I think it’s very important to address the claim that one reason to accept eunuch as a new identity is to protect people from self harm as they will mutilate themselves if castration is not accepted by society and therefore paid for by insurance. This seems disingenuous and a way to avoid the focus on the paraphilia and child abuse inherent in this troubled community. We don’t give people prone to cutting sharper knives or cut their arms ourselves to avoid messy self harm. We don’t do gastric bypass on people with anorexia so that they can lose weight more “safely.” We provide explorative therapy and sometimes hospitalize them to prevent self injurious behavior. 
It’s horrifying to watch--in retrospect--all this develop, and I can’t help but feel I was somehow an unwitting dupe, having bought into the “straight but not narrow” and other ridiculous tropes fed to us in the 90s (and before). Little by little, literature, film, TV, and music got edgier and edgier (which I loved), then it was sanitized and corporatized...and now we’re here: over-educated, under-employed, and mono-cultured.
Our babies are sitting ducks for perverts to pick off...
I just saw that a Substack I subscribe to but don't actually know anything about, Gender Clinic News, hasn't made the connection between WPATH Wassersug of Vancouver (Canada) and his extra-professional interest in eunuchs:
From Gender Clinic News: "A Canada-based website, Life on ADT, tracks reports of side-effects when these drugs are used for “androgen deprivation therapy” with adult males suffering from prostate cancer."
I can't comment on his subscriber-only Substack. This Life on ADT org appears to one of Wassersug's projects. I assume that you're connected to other gender-ideology people. Sorry if that's an incorrect assumption.
Now I'd like a thousand showers and to throw up all day. Just being anywhere near these WPATH degenerate, evil, sick, psychopathic deviants is too much.
"The Eunuch Archive is a long-standing forum which hosts nearly 10,000 fictional pornography stories of an extreme sadomasochistic nature."
That sort of content has no good role in society.
While I am not an advocate of censorship, and believe in free expression, if such materials instruct readers on how to be cruel and normalize violating boundaries, and the forum provides a space encouraging people to fantasize about harming others, should we consider that over the line?
I am one of those people who finds censorship a valid strategy only as very last resort. The Left and Right book bans sicken me. However, this may be a different category, altogether. I'm sure that there's a lot of material out there that isn't positive, and this may be a more mild example, really.
The Internet has always been an echo chamber, of sorts. Even before the advent of social media, people would flock to common-interest forums where people thought similarly. What if the echo chamber is reinforcing negativity? What can be done without censoring?
If they are banned from the 'net, they will go back to the old way of clandestine publications, mail trees, and brown paper bags. The fetishists will still find one another. It's been one of the great reliefs of the web, is they can all hang together. It's when they start proselytizing that I worry.
I think it’s very important to address the claim that one reason to accept eunuch as a new identity is to protect people from self harm as they will mutilate themselves if castration is not accepted by society and therefore paid for by insurance. This seems disingenuous and a way to avoid the focus on the paraphilia and child abuse inherent in this troubled community. We don’t give people prone to cutting sharper knives or cut their arms ourselves to avoid messy self harm. We don’t do gastric bypass on people with anorexia so that they can lose weight more “safely.” We provide explorative therapy and sometimes hospitalize them to prevent self injurious behavior. 
It’s horrifying to watch--in retrospect--all this develop, and I can’t help but feel I was somehow an unwitting dupe, having bought into the “straight but not narrow” and other ridiculous tropes fed to us in the 90s (and before). Little by little, literature, film, TV, and music got edgier and edgier (which I loved), then it was sanitized and corporatized...and now we’re here: over-educated, under-employed, and mono-cultured.
Our babies are sitting ducks for perverts to pick off...
Thank you for your work.
this is so upsetting i struggled to make it to the end. across so many countries, all at once, this flip into madness beyond imagining.
what do marx and maths have in common? i can't be bothered wirh either.
There are Islamist guidebooks instructing jihadists to use the laws of the country against itself. It's not random.
Harry Benjamin, founder of WPATH, was referred a patient by Kinsey. John Money is Harry Benjamin's research colleague at John Hopkins University.
They are insane.
Just madness wrapped up in confusing academic jargon and made to look like an identity.
I just saw that a Substack I subscribe to but don't actually know anything about, Gender Clinic News, hasn't made the connection between WPATH Wassersug of Vancouver (Canada) and his extra-professional interest in eunuchs:
From Gender Clinic News: "A Canada-based website, Life on ADT, tracks reports of side-effects when these drugs are used for “androgen deprivation therapy” with adult males suffering from prostate cancer."
I can't comment on his subscriber-only Substack. This Life on ADT org appears to one of Wassersug's projects. I assume that you're connected to other gender-ideology people. Sorry if that's an incorrect assumption.
Now I'd like a thousand showers and to throw up all day. Just being anywhere near these WPATH degenerate, evil, sick, psychopathic deviants is too much.
Horrifying.
"The Eunuch Archive is a long-standing forum which hosts nearly 10,000 fictional pornography stories of an extreme sadomasochistic nature."
That sort of content has no good role in society.
While I am not an advocate of censorship, and believe in free expression, if such materials instruct readers on how to be cruel and normalize violating boundaries, and the forum provides a space encouraging people to fantasize about harming others, should we consider that over the line?
I am one of those people who finds censorship a valid strategy only as very last resort. The Left and Right book bans sicken me. However, this may be a different category, altogether. I'm sure that there's a lot of material out there that isn't positive, and this may be a more mild example, really.
The Internet has always been an echo chamber, of sorts. Even before the advent of social media, people would flock to common-interest forums where people thought similarly. What if the echo chamber is reinforcing negativity? What can be done without censoring?
If they are banned from the 'net, they will go back to the old way of clandestine publications, mail trees, and brown paper bags. The fetishists will still find one another. It's been one of the great reliefs of the web, is they can all hang together. It's when they start proselytizing that I worry.