Evan Urquhart

That's one spot where it's made clear, but it's threaded throughout the article. Eugenics is a useful framework for describing what these bills aim to do. I never say or imply it's precisely the same thing. If you don't like the analogy, that's fine. I think it's a useful one.

I'm looking in vain for the bit where you "very specifically say it's an analogy that is useful but not perfect and shouldn't be mistaken for saying they're one and the same". And by the last paragraph you're talking flatly without qualifiers about "anti-trans eugenics".

I gave you a screenshot. It says "it's not precisely eugenics". Are you... obsessed with the word analogy? Weird.

Not sure what could be more specific than "it's not precisely eugenics" lmao

It doesn't "very specifically say it's an analogy that is useful but not perfect and shouldn't be mistaken for saying they're one and the same", it says "it's not precisely eugenics" in one place, while calling it eugenics in others.

Even if you had called it an analogy, what a grossly offensive analogy that is, to use deliberate programs of racist mass sterilization as an analogy for entirely reasonable requests for male athletes to stay in their lanes.

No, it consistently says it's a useful framework (ie, not the exact same thing). You're just being overly literal for some reason. And, no, it's not. It's a useful framework, an analogy, if you will.