Talk:Castration

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What are the consequences of being castrated? Do castrates still have sexual urges, can they still achieve an erection? I assume it matters whether the operation is performed before or after the onset of puberty. If performed after puberty, will body hair and voice move back in the pre-puberty direction?

These questions have been answered, for the most part, in the article. But note that it is often possible to have an erection and to have sex after castration. Testosterone supplements can be taken if necessary, though these would obviously be contraindicated in the case of a castration performed to control prostate cancer by reducing testosterone. Shorne 10:03, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What about the consequences on females of being castrated before or after the onset of puberty? AxelBoldt 00:18, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The article ”oophorectomy” describes the result if preformed after puberty. If the surgery is done before puberty the results are probably comparable to a male castrato. Without hormone replacement therapy she will never undergo puberty. That means she would not get breasts or any more fat on her body than a pre-pubertal child. It is also pssible that her pelvis would become narrower than those of other women. Of cause, she would not have any periods either. Her voice would remain child-like throughout her whole life. It is possible that she would not get more androgenic hair than she had at the time of surgery. Anyway, her skeleton would soon become as weak as that of an old woman. Also, she wouls feel little or no sexual drive, it is doubutful wheather she ever would have accepted to be penetrated. This is only a qualified guess: I have no actual sources.

Castration under primitive conditions (no antiseptics or anaesthesia) must be very dangerous. I have heard that more than 80% died from infections or blood loss! Anyone who kow the real figure?

2007-01-21 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

Contents

[edit] Voluntary Castration

There is no "supposed" network of cutters: they exist. I have met some, and know some people who have used their services. I also know people who have traveled from the U.S. to Mexico to have the procedure done.

Yes, they exist. There was a case in England a year or two ago of a castration done in a kitchen that led to massive blood loss and a trip to the emergency room. I believe it also led to a trip to gaol for the "cutter", who had practiced surgery without a licence.
How many people seek voluntary castration? Do you have any information? I'm just curious. Shorne 10:03, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As for mental illness... actually, psychiatrists who have studied people with the desire to be castrated have found them to be balanced, sane individuals who simply want to be castrated. -- Tooki 04:36, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Some, not all, presumably. But I agree that it is unfair to assume that people who want this procedure are mentally ill. Shorne 10:03, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I added a link to http://www.eunuch.org/Alpha/I/ea_25408intervie.htm , in refrence to castration as a paraphilia or in conjunction with masochistic desires. I felt it was very resourceful, and it lacked references.


[edit] Will Castration kill off sex drive?

Just asking, will castration kill off your sex drive/desires?


No, it does only reduces it greatly.

2007-05-31 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

[edit] Accusations of the Vietcong castrating American prisoners and others

I could not find any credible evidence of this happening so I changed the text to say that the Vietcong have sometimes been accused of doing this. If no-one provides credible evidence of this happening, I will remove the sentence altogether.Michael Glass 12:19, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Obsolete??

This sentence from the article, "The estrogen that the females produce becomes obsolete with this surgical procedure." needs clarification. I'm not sure what it is supposed to mean but I'm pretty sure it is a misuse of obsolete. ike9898 02:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Insane amounts of redundant categories

Ok, I removed Category:Dog anatomy, Category:Cat health, Category:Horse health, Category:Birth control, Category:Contraception from this article. I added Category:Animals. You can castrate *ANY* male animal, so there's no reason to include a huge amount of specific categories for something that is not specific. I don't think there's a difference between birth control and contraception, and Category:Surgical contraception was in this article, which is a sub category of contraception. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 00:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Why? You say they are redundant categories.... not if you are looking at wikipedia FROM those categories. Castration is an important topic in horse health, and other animals. I think it was a useful addition to the Category:Horse health category. Did it detract from this article to have it in that category? I don't think so. Did it detract from the category Horse health to remove castration from it? Yes. I strongly suggest that these edits are reverted. Malcolm Morley 08:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Horse health, cat health, dog health, etc. are all subsets of veterinary medicine, ie. animals. Keep the super-category. Alphax τεχ 13:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Medieval church singers?

The article says, "This practice was used to maintain angel-like voices for choir boys in service of the Catholic Church during the Middle Ages."

I think that this is a myth. Castrates do not seem to have been employed in church choirs until well into the Renaissance.

69.177.103.38 16:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I think i heard that castrates were popular in 1700s europe. I know that the last castrate either died or was castrated in the 1930s.

[edit] References

I think the page needs to reference comments such as "It is estimated that 90% of the slaves so treated died in the attempt", "However, this treatment is not as effective as commonly believed, for there have been numerous cases of castrated men continuing to molest children" and so on. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.255.202.50 (talk • contribs) 23:59, December 30, 2005.

Might as well remove the "i think" from that. :) I completely agree. I'll be working on references later. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 00:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

There should also be a cite to the bold statement that prehistoric remains of transsexual and transgendered people have been found. Where, when, by whom; and what methods were used to identify these characteristics? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.140.75.144 (talk • contribs) .

Doesn't it say the middle ages or something, not prehistoric? Anyway, I thought that was kinda odd myself. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 20:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] pictures?

Why aren't there any pictures in this article? I'm serious ,as an encyclopedia there shoudl be relevant imagery. If nudity is a problem in news sites and others ,it should'nt be so here ,under a relevant subject.

  • I had put two pictures, a medieval illumination with a man being castrated but it was removed for obvious reasons. I also had a tool used in Roman time for castration which had remained. I had found them both from ww.eunuch.org Pictureuploader 20:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Uh, are those free images? I'd kinda prefer not to have pictures here of the actual procedure, but tools and things are perfectly OK. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 21:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I guess, medieval and ancient stuff is not copyrighted. The medieval pic of the procedure was not too clearly seen though. You can go to the site and push 'refresh' until it's randomly shown. Pictureuploader 22:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Well, I think the painting was obviously pretty old. But do you have any idea when the roman clamp picture was taken? I was assuming it's a modern photograph of an ancient tool. Anyway, it's tagged as unknown, and deletable. I'd hate to lose that nice picture. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 00:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I have added a picture of a horse castration. Not too large so it is not too gorey!--Malcolm Morley 23:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Your horse is very..ahmm disturbing ,bloody and quite uninformative. I suggest replacing or deleteing it. I donno if there's a technical way to Warn users of the following display ,but a human candidate aftermath picture should at least link here directly.(or can be placed under very small diplay magnificaction) Furthermore the image:Castration.jpg is not too hursh, and yet conveys the message clearly. Maybe we should vote on it's return since it was removed by another user.(This is an article about castration after all..) -I vote For. The Procrastinator 00:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I oppose tiny-fying images to make them less shocking. Un-inlining is the only useful solution other than a normal size picture. And, i've thought about it for a bit, and I have no problem with having pictures of the procedure, as long as they're encyclopedic, and not at the top of the article (so people don't click random page and get a surprise). If you watch a TV show about procedures on TV, you get rather disgusting videos. They're interesting though. I'm not sure how informative this picture is though. If we re-instate the painting, I'd prefer putting it where it's not directly at the top, and attempting to find a higher resolution picture of it; it's hard to see anything in this one. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 00:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Agreed ,yet Naturally there are far better pictures of this,I just wanted to see if there was any rpemptive opposition cencuring encyclopedic pictures of this sort. will probably be hard to come to a free copyrighted source tohugh. The Procrastinator 00:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I will not be remotely offended if it is removed! You can see it in much higher resolution by clicking on it of course! --Malcolm Morley 10:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't have aproblem with the horse picture. But i'd like my picture to be restored also. Anone else agrees on its return? Pictureuploader 12:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, please restore all pictures of castration. I feel they are informative and display the procedure. Anyone who is offended by these pictures has little business on a section on castration in the first place. Wikipedia is not a place of censorship. Lengis 20:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Some people are still disturbed by the images and I understand. I had made a custom template of warning in articles with disturbing pictures (eg. lynching, persecution of black people, pictures of genitalia, pictures of Muhammad etc) however it was deleted and removed without notice. Maybe we should try to make one again. Pictureuploader 18:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Is that picture really necessary? I don't need to see a horse castration, thanks...

Then why are you on this page in the first place? I am really curious. Thanks Pictureuploader 08:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I am on this page to learn, not be be shocked by offensive images. Why should Wikipedia be like goat.se-like shocker site? If you think just because something represents reality it should be in an encyclopedia, you have another thing coming. What if a child sees this? You are a disgusting person for supporting this photograph. What are you going to do next, put up a little child pornography and a little snuff film selection in order to illustrate your point? NeoThe1 08:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
The picture was earlier in a lower point and in a smaller size, until someone else moved to the top of the article. Pictureuploader 11:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
The format and placement of the photograph in question has no beating on the fact that the photograph is is un-encyclopaedic, inappropriate and gratuitous. NeoThe1 17:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Castration in Literature

The reason I deleted the section, is because it's not at all helpful to the article nor to producing such a section. Even we had a full 30k article on Castration in Literature, it wouldn't be appropriate to add 1k of text on one story in the Bible, that is connected to the subject only by the coincidence that it has a eunuch in it. There's nothing on castration in that story. Furthermore, "Many times, families would give up their children to become servants of the ruling government. If males, they were often castrated to ensure their "passivity" as well as alleviating other potential complecations." isn't about castration in literature or the bible at all, and should be handled elsewhere in the article. This story at best deserves a note like "the most significant eunuch in the Bible was the man who was converted to Christianity by Phillip on the way to Gaza."--Prosfilaes 01:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gory picture

I regard the picture of the horse castration as highly offensive. It should be remove! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyrruss (talk • contribs) 08:21, March 1, 2006

In light of this comment I direct you to Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. This is an image of the surgical castration of a horse and is wholly appropriate in this article. Other articles dealing with anatomy and surgery (human or otherwise) also have pictures of "the real thing" such as Liver, Circumcision, Breast implant, and others. While I agree that the image doesn't show the procedures used in castration, it at least shows a testis being separated and removed from the scrotum. The image is presented in a relatively mature way in the appropriate section of the article. If you're sensitive about blood and guts, a bit of advice: don't look at articles about surgical procedures! =) — Indi [ talk ] 13:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Just because I want to read about the historical usage of rape in warfare does not mean I want to see it graphically illustrated in front of me. Similarly, information on castration is not limited to the surgical procedure and this disgusting image is entirely unneccessary as it reveals absolutely nothing about the procedure itself and seems to be there simply to shock. Ridiculous. Remove! 144.89.184.190 21:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Specious claims

I removed this:

"African slave traders frequently castrated their charges in order to increase their commercial value. After denying the victim fluids for a day or two they would sever the penis and testicles and use a hot iron to cauterise the wound closed. They would then force the prospective slave to drink so that, hopefully, the pressure of the bladder would be able to force an opening in the wound for urine. It is estimated that 90% of the slaves so treated died in the attempt. However, castrated slaves were greatly valued and sought both in Europe and in the East, where Christians and Jews formally discouraged the practice but informally were happy to purchase already-castrated slaves."

I really don't believe this at all. Is there a source for this? I don't understand why a slave trader would damage his human property in this way. Erik the Rude 22:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed this too:

"Remains of transsexual and transgendered people from as far back as the Roman era have been uncovered and confirmed to have undergone castration."

Proof please? This statement is not only suspect for a host of reasons, but whoever wrote it is using highly loaded modern words and definitions to apply to ancient people who simply didn't see the world in the same way we do. Erik the Rude 22:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Source added. --Julie-Anne Driver 15:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
And I'm removing this stuff again. You added a newspaper article as a source for your claims of ancient transvestites, but you restored the part about castrating slaves too. I understand it was rotten to be a slave, but we don't need to make up crazy stories about cutting their penises off to make slavery seem more horrible, do we? As for the transvestite Cybele worshippers, they existed, but castration and cross-dressing for religious purposes isn't the same thing as the modern concept of transsexualism. I'll just include something about how they had their balls cut off when they entered the cult. Erik the Rude 23:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversial links?

While the act of castration is most likely, on the level of mere thought, a source of disgust and contempt to most normal men, the site includes a link or another that does not reflect this.

The article on hysterectomy includes a link to a site designed to help those living with the resulting condition. However, for the men here, the site links to the site, real or fake, of a sexual deviant who argues for castration. I'm not deleting anything, I'm just wondering if that's really appropriate. --Thomi 16:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the Eunuch Archive is A) mostly fictional stories (I hope to god anyways) and B) more of a fetish site. It should be removed --142.177.157.117 06:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
The Archive is 'sick' if you ask me, however it has a 'good' and serious forum as a part of it. I suggest to leave it with disclaimer/warning, or at least point to the forum directly. Pictureuploader 08:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed a link to a 'interview' on the site, I read it and it didn't seem to 'ring' true. (if you will) So I removed it.--Honeymane 00:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] redundancies

Is it just me or does it seem like this article is stating some things over and over again? Adding cleanup tag... The machine512

[edit] Medical Consequences section seems awry

Is it just me, or does the Medical Consequences section seem to actually promote castration? Particularly, the following exceprts strike me as odd: "Some castrates report mood changes, such as depression or a more serene outlook on life. Body strength and muscle mass can decrease somewhat. Body hair may or may not decrease. Castration prevents male pattern baldness." As well, a lot of the content found in this section hardly relates to medicine at all, so much as it is simply random items lacking citation. Can we possibly redo this section? Grendel 03:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to promote castration to me. Given that the drop in testosterone and other hormones, all of those effects seem likely, and the last has a cite.--Prosfilaes 04:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Keep in mind that this is a section about consequences, not the pros and cons of castration. For example, the line, "castration prevents male pattern baldness" has nothing to do with consequence -- it is very clearly being listed as an advantage which shifts this section toward pro-castration POV. So, I suggest we either rename the section to be less misleading, or move some of its contents to other sections of the article where they would more respectively represent a NPOV. Grendel 09:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, actually preventing male pattern baldness is a consequence of castration. I don't see that as being listed as an advantage; it's a fact, that happens to be interpreted as an advantage by most people in our society. It shouldn't be moved; that is one of the medical results of castration.--Prosfilaes 16:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
In saying that baldness prevention is a consequence, I believe that you're using the word a bit too loosely. Certainly, it may be a possible side-effect of castration, though it does not necessarily fall under the catagory of consequence, as the word is generally used in a more negative context than you're asserting. At the least, the section should be renamed to something along the lines of "Possible Effects of Castration" to avoid this kind of confusion. Grendel 03:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Grendel, with all respect, I think we are overanalyzing it. Pictureuploader 07:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Maybe. I have a tendency to do that... If no one feels that this is of any significance, then I'll just leave it be. Grendel
Castration WILL prevent male pattern baldness ONLY if done before puberty. Once a man goes through puberty if he is castrated later and subject to male pattern baldness, he will STILL GET IT. This only applie IF he castrated BEFORE puberty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.143.235.237 (talk) 18:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but it will also have the same effect if performed before significant baldness develops, at any age. Basically, castration effectively prevents any further male pattern scalp hair loss, regardless of age and genetic susceptibility. Albert Wincentz (talk) 09:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] also about "Medical Consequences"

The last paragraph of "Medical Consequences" says

Eunuchs suffered from a range of urogenital problems associated with the removal of their sexual organs, and they had their own specialist doctors who catered to their health needs. Among other problems, they could not control the outflow of their urine; their clothes and bodies often stank accordingly. Although eunuchs were usually venerated in dynastic China, the same culture had a popular phrase denigrating them: anyone with bad hygiene was said to "stink like a eunuch".

I don't understand how castration can affect urination like that. First, castration doesn't necessarily affect the penis. Second, seems that the external urethral sphincter is not located in the penis. Third, I'm a Chinese native speaker and I've never heard of phrases like "stink like a eunuch."--Ivy ST 20:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

heh, sounds like BS to me. I'll remove it. --Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 03:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I belive you exept for the fact that Chineese eunuchs DID have their penises removed. The human penis actually extends backwards above the scrotum almost to the lenght of the visible part. The muscle controllong the bladder is situated between this ”internal part” and the prostate gland. (I don't know the English word for this muscle: it was not in my Swedish – English dictionary. In Swedish it is called ”bäckenbottenmuskeln” which literaly means ”the pelvis bottom muscle”.) If the penis is cut off at the base of the visible part there is not much risk that this muscle will be hurt. So the majority of Chineese enucs would have had no problem to controll their bladders.

2007-01-07 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

I suggest that we replace the above phrase with, for example, the following: "Eunuchs who had a penectomy sometimes suffered from poor urinatinion control associated with the removal of the penis".

There is no such thing as a "range of urogenital problems" associated with orchiectomy only; in fact, if anything, castration would prevent any future prostate enlargement (BPH), a very common testosterone-dependent condition wich often results in partial obstruction of the urethra and difficulty urinating. Thus, it should be pointed out in the article that there is a difference between penectomy and orchiectomy in this regard. 193.217.34.35 04:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Castration for sex offenders?

"Voluntary chemical or surgical castration has been in practice in many countries; reports are available from Scandinavian and European countries, in particular, for the past eighty plus years (chemical for the last thirty or so years) as an option for effective treatment of child molesters, rapists and sexual sadists, allowing them to return to the community from otherwise lengthy detentions. In the case of chemical castration, on-going regular injections of anti-androgens are required."

Scandinavia is part of Europe, and again: Where is the proof. I live in Germany and I have never heard of offenders being castrated, it would also not be allowed for obvious reasons. (human rights)--Em es 08:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It only takes a moment at Google to turn up many thousands of references that yes, chemical castration is recently and currently used on rapists and pedophiles in teh US and Europe, and yes it specificially is being done in Germany. SURGICAL castration has been largely or completely eliminated in recent times on human rights grounds (thirty or so years as per your quoted section). Chemical castration is a controversial practice... the proponent argument is basically that the practice is little different than injecting a diabetic with insulin. That it is "merely" giving someone ongoing treatment with a medication. Chemical castration does not remove the testes... it just chemically blocks the testoterone. If the injections stop then the chemical castration is completely reversed. Alsee 03:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


I just had a look in the German "Strafgesetzbuch" and the German article concerning castration and I did find a small note, saying that it was possible for the sex offender to be put on probation if he got sterilized and his crimes weren't that bad. But you must admit that it isn't widely practiced, you probably searched with English keywords on Google, that would have shown you an English result, which was probably inaccurate. And it is banned in Austria and probably a whole load of other European countries.--Em es 11:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It was clumsy to write “Europe and Scandinavia”. I happend know about castration in Sweden in modern times. In the mid-twentith centuary homosexual men was castrated because all attempts to cure them failed. (Note that homosexuality is a harmless condition and thus unnessecary to cure.) Today pedophiles are offered cemical castration. According to the people involved this method only works if the patient wants it himself: it is easy to restore sexual drive with anabolic steroids. However, such cases may not be talked much about, so I am not to surprised that you were ignorant of them.

2007-01-09 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

[edit] Castration in psychoanalysis & theory

Article should note that: 1. in psychoanalysis castration refers first & foremost, not to loss of testes, but rather of the penis 2. likewise in psychoanalysis, the concept of castration has been extended to be anything which is a loss of the power that the penis symbolically represents, even if the penis itself remains intact -- thus blinding, dismemberment, rape, death, can all be seen as forms of castration 3. many people in literature, critical theory, etc., under the influence of postmodernism, have adopted the above broader version of castration

Some examples (that I am familiar with) of the above usage: Bloom's theory of anxiety of influence; also a good example is Catherine Maxwell's book The Female Sublime, in which she mostly uses the word castration broadly: Milton is castrated by his blindness; the Thracian women castrate Orpheus through dismemberment; Tereus castrates Philomela by raping her and cutting out her tongue; Philomela castrates Tereus in turn by feeding him his son; Sappho as a woman and a lesbian is the eternal castrate, but she in turn through her poetry castrates her male listeners.

My point is there is a very rich body of work on castration derived from psychoanalysis, which this article barely touches upon.

I wrote the above comment as an anon--SJK 03:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
This section was (and still is) a bit of a mess. The entire section was exactly duplicated in the article - I deleted the duplicate. The psychoanalysis portions were good and I believe psychoanalysis warrants expansion. The literary theory was awkwardly entangled in the psychoanalysis paragraphs. I broke out the literary theory into its own paragraph, but this paragraph needs to be either deleted or rewritten. Alsee 11:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Women and Castration

I would really like to have a couple of referenences/information about the process of castration of women. We all know what castration for a man means, but not as much so for a female. I would like more information on this. Timmah01 13:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


The first paragraph of the article states: astration (also referred as: gelding, neutering, orchiectomy, orchidectomy and oophorectomy) is any action, surgical, chemical, or otherwise, by which a male loses the functions of the testes or a woman loses the functions of her ovaries. This causes sterilization, preventing him/her from reproducing; it also greatly reduces the production of hormones such as testosterone, estrogen and progesterone. The remainder of this article will deal with male castration, as that is the usual way the term is used; female castration, or oophorectomy, is discussed on the oophorectomy page.

I strongly disagree because female castration is common and routine in the United States. Consider the facts. The Center For Disease Control's Advance Data Number 371 May 4, 2006 reports there were 451,000 women castrated in 2004 in the United States. If it were true that "the usual way the term is used" is by referring to male castration it is important to note that so few men were castrated ever since the CDC began reporting operative statistics that they have never reported male castration. If you choose to discuss only male castration I suggest that it be done on an Orchiectomy (not orchidectomy) page since you suggest that female castration be discussed only on an oophorectomy page. Logically, since there are close to half a million women castrated in the United States every year and a statistically insignificant number of men castrated it is appropriate to include women in an article about castration. The medical dictionary used in most medical schools is Stedman's. It defines castration as Removal of the testicles or ovaries.

User: HERSFoundation, Nora W. Coffey, December 26, 2006
Well, here's the thing--Wikipedia doesn't generally repeat the same information in its entirety in two different entries. If people come to Wikipedia wanting information on removal of the ovaries, they're going to end up in oophorectomy or hysterectomy, as those are the main terms used. I know you want it here to push your agenda, and I support your agenda, in fact. But Wikipedia's policy is NPOV so we need to decide these things without any agenda pushing, plus the info is just not going to end up staying here because it's already elsewhere, thus going against Wikipedia standards, so directing people from here to the place where they would most normally look is the best idea. Otherwise, we could just copy and paste the entire oophorectomy article here, and separate "Castration" into "male castration" and "female castration." But the "female castration" would I think end up being deleted by someone else because it's already elsewhere. Furthermore, I doubt that anyone wanting to know about removal of the ovaries will think to come here at all. So we're not getting the information out to the people who we want to have it, or the people looking for it. The primary definition of castration, the definition that it had first, the definition as most commonly used, was removal of male genitalia. It has only more recently come to mean removal of female genitalia, and seldom used at that, so it's just not a conventional usage, even though it's technically correct. As for orchiectomy: if you type that into Wikipedia, you're redirected to "castration" because, again, that is the most common term. QuizzicalBee 21:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Here's the way I see it: Male castration (including both orchiectomy and penectomy) has a social/cultural history going back millenia, tied to dominance, control, humiliation, punishment, and (fairly briefly) music. While the ovaries are anatomically homologous to the testes, oophorectomy is not culturally equivalent to castration. The closest social/cultural equivalent to male castration is Female genital cutting, although there are certainly substantial differences between those as well. I would support adding to the Oophorectomy article some information on the history of the procedure, and in particular how the feminist movement has changed the way it is perceived and used. Furthermore, I would strongly support the creation of a separate Orchiectomy page to address orchiectomy in a medical context, leaving Castration to address castration in other contexts. As an aside, I think most of the time when MTF transgendered people choose to have an orchiectomy, they would not consider that to be castration at all, but rather empowering. Dfeuer 23:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The way the page mentions castration as applying to females but then says almost nothing more about females is silly and misleading. I've added a few sentences in the summary mentioning that common usage applies castration to males, but medical usage includes females, and referring readers to the oophorectomy for more information about female castration. Hopefully this is uncontroversial. SethML (talk) 18:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Castration in 'castrato' singers

It was popular for quite a long time to castrate boys so that their voices didn't 'drop'. They were castrato, and apparently able to sing in higher pitch than falsettos. Surely this deserves at least a mention in the article.


I am adding this to a previous unsigned post

Also, perhaps this should not be listed as a "religious" reason. The religious part is that women were not allowed to sing in Church, but there neither was nor is a religious requirement for soprano's and alto's. Instead, this could be concluded to be an "aesthetic" reason, since people merely thought hearing sopranos would be nice in church. Also, I am fairly certain that we would also discover that castrati were used in secular music as well. 24.2.73.107 18:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)David Benson

Yes, castrati where used in secular music and where popular as opera singers. Today such parts are acted by women.

2007-06-10 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

Women or countertenors. Dfeuer 17:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Or digitally altered in recordings 217.44.100.73 (talk) 16:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Testicular cancer

This sentence is misleading: Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong and comedian Tom Green, two of the most well-known recipients of this procedure, were allowed to keep one testicle after the cancerous one was removed.

In particular, use of the word "allowed" makes it sound as though leaving the other testicle intact is unusual. In fact, it is rare to remove both testicles in this case. —Captaindan 03:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flag statements as unsourced, don't summarily yank them

This goes out to the anonymous editor who removed a statement that wasn't cited on 2007-04-30: Flag such statements using {{fact}} then wait a few weeks before deleting them. This gives those of us following the article a chance to provide a citation. Better yet, contribute your own citation. I've reverted your edit and provided a citation.

[edit] Cattle Industry

There has been quite a number of videos floating around online about animal abuse in the cattle livestock industry in the U.S. Specifically, contents related to castration done on animals with no Anesthetic medication. I was highly disturbed to see an animal in such pain and kneeing, in what looks like an animal really crying and screaming helplessly. I am not against the idea of feeding our nation on beef, but WHY no Anesthetic of any sorts??? This article does not cover the subject at all. This is direct animal castration torture on a VERY LARGE SCALE. Anyone know why? Am I naive to think that these animals deserve a painless life to the fullest extent? GodBwithU 02:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

What source? Certainly surgical castration without anaesthetic is unethical - it would be illegal in the UK, not sure about US. However, elastration (using a tight rubber band to cut off the blood supply to the testes, causing them to wither and drop off) is common practice in lambs and occasionally calves in many countries, including the US and UK. Based on my clinical observations, the animals suffer 1 - a brief period of moderate pain, lasting perhaps 5-10 minutes. 2 - a longer period of discomfort, during which they occasinally rub their hindquarters on the ground, but generally behave normally, suckling and playing, lasting perhaps 24 hours or less. Thereafter they appear completely unaffected. I'm not sure that giving them any worthwhile analgesia (i.e. local anaesthetic injected directly into the testis) would acually be any improvement as far as the animal is concerned, because that seems to be almost as painful in itself, judging by their reactions! (Dlh-stablelights 09:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC))