Variation in perceptions of genital ablation between aspiring eunuchs and individuals with paraphilic sexual fantasies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Although uncommon, some individuals assigned male at birth (AMAB) seek voluntary genital ablative procedures, and others fantasize about it. Aim: To learn more about the views of genital ablation and injuries in those who aspire to be castrated as compared with those who only fantasize about it. Methods: A survey was run on the Eunuch Archive internet community. Content analysis was conducted on the responses of 342 AMAB individuals with castration fantasy but no desire for actual surgery (fantasizers) vs 294 AMAB individuals who expressed a desire for genital ablation (aspiring). Outcomes: Study outcomes were responses to open-ended questions about genital ablations and injury. Results: Aspiring individuals were more likely to perceive a "physical appearance benefit" from orchiectomy, but fewer could recall how they first learned about the procedure. Some reasons that aspiring persons gave for desiring an orchiectomy included "achieving preferred self" and "health reasons." Fantasizers, in contrast, worried about the potential side effects of orchiectomy, and more believed there to be no benefit to it. Clinical Implications: Psychiatrists and other clinicians need to understand their patients' views on genital ablation to properly diagnose and provide the best personalized care. Strengths and Limitations: Strengths include a large sample of respondents. Limitations include the accuracy of the anonymous survey data. Conclusions: This study demonstrates divergent interests on genital ablation among AMAB individuals who have not had an any genital ablation yet have intense interest in the topic.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".