Is voluntary castration becoming more popular in America?

[hans-europe (imported)]

...totally in common mind....Expensive? A help will be...

[photoglenn (imported)]

Is voluntary castration becoming more popular in America, or is it just more out in the open, like in the Eunuch Archive? For me, it was a dream of many decades, and only recently did I discover 'safe' and painless ways to do it. And I did it.

This is an interesting question that may be a challenge to answer. Most castrations result from men who have prostate cancer and they "voluntarily" agree to castration. Other folks, like yourself, have had a personal quest to be castrated and they are the group that generally have the most difficult time due to various laws and places they live. Is it discussed more often? I do not know as I know I do not discuss it with my friends, (except one personal trusted best friend who is not castrated) .

As posted above it appears to be more common in Asian and other countries. I doubt it is "out in the open" more in public and would cause raised eyebrows should the topic be brought up in a social event, depending upon the gender, and relative diversity of the people in the group.

[NaturalEunuch (imported)]

Wouldn't exactly call voluntary castration "popular." Those who seek voluntary castration are a market that is vastly underserved. There are a few more medical professionals who might be at least consider the idea these days, so I think it's accurate to say voluntary castration is becoming slightly less unpopular in America.

[WheelyCurious]

I don't know about popularity, but it may be getting better known as an option... The other factor that may have an effect over time is that now we have explicit mention in the WPATH Standards of Care. This is probably not a real widely distributed document for the general public, but at least it does make the option at least somewhat more exposed for those that are determined enough to change their state to start researching the options....

Flip side on public awareness - I've long been aware of M <-> F transgender surgery, and castration as a 'historical' thing, but that it was even possible to get castrated in modern time other than as part of a full swap I hadn't known until I accidentally encountered stuff about it on Quora - which led to me EA and starting this journey... So arguably it is getting slightly more known...

It seems like a somewhat delicate balance - how many 'hoops' should be required in order to get ? While the idea of a 'walk-in-clinic' is popular in the stories, given the serious and permanent consequences, I don't know that it should be to easy to get surgery...

WheelyCurious

[magusuk89 (imported)]

I don't know about popularity, but it may be getting better known as an option... The other factor that may have an effect over time is that now we have explicit mention in the WPATH Standards of Care. This is probably not a real widely distributed document for the general public, but at least it does make the option at least somewhat more exposed for those that are determined enough to change their state to start researching the options....

Flip side on public awareness - I've long been aware of M <-> F transgender surgery, and castration as a 'historical' thing, but that it was even possible to get castrated in modern time other than as part of a full swap I hadn't known until I accidentally encountered stuff about it on Quora - which led to me EA and starting this journey... So arguably it is getting slightly more known...

It seems like a somewhat delicate balance - how many 'hoops' should be required in order to get ? While the idea of a 'walk-in-clinic' is popular in the stories, given the serious and permanent consequences, I don't know that it should be to easy to get surgery...

WheelyCurious

It is all about structure. The reason why a walk-in, (un)informed consent model only looks risky in 2023 is because we have a global authoritarian medical establishment that brands itself on a 'we know best' principle. In other words, you have a culture where what a doctor is happy to do is held up as the singular most beneficial option for not just the patient, but any patient. A lot of the hoop-jumping is in no way for the benefit of the patient, but to insulate doctors' epistemological status as providers of the only indicated solution to any presentation. If you want to change your option, you have to cook up a presentation to match, explaining the change in the doctor's decision by forcing another route in a flowchart.

Within such a system, people have this trust that a doctor's preparedness to do something is a wise recommendation, even if they don't like it. Thus, to introduce walk-in elective procedures -- or any medicine where the patient has choice -- faces a public that is not used to thinking for itself, critically considering options or recognising where doctors need to be challenged. Such a mix of structures or cultures could lead to misunderstandings and the kind of regrets in anticipation of which many people spend their lives paralysed and fearful.

A totally different system -- where doctors must obey the bodily autonomy of patients, must present information and always multiple treatment options to any patient -- necessarily works differently. People who know they have the freedom to make real choices either take care over these choices, or seek support to explore their options carefully with trusted others. In such a society trusted advice is more readily come by, as the need for it is understood.

So I don't think there is a problem with walk-in, informed consent elective healthcare. There is, instead, a problem with the authoritarianism of doctors. The back of how the medical profession assumes god-like power over others can be effectively broken by beating it hard with commercial competition, making sure doctors who do not take patient supremacy seriously are run into destitution. Alternatively it could be challenged through central government edicts and enforcement.

[NaturalEunuch (imported)]

I don't think there is a problem with walk-in, informed consent elective healthcare. There is, instead, a problem with the authoritarianism of doctors. The back of how the medical profession assumes god-like power over others can be effectively broken by beating it hard with commercial competition, making sure doctors who do not take patient supremacy seriously are run into destitution. Alternatively it could be challenged through central government edicts and enforcement.

True. Then there is also the insurance and liability situations. Doctors want to get paid, so unless you can bankroll the procedure yourself, most insurance providers will fight against you tooth and nail. Plus, doctors are deathly afraid of getting sued no matter how many waivers you sign. In many ways, the U.S. healthcare system is FUBAR.

[wanasoso2 (imported)]

It's true that we live in an authoritarian health care system where the patient should listen to his doctor. In a different system, that would support an inform consented patient to go on with his choices, I would be as much carefull with such a system. Human sexuality, gender affirmation, sexual orientation, gender expression are all present in every human being which have to struggle with all these concepts through his emotions and feelings alone since there was for no one a complete and structured sexual education in his/her young life period. I would see a walk-in informed patient as someone who as been through a suportive engagement with a sex therapist to really and completely understand what are the emotions and forces that drives him/hers before going further in extreme changes. Say otherwise, a good therapy helps to understand where the suffering come from and how to dispose it to evemtially support the best choices for the future.

[WheelyCurious]

It is all about structure. The reason why a walk-in, (un)informed consent model only looks risky in 2023 is because we have a global authoritarian medical establishment that brands itself on a 'we know best' principle. In other words, you have a culture where what a doctor is happy to do is held up as the singular most beneficial option for not just the patient, but any patient. A lot of the hoop-jumping is in no way for the benefit of the patient, but to insulate doctors' epistemological status as providers of the only indicated solution to any presentation. If you want to change your option, you have to cook up a presentation to match, explaining the change in the doctor's decision by forcing another route in a flowchart.

Within such a system, people have this trust that a doctor's preparedness to do something is a wise recommendation, even if they don't like it. Thus, to introduce walk-in elective procedures -- or any medicine where the patient has choice -- faces a public that is not used to thinking for itself, critically considering options or recognising where doctors need to be challenged. Such a mix of structures or cultures could lead to misunderstandings and the kind of regrets in anticipation of which many people spend their lives paralysed and fearful.

A totally different system -- where doctors must obey the bodily autonomy of patients, must present information and always multiple treatment options to any patient -- necessarily works differently. People who know they have the freedom to make real choices either take care over these choices, or seek support to explore their options carefully with trusted others. In such a society trusted advice is more readily come by, as the need for it is understood.

So I don't think there is a problem with walk-in, informed consent elective healthcare. There is, instead, a problem with the authoritarianism of doctors. The back of how the medical profession assumes god-like power over others can be effectively broken by beating it hard with commercial competition, making sure doctors who do not take patient supremacy seriously are run into destitution. Alternatively it could be challenged through central government edicts and enforcement.

I agree with much of what you say Magus, especially about the authoritarian nature of our medical system (and many other parts as well, but that's a separate discussion) but at the same time even with all the efforts that get made to protect people from doing stupid stuff we still get 'better idiots'.

I sometimes see promotions for 'free mobile spay / neuter clinics' for pet owners - bring Fido in and take him home a bit lighter a short time later.... I think you'd have some potential for a certain number of idiots walking in if they had similar clinics for humans with that level of access ease...

OTOH, as much of an improvement over the past as SOC v8 is, I certainly wouldn't argue with those that it is still overly restrictive in the amount of work it takes to get past it's hoops even with cooperative medical providers.

I don't see a problem with totally free access walk-in places for lower consequence things (i.e. tattoo or body piercing studios - you may feel dumb later, but your life isn't 'ruined'...) but when getting to things with major and irreversible life changing consequences like castration, I feel that it isn't unreasonable to want to be certain that the patient is REALLY and truly well informed and solidly convinced that this is what he really wants...

The question to me is how big those barriers should be and how difficult it is to surmount them....

A crude analogy - if you visit Niagra Falls in the US, there are so many fences and barriers there to keep the idiots from taking a plunge that you can hardly see the falls... If you go to the Gullfoss falls in Iceland, they have a rope barrier a few feet back the cliff edge to say that was as close as it was safe to get... It takes real determination to go in at Niagra, trivial effort to go in at Gullfoss; arguably one is to hard and the other to easy... The question is where to draw the line between them...

WheelyCurious

[erikboy (imported)]

I don't think there will be over supply of doctors any time soon. It takes a lot of dedication and time before anyone is allowed to do surgeries. Although orchiectomy is technically very simple surgery, surgeon needs to have to be ready for complications and emergencies. Which needs practice and knowledge. There is always a risk of patient death, although it is extremely low with simple orchiectomy, there should be no chances it happens due to surgeon incomptence. Which leads back to first point that it needs a lot of dedication and time.

Unless of course orchiectomists will work at hospitals and if anything happens out of ordinary they could ask quick for help from real doctors. Orchiectomist would be something similar to traditional circumciser.

[Arab Nights (imported)]

I have Parkinson's and go twice a year to a neurologist at the Mohammed Ali Center in Phoenix. He had me on 3 carbidopa / levadopa 3 X daily. I was having weird side affects like weird faces and talking felt like I'd been to the dentist and had novacaine injected in the two corners of my jaw upper and lower, so he then prescribed another drug for those side efffects. Fortunately I talked my wife into going to a clothing-optional hot springs resort in Colorado for our anniversary. I told her part of that experience was pot. I woke up the next morning with no tremor. That got me experimenting and I found with CBD gummies or spray I could cut the carbidopa to 3 - 5 pills (down from 9) through a day with CBD gummies or sprays and drop the second drug. When I told him, I made the point that it was accidental discovery (gramps and granny taking a walk on the wild side) and I was not purposely changing his presciption just to rebel, but that I had learned that what worked for me was individual pills thru the day, depending on how the Parkinsons was going, mixed with a little CBD and I was much, much happier than with his rigid prescription. I heard that Drs cannot prescribe CBD because of federal drug laws. Anyway, he said he would really prefer people to vary their drugs by how their body is doing, but for the vast majority of patients it would not work to tell them to medicate as their body directed - hence the rigid schedule.

BTW, anybody with Parkinson's I'd recommend getting into a physical rehab program. It pulls your muscles tight and you 'pull into yourself,' like a lot of preachers and politicians and political commentators want you to do. It really helps to do yoga and go be with a rehab group and act like you are in a Village People video (minus LT's work boots, tight red shorts and suspenders) with exaggerated guestures and generally get out and on with life.

Just goes to show that 'the system' does not apply to some doctors.