Designer Cats - Have you ever wondered why some cats are labeled as “designer” ?
- Iconicsx
- Nov 11
- 6 min read
Updated: Nov 12
People love using labels to describe and mark things, events or even each other. It’s easier to stick a tag on something than to understand it. The same thing happens with genes. If a gene creates an unusual look, then it gets labeled as “designer”, which by the way, is still a very elegant way of naming things.
This is nothing new in the breeding world, it was always like that. Let's start with a little history lesson and go back to the 1920s.
The chocolate and lilac genes. These beautiful, warm colours were once considered unnatural and unethical. In 1920, the Siamese Cat Club of Britain issued a statement regretting it could not encourage breeding of any but blue-eyed Siamese — effectively banning brown cats from shows. When chocolate and lilac finally reappeared in Burmese cats in the 1950s-70s, breed clubs refused to acknowledge that Burmese could be any colour other than brown. In the USA, chocolate, blue, and lilac Burmese were registered as a separate breed called ‘Malayan’ from 1979-1984. Even after that, they were judged in separate divisions until 2010 — as if their colour made them less legitimate. It took nearly 90 years from the first ban to full acceptance. (1)
We could see the same pattern with the caramel gene in Oriental cats. Discovered in the 1970s, caramel was so controversial that in some registries, declaring a cat as caramel on its pedigree meant it couldn’t compete at shows. Some breeders even registered caramel cats as lilac to avoid controversy. Caramel was the last Oriental variety to gain Championship status, dismissed by many as ‘dull’ and ‘drab’ - until science caught up and the Dilute Modifier gene was understood. (2)
Hairless cats? Same thing. They were called "bizarre mutants" and "deformed" in official prints. The public loved their look, but the paperwork didn’t. Again, history repeated - breeders had to fight and argue. Sphynx were banned from the show rings for years. Now those same shows pin ribbons to the same cats they once called unethical.
It always starts the way: the eye rolling, lectures about purity and ethics, fights with the gatekeepers, and finally a quiet adoption into registry and GEMS code. That’s how this hobby moves.
Why do we need a little history lesson? Because we can observe exactly the same pattern with the Dominant Blue Eye gene.
Some people are deeply attached to what feels familiar and traditional for them. It's some kind of security for them. They are so dedicated to gatekeeping that they almost remind me of the Holy Inquisition — only this time, it’s in the breeding world, not in church. “New” is seen as a threat, so it must be destroyed, excluded or at least banned at shows.
People throw the words “designer”, “commercial” at DBE because it’s easy. It doesn’t take much effort to stick a label on something. It’s actually easier than reading a paper and understanding it.
And there’s one VERY IMPORTANT thing that keeps being silenced — intentionally or not — DBE mutations aren’t one and the same thing.
DBE is a group of different and unrelated variants. Each mutation has its own mechanism and risk. Take the Celestial variant, for example — pigment is purely limited to the iris. There are no skull deformities, no neural crest issues, no hearing problems. DBE-CEL has been confirmed as safe in heterozygous form in many scientific publications. On the other hand, we have the DBE-Re mutation, which is linked to hearing problems and Waardenburg-like syndrome. There are also other DBE mutations — Altai, AGO, CDC, and xHW. Two of them appear to be safe in heterozygous form as well, while for the last two we still don’t have enough data.
This is why each DBE mutation should be considered individually, not together as many people tend to do. It is a huge mistake that only exposes ignorance or intentional silence for gatekeeping, rather than understanding or actual knowledge in this field.
And yet the loudest voices that now are lecturing about ethics, purity in genes and are lobbying for DBE Sphynx to be excluded from the registry. They label DBE as "designer", "dangerous", "worse than HCM", a "deadly gene". It was the narrative in 2024, because some of them read for the first time about Waardenburg-like syndrome. The same problem that has existed for years in the cats they breed, white and white-spotted, but it’s called tradition, so it’s safe.
Now TICA bans DBE Bengals from cat shows. TICA’s new Show Rule 216.12.12 disqualifies cats with blue or odd eyes in Traditional and Sepia divisions from Bengal shows. The ban is purely aesthetic; the Bengal standard doesn’t include blue or odd eyes in its specifications, making this about appearance, not health. The proposal lumps all DBE mutations together, treating harmless variants the same as those with documented risks.
But here’s where it gets interesting: the rule includes one specific exception -solid white cats. White cats with blue eyes have deafness rates of 65-85%, linked directly to Waardenburg syndrome - the exact condition critics cite when attacking DBE. White odd-eyed cats show deafness in approximately 40% of cases. Yet the rule explicitly protects white cats while disqualifying DBE variants with zero documented hearing issues.
TICA’s own Genetics Committee acknowledged in their comments that “not all possible genetic causes of DBE will cause sensory deficits in affected cats", yet recommended blanket disqualification anyway. The proposal compared DBE to physical deformities like “crossed eyes, undershot jaws, or visible tail faults,” treating a benign iris pigmentation variant as equivalent to structural abnormalities.
Perhaps most revealing was the committee’s own explanation for why DBE needed restriction: these cats are “considered desirable” because they have “an exotic and attractive appearance.” Not because of welfare data. Because they’re attractive. Because they’re competition
But it doesn’t stop there. There are breeders who publicly say they wish the same rule applied to Sphynx. The same breeders who walk in the same rings with their white blue or odd-eyed cats. Where is the logic here? Eye colour isn’t even judged in Sphynx, it gives zero points.
In Sphynx DBE exists only in the safe, harmless forms. So, what exactly is being protected here? Ethics or ego, as it seems a fair competition ends right where the hunt for rosettes begins.
And the terrible irony? The Netherlands already banned Sphynx cats, and Germany and Belgium will probably follow. Not because of welfare data, but because of the same false stories, built and spread not by activists or cat owners but by breeders themselves.
Breeders who still don’t get that a mutation doesn’t mean disease. Breeders who would rather prefer gatekeeping and are rushing with crusade than open a paper . And now the bans are coming. Not because of solid data on health, not because of actual suffering. But because the public narrative was shaped by the loudest hypocrites in the room — breeders who spent years screaming “unnatural,” “unethical,” “mutated,” every time something new appeared.
At last, but not least, I keep wondering if those breeders have ever stepped outside their comfort zone. If they ever stopped for a moment to think about what their actions actually cause. Because when they keep gatekeeping and building this false narrative against breeders who works with new traits, who try to do things ethically, openly and transparently, without hiding anything from the clubs — it only destroys what’s left of trust in this field.
These are people who spend their own time on research, their own money on testing, on extensive DNA panels, scans, lab work - things those critics have never even bothered to do, and yet they’re the ones being mocked and harassed for doing more.
And what happens then? When ethical and transparent breeders are pushed away and replaced by backyard breeders, the work stops being monitored, the cats stop being tested, and the breeding becomes uncontrolled, hidden, and cruel.
Maybe it’s finally time to think about the wider consequence of their actions. Not just whether it’s good for them, or for their name in the ring. Because once the honest ones are gone, the new traits will be left in the hands of those who don’t care at all.
Comments