to change his diaper but don’t make eye contact!”
“You can’t go to your grandpa every time he calls out. You will spoil him. Tell him good night, and lock him in his room. Only go in to change his diaper but don’t make eye contact!”
Reposted by Isabel Rodríguez
Despising children is connected how many of us were poorly treated as children. That disrespect isn't something we get over easily without careful processing. Shoot, we even perpetuate it as a society. Kids have no direct institutional power and we love and hate that about them.
“Folks say “I don’t like kids,” as casually as they’d say they prefer Pepsi to Coke. When people say things like “kids are okay, but I just don’t want them around me,” we don’t generally question that. I think we should.”
Children's Spaces With No Children
Have we lost our very minds?
open.substack.com
August 24, 2025 at 5:41 PM
Despising children is connected how many of us were poorly treated as children. That disrespect isn't something we get over easily without careful processing. Shoot, we even perpetuate it as a society. Kids have no direct institutional power and we love and hate that about them.
Reposted by Isabel Rodríguez
@parkroseperma.bsky.social has several shorts about childism. Here's one that connects childism to ableism.
H8ing kids is ableism
YouTube video by Parkrose Permaculture
youtube.com
August 24, 2025 at 5:48 PM
@parkroseperma.bsky.social has several shorts about childism. Here's one that connects childism to ableism.
Reposted by Isabel Rodríguez
I wrote about how the U.S. refuses to ratify the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child.
"ParentalRights.org is an organization that has been actively campaigning against U.S. ratification of “dangerous U.N conventions that “threaten parental rights”
www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-p...
"ParentalRights.org is an organization that has been actively campaigning against U.S. ratification of “dangerous U.N conventions that “threaten parental rights”
www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-p...
September 2, 2025 at 6:26 PM
I wrote about how the U.S. refuses to ratify the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child.
"ParentalRights.org is an organization that has been actively campaigning against U.S. ratification of “dangerous U.N conventions that “threaten parental rights”
www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-p...
"ParentalRights.org is an organization that has been actively campaigning against U.S. ratification of “dangerous U.N conventions that “threaten parental rights”
www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-p...
Reposted by Isabel Rodríguez
When the president of the United States calls a Black congresswoman “garbage,” that’s state-level dehumanization. And history tells us exactly where that language leads.
open.substack.com/pub/drstacey...
open.substack.com/pub/drstacey...
When a President Calls a Black Congresswoman “Garbage,” That’s Genocidal Language
This Substack is reader-supported.
open.substack.com
December 3, 2025 at 5:28 PM
When the president of the United States calls a Black congresswoman “garbage,” that’s state-level dehumanization. And history tells us exactly where that language leads.
open.substack.com/pub/drstacey...
open.substack.com/pub/drstacey...
Reposted by Isabel Rodríguez
Unfortunately, “any effort to produce desired genetic characteristics” is actually the definition of eugenics.
Sterilization and other racist pseudoscientific methods are simply vectors through which eugenics operates.
Eugenics is still practiced—genetic counselling is one such means.
Sterilization and other racist pseudoscientific methods are simply vectors through which eugenics operates.
Eugenics is still practiced—genetic counselling is one such means.
December 4, 2025 at 2:38 PM
Unfortunately, “any effort to produce desired genetic characteristics” is actually the definition of eugenics.
Sterilization and other racist pseudoscientific methods are simply vectors through which eugenics operates.
Eugenics is still practiced—genetic counselling is one such means.
Sterilization and other racist pseudoscientific methods are simply vectors through which eugenics operates.
Eugenics is still practiced—genetic counselling is one such means.
Reposted by Isabel Rodríguez
Who defines what is “desired” as far as genetics qualities? What are the impacts to people who do not have the “desired” genetic qualities?
Even with new advances in the literature around genetics such as plasticity, there’s a clear power dynamic at play in the ways that we valorise genetics.
Even with new advances in the literature around genetics such as plasticity, there’s a clear power dynamic at play in the ways that we valorise genetics.
December 4, 2025 at 2:54 PM
Who defines what is “desired” as far as genetics qualities? What are the impacts to people who do not have the “desired” genetic qualities?
Even with new advances in the literature around genetics such as plasticity, there’s a clear power dynamic at play in the ways that we valorise genetics.
Even with new advances in the literature around genetics such as plasticity, there’s a clear power dynamic at play in the ways that we valorise genetics.
Reposted by Isabel Rodríguez
Since OP deleted his post, the original argument was that eugenics is too broadly defined, and that if we view it as improving humanity through promoting desired genetic traits, eugenics could actually be a good thing.
I disagree with OP, and a whole lot of other folks seemed to disagree too.
I disagree with OP, and a whole lot of other folks seemed to disagree too.
December 4, 2025 at 3:00 PM
Since OP deleted his post, the original argument was that eugenics is too broadly defined, and that if we view it as improving humanity through promoting desired genetic traits, eugenics could actually be a good thing.
I disagree with OP, and a whole lot of other folks seemed to disagree too.
I disagree with OP, and a whole lot of other folks seemed to disagree too.
Reposted by Isabel Rodríguez
This is a good example and explanation of why I get a bit irritated when people dismiss Indigenous science in favour of dominant science, or call Indigenous knowledge unscientific.
Science is not a static entity, and how we’ve defined it has shifted over time. Eugenics is a strong example of this.
Science is not a static entity, and how we’ve defined it has shifted over time. Eugenics is a strong example of this.
1. Historically, eugenics was not a pseudoscience. It was *science* Almost every scientist, social scientist, academic, etc. believed in the validity of eugenics. You would have to search far & wide to find a scientist that didn't believe in some form of it. They taught it in college!
December 4, 2025 at 3:48 PM
This is a good example and explanation of why I get a bit irritated when people dismiss Indigenous science in favour of dominant science, or call Indigenous knowledge unscientific.
Science is not a static entity, and how we’ve defined it has shifted over time. Eugenics is a strong example of this.
Science is not a static entity, and how we’ve defined it has shifted over time. Eugenics is a strong example of this.
Reposted by Isabel Rodríguez
I’d slightly disagree here, but not because Dr. Antonovich is wrong in her assessment of what pseudoscience is—I disagree because eugenics as it was practiced in the 19th and 20th centuries essentially cloaked racism
and sexism in scientific sounding language to justify its broader aims.
and sexism in scientific sounding language to justify its broader aims.
NOW, it's a pseudoscience because it's been debunked & is no longer mainstream scientific thinking. Calling historical eugenics a pseudoscience lets science & scientists of the past off the hook (Also, PS is more of a modern-day term. We had terms like "quackery" but eugenics was not that)
December 4, 2025 at 3:58 PM
I’d slightly disagree here, but not because Dr. Antonovich is wrong in her assessment of what pseudoscience is—I disagree because eugenics as it was practiced in the 19th and 20th centuries essentially cloaked racism
and sexism in scientific sounding language to justify its broader aims.
and sexism in scientific sounding language to justify its broader aims.
Reposted by Isabel Rodríguez
Yes, they probably truly believed that they were doing cutting edge science, but I've always viewed pseudoscience as an 'after-the-fact' noun and/or adjective anyway; we understand it as pseudoscience once it's been debunked.
December 4, 2025 at 3:58 PM
Yes, they probably truly believed that they were doing cutting edge science, but I've always viewed pseudoscience as an 'after-the-fact' noun and/or adjective anyway; we understand it as pseudoscience once it's been debunked.
Reposted by Isabel Rodríguez
I use mercury as an example of how we’ve viewed scientific knowledge production—if I were to spill mercury in my classroom, the building would be locked down for at least the next day or two and I’d likely be looking for a new job shortly thereafter.
They used to put it in kids’ science kits.
They used to put it in kids’ science kits.
December 4, 2025 at 4:05 PM
I use mercury as an example of how we’ve viewed scientific knowledge production—if I were to spill mercury in my classroom, the building would be locked down for at least the next day or two and I’d likely be looking for a new job shortly thereafter.
They used to put it in kids’ science kits.
They used to put it in kids’ science kits.
Reposted by Isabel Rodríguez
Anyway, this has been a very long thread. Maybe later I’ll drop some recommendations for reading about eugenics and its impact on racialized groups.
December 4, 2025 at 4:05 PM
Anyway, this has been a very long thread. Maybe later I’ll drop some recommendations for reading about eugenics and its impact on racialized groups.
Reposted by Isabel Rodríguez
Historian of eugenics here. I don't normally like to retweet bad arguments, but this is such a fundamental misunderstanding of eugenics, I think it's important to point out. I don't have time to debunk all of the ways this is inaccurate, but I'll highlight a few things and then recommend some books🧵
December 4, 2025 at 12:44 PM
Historian of eugenics here. I don't normally like to retweet bad arguments, but this is such a fundamental misunderstanding of eugenics, I think it's important to point out. I don't have time to debunk all of the ways this is inaccurate, but I'll highlight a few things and then recommend some books🧵
Reposted by Isabel Rodríguez
1. Historically, eugenics was not a pseudoscience. It was *science* Almost every scientist, social scientist, academic, etc. believed in the validity of eugenics. You would have to search far & wide to find a scientist that didn't believe in some form of it. They taught it in college!
December 4, 2025 at 12:44 PM
1. Historically, eugenics was not a pseudoscience. It was *science* Almost every scientist, social scientist, academic, etc. believed in the validity of eugenics. You would have to search far & wide to find a scientist that didn't believe in some form of it. They taught it in college!
Reposted by Isabel Rodríguez
NOW, it's a pseudoscience because it's been debunked & is no longer mainstream scientific thinking. Calling historical eugenics a pseudoscience lets science & scientists of the past off the hook (Also, PS is more of a modern-day term. We had terms like "quackery" but eugenics was not that)
December 4, 2025 at 12:44 PM
NOW, it's a pseudoscience because it's been debunked & is no longer mainstream scientific thinking. Calling historical eugenics a pseudoscience lets science & scientists of the past off the hook (Also, PS is more of a modern-day term. We had terms like "quackery" but eugenics was not that)
Reposted by Isabel Rodríguez
2. Focusing on the where I said scientists & others believed in "some form of eugenics." That's key to another problem with OPs post. Eugenicists had a WIDE spectrum of eugenic beliefs & often disagreed! Some eugenicists believed in OPs version: forced & coerced sterilization.
December 4, 2025 at 12:44 PM
2. Focusing on the where I said scientists & others believed in "some form of eugenics." That's key to another problem with OPs post. Eugenicists had a WIDE spectrum of eugenic beliefs & often disagreed! Some eugenicists believed in OPs version: forced & coerced sterilization.
Reposted by Isabel Rodríguez
Others were even worse! Some people I study advocated for what they called "eugenic euthanasia," or killing people who could not support themselves because of medical conditions. Many eugenicists disagreed with both of these!
December 4, 2025 at 12:44 PM
Others were even worse! Some people I study advocated for what they called "eugenic euthanasia," or killing people who could not support themselves because of medical conditions. Many eugenicists disagreed with both of these!