Infertility, impotence, and emasculation - psychosocial contexts for abandoning reproduction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
From a Darwinian perspective we live to reproduce, but in various situations genetic males elect not to reproduce by choosing medical treatments leading to infertility, impotence, and, in the extreme, emasculation. For many men, infertility can be psychologically distressing. However, for certain genetic males, being infertile may improve their quality of life. Examples include (1) men who seek vasectomy, (2) individuals with Gender Dysphoria (e.g., transwomen, and modern day voluntary eunuchs), (3) most gay men, and (4) men treated for testicular and prostate cancer. Men who desire vasectomy typically have a Darwinian fitness W >1 at the time of their vasectomies; i.e., after they have their desired number of offspring or consider themselves past an age for parenting newborns. In contrast, prostate and testicular cancer patients, along with individuals with extreme Gender Dysphoria, do not necessarily seek to be sterile, but accept it as an unavoidable consequence of the treatment for their condition undertaken for survival (in case of cancer patients) or to achieve a better quality of life (for those with Gender Dysphoria). Most gay men do not father children, but they may play an avuncular role, providing for their siblings' offspring's welfare, thus improving their inclusive fitness through kin selection. In a strictly Darwinian model, the primary motivation for all individuals is to reproduce, but there are many situations for men to remove themselves from the breeding populations because they have achieved a fitness W ≥1, or have stronger medical or psychological needs that preclude remaining fertile.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".