Why Men are Asking Surgeons to Remove Their Penis and Testicles

In 2005 when I first began doing pornography research because of the “pornification” of American culture, I ventured into numerous men’s forums to see what they were saying about women, pornography, and other sexual issues.

That’s where I first learned that many men are taking razor blades and cutting off their penises. I saw a lot of pictures of severed organs, which I certainly would not post here. The sickest photos involved men eating their severed members.

I’ve mentioned before that Ricardo Romo, the president of the University of Texas at San Antonio, had embraced the transgender agenda, putting trannies in the ladies rooms, over the objections of the women employees of the university. So, right on campus, we had the university encouraging males to mutilate themselves.

Within the last 24 hours Drudge linked to a story about a man who cut off his penis without the aid of a hospital or doctor. I didn’t read it.

As far as I can tell, it’s only white men that are doing this. To be clear, we’re not just talking about trannies here, but about men who want to live as men, but without a penis and testicles.

Let’s see if we can ferret out clues as to why by delving into this article and then see if we can figure out how to stop this self-genocide by white men..


There are men who wish to become eunuchs in the classical definition. For them, removing the entire penis and testicles can be a remarkably fulfilling, relieving experience, even though they may still identify as male and use male pronouns. In their online enclaves, such people sometimes identify as “eunuchs,” “nullos,” or “smoothies.” In the medical literature, they are referred to as male-to-eunuchs, suffering from their own unique form of gender dysphoria.

Some of them journal their experiences in online forums, asking others around the world where they can go to have their penis and testicles totally removed, or plaintively debating historical research about the iconic eunuchs of China who inhabited the Forbidden City and served the Emperor with great influence and esteem.

Because of the scarcity of providers, the expense, and the taboo nature of the procedure, patients who seek penile amputation have few options. Men who are seeking to nullify their sex often go to great lengths to find someone who is willing to help them. “There are very few surgeons in the world who are comfortable with this,” says Dr. Curtis Crane, one of the nation’s leading experts on penises. “I’ve done a few [full penectomies]. We get a few requests a year, and I think it’s a good service to provide to the community.”

Crane specializes in the treatment of transgender and gender nonconforming patients, providing everything from phalluses for female-to-male patients to vaginas for trans women. He is likely one of the only surgeons in the world who will provide nonbinary male patients with a full penectomy—and this, he says, is because of a social taboo and double standard in transgender medicine.

For example, Crane says that it is “well accepted” among surgeons who specialize in providing care to trans and gender nonconforming people that there is a subset of assigned-female-at-birth patients who “do not believe in a binary classification.” These nonbinary individuals don’t identify as men, but they still suffer from gender dysphoria. People in this group commonly “want the absence of female characteristics, such as breasts”—and this procedure is generally accessible for them, even if they don’t want to go on Hormone Replacement Therapy, because surgeons who perform trans operations recognize their need.

“It’s perfectly acceptable for a lot of us [surgeons] to go, ‘OK, let’s masculinize your chest even though you aren’t fully transitioning,'” Crane says.

“Well, you know, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander,” he continues. “There are some patients that were born male who don’t want to fully convert to becoming female, but they don’t identify with their testicles, or they don’t identify with their scrotum, or they don’t identify with their phallus, but they still feel male; they want masculine pronouns. To me, it’s a double standard to accept the gender fluid female, but not the gender fluid male.”

A 2014 study by Thomas W. Johnson and Michael S. Irwig explored “the hidden world of self-castration and testicular self-injury,” shedding light on the methods that people seeking castration resort to when they don’t have access to professional surgical care. Though Johnson and Irwig wrote exclusively on castration, and not penectomy, their analysis of medical data on eunuchs is relevant to the broader group of men who seek these procedures.

The researchers define eunuchs as “biological males who have undergone voluntary castration for reasons other than male-to-female transsexualism,” explaining that the taboo nature of these procedures lead “eunuch–wannabes” to “resort to self castration, castration by non-medical professionals, or self-inflicted testicular damage via injections of toxic substances.” Because there are so few physicians willing to perform elective penectomies, “eunuch-wannabes” are forced to do it themselves, sometimes using cattle clamps and rings to aid their excision, or to try and find someone else will will perform the procedure for them.

Eunuchs are a secretive subculture. “According to one survey of voluntarily castrated males who identified themselves as eunuchs, only 30 percent and 11 percent had divulged this fact to close friends and family, respectively,” Johnson and Irwig’s study reads. Many eunuchs seem to identify as male, but others, as Crane indicated, find their identities to be less clearly defined. The study notes that “after castration, less than one-third of eunuchs continue to consider themselves as male, most consider themselves to be nether ale nor female, and a few identify themselves as female.”

Of course, Crane wouldn’t provide this treatment to just anyone. He follows a typical standard for patients seeking gender confirming surgeries, requiring two letters from psychiatric specialists who approve of the patient’s desire, and need, to be castrated, to have their penis removed, or both. Crane says that, for some people, these treatments are truly medically necessary—which shouldn’t be shocking if we can accept the medical necessity of other gender affirmative surgical procedures.

Today, Crane says, it is possible to completely remove both the entire penis and the testicles/scrotum, while rerouting the urethra down to an individual’s perineum. Afterwards, patients should be taking hormone supplements. “It’s not good to have no sex hormones. You get depressed; you get osteoporosis; you have no sex drive. You need either estrogen or testosterone.” Most of Crane’s patients begin taking a regimen of testosterone injections after their penis and testicles has been severed.

To some critics, the idea of removing an organ responsible for the primary production of testosterone in the male body, only to begin taking testosterone supplements, is illogical. However, Crane says that this is simply a misunderstanding of who these patients are, and what they need. “They don’t identify with that body part—it’s not that they want to have osteoporosis and be depressed. Fortunately there’s a way to remove that body part and still fulfill the [body’s necessary hormonal] function.”

Crane says that most of patients who have this surgery live their lives as men and then, after having their penis and testicles removed, leave to continue living their lives more or less the same way. The outside world likely will never have any idea that these individuals have no genitalia.

Though the patients who seek a radical penectomy and orchiectomy vary, Dr. Curtis Crane says that they’re “kind of their own category” within our classifications of known gender identities. It’s just that we have not yet accepted them. “Society has a lot of issues with men wanting to castrate themselves or remove their penis,” Crane said. “They just don’t like it.”

The first thing to say is that any reasonable person would recognize that the eunuch wannabee is clearly mental. There’s something wrong upstairs. At the university we had students who were cutters and burners, cutting themselves and burning their skin with cigarettes. That’s not normal.

Somewhere there’s some medical researcher who’s figured out what the problem is and how to solve it. But for reasons of political correctness that person or persons isn’t talking. The LGBT crowd would come down on them hard and fast.

With fat women, we’re seeing the opposite to what’s happening with men. There’s an organized fat acceptance movement where women tell themselves that fat is beautiful.

Do men need a penis acceptance movement, where we proclaim, “I love my penis and he and I won’t separate ever. Together forever.”

I don’t know for sure. But I know that feminists hate the penis. I recall one who wrote: “The penis is the greatest weapon of mass destruction in history.” Men who are weak minded who hear this sort of thing can be taken in by the nonsense.

I can see a time in the future when every boy reaches maturity that he goes through a penis removal ceremony to mark his adulthood. That’s a slippery slope that the trans movement is pushing us toward.

We have to stop it. Save the penis. And testicles.

16 thoughts on “Why Men are Asking Surgeons to Remove Their Penis and Testicles

  1. Typical gross mis-‘interpretation’ of Scripture; NOWHERE are we advised to emasculate ourselves. In fact, several times we are commanded to ‘act like men!’ Anyone who does so without medical reason has several screws loose. This is just more satanic leftist jew drivel being pushed to rid the world of white men.

  2. Yes, they are totally mental! As to WHY, I can’t even imagine.

    THIS is what’s NORMAL > > >

    “For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it…” (Ephesians 5:29)

  3. The scripture verse in your photo at top, Matthew 19:12 (words of Jesus) is at the bottom of these below verses, to show its meaning WITHIN THE ORIGINAL CONTEXT which was regarding marriage, divorce, adultery. God’s final position, as spoken by Jesus in vs. 12, is that SOME people “who can receive it” choose a life of chastity for the sake of the Kingdom, to devote themselves to God’s work (the Apostle Paul later also recommended singleness for that reason).

    As Luke2236 said above, nowhere does God recommend bodily mutilation (on the contrary He condemns it in the OT).

    MATTHEW Chapter 19, verses 1-12 (KJV):

    19 And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these sayings, he departed from Galilee, and came into the coasts of Judaea beyond Jordan;

    2 And great multitudes followed him; and he healed them there.

    3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

    4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

    5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

    6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

    7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

    8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

    9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

    10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.

    11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.

    12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.


    When Moses led the Hebrews out of Egyptian slavery, & then they as a large group entered into a covenant with God at Mt. Sinai, laws were given them re providing sacrifices for their sins, among other things. Hence, no blemished, bruised, mutilated, etc. person nor animal was allowed before God in the Temple (picturing Christ’s FUTURE PERFECT sinless sacrifice of Himself: Compare Leviticus 22:23-25: http://www.biblestudytools.com/kjv/leviticus/passage/?q=leviticus+22:23-25).

    Deuteronomy 23:1 (OT-KJV):

    “He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.”


      FAST FORWARD several hundred years to a time when Israel’s “watchmen” had become deaf, blind, dumb, unfaithful, sleeping on the job, etc., God says He will THEN welcome the STRANGERS (Gentiles), & the EUNUCHS in His House, & give them MORE than the “sons and daughters” (of Israel):

      ISAIAH 56:1-10 (KJV):

      1 Thus saith the LORD, Keep ye judgment, and do justice: for my salvation is near to come, and my righteousness to be revealed.

      2 Blessed is the man that doeth this, and the son of man that layeth hold on it; that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and keepeth his hand from doing any evil.

      3 Neither let the son of the stranger, that hath joined himself to the LORD, speak, saying, The LORD hath utterly separated me from his people: neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree.

      4 For thus saith the LORD unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant;

      5 Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off.

      6 Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant;

      7 Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.

      8 The Lord GOD which gathereth the outcasts of Israel saith, Yet will I gather OTHERS to him, beside those that are gathered unto him.

      9 All ye beasts of the field, come to devour, yea, all ye beasts in the forest.

      10 His watchmen are blind: they are all ignorant, they are all dumb dogs, they cannot bark; sleeping, lying down, loving to slumber.

  5. BIBLE DICTIONARIES re the word EUNUCH, interesting!

    All public domain:

    EUNUCH – Easton’s Bible Dictionary:

    Literally bed-keeper or chamberlain, and not necessarily in all cases one who was mutilated, although the practice of employing such mutilated persons in Oriental courts was common ( 2 Kings 9:32 ; Esther 2:3 ). The law of Moses excluded them from the congregation ( Deuteronomy 23:1 ). They were common also among the Greeks and Romans. It is said that even to-day there are some in Rome who are employed in singing soprano in the Sistine Chapel. Three classes of eunuchs are mentioned in Matthew 19:12.


    EUNUCH – Smith’s Bible Dictionary:

    “The English form of the Greek word which means bed-keeper . In the strict and proper sense they were the persons who had charge of the bed-chambers in palaces and larger houses. But as the jealous and dissolute temperament of the East required this charge to be in the hands of persons who had been deprived of their virility, the word eunuch came naturally to denote persons in that condition. But as some of these rose to be confidential advisers of their royal master or mistresses, the word was occasionally employed to denote persons in such a position, without indicating anything of their proper manhood.” -Abbott.


    EUNUCH – International Standard Bible Encyclopedia:

    Primarily and literally, a eunuch is an emasculated man (Deuteronomy 23:1). The Hebrew word caric seems, however, to have acquired a figurative meaning, which is reflected in English Versions of the Bible where “officer” and “chamberlain” are found as renderings (compare Genesis 37:36; 39:1, where caric is applied to married men; Esther 4:4).

    The barbarous practice of self-mutilation and the mutilation of others in this way was prevalent throughout the Orient. The religious disabilities under which men thus deformed labored under the Mosaic law had the effect of making the practice abominable to the Jews as a people (Deuteronomy 23:1; Leviticus 22:23-25). The law excluded eunuchs from public worship, partly because self- mutilation was often performed in honor of a heathen god, and partly because a maimed creature of any sort was deemed unfit for the service of Yahweh (Leviticus 21:16; 22:24). That ban, however, was later removed (Isaiah 56:4,5).

    On the other hand, the kings of Israel and Judah followed their royal neighbors in employing eunuchs (1) as guardians of the harem (2 Kings 9:32; Jeremiah 41:16), and (2) in military and other official posts (1 Samuel 8:15 margin; 1 Kings 22:9 margin; 2 Kings 8:6 margin; 2 Kings 23:11 the King James Version margin; 2 Kings 24:12,13 margin; 2 Kings 25:19 margin; 1 Chronicles 28:1 margin; 2 Chronicles 18:8 margin; Jeremiah 29:2; 34:19; 38:7; compare Genesis 37:36; 40:2,7; Acts 8:27).

    Josephus informs us that eunuchs were a normal feature of the courts of the Herods (Ant., XV, vii, 4; XVI, viii, 1). From the single reference to the practice in the Gospels (Matthew 19:12), we infer that the existence and purpose of eunuchs as a class were known to the Jews of Jesus’ time. There is no question with Jesus as to the law of Nature:

    the married life is the norm of man’s condition, and the union thereby effected transcends every other natural bond, even that of filial affection (Matthew 19:5,6).

    But He would have His hearers recognize that there are exceptional cases where the rule does not hold. In speaking of the three classes of eunuchs (Matthew 19:12), He made a distinction which was evidently well known to those whom He addressed, as was the metaphorical use of the word in application to the third class well understood by them (compare Lightfoot, Horae Hebrew et Talmud; Schottgen, Horae Hebrew, in the place cited.).

    How Origen misunderstood and abused the teaching of this passage is well known (Euseb., HE, VI, 8), and his own pathetic comment on the passage shows that later he regretted having taken it thus literally and acted on it.

    [Me: Wow, so I guess that means Origen emasculated himself? Dummie. Isn’t it clear that Jesus was not advising men to axe themselves literally but he was speaking spiritually?!]

    His is not the only example of such a perverted interpretation (see Talmud, Shabbath 152a, and compare Midrash on Ecclesiastes 10:7). The Council of Nicea, therefore, felt called on to deal with the danger as did the 2nd Council of Aries and the Apos Canons (circa 21). (Compare Bingham’s Ant, IV, 9.)

    It is significant that Jesus expresses no condemnation of this horrible practice. It was in keeping with His far-reaching plan of instilling principles rather than dealing in denunciations (John 3:17; 8:11). It was by His positive teaching concerning purity that we are shown the lines along which we must move to reach the goal. There is a more excellent way of achieving mastery of the sexual passion. It is possible for men to attain as complete control of this strong instinct as if they were physically sexless, and the resultant victory is of infinitely more value than the negative, unmoral condition produced by self-emasculation. These “make themselves eunuchs” with a high and holy purpose, “for the kingdom of heaven’s sake”; and the interests created by that purpose are so absorbing that neither time nor opportunity is afforded to the “fleshly lusts, which war against the soul” (1 Peter 2:11). They voluntarily forego marriage even, undertake virtual “eunuchism” because they are completely immersed in and engrossed by “the kingdom of heaven” (compare John 17:4; 1 Corinthians 7:29,33; 9:5 and see Bengel, Gnomon Novi Test. in the place cited and Clement of Alexandria., Strom., iii.1).

Leave a Reply. Comments Policy Forbids Insulting Other Commenters.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s