I get the appeal. We are told that improving our biology is "unethical", and we want to defend against this charge, and yet we're also often told it's a cardinal rule of public communications that if you're always "on the defensive" you're guaranteed to lose. And so what better solution than to turn around the table and say that those who reject the new century's modernity are the unethical ones, because they are committing the age-old sin of negligence? But ultimately I now think the strategy has far more downsides than upsides. The idea that differences in preferences and values can often be resolved with "live and let live" is a powerful social technology, and we lose a lot if we abandon it. If you publicly telegraph that if you win your fight for acceptance you will immediately follow it up with a fight for imposition, do not be surprised if people decide to oppose your fight for acceptance from day one with a vigor only reserved for resisting imposition. And so if we want the h