Valery_V (imported) wrote: Sun Jun 26, 2022 11:30 pm 11. Purely aesthetically it looks more pleasant (ballet, gymnastics, etc.).
12. already impotent, tests are useless, therefore castration.
Valery_V (imported) wrote: Sun Jun 26, 2022 11:30 pm 11. Purely aesthetically it looks more pleasant (ballet, gymnastics, etc.).
JesusA (imported) wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 12:11 pm A few years ago I was discussing prostate cancer with a friend/colleague who is an adjunct professor of endocrinology in the Harvard medical school. He noted that castration by age 35 without hormone replacement would eliminate all prostate cancer. He's since amended that statement to MOST (or maybe even "nearly all") cases. There are now a few very rare cases of prostate cancer in the medical literature in boys as young as 13 (one case) and 15 (another one case). The gene BRCA2 seems to be a factor with it responsible for about four times the rate of PCa as is found in men without the gene. BRCA2 is the gene known to be a major contributor to a high incidence of breast cancer in women (and also in men). It's also been implicated in pancreatic cancer.
If you do not carry the BRCA2 gene, castration by age 35 would almost certainly prevent prostate cancer. It should greatly reduce the odds if you do carry the gene.
Cseriess (imported) wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 10:48 am But does the benefit of no prostate cancer outweigh the negative medical side effects of castration without hrt?