Published April 18, 2023
Never trust someone who wants to cut your balls off for fun and profit. This advice should be unnecessary, but a plastic surgeon who specializes in transgender surgeries has just provided another valuable, if inadvertent, example of this rule — and another lesson in how gender ideology has corrupted medicine.
Sidhbh Gallagher, a Miami surgeon who aggressively uses social media to promote the hundreds of “gender-affirming” surgeries she does each year, some on children, recently posted a video about castrating men who identify as eunuchs. As she explains, eunuchs are just “another group of gender-diverse individuals,” albeit one that hasn’t “been very visible.”
Perhaps Gallagher is looking for a new revenue stream after Florida Republicans, led by Gov. Ron DeSantis, protected children from surgical transition. Or maybe she just likes carving healthy people up — in her social media posts she always seems very excited about amputating adolescent girls’ breasts. Maybe it’s both. Whatever her motives, her discussion of “eunuch” as a so-called gender identity reveals the rottenness of the supposed medical consensus on transgenderism.
After all, she didn’t make this whole eunuch thing up. As she points out, “there is an entire chapter devoted to these folks in the most recent version of the WPATH SOC” — that is the standards of care put out by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health. WPATH is an activist organization, but it is nonetheless treated as the arbiter of medical care on these issues by both the corporate media and major medical groups such as the American Medical Association.
Gallagher’s video is a vivid demonstration that these supposed medical experts are quacks. The idea of “eunuch” as a gender identity that needs to be affirmed with surgical castration is obviously insane. But it is, on inspection, even worse than this. Not only did WPATH add “eunuch” as a new type of gender identity in need of surgical mutilation, but it did so in collaboration with people who literally fantasize about raping and castrating children. And the rest of the “medical consensus” is just fine with this.
As Reduxx reported when the draft guidelines were released, the section on eunuchs “refers extensively to research collected from a hardcore fetish site called the Eunuch Archives — a site that features child sexual exploitation fantasies centered around stopping little boys from going through puberty.” Many of the men with an interest in eunuch identity seek it not for themselves but are aroused at others, including children, being castrated. As Reduxx discovered in examining this website, many of the site’s stories:
focus on the eroticization of child castration … children may be forcibly castrated under extreme duress. Some narratives contain violent sexualized depictions of children with stunted puberty being raped by doctors, written in sickening detail … Within the protected fiction archives, there were over 3,000 stories involving minors, including the explicit sexual abuse of children, and ‘minor’ was a specially-curated tag that users could select to easily access stories specifically featuring children. The fictional pornography includes themes such as Nazi doctors castrating children, baby boys being fed milk with estrogen in order to be violently sex trafficked as adolescents, and pedophilic fantasies of children who have been castrated to halt their puberty, ‘freezing’ them in a childlike state.
Reduxx also learned that prominent members of this site are academics with connections to WPATH, and that they have previously published “research” based on the site. This includes “academic research justifying the pedophilic fantasies amongst castration fetishists. In a 2015 paper titled ‘The Sexual Side of Castration Narratives,’ fictional child sexual abuse material was called ‘therapeutic’ and helpful for those with eunuch ideations.”
Democrats Won’t Challenge WPATH
This evil source material was reported while the latest WPATH guidelines were in draft form, yet the organization went ahead with its addition of “eunuch identity” anyway. At the same time, WPATH also eliminated recommended age restrictions for medical transition from its latest standards of care. These grotesque decisions should have induced reconsideration of WPATH’s prominent place as a medical authority, but the corporate media, academia, major medical organizations, and the Democratic Party have all continued to treat WPATH as the respectable arbiter of issues of gender identity and transition.
This does demonstrate the hollowness of the claim that there is a medical consensus on these issues. It is not that America’s doctors actually got together, discussed the matter, and concluded that radical gender ideology — now with eunuchs! — was good medicine. Rather, at each step in this process, they and other institutions have proven unable to say no to their most radical activist members, who were, naturally, the most outspoken (and the most eager to sit on the relevant committees — bureaucracy belongs to those who show up).
WPATH wouldn’t say no to the castration fetishists running websites full of child rape and castration fantasies. And in turn, everyone from the medical establishment to the Biden administration has refused to challenge WPATH, even after it decided that “eunuch” was a valid gender identity that needed a surgeon, rather than a psychiatrist.
Almost everyone in power is afraid to stand up to the radicals, even as they venture further into obvious insanity. The most immediate reason is fear of cancellation. No one wants to be the first to speak out because the activists will do their best to destroy that person. People may also feel that calling out their own side and its allies is disloyal and would aid their opponents.
This sense of being in too deep to back down may be personal, as well as political. After all, the idea of “eunuch identity” just draws out the premises of the gender-identity movement, which in turn are shared with the entire sexual revolution championed by the left. If it is wrong to castrate a man who wants to be a eunuch, it is probably also wrong to castrate a man (or boy) who wants to be a woman. And that could call all sorts of things into question.
This connection between the various strands of sexual and cultural radicalism is illustrated by Lydia Polgreen, who in the middle of a recent rant in The New York Times wrote:
Trans rights, much like abortion, present a profound challenge to the gender binary, which upholds the world’s oldest and most persistent hierarchy. People who don’t want to or cannot fit within their traditionally prescribed roles — mother, father, woman, man, boy, girl — increasingly have the freedom to live their lives beyond those circumscribed identities.
This reveals a hatred of our embodied existence as male and female. The difference between the sexes, which is the basis for how we all came into being, is viewed as hierarchical and oppressive, and therefore as something that must be overcome. The natural, healthy functioning of our bodies is perceived as an enemy to be conquered, whether through the violence of abortion or the chemical and surgical alterations of medical transition. This is the worldview that has corrupted institution after institution in our nation, including much of medicine. The crazy lady in Florida who wants to get into the eunuch business is just a particularly vivid example of this.
Nathanael Blake, Ph.D. is a Postdoctoral Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. His primary research interests are American political theory, Christian political thought, and the intersection of natural law and philosophical hermeneutics. His published scholarship has included work on Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Hans-Georg Gadamer, Alasdair MacIntyre, Russell Kirk and J.R.R. Tolkien. He is currently working on a study of Kierkegaard and labor. As a cultural observer and commentator, he is also fascinated at how our secularizing culture develops substitutes for the loss of religious symbols, meaning and order.