Choosing Castration: A Thematic Analysis of the Perceived Pros and Cons of Genital Injuries and Ablation by Men Who Voluntarily Sought Castration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Some men elect castration voluntarily without any clear medical reason. Here we aim to document their perception of genital ablation and injuries to better understand their motivations for castration. Participants completed an online survey with open-ended questions related to their perspectives on castration, genital ablation, and genital injuries. Thematic analyses were performed on the responses to these questions. Responses were obtained from 208 male castrated individuals (51.9 ± 16.0 years old). Among these, 154 were physically castrated, 36 chemically castrated, and 18 nullified (had testicles and penis removed). The majority learned about castration from media (55.8%) or animal castration (23.4%). The circumstances when they first wanted to be castrated varied greatly. Most (46.3%) wished to achieve an idealized self motivated by gender dysphoria, body integrity dysphoria, or wanting to be conspicuously non-sexual. The top themes we identified related to the respondents' perceptions of the pros of genital ablation were physical appearance, psychological benefit (i.e., a "eunuch calm"), and being non-sexual. Conversely, themes related to the cons they saw in having no genitals ranged from no disadvantages to loss of sexual/reproductive capability. Some perceived performing genital injury as a step toward ultimate castration or nullification. The respondents similarly varied in whether they saw any loss in having non-functional testicles. Perceptions in this regard appeared to differ depending on whether the respondents were taking supplemental androgens post-castration. Motivations for castration vary greatly between individuals. Clinicians need to understand men's diverse perceptions on castration in order to provide appropriate care for individuals with strong castration desire.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".