I just got done reading some of Aristorle's views about eunuchs. He did have many erronious beliefs about procreation. But he also was very remakably accurate in certain chief aspects. He goes into how the sexes have either one "principle" or the other. He compares this to certain other amomlies such as having six fingers in some individuals and so on. Then he discusses how if the two "principles" seems to exist in an individual (traganai) then either one or the other will predominate over the other so in effect this individual still actually has one or the other. He then discusses how if there was a change in the "principle" then the whole countenance of the individual changes. Somehow by his discussion about the traganai that the selection of which sex is accidental in every case. So is something that characterizes certain body parts or is it one that effects an individual as a whole? And is a eunuch a man that has been changed into a woman or are they something else all together different. He goes on to say that they are not male or female in the whole of itself but by the virtue of a certain faculty. We must observe that a small change in "principle" is attended by many of the changes depending on it. In castrated animals the generative capability is diabled and then the whole shape of the animal changes and they seem more feminine because of it. So when a principle is altered in some way then we expect various changes to follow. But only certain parts have a sex rather than a whole individual. A eunuch is created from a male but a certain "principle" has been altered. However unlike the female, the eunuch does not posess the function to procreate in that capacity. (But then I think neither do a lot of females. My thoughts.) Then he goes on to observe how eunuchs never go bald just like females since the whole countenance has changed due to one vital aspect that is missing or deformed.