Well again, there are clear examples of genetic mutations which are in evolutionary terms defective, their evolutionary "inferiority" is a function of the fact that they are unlikely to be selected for by the processes of natural selection. There are genetic mutations which are by contrast much more effective and are therefore more likely to be selected for. This need not have anything to do with culture or community.
You can describe them (imperfectly, and somewhat inaccurately I'll grant you) in terms of inferiority and superiority. So long as no further attempt to build theories of genetic hygiene are constructed on that dichotomy it's essentially a harmless misnomer.
Well, yes, when speaking of genetic mutations one can rather safely conclude that one might be "superior" to another in terms of what advantages or disadvantages the particular aberration gives the mutated organism. But as you state, this is far from the implications of "superior" and "inferior" genes withing a societal setting.
Take for instance those who bemoan not having a so-called "athletic" build. Who is to say that those of us who are quite slim are not "superior" (if we're speaking in terms of adaptability to certain environments) to the so-called hunk?
Or consider those kids of untold generations who grew up wanting "good" (meaning "straight") hair... "good" as determined by some cultural definition. ...which
if "good" the opposite would have to be (by implication) "bad", would it not?
By whose definition is it either?
The thing that I find objectionable in the term "superior" is the implication that because certain traits may be
preferable within a society, this would automatically make them "superior" or "better" than another.
I disagree.