Eunuchs in Contemporary Society: Characterizing Men Who are Voluntarily Castrated (Part I)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Some males desire to be emasculated for no medical reason. These individuals are often secretive about their desires and little is known about their background and motivation. AIMS: We sought to characterize these modern eunuchs and to identify risk factors for genital self-mutilation or self-administered chemical castration. METHODS: We posted a questionnaire on the Eunuch Archive ( http://www.eunuch.org) that was responded to by 135 voluntarily castrated males. Questionnaire data were supplemented by accompanying narrative responses and several personal interviews. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Participants answered questionnaire items pertaining to their knowledge about androgen deprivation, the nature of their castration, and the length of time between initial presentation of castration paraphilia and castration. These questionnaire data allowed us to compare and contrast voluntary chemical and physical eunuchs. RESULTS: The physical castrations were largely premeditated, with an average of 18 years from the time that an individual developed interest in being a eunuch to the time of their actual castration. We identified four factors that may promote castration ideations: (i) abuse sustained during childhood, including parental threats of castration; (ii) homosexuality; (iii) exposure to animal castration during youth; and (iv) religious condemnation of sexuality. Chemical eunuchs were more likely to have sought castration for libido control or to advance transition from male to female (P < 0.05). Physical eunuchs had a nonsignificant tendency to have masochistic paraphilia involving genital mutilation in advance of their castration (P < 0.1). Both Body Integrity Identity Disorder and Gender Identity Disorders occur among those who self-identify as eunuch. CONCLUSIONS: We present evidence that the majority of self-identified voluntary eunuchs are not male-to-female transsexuals. Whereas the majority identify as male, many view themselves as in an alternate nonmale, nonfemale, gender space. We therefore suggest that male-to-eunuch is a valid transgender identity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".