Is “Eunuch” a “Third Sex?

[seanthomas (imported)]

Recently I was asked that, as a eunuch, do I considered myself "third sex", meaning neither male nor female. Well, the answer to that is "no". Because I have nearly a half century of being mentally programmed to be a male, I still consider myself a strictly male.

Now as far as I know, only India legally defines "eunuch" as a third, separate sex. However, in our current social climate, people are free to identify as pretty much anything they choose and both society and governments generally accommodate. Many countries have designated "X" as an alternative to male or female identities and I suppose "eunuch" could easily fit in the "X" category if one desired.

My problem with all this modern definition of who and what we are is that society and many individuals so readily impose, or adopt, labels then try and force them on everyone else. I don't care to be labeled.

I have no problem with a transsexual male claiming to be a female, or vice versus, until they try and induce me to embrace their declaration. Call me old fashion, but a biological male identifying as "female" is not legitimate regardless of hormone therapy or cosmetic surgery. Such a person is "transgender" and I don't know why they simply cannot embrace that label - and identity - and go about their lives happily, instead of forcing everyone to agree they are in fact not biologically male.

If a eunuch decides they want to be categorized as a third sex, that's okay with me. Just don't force me to accept that identity. I am a castrated male, labeled by society as "eunuch", but in actuality I am simply a man without testicles.

I can see the advantage of eunuchs claiming the "third sex" label. As such, we would be free to dress in male or female clothing or anything in between (I happen to have worn traditional clogs - considered by many to be feminine footwear - throughout my "pre-eunuch" life and continue to do so). But just because I wear clogs doesn't mean I want to be feminine. Clogs are just comfortable - period.

Another label I'm uncomfortable with is "bisexual". Despite the fact I identified myself as such on this forum, my same sex relationships were in my early teens, long long ago. For the majority of my life I have been married and happily monogamous, so am I still truly "bisexual", or is this a label I must carry from my childhood?

I prefer to shun labels. Man or eunuch or bisexual, I am much prefer to describe myself as "Just Me".

[sparkey49 (imported)]

I agree for the most part for instance if someone tries to say if someone is a eunuch they are not a man! I have lived my life as a man and continue to do so and nobody who knows me has ever referred seen me as anything else but a man and a lot of my family, friends and coworkers know I have no balls and it has never been an issue! Each person can identify as they like. I am a eunuch but still fully a man.

[Freddyjack (imported)]

I'd like to pose a question, is a woman who's ovaries surgically removed a eunuch? whether she is a eunuch or not, isn't she still a woman? provided she's not trans.

[seanthomas (imported)]

I'd like to pose a question, is a woman who's ovaries surgically removed a eunuch? whether she is a eunuch or not, isn't she still a woman? provided she's not trans.

I believe "eunuch" refers only to males, yet a woman who has undergone a hysterectomy with her ovaries removed is considered, in medical parlance, to have been "castrated".

It was not long ago that doctors preformed radical hysterectomies on women, often as a unnecessary "preventative measure", with little regard to the long term consequence. A prominent female cardiologist cousin of mine derided the practice, proclaiming many doctor forced the surgery on women simply make money. My own mother was a victim of this unscrupulous atrocity at age 30.

How strange that even today a woman can waltz into her gynecologist's office and receive a radical hysterectomy (castration) on demand, while a man seeking voluntary castration would be lucky to find a willing surgeon somewhere in the third world, but never in the USA or Europe.

More of an answer that asked for, but I never miss an opportunity to rail against the American medical system, which drives men seeking castration to unlicensed and often untrained "cutters" - or their resorting to do-it-yourself de-nutting.

[Freddyjack (imported)]

My late wife had a hysterectomy at age 30, for cervical cancer (didn't work), they left her ovaries in place to produce estrogen. That was in 2000

[TopManFL (imported)]

Recently I was asked that, as a eunuch, do I considered myself "third sex", meaning neither male nor female. Well, the answer to that is "no". Because I have nearly a half century of being mentally programmed to be a male, I still consider myself a strictly male.

Hey @seanthomas,

Yes, you have every right to self determine your gender and expect others to use the correct pronouns when referring to you.

Suppose there were a man who lost his genitals in an industrial or war accident. After he returned home from the hospital, he'd still be a man - not a third gender. As you point out when self identifying as male:

I have nearly a half century of being mentally programmed to be a male, I still consider myself a strictly male.

If a friend or co-worker knew of your castration and started to refer to you as "she" or "it", you'd correct them and expect they'd use your preferred pronoun.

More importantly, you'd also want them to call you by your name. A man named Samuel who looses his genital, either by choice or accident, should be called Samantha by his family and friends by default. His gender identity is his to define.

So, that's where we agree. Where we disagree is here:

I have no problem with a transsexual male claiming to be a female, or vice versus, until they try and induce me to embrace their declaration. Call me old fashion, but a biological male identifying as "female" is not legitimate regardless of hormone therapy or cosmetic surgery.

In the same exact way you have a reasonable expectation that people will call you by your desired gender identity regardless of your current genital configuration, other's should be extended the same courtesy. If you met a new friend and they were introduced to you as a male or female and you didn't know they had transitioned, you'd most likely never question calling them a male or female.

Having known them before their transition is not an excuse to refuse to acknowledge their self determined gender.

These two statements you made are contradictory:

and I don't know why they simply cannot embrace that label - and identity - and go about their lives happily,

I prefer to shun labels. Man or eunuch or bisexual, I am much prefer to describe myself as "Just Me".

In the same way you can "shun labels", others do not need to "embrace that label".

I don't expect everyone to agree with me. I will call a person any name they prefer and I will use the pronoun they want me to use. I wouldn't insist on calling a woman named Susan by the name Sue if she hated that nickname. So, why would I label anyone as the gender to which they do not identify?

[seanthomas (imported)]

Hey TopManFl,

Now just because I believe a certain way doesn't mean I'd ever be cruel to someone, or even impolite. If they asked me to address them in a certain way I'd certainly do so. But thanks for your input. If we all agreed on everything what would be the point of a discussion?

[paring (imported)]

The eunuchs are part of a fantasy world. Many see them as feminized slaves to be abused and I'm sure they are some for real, but the vast majority live a normal life like everyone else with the same gender they were born. By definition a castrated man is an eunuch, just like a castrated horse is a gelding or a castrated bull is a steer and no one can deny that. No one force you to admit in public that you are in fact an eunuch but you can't hide this to your self, you are what you are or wanted to be. Whether you are called man or eunuch, if the intention is to hurt your feeling then this is not acceptable, because respect calls for respect. If one of your friend refers to you without malice, as eunuch, there is no reason to get mad because this is the plain truth. It's not different with gay men, they are men but some people refer to them as gays without malice and no one gets mad. On the other hand, if you refer to a straight man, as gay, he'll have the right to get mad at you. The tone and the intention are the most important. If some one introduce you to some eunuchs as eunuch your self, I'm sure that wouldn't hurt you feeling. If a guy shows total lack of respect to you just for being an eunuch, I grant you permission to punch him in the face.

[nulloguy (imported)]

I always felt I am Eunuch, but am not physically one yet. If it were easier I would have been a physical one decades ago when I was prescribed T. I feel third sex or genital could be accurate, but not third gender as changing my genitals doesn't change how I feel about my gender. I actually feel when I move to the next surgical level I will growing to another level of my manhood. Before people had the option of HRT and were castrated they would appear as a third gender whether that was their goal or not. Every ones story is different. As far a trans, if they have a brain that is opposite than their birth gender, that should be good enough to respect them as that gender. I never ask what someone's gender DNA is .

[TopManFL (imported)]

More importantly, you'd also want them to call you by your name. A man named Samuel who looses his genital, either by choice or accident, should be called Samantha by his family and friends by default. His gender identity is his to define.

For clarity I left out a "not".

This should have read "...should not be called Samantha...by default".

[seanthomas (imported)]

My late wife had a hysterectomy at age 30, for cervical cancer (didn't work), they left her ovaries in place to produce estrogen. That was in 2000

FreddyJack, that truly sucks! Cancer is an insidious and horrid disease and I'm sorry for your loss. My wife had ocular cancer and lost her eye at 24. For some reason that type tends to migrate to the liver of all places, but we were lucky. After five years of checks every six months, each resulting in tremendous stress waiting for results, she finally came through cancer free.

[RitterVonRitter (imported)]

I would have to say no. I understand that in some cultures, like the aforementioned India, eunuchs are considered a third sex or gender, but I've never really understood the present-day obsession with "non-binary" genders.

It seems there reason for the "third sex" is not that they are actually a third sex or gender (because that is a ludicrous concept for a bisexual species) is because eunuchs are somehow "less than" or "no longer" men but certainly aren't women.

[Freddyjack (imported)]

its not that a eunuch is "no longer" or "less than", its "inside never was"

[Freddyjack (imported)]

what would you call a woman who been "castrated" if she's not a eunuch?

[TopManFL (imported)]

(because that is a ludicrous concept for a bisexual species)

Hey @RitterVonRitter,

Human's are not `100% binary. Male chromosomes are XY and female chromosomes are XX. However, fetal development doesn't always happen perfectly and despite the XX or XY genetics, some babies are born with indeterminate genitals. It's only after a careful exam and a DNA test that the baby's genetic gender can be ascertained. But, with underdeveloped or genitals that are missing, parents are often flummoxed as to what the child's sex really is. Doctors in the past and even today are quick to offer genital surgeries to "correct" the problem. But, if the baby is male and the genitals are so deformed or missing that they can't be repaired, the surgery is often to assign female.

Keep in mind that these used to be called, "intersexed". But, today there is a huge movement to stop the genital surgeries and to use the name non-binary. Many people born with genitals that don't match were put through hell as children having multiple surgeries and some were castrated and then give hormones to go through female puberty even with XY chromosomes.

That's not the half of it.

From the Mayo Clinic's website: "Klinefelter syndrome is a genetic condition that results when a boy is born with an extra copy of the X chromosome. Klinefelter syndrome is a common genetic condition affecting males, and it often isn't diagnosed until adulthood."

Literally, the chromosomes in people with Klinefeiter syndrome are have both male and female genetics. They appear mostly male, but have the XX female chromosomes as well. They do not go through a normal puberty and develop differently as children.

Just one more example is Turner Syndrome. From the Mayo Clinic's website: "Turner syndrome, a condition that affects only females, results when one of the X chromosomes (sex chromosomes) is missing or partially missing. Turner syndrome can cause a variety of medical and developmental problems, including short height, failure of the ovaries to develop and heart defects."

Persons with Turner Syndrome do not have the XX female chromosomes, they have only one X. They appear mostly female and most identify that way. They do not fit into the category of being genetically XX or XY. More at this link (my virus checker says it's ok) https://www.intersexequality.com/how-co ... in-humans/

No, these conditions are not rare. Approximately 1.7% have some form of non-binary or intersex gender. Which means it affects almost one in 50 people's lives. Most do not want to seem different and go out of their way to "blend in". But, why should they have to? I think society can accept them and welcome them - they should be able to live as who they are. I know that's not the case, but it's the way it should be.

[RitterVonRitter (imported)]

@TopManFL

Except intersex is not a third sex. It is an abnormality and a defect. There are only two sexes necessary for reproduction.

The term 'gender' is a bit more problematic. It used to be a linguistic term (like gendered nouns and adjectives in other languages), and was then identified with sex. Then people began saying it was similar to sex but not the same as sex. Now people say it is a social construct, and that you can basically be any type of 'gender' you want. The latter concept is absurd and renders the term 'gender' to be completely meaningless and useless.

There is one thing that needs to be said. There are two sexes: male and female. While there are abnormalities, only two are needed for reproduction.

Putting aside the physical, there is the metaphysical. Man is a spiritual animal. Metaphysically, a man can be less than a man or can be more or less feminine. This explains both homosexuality and transgenderism.

Here we have Evola (https://archive.org/details/MetaphysicsOfSexJuliusEvola) on homosexuality:

In natural homosexuality or in the predisposition to it, the most straightforward explanation is provided by what we said earlier about the differing levels of sexual development and about the fact that the process of sexual development in its physical and, even more so, in its psychic aspects can be incomplete. In that way, the original bisexual nature is surpassed to a lesser extent than in a "normal" human being, the characteristics of one sex not being predominant over those of the other sex to the same extent. Next we must deal with what M. Hirschfeld called the "intermediate sexual forms". In cases of this kind (for instance, when a person who is nominally a man is only 60 percent male) it is impossible that the erotic attraction based on the polarity of the sexes in heterosexuality - which is much stronger the more the man is male and the woman is female - can also be born between individuals who, according to the birth registry and as regards only the so-called primary sexual characteristics, belong to the same sex, because in actual fact they are "intermediate forms."

The point is, there are two sexes. Homosexuality and transgenderism are simply the result of 'intermediate forms' in a spiritual or metaphysical sense. Such as when a man has the soul of a woman (transgender) or when a man is not entirely metaphysically male (homosexuality).

[tugon (imported)]

My life has been interesting. As a pre-eunuch I was often referred to as ma'am. In restaurants, stores and most public places a clerk would call me ma'am and then looked confused when the fully looked at me. This even happened while fully bearded and moustached. Straight men would find me attractive and could not explain why. One friend called me to tell me he was getting married since he found the female version of me. We bumped into each other at a mall and his wife was with him. Seeing how we reacted to seeing each other she said this must be John.

A few of my friends thought of me as a two spirit person. I on the other hand thought the male side was too strong. I never felt I was comfortable as a male and no desire to be a female. I became a eunuch and both sides of me now felt balanced. Balance for me is the midpoint between male and female only achievable after my castration.

That is why I call myself eunuch since I am neither male or female. I just float around in the middle and enjoy life from a mixed perspective.

[TopManFL (imported)]

Hey @RitterVonRitter (and anyone else reading this),

Except intersex is not a third sex. It is an abnormality and a defect.

I was born healthy and as far as I know genetically XY (I've never been tested, but all the bits and pieces are right where they should be and function well).

So, it is almost impossible for me to imagine the difficulties that someone born with chromosomes that are not XY or XX goes through. XXY syndrome is often not even diagnosed until after adulthood. I'd think the reaction I had to having thyroid cancer would mild compared to finding out I had XXY syndrome.

That is the easier of the two. I'm horrified by the thought of children being surgically modified in a series of operations as they grow up and even through their puberty. All the while the family telling them to not talk about it, nobody mentions it, no get well soon cards or flowers in the room, no visitors, no phone calls, not even a word of encouragement from a grand mother or uncle. It's a dirty secret which must not be talked about and that is wrong.

Why, would someone hide such a thing? because people use terms like "abnormality and a defect" to describe them.

They are not defective people. They are not abnormal people. They are people - humans with all the dignity, hopes, dreams, life and liberty that everyone shares. The last thing they want to be referred to as is abnormal or defective.

Therefore, they search for the right word. It's understandable that nearly 1 out of 50 people have trouble finding that word while hiding from being labeled as a defect or an abnormality. The word they've come up with for now is non-binary. Will it change? Most likely, but I've had friends change their name when they got married or adopted and I've been willing to call them by their new name right away - language morphing is normal.

Is it a third sex? I don't know. But, it does demonstrate that from an evolutionary standpoint our species is not 100% binary. It is possible that men with XXY syndrome can father children. Who knows what benefits to our species this passes down?

Sickle cell anemia is a genetic disease. But the reason it exists is that the genes that cause it are the same genes that provide a natural immunity to malaria. The malaria gene is recessive - so, normally it provides the immunity and not sickle cell. But, given the right combination of X and Y chromosomes and a person can get sickle cell if they inherit both recessive genes.

The point? Sometimes what appears to be a defect in an individual be a huge benefit to our species.

Putting aside the physical, there is the metaphysical. Man is a spiritual animal. Metaphysically, a man can be less than a man or can be more or less feminine. This explains both homosexuality and transgenderism.

I could not disagree more.

From a social view, I've known some gay men that were hard working construction workers who loved football, beer and hamburgers on the weekend. I've know some straight men who love to cook and clean house. So, I really disagree that there is a spectrum of male and female and that being gay is a factor of falling on the female side.

It is very possible to fall firmly on the masculine side of behavior and thoughts and still be gay.

No, gay men are not "less a man" any more than is a straight man who likes to wear women's clothes.

There are only two sexes necessary for reproduction.

You have a point, but miss the larger context.

When I was little I learned where babies come from - "when a mommy and a daddy love each other very much, they give each other a 'special hug' and that's how babies are made". I answered, "you mean they have sex?".

Being a curious little kid, I also asked, "what happens if parents die". The answer I got was, "they go to live with family - like grandma or an aunt and uncle".

Bingo! an evolutionary and social example of how gay men and women help in reproduction. They create backup parents.

Who better to raise a deceased person's children than a brother or sister with no kids and a bank account reflective of not having had the expense of children so far?

Childless aunts and uncles can be very generous with baby sitting, gift giving, trips - all of which gives the child a better upbringing. There are examples of this in nature - sisters (from birds and elephants to chimpanzees) helping to raise their sister's offspring. Many times the helpful sister never has children of their own - gay birds?

Having gay people in our society is normal, natural and healthy.

---

Lastly, regarding the lawsuit of Gender -vs- Sex (ok, that was tongue in cheek).

You are correct. Gender is a social and cultural construct. Sex is a scientific definition.

Reminds me of the seemingly endless debate over the tomato's status as "vegetable". There is no scientific definition of a vegetable.

Spinach is a leaf, celery is a stalk, carrots are a root, mushrooms are a fungus and brussels sprouts are an evil creation of a demon spawn from hell. The question is, does our language still call them vegetables and answer is yes.

Since gender is a social construct and not a scientific term, wouldn't a person's ability to define their gender be even more inviolable? Since we use the terms sex and gender virtually interchangeably, then it's not unreasonable for them to think of their sex and the same as their gender.

[RitterVonRitter (imported)]

@TopManFL

While I understand your concerns about intersex person, it is still a defect and an abnormality. I really don't understand the problem with these words. A defect is flaw, shortcoming, imperfection, or lack of something. Abnormal just means it isn't normal. Normal is what is standard or typical.

While these things are unfortunate, they are defects and are certainly abnormal. Abnormal doesn't mean bad. Homosexuality is abnormal. Autism is abnormal. I'm both of those things and am abnormal in those regards.

In regards to surgeries, I'm opposed to such things (assuming they are medically unnecessary) in the same way I'm opposed to circumcision.

When I mentioned a man being feminine, I didn't mean behaviour so much. I was mainly talking about sexual drive (I should have been more clear on this point). Gay men have the sexual drive of a female, regardless of behaviour or of their preference for passive or active sexual acts.

I completely reject the social construction of gender. As I stated, it renders the term meaningless (which seems to me to be the whole point of post-modernist thought).

[nulloguy (imported)]

@TopManFL

While I understand your concerns about intersex person, it is still a defect and an abnormality. I really don't understand the problem with these words. A defect is flaw, shortcoming, imperfection, or lack of something. Abnormal just means it isn't normal. Normal is what is standard or typical.

While these things are unfortunate, they are defects and are certainly abnormal. Abnormal doesn't mean bad. Homosexuality is abnormal. Autism is abnormal. I'm both of those things and am abnormal in those regards.

In regards to surgeries, I'm opposed to such things (assuming they are medically unnecessary) in the same way I'm opposed to circumcision.

When I mentioned a man being feminine, I didn't mean behaviour so much. I was mainly talking about sexual drive (I should have been more clear on this point). Gay men have the sexual drive of a female, regardless of behaviour or of their preference for passive or active sexual acts.

I completely reject the social construction of gender. As I stated, it renders the term meaningless (which seems to me to be the whole point of post-modernist thought).

I surely don't think most gay men have the sexual drive of females. Not even close. We are attracted to the same gender is all. I personally feel intersex people are far from defective unless they are operated on with the usual negative results. What is defective is societies knowledge and acceptance of Human variations

[TopManFL (imported)]

I really don't understand the problem with these words.

Eugenics.

When the society regulates certain people into categories of defective and abnormal, the law is not far behind.

The most basic responsibility of any government is to keep its people safe. One way that is done is to imprison and treat those that are deemed defective and abnormal.

Then, it's Eugenics and the world fought for decades to wipe out that kind of thinking.

Gay men being involuntarily castrated to "treat" their homosexuality - many as teenagers. This was happening in the United States as recently as the 1970s. Gay men being given injections of chemicals that make them physically sick when viewing imagines of nude men and encouraged to masturbate to imagines of naked women; that is happening right this minute in so called "repaeritive therapy" all around the world. If the chemicals to make a gay man sick didn't work, shock him with electric shock if he gets an erection while watching gay porn. Again, happening right now.

The point? If government's most important job is to keep its citizens safe and we label gay men and women as defective and abnormal, then government has every right to sanction punishment or treatment to keep the rest of society safe from the defective and abnormal people.

Eugenics would sterilize anyone born with Achondroplasia (dwarfism), Down's syndrome, etc. Why, to keep the rest of society safe from these defective and abnormal people. We want a strong gene pool in the future, right?

It's not that long ago that thinking of certain American citizens as defective lead to their castration. Hey, between being circumcised or castrated without my consent (even though I'd rather take neither), I'd take the circumcision.

I'm gay, I'm not abnormal and I'm not a genetic defect.

Brave gay men and women have rioted in the streets, fought to change laws, filed lawsuits to enforce the law, helped elect governments willing to ensure equal rights and even gained marriage equality rights in many countries. Most would not take kindly to being called abnormal.

I get the resistance to reject the social construct of gender. Hey, the National Hurricane Center received hundreds of thousands of protest letters when they started naming hurricanes with both male and female names. Hurricanes were female and now the government had made them trans-gendered. Today, our society simply accepts that every other named storm is male and female. Society adapted to that change and will here as well. The only question is when will the non-binary riots start.

[RitterVonRitter (imported)]

I surely don't think most gay men have the sexual drive of females. Not even close. We are attracted to the same gender is all.

You mean being attracted to a man, just like a woman!

[RitterVonRitter (imported)]

@TopManFL

I hate to tell you - but homosexuality is abnormal. It's what, 10-15% of the population? That is abnormal. Left-handedness, too, is abnormal. I never said that it was automatically bad to be abnormal. You believing such is entirely on you.

Normal:

-conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected.

-the usual, average, or typical state or condition.

[tjstill (imported)]

@TopManFL

I hate to tell you - but homosexuality is abnormal. It's what, 10-15% of the population? That is abnormal. Left-handedness, too, is abnormal. I never said that it was automatically bad to be abnormal. You believing such is entirely on you.

Normal:

-conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected.-the usual, average, or typical state or condition.

I have followed this thread with interest, and I am pleased it has not become a "flaming mess". It does however seem to have drifted from the title. A eunuch is not necessarily homosexual and the thread has moved towards homosexuality as the key term in the last posts.

Normal is a very poor term to introduce to the discussion as it has many connotations that are unhelpful, it is hard to define "normal" when describing anything with such unclear boundaries. If you do not take care, I am sure you will become embroiled in an argument based on English definitions, statistical meaning, and quantifying how "homosexual"anyone is (since it is clearly a non binary/non linear characteristic).

Abnormal is very provocative and poor term to use in any discussion on social and sexual topics. Even if there is a statistical evaluation of a population, who is to say there is indeed a line to be drawn in the bell curve at any point to define normality, it is a not a quantity you can simply apply a standard deviation too, it is a subjective definition at best and to apply objective and quantitive terms will merely end in expression's of differing opinion and obscure the original topic of discusion

[cutnbulls2ox (imported)]

In various past cultures being gay was the most popular thing for most of the males to be. In which case being heterosexual was outside the norm in those cultures. Its very doubtful the genetics of males in those cultures varied greatly from modern day males. This indicates that str8 and gay are more likely cultural inventions than genetic differences.