We’re right in the middle of one of the great controveries of science and social science - “is human nature a result of _nature_ or of _nurture_? The answer to the question, of course, is a loud “YES!”

It’s clearly a combination of BOTH. The sexual plumbing, whether original equipment or modified along the way, is primarily nature, but nurture is involved as well. Various human-produced environmental hormone analogues can effect the fetus. Surgery can change what nature has provided.

The gender (between the ears) seems to have a stronger nurture component, but there is definitely a strong nature element as well, which cannot be overcome by nurture.

This doctor has taken the discredited position that nurture can overcome everything that nature produces. He is clearly wrong. I hope that he and his hospital lose a very large lawsuit. Unfortunately, it’s almost impossible to bring criminal charges in a case like this.

Since first hearing of this case, I haven’t been able to get the poor little BOY out of my mind. It’s doubtful that he would ever accept becoming a girl. He’ll just grow up as a eunuch, having had no choice in the matter. Slave boys may have been castrated in the past, but that’s a nightmare that ought to have been left behind long ago.

radar (imported) wrote: Tue Jan 01, 2002 6:42 pm Are you saying that the best treatment for this "doctor" is to put a blowtorch up his ass?

Perhaps a down and out welder could be hired and could decide whether or not to torch the guy based on his bottom line.

If you watched the discovery channel show, many of the victims of the surgical mutlations noted that it was the surgeons who governed themselves. These surgeons did not perform much if any follow up studies, just going about their work for years with out much regard for the end result. One fellow noted that once his surgeries had started he was on a coarse of several major genital surgeries.

The medical industry is supposed to help people. In many ways it is just like any other industry. Profit is the bottom line. The people make the difference, not the instution itself. This guy did the cutting for an extra buck. Indeed this fellow and all his cohorts should be closley examined.

A great analogy to the ongoing pediatric genital surgeries can be reflected in the APA's position on castration for violent offenders. The prison industrial complex and the psychiatric association know that castration cuts down on recidivism. It works great, to good. They would never support a practice that puts them out of business.

I did not see the program in question, but from Limpone's description it sounds like a clear instance of malpractice. It would be unfortunate if our focus on cases like this diverted our attention from the much more common, medically accepted, practice of assigning a gender to babies born with ambiguous genitalia. If I correctly understand what I have read about this, the decision is often based only on penis length, or whether the urethral opening is at the tip of the penis, with no reference to chromosomes.

The doctors who do this, and the parents who approve it, believe that it is in the best interest of the child to be assigned one gender or the other, rather than suffer the confusion and social problems that would ensue if nothing were done.

The underlying assumption, of course, is that there only two genders. To understand how pervasive this assumption is, look at my use of the preposition "s/he." We simply do not have the language to deal with ambiguity very well.

Activist and medical organizations are only starting to address this issue. The Intersex Society of North America (http://www.isna.org) advocates leaving the child with the hand that nature dealt (i.e, no medically unnecessary surgery), until s/he is able to decide whether to resolve the ambiguity or continue to live as an intersexual. (The old term, hermaphrodite, seems to have gone out of fashion.)

peter

plezherus (imported) wrote: Thu Jan 03, 2002 6:00 pm Perhaps a down and out welder could be hired and could decide whether or not to torch the guy based on his bottom line.

That works for me.

plezherus (imported) wrote: Thu Jan 03, 2002 6:00 pm If you watched the discovery channel show, many of the victims of the surgical mutlations noted that it was the surgeons who governed themselves. These surgeons did not perform much if any follow up studies, just going about their work for years with out much regard for the end result.

So much for "Do no harm..."

plezherus (imported) wrote: Thu Jan 03, 2002 6:00 pm The medical industry is supposed to help people. In many ways it is just like any other industry. Profit is the bottom line. The people make the difference, not the instution itself. This guy did the cutting for an extra buck. Indeed this fellow and all his cohorts should be closley examined.

In a perfect word, yes, but this kind of greed is actually encouraged by the medical schools and the entire medical education establishment. Most of the students are entering the field primarily for the money. Any even slightly altruistic desire to help people is purely secondary in most of them, if it exists at all.

Now I'm neither so idealistic nor left wing as to believe that altruism should properly be a doctor's sole motivation for doing what he does. They work very long, hard hours, the responsibilities are onerous and their education is expensive, and they deserve to be rewarded hansomely for that. But any job carries with it a first obligation to those one serves, and it has become clear that while a number of individual doctors may understand this, the medical profession overall apparently does not.

plezherus (imported) wrote: Thu Jan 03, 2002 6:00 pm A great analogy to the ongoing pediatric genital surgeries can be reflected in the APA's position on castration for violent offenders. The prison industrial complex and the psychiatric association know that castration cuts down on recidivism. It works great, to good. They would never support a practice that puts them out of business.

Here I think we disagree just a bit. I am not in favor of forced castration as a "cure" for violent offenders. Not only are the results relatively unpredictable, but I think we begin to descend along a dangerous path as a society if we sanction such methods of punishment or treatment. Ethically, mutilation is difficult to justify, no matter how much I may agree with you about the cynical approach the APA takes to the profession.

radar (imported) wrote: Fri Jan 04, 2002 8:13 pm Here I think we disagree just a bit. I am not in favor of forced castration as a "cure" for violent offenders. Not only are the results relatively unpredictable, but I think we begin to descend along a dangerous path as a society if we sanction such methods of punishment or treatment. Ethically, mutilation is difficult to justify, no matter how much I may agree with you about the cynical approach the APA takes to the profession.

I would hope that anyone who commited an act violence or deliberate harm against another would seek a retribution that would not only serve as punishment, but also work to insure against future occurances. In other words various rapists, molesters and other violent offenders should be seeking whatever procedures at whatever cost to get themselves back on track.

The rest is a can of worms

plezherus (imported) wrote: Fri Jan 04, 2002 8:36 pm I would hope that anyone who commited an act violence or deliberate harm against another would seek a retribution that would not only serve as punishment, but also work to insure against future occurances. In other words various rapists, molesters and other violent offenders should be seeking whatever procedures at whatever cost to get themselves back on track.

The rest is a can of worms

Well back before they changed the legal system any offenders that got convicted, where just hanged. So they where removed from the gene pool.

plezherus (imported) wrote: Fri Jan 04, 2002 8:36 pm I would hope that anyone who commited an act violence or deliberate harm against another would seek a retribution that would not only serve as punishment, but also work to insure against future occurances. In other words various rapists, molesters and other violent offenders should be seeking whatever procedures at whatever cost to get themselves back on track.

The rest is a can of worms

A can of worms, indeed. But the worms do not originate out of an offender's sincere desire/attempt to reform, but rather out of the "solution" that the state would impose. Imprisonment/isolation is about as far as an ethical state can go in the case of anything short of intentional murder. Once it steps beyond that line, we raise all sorts of ethical dilemmas, primarily because in interfering with his exercise of free will, we are attempting to take away the offender's humanity in a way that even his crimes could not do. The movie, A Clockwork Orange dealt with that quite well, I thought.

Indeed, were we to start castrating violent offenders, no matter how much we may think they deserve it, we would be lowering ourselves to the level of the Taliban.

radar (imported) wrote: Sat Jan 05, 2002 10:34 pm A can of worms, indeed. But the worms do not originate out of an offender's sincere desire/attempt to reform, but rather out of the "solution" that the state would impose. Imprisonment/isolation is about as far as an ethical state can go in the case of anything short of intentional murder. Once it steps beyond that line, we raise all sorts of ethical dilemmas, primarily because in interfering with his exercise of free will, we are attempting to take away the offender's humanity in a way that even his crimes could not do. The movie, A Clockwork Orange dealt with that quite well, I thought.

Indeed, were we to start castrating violent offenders, no matter how much we may think they deserve it, we would be lowering ourselves to the level of the Taliban.

Studies have concluded that violent offenders in prison have much higher levels of testosterone than average men. Therefore, their condition could be observed as a medical problem rather than social. One could then contemplate castration as a means to aid the individual in becoming an active member in society. Is it cruel and unusual to allow a person to commit repeated crimes and suffer the emotiobal consequence of knowing they harmed another? Are we all preprogrammed to view castration as some homo-erotic, pschosocial power play over other males? Are we genuinely concerned on working toward a more harmoneous environment?

I think it is cruel to allow a person with a concionce to commit acts of violence out of anger or lust. Further, I'll assert that it is cruel to permit these untreated people to reenter society without any intervention. Indeed, I couldn't give a rats ass what happens to baby killers and rapists, honestly. Would you want to go on living after killing someone in a psychotic fit? Let's just say you raped and killed some five year old little boy in a public restroom. What would you want done? Personally I would welcome the exeutioner with open arms if my mind allowed an act of violence to occur. You will not see me championing the defence of demented minds and corrupted soals, people so weak minded they should not be allowed to reproduce let alone populate this planet.

Perhaps the terrorist on trial for plotting the trade center should have his life spared. We should sit him up all night watching nick-at-night with tooth picks in his eyelids.

Sorry for the poor dislay of verbal knowledge. The 60's are over! You got any rights bro?

-plezherus........................................g one fishing after all.

plezherus (imported) wrote: Sun Jan 06, 2002 4:15 pm Studies have concluded that violent offenders in prison have much higher levels of testosterone than average men. Therefore, their condition could be observed as a medical problem rather than social. One could then contemplate castration as a means to aid the individual in becoming an active member in society.

One could contemplate it, but actually carrying it out on that basis would have a poor scientific grounding. Many of those same studies you mention also show that a male's testosterone production varies quite markedly as a result of either a victory in a fight or the expectation of one. For instance, those who are most successful in business (or crime, for that matter) tend to have the highest T levels, and those levels elevate after a victory or success. The claim that this elevation is a result of some medical predisposition is far from proven.

plezherus (imported) wrote: Sun Jan 06, 2002 4:15 pm Is it cruel and unusual to allow a person to commit repeated crimes and suffer the emotional consequence of knowing they harmed another? Are we all preprogrammed to view castration as some homo-erotic, pschosocial power play over other males? Are we genuinely concerned on working toward a more harmoneous environment?

All of the above rhetorical questions are irrelevant to the issue at hand, namely, the morality of forced castration as a solution to violent male offenders. I certainly have no objection to a man's requesting castration, if he sincerely believes it will help him to overcome whatever impulses he may feel, though I would suggest that much of what has of late been attributed, mostly by feminists, to the evils of testosterone is, in fact, little more than poor impulse control, brought about by a lousy job of parenting when he was young. In other words, start turning adults back into parents, and the problem will, to a great extent, go away on its own.

plezherus (imported) wrote: Sun Jan 06, 2002 4:15 pm I think it is cruel to allow a person with a concionce to commit acts of violence out of anger or lust. Further, I'll assert that it is cruel to permit these untreated people to reenter society without any intervention.

Again,the first question is moot, given that we already agree that offenders should be permitted to seek castration voluntarily. And we agree on the second, except that I believe incarceration and psychological treatment, rather than forced mutilation, is the more ethical approach.

plezherus (imported) wrote: Sun Jan 06, 2002 4:15 pm Indeed, I couldn't give a rats ass what happens to baby killers and rapists, honestly. Would you want to go on living after killing someone in a psychotic fit? Let's just say you raped and killed some five year old little boy in a public restroom. What would you want done? Personally I would welcome the exeutioner with open arms if my mind allowed an act of violence to occur. You will not see me championing the defence of demented minds and corrupted soals, people so weak minded they should not be allowed to reproduce let alone populate this planet.

In this regard I'm with you. People like that are why we have capital punishment in the U.S., and I favor that as the proper treatment for willful child murderers. Rapists, however, deserve treatment, I believe, especially considering the huge percentage of rape accusations that are in fact false (estimates based on the latest scientific studies vary from around 60% to as high as 90%). Capital punishment would seem a bit extreme in that light.

plezherus (imported) wrote: Sun Jan 06, 2002 4:15 pm Perhaps the terrorist on trial for plotting the trade center should have his life spared. We should sit him up all night watching nick-at-night with tooth picks in his eyelids.

Hmmm...tempting. But the problem is, he may actually grow to like it!!

plezherus (imported) wrote: Sun Jan 06, 2002 4:15 pm Sorry for the poor dislay of verbal knowledge. The 60's are over! You got any rights bro?

No apologies necessary. You do just fine. As for my rights, that's the problem, isn't it? I've watched them erode steadily throughout my 51 years, and there's no end in sight. The very last thing I want is to have it made possible for the state to come and take my nuts because some shrink with only a tenuous grip on reality and a poor understanding of human nature thinks it might be an easy way out of a problem that he might otherwise actually have to work to solve.

Freedom does carry its costs. It just saddens me that fewer and fewer people seem willing to pay them.

This thread has moved far afield from its origins. The question of castration and crime is an important one. And one which has certainly been in the news in recent months, including some interesting threads which were lost with the system crash here. Rather than leave the discussion at the end of a very different subject, I’ve started a new thread titled “Crime and Castration” on the Eunuch Central board to provide a better location for the debate (and spear-throwing). Sharpen your weapons and let’s have at it. Radar and Plezheurus have provided some great ammunition to get us started.