Journal of Gender Studies

Vol. 21, No. 3, September 2012, 253270

RESEARCH ARTICLE
Eunuch as a gender identity after castration
Richard J. Wassersuga*, Emma McKennab and Tucker Liebermanc
a
Department of Anatomy and Neurobiology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, B3H 4R2,
Canada; bDepartment of Womens and Gender Studies, University of British Columbia, Vancouver,
British Columbia, V6T 1Z2, Canada; cMoral Relativism Magazine, 28 Royal Street, Waltham,
Massachusetts, 02452-6483, USA

(Received 4 November 2009; final version received 11 January 2012)

Each year hundreds of thousands of males begin long-term androgen deprivation therapy
(ADT), i.e. chemical or surgical castration, to slow the progress of prostate cancer. ADT
causes loss of muscle mass and body hair; genital shrinkage and erectile dysfunction;
variable amounts of breast growth and the development of a characteristically post-
menopausal female pattern of fat distribution. ADT also changes mood and affect, most
conspicuously seen as increased emotionality and depressed libido. Given these
changes, it is not surprising that many patients on ADT no longer feel manly, yet do not
experience themselves as women. For many, this gender liminality is psychologically
and socially traumatic. Faced with these difficulties, how can castrated males understand
themselves in a positive way?
We explore the idea that some men may benefit from embracing the alternative gender
identity of eunuch. Unfortunately, due in part to the historic practice of forced
castration, the word eunuch is now largely pejorative, although it is the correct
biological term for a castrated male. We examine the benefits and risks of contemporary
castrated males accepting this identity to help them adapt to the changes they experience.
Keywords: eunuch; castration; emasculation; transgender; prostate cancer; androgen
deprivation

Introduction
Traditionally, the term eunuch describes a physical condition of a biological male who
has been castrated (that is, has had his testicles removed or destroyed). Gilbert Herdts
(1993) extensive cross-cultural, historical review of non-normatively gendered people
posits that eunuch is a potential [our emphasis] third-sex category (p. 48). Here, we
examine the validity of eunuch as a gender identity subsequent to castration. Essentially,
we consider what it means to be a castrated male today.
For the purpose of this paper we follow the medical definitions of the terms castration
and emasculation: the removal or destruction of the testicles so that neither testosterone
nor sperm are produced. This differs from Sigmund Freuds redefinition, which focuses on
loss of the penis and erectile function (Taylor 2002). However, the definitions are linked in
that loss of testicular function largely assures that a male will no longer have erections
sufficient for penetration.

*Corresponding author. Email: richard.wassersug@dal.ca

ISSN 0958-9236 print/ISSN 1465-3869 online

q 2012 Taylor & Francis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2012.681178
http://www.tandfonline.com
254 R.J. Wassersug et al.

In the contemporary Western world, castration is more often achieved chemically

than surgically. While the physical removal of the testes, and the manner in which they are
removed, certainly carries a psychological and physical import unmatched by chemical
castration, the neuroendocrinological impact of androgen deprivation is the same whether
achieved surgically or chemically (summarized below).
By far the most common reason for castration now is to treat prostate cancer
(Wassersug 2010, Wassersug and Lieberman 2010); this is done because testosterone fuels
the growth of prostate cancer cells. Shahinian et al. (2005) note that in the USA there are
over 200,000 new cases of prostate cancer every year, and they estimate that more than
80,000 patients will be either surgically castrated or take chemically castrating drugs within
six months of diagnosis. Far fewer males are castrated by accident or to treat testicular
cancer or chronic testicular pain (orchialgia), and those individuals may safely receive
testosterone replacement therapy (Wassersug 2010). If males who have been castrated
receive testosterone, then, aside from sterility, the sexual, physical, cognitive, and
emotional characteristics of their natal maleness will be unaffected by the castration.1
Given the pejorative use of the term eunuch in modern language (Cushman et al.
2010), it is easy to make the assumption that eunuch hardly denotes a gender, but simply
a type of failed, diminished, mutilated man. Most men treated for prostate cancer strive
to retain their masculinity and male functionality (Fergus et al. 2002, Gray et al. 2002,
Broom 2004, Maliski et al. 2008, Kelly 2009), and few would identify as anything other
than male (but see Gray 2004, Wassersug and Johnson 2007, Wassersug 2009a, 2010). In
this essay we explore what castration implies about the masculinity and gender identity of
these individuals. We argue that the experience of castration grounds an alternative
narrative for males through which they can see themselves as belonging to another gender
category, and may in fact benefit from doing so. Our analysis is predicated on the belief
that, as diverse as one might hope the definition of male to be within a contemporary
world that recognizes multiple masculinities (cf. Connell 2005), an individual man might
reasonably perceive some physical or social borders to his ability to understand himself as
male.2 Alternatively the potential for female identification following castration is not a
desirable option for most castrated males aside from those who, pre-treatment, already
identified as female and sought castration explicitly as part of sexual reassignment
(Wassersug and Johnson 2007, Wassersug 2009b, 2010).
Our theoretical discussion is grounded in research on mens experiences associated
with castration that was either medically necessary to treat advanced prostate cancer, or
voluntary for reasons of sexuality, identity, and psychological comfort, where the only
medical need would be a psychiatric one (Brett et al. 2007, Johnson et al. 2007, Wassersug
and Johnson 2007, Roberts et al. 2008, Vale et al. 2010). This exploration of eunuch as a
gender is attentive to the risks and benefits associated with castration as well as to the more
theoretical issue of non-binary gender claims. Here, we show that the physical and
hormonal changes caused by castration make it difficult for castrated males to experience
themselves fully as male and challenge binary models of both sex and gender.
In societies where a failure to live up to the roles of man or woman is penalized,
castrated males often try to hide their bodily changes and altered self-perception (Navon
and Morag 2003, Wassersug and Johnson 2007, Wassersug 2010). However, they may
face harmful physical, social, and psychological consequences in doing so (Navon and
Morag 2004, Roesch et al. 2005). In response to this difficulty, and with the intention of
helping castrated individuals reaffirm a positive self-image, we suggest that the gender
identity of eunuch could provide one possible context grounded in both science and
sociology for castrated individuals to reinterpret their lives.
 Journal of Gender Studies 255

I. Male embodiment and binary sex/gender after castration

Robertson (2007) suggests that male embodiment is twofold: it is both material and
representational. In an effort to include males lived and experiential accounts of their
bodies in health discourses, Robertson postulates that the gendered male body is felt and
imagined, experienced and constructed. The experience of maleness is posited to involve
the external pursuit of a masculine performance and the internal physical sensation of a
functional male body (Oliffe 2006). Robertsons qualitative analysis of mens health
narratives suggests that when the internal sensation of maleness is lacking, the desire to
preserve a public male identity . . . can be damaging in the long term without alternative
narrative identities available to draw on (2007, p. 9).
What does male function entail? Within Robertsons logic, males experience and
recognize their maleness through both penile function and, more broadly, through their
representative masculine psyche. Sabo and Gordon (1995) describe this as an inner,
psychic process . . . intricately tied to an outer web of sex roles and gender expectations
(p. 6). Indeed, maleness can be understood as the experience and performance of
masculinity, beyond body form and function. As Butler (1990) suggests, the ways in which
bodies come into being as gendered are complex and not necessarily restricted to
physical markers of sex or gender (p. 15). In other words, the presence of a penis
(functional or not) does not render a body male. This brings us to the question of whether
castration inevitably alters a mans sense of masculinity.
Yet the alterity of the castrated male is compounded by a series of other effects of
castration that both emasculate and feminize the body. Whether achieved surgically via an
orchiectomy or chemically from androgen-suppressing drugs, castration in adult males
reduces libido and causes a loss of body hair and lean muscle mass, shrinkage of the
genitalia, and erectile dysfunction (Higano 2006). There may be some breast tissue growth
(i.e. gynecomastia) and fat gained around the waist and hips in a pattern more
characteristic of post-menopausal females. Decreased energy levels and sometimes
anemia are common, as is loss of bone mineral content (osteopenia). The hormonal
changes typically contribute to increased emotion demonstrated by an increased tendency
towards tearfulness (Wassersug 2007, 2009a). These changes occur abruptly with
androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and can commonly, but not invariably, include hot
flushes and night sweats (Higano 2006), also characteristic of women at menopause.
In other words, castration partially feminizes men beyond the loss of the testicles
(Wassersug 2009a, 2009b). Males castrated after puberty retain facial hair, low-pitched
voices, and XY chromosomes; however, while their penises do not shrink to clitoral size
nor do they acquire vaginas, their bodies still deviate from the male norm. Since castrated
males have a mix of both stereotypically male and female features, they come to occupy
what Zita (1998) calls border bodies that can no longer be easily categorized as one
thing or the other (Navon and Morag 2003, p. 1383).
The gender regime of heteronormativity conflates gender and biological sex
(Wilchins 1997), binding masculinity to males and femininity to females. Although
heteronormativity has been broadly challenged by gender theorists, heteronormative
assumptions continue to operate in society and to affect the lives of real people. Thus,
ones sex at birth is supposed to determine the gender and sexuality one feels and
expresses. The normal male is expected to be masculine and attracted to women, and
females, in turn, to be feminine and attracted to men. Once so developed, these
characteristics are assumed to be stable over time. This descriptive model suggests that
non-normative sexual or gender expressions should be either repressed or hidden from
256 R.J. Wassersug et al.

view, and holds individuals accountable for choosing to transgress heteronormativity

and/or the male/female binary.
But what happens when something disrupts the apparent correlation of sex and gender
expression? The border bodies of castrated males pose a novel challenge to the supposed
naturalness of the binary gender sexual order, opening up possibilities for alternative
male embodiment and social behavior, and blurring the boundaries between male and
female.

II. Biographical disruption, liminality, and psycho-social effects

Castrated males who grapple with gender ambiguity unhinge the assumed natural
relationship between gonadal sex and gender performance. The medical alteration of
organs that express sex and represent gender create what sociologists term a biographical
disruption (Elson 2004). Such disruptions constitute a radical turning-point in an
individuals personal narrative in ways that prevent her or him from maintaining previous
self-understandings (Elson 2003). Sociologist Bryan Turner explains this shift by pointing
to the importance of embodiment in constituting our sense of self. There is, Turner writes,
an intimate and necessary relationship between my sense of myself, my awareness of the
integrity of my body and experience of illness as not simply an attack on my instrumental
body . . . but as a radical intrusion into my embodied selfhood (1992, p. 167).
This intrusion upon the self may be an effect of illness or disease, but it can also be a
desired departure from a previous state of being. For example, transsexual people who opt
for hormone therapy and gender reassignment surgery voluntarily undergo a process that
affirms their physical sex and has implications for how their gender will be interpreted and
responded to socially. In this way, ones embodiment is affected or disrupted by surgery or
hormone therapy. The disruption of castration necessitates a process of having to learn
what new meanings ones body takes on as one moves through the world (Wilchins 1997,
Chapple and Ziebland 2002, Navon and Morag 2004, Oliffe 2006).
The sex/gender disruption caused by castration and the inadequacy of a dyadic
sex/gender system pushes castrated individuals into liminality (Navon and Morag 2004),
where they may experience their gender identity not as masculine or feminine, but as
ambiguous. Liminality (as defined in Turner 1969) is the condition of being on a threshold,
a boundary, or at the beginning of a process. In this case, castrated males are at the
boundaries of masculinity and are prompted either to renegotiate their gender identity or
else believe that they are failed, damaged, incomplete, or devalued men (Navon and
Morag 2004, Wassersug and Johnson 2007, Wassersug 2009a, 2009b).
Many males castrated to treat prostate cancer have expressed during interviews their
inability to find an effective narrative or template to interpret their experience (e.g. Fergus
et al. 2002, Navon and Morag 2004). They struggle to describe who they are and what they
have become, both to others and to themselves. As one patient stated, Whenever I saw my
body, I wondered, Who am I? A woman? A man? Its a very confusing situation
(Navon and Morag 2003, p. 1383). Others echo this statement. One patient said, for
example, that he is a man whos not a man (Navon and Morag 2004, p. 2341). Another
claimed, Im no longer a viable man Im a eunuch, Im a gelding, and one more
asserted, Youre not male, youre not female, youre just a neuter gender (Fergus et al.
2002, pp. 310 311).
Secondary sex characteristics have profound impacts on whether a person will be
interpreted as male or female and, in turn, how they will interpret and perform their own
gender (Kessler and McKenna 1975, Dozier 2005). If a castrated male accepts the
 Journal of Gender Studies 257

existence of only two genders, he is likely to experience gynecomastia as a source of

distress. Breasts are often the primary marker of female gender (Wassersug and Oliffe
2009), and breast tissue noticeably distorts the hardness and strength associated with a
masculine chest (Oliffe 2006). Thus, many androgen-deprived genetic males associate this
feminized form with a loss of manhood.
A survey of men with gynecomastia by Yost (2006) offers valuable insight into how
breast growth affects male gender identity, with comments like: it put me in no mans/no
womans land (p. 109), Im not quite a man, and I am certainly not a woman either
(p. 109), and At times I felt emasculated (p. 81). Although Yosts sample was not
exclusive to prostate cancer patients or castrated males, a castrated male in Navon and
Morags study (2004) similarly confessed I began to see myself as a man without
masculinity, theres no other way of putting it. I mean, Im not a woman, but I have a
womans breasts (p. 2341). Clearly the development of secondary female characteristics
after castration can force a shift in a males perception of his gendered body and identity.
These quotations convey the discomfort and unease that castrated males can
experience when their gender becomes ambiguous and liminal. Castration leaves many
who desire clear-cut categories of male and female unable to locate themselves within
that binary (Lorber and Moore 2007). The difficulty for castrated cancer patients to fit
themselves easily into the heteronormative binary causes some to feel trapped between
genders and unable to escape confusion, anxiety, and social stigma (Navon and Morag
2004).
Castration makes it difficult to perform a heteronormative masculine role. For
example, some castrated males may have difficulty living up to the role of male provider
when anemia, fatigue, emotional lability, and shame about their feminized bodies interfere
with their ability to work as they used to (Oliffe 2005, 2006, Wassersug and Oliffe 2009).
With the decrease of energy and muscle mass, they are often unable to maintain the
physical strength that they may have used for activities considered to be mens work,
such as heavy lifting (Oliffe 2006, p. 418).
Castrated males may also experience changes in their emotional displays that
challenge normative masculinity and typical maleness (Wassersug 2007, 2009a). They
may frequently find themselves tearful, moody, and emotionally expressive in ways that
are considered unmanly (Fergus et al. 2002, Gray et al. 2005, Oliffe 2006, Wassersug
2009a). The absence of testosterone and androgen may be compounded by an increase in
emotionality and a reduction in motivation (Oliffe 2006). This in turn may impact the way
they interact with others. As one person who had undergone chemical castration for
advanced prostate cancer expressed, I dont go much on the macho stuff these days. I dont
have to go out and punch somebodys lights out to make me feel like a man (Oliffe 2006,
p. 425). How a castrated individual adapts to these experiences may vary, but they do
demonstrate how castration may prompt a change in gendered behaviors.
In their discussion of behavioral adaptation following a variety of prostate cancer
treatments, Burns and Mahalik (2007) cite the socialization of males through masculine
scripts as gearing men toward particular emotional responses. Masculine scripts dictate
and constrain the types of emotions men express. Aggression and assertiveness are
acceptable, even required demonstrations of masculinity, while empathy and self-reflection
are discouraged (Wassersug 2009a, see also Rueckert and Naybar 2008).
Changes that result from castration can make it difficult for a male to fit into the
normative gender identity of man, in which men dont have breasts, dont cry, and desire
sex with women. Many non-castrated males, of course, prefer not to identify with such
heteronormative masculine models to begin with (Oliffe 2005, p. 2550), but physical
258 R.J. Wassersug et al.

changes related to castration still force a confrontation with gender identity and sexuality
for men, however they might define their personal norm (Perlman and Drescher 2005).
A number of psychological, social, and physical harms can result from remaining in
a liminal situation where the dominant understanding of gender is both normative and
strictly binary (Navon and Morag 2004). Psychologically, some castrated males may
respond to the feminization of their bodies by disassociation, saying things like now, that
body to me is not mine (Oliffe 2006, p. 418). Or they may react to themselves with self-
loathing and disgust. As one individual states:
Im becoming a monster! . . . Since the treatment, I started feeling self-abhorrence . . . I feel
revolted, its dirty and unpleasant. It makes me feel different from other people. I find it hard
to look at my body. It makes me hate myself. (Navon and Morag 2003, p. 1382)
Faced with this unwanted gender liminality, castrated males often attempt to reaffirm
their masculinity (Wassersug and Johnson 2007, Maliski et al. 2008). In an effort to deal
with their gender identity and the shame of having a border body, individuals may try to
convince themselves and others that they retain their previous masculinity and that they
resemble stereotypical men more closely than they do.
For example, passing (disguising or hiding ones non-normative body or desires) is a
strategy often used by individuals to maintain their social privilege and avoid harm and
condemnation (Herdt 1993). Navon and Morag (2003) name three strategies in which
castrated men attempt to pass as intact men: disguising, avoiding, and diverting. To
disguise their bodies, castrated men may wear clothing that hides their feminized chests
and lack of body hair (Wassersug 2010). They may also fake an interest in sex, despite a
declining libido (Navon and Morag 2003). They may avoid social activities and places
that force them to reveal their changed bodies to others, such as the gym or the beach.
Less exercise in turn may exacerbate their gain of body fat and increase their risk of
osteoporosis (Fergus et al. 2002, Oliffe 2006, Wassersug and Oliffe 2009). Single men
may be hesitant to meet new partners for fear of reactions to their altered bodies and sexual
capabilities, and so avoid potentially romantic situations (Fergus et al. 2002). Finally, men
may use tactics of diversion to draw attention away from their diminished masculinity by
behaving in more stereotypically masculine ways, for example, by holding doors open for
women (Navon and Morag 2003).
Trying to escape liminality by disguising, avoiding, and diverting are attempts to pass
as heteronormative males. As one castrated male explained, I never knew that I possess
such play-acting talents. It really helps me, but the straightforward relationships I used to
have are over (Navon and Morag 2003, p. 1383). Passing may lead to the feeling that
one is guarding a dark secret, which generates the fear of being found out (Fergus et al.
2002, p. 311). I still wasnt convinced that no one noticed, revealed one patient, and
It only made me more mistrustful (Navon and Morag 2003, p. 1383). These treatment-
induced changes were such an important secret that some patients described any disclosure
as coming out, one saying it had been harder for him to talk about castration than it was
to come out as gay (Fergus et al. 2002, p. 311). Thus, this impetus to come out as castrated
follows from the condition of being in hiding (Wassersug and Johnson 2007, Wassersug
2007, 2009a) and is grounded in similar motivations to attempts at passing.
Beyond a loss of libido and penile mechanics, castration can impact on non-coital
aspects of sexual intimacy (Beck et al. 2009, Elliott et al. 2010). Castrated males in long-
term relationships with females have reported both positive and negative changes in how
they and their partners relate following treatment (Oliffe 2006, Walker and Robinson
2010, 2011). Research on prostate cancer patients using ADT suggests that both partners
 Journal of Gender Studies 259

respond together in an emotional system (Hagedoorn et al. 2008), but that women are
more prone to displaying distress than their partners (Kornblith et al. 1994, Kim et al.
2008). This is not surprising given that most patients, if they are not emotionally staid by
nature, adhere to masculine scripts of self-restraint that limit how they express themselves
(Burns and Mahalik 2007). It is important to recognize that their partners will have their
own challenges and responses to the androgen deprivation. Concordant with this view is
the way in which the impact of emasculation cannot always be hidden (e.g. in sexual
situations; Wassersug 2009a, 2009b), and will likely alter how castrated individuals
interact with intimate partners and friends.
Although their sample size was very small, data in Navon and Morag (2003) suggest
that about half of married couples experience some erosion in intimacy subsequent to the
husbands castration to treat prostate cancer. Some couples develop non-sexual intimacy,
for example through renegotiating their relationship as a platonic or friends arrangement
(Navon and Morag 2003, Walker and Robinson 2010, 2011). Often, however, spousal
relationships suffer, especially when both spouses deny the personality and behavioral
changes that accompany androgen deprivation (Kornblith et al. 1994, Soloway et al. 2005).
Whether from shame and/or a reluctance to ask for help, patients may avoid asking
their doctors about impotence and the emasculating effects of ADT (Oliffe 2005).
A doctors own discomfort with emasculation may add to the problems, and thus they
often join their patients in electing to avoid, ignore, or minimize the changes their patients
experience (Hodgson et al. 2005, Beck et al. 2009, Wassersug and Lieberman 2010).
Most medical solutions for treating loss of sexual function subsequent to prostate
cancer treatment only address erectile dysfunction (Mulhall 2008, Mulhall et al. 2009).
For androgen-deprived males, this is usually unsuccessful (e.g. data reviewed in Gray and
Klotz 2004). This focus on the penis rather than on sexuality in general can lead to a false
hope of recovering phallocentric sexuality (Wassersug 2009b, Elliott et al. 2010). This
failure in treatment can be another blow to castrated males sense of their manhood and
can further strain their intimate relationships (Wassersug 2009b). On the other hand, there
are both historical and contemporary data showing that sexual performance even
orgasms are possible for castrated males, especially if they can accept a non-insertive
model of sexual behavior (Finucci 2003, Freitas 2003, 2009, Aucoin and Wassersug 2006,
Warkentin et al. 2006, Wassersug and Johnson 2007, Wassersug 2009b). Insofar as such
behavior usually constitutes a renegotiation of what was typical for these men prior to their
castration, it may prompt self-examination of their gender identity.

III. The eunuch: a gender narrative to resolve biographical disruption

Virtually all known forms of third sex or third gender suggest transformation of being and
practice: the alteration of qualities or essences of the body and person with time. (Herdt 1993,
p. 63)
Although queer theorists recognize the potential for multiple and divergent masculinities
in differently gendered bodies (Halberstam 1998, Connell 2005), the proposition we
proffer here is that castrated males may reasonably wish to accept a departure from
masculinity and maleness altogether. The historical gender category of eunuch can
instead be reclaimed as a potentially liberatory identity (Aucoin and Wassersug 2006,
Wassersug 2009a, 2009b).
Eunuch is an ancient Greek word, imported into Latin and eventually into English, and
has always and everywhere denoted a castrated male. Until recent years, this implied
physical removal or destruction of the testicles. Androgen deprivation can now be achieved
260 R.J. Wassersug et al.

pharmacologically, causing men to have the same hormonal levels as if their testicles had
been removed, which justifies the use of the term chemical castration. We argue that men
today who are castrated whether surgically or chemically would, in another time or
place, have met the requirements for belonging to the established gender of eunuch. In
many societies their genital ablation would have placed them there regardless of how they
privately identified or how they wished to live. Although not currently recognized in
industrial society as eunuchs, there are in fact more castrated males today than at any other
point in time (Wassersug 2010, Wassersug and Lieberman 2010). ADT alone for prostate
cancer treatment accounts for approximately half a million chemically castrated men living
in North America at any one time (Smith 2007). Furthermore two million hijras are
recognized as a distinct gender in India (Wassersug and Johnson 2007).
Castrated males today may profit from examining the physical and psychological
characteristics of other castrated men throughout history, and may additionally find
inspiration in the stories of historical eunuchs, who were previously recognized as a
separate gender (Wassersug 2009b). Historically, eunuchs have been far more than just
harem attendants. They have served as military commanders, senior government officials,
religious leaders, and esteemed entertainers (Ringrose 2003, Wassersug 2004, 2009a,
2009b, Aucoin and Wassersug 2006). If modern castrated males elect to identify as
eunuchs, they accept a term that describes both their particular kind of border body and a
performance beyond the gender binary. Electing eunuch as an identity would accord with
the re-gendered bodies of castrated males. This would allow castrated individuals to let go
of denial, alleviate their perceived need to continue socially to pass as masculine by
performing gender in the same way they did prior to their castrations, reduce the shame
and pressure to hide their changed bodies, and enable them to experience themselves as
valuable and whole.
This narrative features the process of change in embodiment over time. Insofar as the
eunuch narrative emphasizes integrating or settling the self into an altered physical
subjectivity, it is similar to transsexual narratives (Ekins and King 2006). On the other
hand, while transsexual narratives of gender transition articulate this movement into a
body that better fits a deeply felt self-image, or what has been described as an authentic
inner self (Meyerowitz 2002, p. 135), medically castrated males must find a self-image
that accords with their unforeseen bodily change.
Paradoxically, the establishment of a recognizable transsexual personal history, in
relation to pursuing treatment for, and medical intervention in, gender transitions, has been
deemed problematic in its tendency to simplify or reduce the divergent experiences of
transsexual individuals into a singular, palatable story (cf. Stone 1991, Hausman 1995).
Learning from the insights that race, queer, and gender theorists have put forth on the
importance of a multiplicity of experiences, the positive eunuch narratives of castrated
males would, therefore, be able to accommodate the differences among their felt
experiences of their transformed lives. The word eunuch would retain a basic shared
meaning grounded in physical castration and psycho-social emasculation itself without
predetermining the specific manifestations of these changes (Wassersug 2010).
The proposition of eunuch as a valid gender does not intend to create a monolithic or
universal personal account of gender transformation, but rather a model of identification
through which individuals can begin to map out new ways of understanding themselves,
i.e. an identity model that grounds them in an established historic gender and opens
up possibilities for a future of positive self-actualization (Wassersug 2009a, 2009b).
Admittedly castrated males who adopt this new identity will have to contend, as
transsexuals do, with the logistics of how their personal self-image might be communicated.
 Journal of Gender Studies 261

While the phrases male-to-female (MtF) or female-to-male (FtM) have been used to express
the direction of transsexual gender transition, male-to-eunuch (MtE) could be invoked in a
similar way to express the subjective gender shift initiated by castration (Brett et al. 2007,
Vale et al. 2010, Johnson and Wassersug 2010). The bodily changes that occur after
castration do not constitute a full sex change, but they are important factors in an altered
gendered subjectivity.
Despite the fact that castrated males have been considered a separate gender in various
cultures for thousands of years (Ringrose 2003, 2007), today a eunuch gender identity
is new in the sense that the effects of castration, other than those made visible by an
androgen-deprived transsexual woman, are largely hidden from mainstream culture, and
the context for their existence now differs from the past (Wassersug and Johnson 2007,
Wassersug 2009a, Wassersug 2010). With the notable exception of Indian culture, most
contemporary societies do not have specific social roles for eunuchs. Previously, eunuchs
had been members of royal retinues. Many were high-ranking administrators and military
commanders in Constantinople for hundreds of years and in China for thousands of years
(Aucoin and Wassersug 2006, Wassersug 2010). For many, the status of eunuch was one
of exaltation and empowerment; their positions as castrated retainers allowed them
privileges and access to the inner workings of the court (Penzer 1993, Ringrose 1993,
2003, 2007, Wassersug 2004, Wassersug 2009a, 2009b).3
Reclaiming eunuch identity can be justified on several grounds within the framework
of transgenderism. Although there have been people throughout history who changed
sex roles and modified their bodies, transsexual and transgender are gender categories
whose twentieth-century creation were prompted by advances in elective surgery and
hormone therapy, and bolstered by developments in psychology, feminist philosophy,
grass roots trans-liberation movements, and media attention (cf. Herdt 1993, Chase 1998,
Lorber and Moore 2007). Some individuals embrace these identities instead of, or in
addition to, woman or man. The term trans conveys flexibility and elasticity, allowing
for a wide range of personal gender and sexual expressions that do not demand a
renunciation of all ties to former or future identities. As gender theorist Noble (2006)
suggests, it is in fact this unintelligibility, this unrepresentability inherent in the space
that trans delimits that makes it such a dynamic point for launching novel gender identity
claims (p. 3). Indeed as Johnson and Wassersug (2010) point out, approximately a quarter
of MtF transsexuals in Europe whose sexual reassignment surgery would be publicly paid
for nevertheless elect to be castrated only and not to proceed to full reassignment.
Ironically, although they fit the medical definition of eunuch they typically do not elect to
identify as eunuch, just as those whose castration is part of cancer treatment do not
typically identify as eunuch (or as transgender). For either group, adopting a eunuch
identity in Western society would not necessarily imply that the individual participates in
a community of like-gendered individuals such as the hijra of South Asia (Nanda 1998)
or the kathoey in Thailand (Totman 2003). Nor does a eunuch identity necessitate the
removal of all anatomical markers of sex (i.e. genital nullification) or submission to the
authority of another set of rigid gender rules, as implied by eunuch history and
occasionally re-enacted in slave/master relationships performed by some individuals
with extreme castration paraphilias (Johnson et al. 2007, Roberts et al. 2008). Instead, it
permits individuals to recognize that their hormonal and anatomical situation is
precedented and significant. By re-invoking the social category of eunuch as a gender
identity, contemporary castrated males have the option to learn more about eunuchs of the
past (cf. Wassersug 2009b) and gauge whether this knowledge reflects their own bodies,
experiences, and how they might elect to situate themselves within society.
262 R.J. Wassersug et al.

Freely accepting a eunuch identity, instead of merely experiencing oneself as a

mutilated male, entails recognizing that ones physical characteristics and sexual
psychology have changed (Wassersug 2009a, 2009b) and then assigning coherent, positive
meaning to those changes. Eunuch identity implies a heightened awareness of gender
issues relating to the self and to the Other. It provides an opportunity to integrate this
awareness and knowledge into ones life and to inform ones behavior, gender
presentation, and personal choices (Wassersug 2003, 2009a, 2009b). Importantly, we
distinguish between being castrated as an objective physical state (that doctors may refer
to) and accepting eunuch as a subjective gender identity that can be self-applied from
within a conscious framework of identity politics.

IV. Sexual activity after castration

Granted, many castrated and hypogonadal males refuse to claim eunuch identity given the
pejorative use of the label (Cushman et al. 2010) and fear of subsequent social isolation
and rejection (Brett et al. 2007, Wassersug and Johnson 2007, Wassersug and Lieberman
2010). Fully dressed males castrated after puberty publicly present as male, pass as male,
and may be satisfied with that.
Indeed a significant problem for claiming eunuch as a coherent gender identity is the
invisibility of castrated males in social settings (Wassersug and Johnson 2007, Wassersug
2009a, 2010). A gender is not merely a private identity, but also a category that has widely
recognized markers through which people indicate membership. Kessler and McKenna
(1975) have shown that this is achieved through the recognition of cultural genitals
when, even in the absence or uncertainty of particular genitals, gender is assumed through
the assimilation of secondary sex characteristics into a comprehensible whole. A member
of a particular gender identity usually expects to be recognizable as such, even by
strangers, whether he/she is a Byzantine eunuch, an Indian hijra, or a transboi at a lesbian
bar in New York. While these markers can be physical, ones gender role is significantly
understood through clothing, mannerisms, behavior, names, and pronouns. In many cases,
ones success at passing as a definable sex/gender is more important than how one
privately fulfills the criteria of belonging to it (Kessler and McKenna 1975).
How, then, can eunuchs present themselves in a way that signifies their distance from
maleness and masculinity? A modern castrated male could announce his castration by
declaring his gender identity to be eunuch, but this is unlikely to be read objectively by
others (Cushman et al. 2010, Wassersug 2010). Eunuch identity will need to evolve
publicly recognized identifying markers if it is to be considered a full-fledged gender on a
par with man and woman. And at this historical moment, public markers of eunuch
gender do not exist in the Western world. They have yet to be developed, publicized, and
accepted and will need to overcome the stigma of the contemporary pejorative
metaphorical use of the term eunuch. Since the markers that typify a gender are socially
constituted and partially defined by the members of that gender, we will not attempt to
propose markers here. Their evolution and interpretation will follow if enough castrated
males begin publicly to identify as other i.e. as eunuchs. By acknowledging that only
self-identified eunuchs can provide the gender markers of modern-day eunuchs, we avoid
dictating appropriate (definitional) behaviors for the eunuch gender, while simul-
taneously recognizing that eunuch will not become a gender in the fullest sense until
there are reasonable assumptions (if not rules) associated with it.
Unlike theoretical discussions of gender variance that emerge from within the
heteronormative model, eunuch gender identity is not defined by sexual orientation or
 Journal of Gender Studies 263

sexual object choice. Throughout history, depending on the culture and time, eunuchs have
been heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, hypersexual, and asexual (Finucci 2003, Freitas
2003, 2009, Wassersug 2004, Aucoin and Wassersug 2006). Among modern-day
voluntary eunuchs, there is a vast array of sexual presentation and object choice (Johnson
et al. 2007). Despite the popular presumption that castration leads to asexuality, data in
Brett et al. (2007) and Fudge et al. (unpublished) challenges this. Rather, social context
and social expectations clearly influence how castrated males perform sexually (Aucoin
and Wassersug 2006). Wassersug and Johnson (2007) and Brett et al. (2007) report that
many modern-day castrated males are still sexually active, particularly those who take
estrogen subsequent to the removal of their testicles (many, but not all, of whom identify
as transsexual women; see Wassersug and Gray 2011).
On average, females display a more plastic sexual object choice with a higher
incidence of lifetime bisexuality (Chivers et al. 2004, Diamond 2008). In this regard
one might hypothesize that an androgen-deprived male taking estrogen may develop
a more female, that is, a more plastic model of sexuality; evidence from studies of
the sexuality of voluntary modern-day eunuchs support this claim (Fudge et al.
unpublished). A eunuch and a heterosexual female may have comparably low levels of
testosterone; both, on average, have lower libidos than typical males (Higano 2006).
But just as a woman with low libido may become sexually aroused with adequate touch
and affection, and may appreciate being an object of sexual desire, one may suppose
that the same would hold true for the castrated male. This, however, presupposes that
the individual has accepted, rather than denied, the psycho-social impact of androgen
deprivation.
Such acceptance has implications for the sexual experiences of castrated males. If the
only model available to these individuals for sexuality is one of heteronormative penile
dependency, then any recovery of a castrated individuals masculinity will narrowly rely
on treatment for erectile dysfunction. When libido is extremely low, as it typically is in the
castrated male, attempts to rescue/repair masculinity through erections may prove to be
inadequate (Wassersug 2009b). In the extreme scenario, an androgen-deprived male may
attain a penile implant to ensure erectile capability (Mulhall 2008). However, discussions
on the Internet from prostate cancer patients on ADT suggest that such mechanically
constructed erections, in the absence of libido, often create a distressing sensation of
disembodiment. Typically, libidinous desire in males precedes erections. Thus, erections
that are achieved medically, and not through sexual desire, often feel unnatural and may
fail to reaffirm a castrated individuals masculinity.
Here the acceptance of a eunuch identity could play a crucial role in the castrated
individuals sexuality. The castrated male who adopts a eunuch identity most likely
affirms that his sexual practices are not dependent upon penile erections (Wassersug
2009b). Being free from the phallocentrism of heteronormative masculinity opens the way
for a vast range of sexual practices. In the sexual rehabilitation literature for prostate
cancer patients, there is discussion of oral sex and masturbation that can be sexually
rewarding in the absence of erection (Schover 2001, Laken and Laken 2002, Alterowitz
and Alterowitz 2004). Cases of castrated prostate cancer patients who use a strap-on dildo
have already been published (Gray and Klotz 2004, Warkentin et al. 2006, Wassersug
2009b). In these cases the castrated males penises remained flaccid, but the dildo was
inserted into their female partners and both partners were able to enjoy orgasms. It is
possible that the castrated male could also be the receptive partner. The sexual side-effects
of castration can open the way to re-evaluate ones sexual feelings and enjoy a non-
phallocentric sexuality.
264 R.J. Wassersug et al.

V. Objections to the desirability of eunuch identity

A castrated males self-identification as a eunuch will inevitably raise a number of
challenges. How much of this identity does the eunuch invoke from tradition, and how
much reflects a modern experience? Insofar as the term implies some connection to
historical eunuchs, does it risk intellectual dishonesty and outright failure in its attempt
selectively to reconstruct a contemporary gender identity from a historical model?
The conditions under which systematic castration flourished in the past are themselves
predominantly, though not exclusively, undesirable. Often, castration coincided with war,
slavery, racism, and brutal dynastic power systems. Poverty also often led to castration
when it offered an opportunity to remake oneself as a eunuch civil servant, singer, or
priest. Religious traditions that demonized male sexuality, banned women from singing,
acting, and priestly functions, or had cultish aspects also promoted castrating cultures
(Finucci 2003, Aucoin and Wassersug 2006, Wassersug 2009a). Although, in these
settings, some eunuchs ascended socially, their success was against the background of
abductions and forced castrations in violent, sexist, and cruel systems (Mitamura 1992,
Penzer 1993, Segal 2001). Additionally, for every forcibly castrated boy or man who
gained social privilege, there were many others who lived and died as slaves, social
outcasts, and exiles. It is no coincidence that, with the twentieth-century decline of
polygamous potentates and the rise of democracy, the widespread castration of captive and
impoverished men and boys also declined.
Furthermore, eunuchs have not only been victimized by forced castration, they have
been victimizers as well. They guarded women who belonged to other men, orchestrated
palace intrigues and coups, informed or constituted the secret police, and led military
incursions against the homelands from which they had been taken (Ayalon 1999, Ringrose
2007).
As described above, history has given a pejorative connotation to the word eunuch
(Cushman et al. 2010), and this makes it difficult to envision a positive resurrection of the
term. However, masculine and feminine gender identities could be seen to have similar
connotations due to the roles of men and women in hegemonic power structures. One could
argue that the categories of man and woman are themselves selectively reconstructed
from history, as each generation works to re-signify the social meanings of man and
woman against the inequities inherent in their histories, without necessarily tossing those
personal identities aside entirely. In the same way, resurrecting the label of eunuch
cannot help but acknowledge the problematic history of eunuchs. Given the enormous
numbers of castrations performed today (Smith 2007, Wassersug and Lieberman 2010),
time will tell if the affected individuals choose to reclaim the label as a coping strategy
linked to historical privilege.
A male cannot modify or renounce his identity as a man without implicitly commenting
on his understanding of masculinity, and so a final concern is that defining castrated patients
as not men (i.e. using any gender identity that implies other-than-male) may reinforce the
rigidity of the notion that all proper men or real men are sexually insertive, fertile,
physically dominant, and emotionally detached (cf. Connell 2005). As Hopkins (1996)
suggests: The logic of masculinity is demanding protect and maintain what you are
intrinsically, or you could lose it, mutate, become something else (p. 108). Eunuch
identity, however, challenges that rigidity by implying that the eunuch is formerly male or
a modified male and permitting him to continue to call himself a man in addition to a
eunuch. By drawing attention to the radically altered sex and gender of a person who no
longer thinks, behaves, has sex, or loves in the same way as he did under the influence of
 Journal of Gender Studies 265

testosterone, we implicitly point out that stereotypically male behavior can change when
prompted by biological, psychological, or sociological factors.

Conclusion
Castrated males often experience difficulties with their modified bodies and their intimate
relationships. They may also experience social and psychological distress, i.e. shame,
self-loathing, depression, disassociation from their bodies, mistrust, social isolation,
break-downs in spousal relationships, and the burden of constantly striving to pass as
normative men. These harms are a product of societies that deny and pathologize non-
binary, non-heteronormative bodies and genders and insist that ones gender remain stable
over time.
For certain castrated males, this could generate the feeling of a new gender identity
and justify its deliberate adoption, prompted by the physical and psychological changes
following androgen deprivation that allow for recognition and acceptance of change,
and also the chance to grieve what they typically perceive as a loss (Wassersug 2009b,
Elliott et al. 2010). By recognizing that the changes undergone through castration
impact on a males sense of self and his place in the world, the eunuch identity can
provide an alternative narrative to the negative scripts of failed masculinity (Wassersug
2009a, 2009b).
Eunuch as a gender is more revealing than man or woman. These latter labels can
include individuals with natural, accidental, or voluntary genital anomalies, but otherwise
normal gonadal hormone production. That said, the effort to accept genital anomalies
within and outside of the strict categories of male and female has been a difficult battle
fought by intersex and queer activists and allies (Chase 1998). By identifying himself as a
eunuch, a castrated man will announce his altered genitalia and imply that his differences
have prompted an alternate gender.
The sexual options available to a castrated male are quite broad if he can accept a
gender and sexual identity that is not heteronormatively masculine. Freed of pressure to
perform and function as male, the individual may find more avenues of pleasure and
desire. Consistent with our intention to avoid assigning gender signifiers, eunuch sexual
practices are likely to be the result of castrated individuals personal choices and the
desires of their partners. This potential sexual freedom may be perceived as a positive
expansion for an individual who accepts a eunuch gender identity. As quipped in a
previous essay, If men are from Mars and women are from Venus, the eunuch is free to
tour the solar system (Wassersug 2003, p. 68).
Eunuch identity lets individuals occupy space outside of the gender binary where they
can be at once male (at least in personal history and, to some extent, in public
appearance) and not male (in self-acceptance, in the bedroom, and in the eyes of others
who accept them). A historical review reveals how eunuch identity addressed the
insufficiency of the two-gender system for many castrated males. Reclaiming eunuch
identity in contemporary society could mitigate the pain of liminality by grounding the
castrated males in a definable alternative gender space.
Male embodiment is lived and felt against the backdrop of a phallocentric culture
where a functional penis and male sexual desire signify maleness and masculinity. In our
analysis, we have proposed that a loss of male phallocentric sexuality in combination with
ambiguous secondary sexual characteristics and a muted libido can collectively mark the
castrated male as other neither male nor female, man nor woman, but an alternative
sex and gender.
266 R.J. Wassersug et al.

We suggest here that, as an alternative to conceiving of themselves as failed males,

castrated males could interpret their emasculation as an opportunity to be something other
than male or female. This alterity is not confined to masculine or feminine scripts, or to
masculine or feminine social roles; it is in and of itself something other. We have outlined
the challenges and harms posed to maintaining a masculine and male identity following
castration. Many first-hand accounts show that being and performing male in a
chemically and surgically altered body becomes increasingly difficult as gender and
sexuality fail to align with social norms and expectations of maleness. Castration causes a
rupture in masculinity, and a refusal to look beyond a failed male narrative will offer
those men little room for moving forward into a positive place of affirmation.
Although the reasons for castration have changed, emasculation is as real and common
now as ever before. The time has come to recognize the potential positive outcomes of
eunuch self-identification.

Acknowledgements
This paper has profited immensely from input by Jennifer Epp, who was instrumental in initiating the
manuscript. Additional critical feedback was provided by Thomas Johnson, JoAnne Phillips,
Lindsay Duncan, and J. Mary Burnet. Mary Burnet, Isaac Siemens, and Kirsten Kukula also helped
with manuscript preparation.

Notes
1. Throughout this paper we use the word male in its biological sense to refer to chromosomal XY
individuals with unambiguous genitalia. Individuals who do not have prostates or testes cannot
get prostate cancer or be castrated; the issues we are discussing would not be applicable to them.
2. R.W. Connells plurality of masculinities distinguished hegemonic masculinity from
marginalized masculinities that are underprivileged and socially stigmatized. Within that
framework one might suppose that the eunuch is the ultimate marginalized male. And indeed the
term eunuch implies that in modern vernacular English. There are reasons, though, to suggest that
Connell would not include eunuchs within the broad definition of male. To the best of our
knowledge nowhere in Connells extensive writings on masculinities are eunuchs mentioned.
And there is no question that Connell recognizes limits on how far one can extend the idea of
masculinity/ies. Despite fathering the idea of multiple masculinities, Connells own personal
narrative demonstrates the limits on what Connell considers male feeling and embodiment.
Nothing confirms this better than Connells late-in-life decision to live, not as an atypical male,
but formally and officially as a female.
3. The power and privilege of being a eunuch in the past ended when (1) Pope Leo XIII banned the
recruitment of castrated church singers in 1878, (2) the Grand Seraglio of the Ottoman Empire fell
in 1908, and (3) the last imperial Chinese dynasty collapsed in 1911.

Notes on contributors
Richard Wassersug has a PhD in Evolutionary Biology from the University of Chicago, and is a Full
Professor in the Department of Anatomy and Neurobiology at Dalhousie University, with cross-
appointments in Dalhousies Biology and Psychology departments. He is also an Adjunct Professor
at the Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society La Trobe University, Melbourne,
Australia. His primary research focus is on the psychology of androgen deprivation.
Emma McKenna is a Toronto-based writer and musician who holds a BA in Women and Gender
Studies from the University of Toronto. She is currently completing her MA in Womens Studies at
the University of British Columbia with emphasis on queer theory and literary studies.
Tucker Lieberman holds a BA in Philosophy from Brown University and a Masters in Journalism
from Boston University. He is an independent researcher who has published extensively on topics
related to transgenderism.
 Journal of Gender Studies 267

References
Alterowitz, R. and Alterowitz, B., 2004. Intimacy with impotence: The couples guide to better sex
after prostate disease. Cambridge: Da Capo Press.
Aucoin, M. and Wassersug, R.J., 2006. The sexuality and social psychology of androgen deprived
(castrated) men throughout history: implications to the sexual and social function of modern day
cancer patients. Social science and medicine, 63 (12), 3162 3173.
Ayalon, D., 1999. Eunuchs, caliphs and sultans: a study in power relationships. Jerusalem:
Magnes.
Beck, A.M., Robinson, J.W. and Carlson, L.E., 2009. Sexual intimacy in heterosexual couples after
prostate cancer treatment: what we know and what we still need to learn. Urologic oncology:
seminars and original investigations, 27 (2), 137 143.
Brett, M.A., et al., 2007. Eunuchs in contemporary society: expectations, consequences, and
adjustments to castration (Part II). Journal of sexual medicine, 7 (2 pt 1), 853 855.
Broom, A., 2004. Prostate cancer and masculinity in Australian society: a case of stolen identity?
International journal of mens health, 3 (2), 73 91.
Burns, S.M. and Mahalik, J.R., 2007. Understanding how masculine gender scripts may contribute
to mens adjustment following treatment for prostate cancer. American journal of mens health,
1 (4), 250 261.
Butler, J., 1990. Gender trouble: feminism and the subversion of identity. New York: Routledge.
Chapple, A. and Ziebland, S., 2002. Prostate cancer: embodied experience and perceptions of
masculinity. Sociology of health and illness, 24 (6), 820 841.
Chase, C., 1998. Hermaphrodites with attitude: mapping the emergence of intersex political
activism. GLQ: a journal of lesbian and gay studies, 4 (2), 189 211.
Chivers, M.L., et al., 2004. A sex difference in the specificity of sexual arousal. Psychological
science, 15 (11), 736 744.
Connell, R.W., 2005. Masculinities. 2nd ed. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Cushman, M., Phillips, J. and Wassersug, R.J., 2010. The language of emasculation: implications to
cancer patients. International journal of mens health, 9 (1), 3 25.
Diamond, L.M., 2008. Female bisexuality from adolescence to adulthood: results from a 10-year
longitudinal study. Developmental psychology, 44 (1), 5 14.
Dozier, R., 2005. Beards, breasts, and bodies: doing sex in a gendered world. Gender & society,
19 (3), 297 316.
Ekins, R. and King, D., 2006. The transgender phenomenon. London: Sage.
Elliott, S., et al., 2010. Androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer: recommendations to
improve patient and partner quality of life. Journal of sexual medicine, 7 (9), 2996 3010.
Elson, J., 2003. Hormonal hierarchy: hysterectomy and stratified stigma. Gender & society, 17 (5),
752 753.
Elson, J., 2004. The hidden impact of hysterectomy. Womens health in primary care, Sept.,
405 407.
Fergus, K.D., Gray, R.E. and Fitch, M.I., 2002. Sexual dysfunction and the preservation of manhood:
experiences of men with prostate cancer. Journal of health psychology, 7 (3), 303316.
Finucci, V., 2003. The manly masquerade. Masculinity, paternity, and castration in the Italian
Renaissance. London: Duke University Press.
Freitas, R., 2003. The eroticism of emasculation: confronting the Baroque body of the castrato.
The Journal of musicology, 20 (2), 196 249.
Freitas, R., 2009. Portrait of a castrato: politics, patronage, and music in the life of Atto Melani.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fudge, J.D., Johnson, T.W. and Wassersug, R.J., unpublished. The impact of voluntary castration on
male sexual object choice. (27 ms. pp.).
Gray, R.E., 2004. No longer a man: using ethnographic fiction to represent life history research.
Auto/biography, 12, 44 61.
Gray, R.E., et al., 2002. Hegemonic masculinity and the experience of prostate cancer: a narrative
approach. Journal of aging and identity, 7 (1), 43 62.
Gray, R.E. and Klotz, L.H., 2004. Restoring sexual function in prostate cancer patients: an
innovative approach. Canadian journal of urology, 11 (3), 2285 2289.
Gray, R.E., et al., 2005. The experiences of men receiving androgen deprivation treatment for
prostate cancer: a qualitative study. Canadian journal of urology, 12 (4), 2755 2763.
268 R.J. Wassersug et al.

Hagedoorn, M., et al., 2008. Distress in couples coping with cancer: a meta-analysis and critical
review of role and gender effects. American psychological association, 134 (1), 1 3.
Halberstam, J., 1998. Female masculinity. London: Duke University Press.
Hausman, B., 1995. Changing sex: transsexualism, technology, and the idea of gender. London:
Duke University Press.
Herdt, G., 1993. Introduction: third sexes and third genders. In: G. Herdt, ed. Third sex, third gender:
beyond sexual dimorphism in culture and history. New York: Zone Books, 12 21.
Higano, C., 2006. Androgen deprivation therapy: monitoring and managing the complications.
Hematology/oncology clinics of North America, 20 (4), 909 923.
Hodgson, J., Hughes, E. and Lambert, C., 2005. SLANGsensitive language and the new
geneticsan exploratory study. Journal of genetic counseling, 14 (6), 415 421.
Hopkins, P.D., 1996. Gender treachery: homophobia, masculinity, and threatened identities. In:
L. May, R. Strikwerda and P.D. Hopkins eds. Rethinking masculinity: philosophical
explorations in light of feminism. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 95 115.
Johnson, T.W., et al., 2007. Eunuchs in contemporary society: characterizing men who are
voluntarily castrated (Part 1). Journal of sexual medicine, 7 (2 pt 1), 852 853.
Johnson, T.W. and Wassersug, R.J., 2010. Gender identity disorder outside the binary: when gender
identity disordernot otherwise specified is not good enough. Archives of sexual behaviour,
39 (3), 597 598.
Kelly, D., 2009. Changed men: the embodied impact of prostate cancer. Qualitative health research,
19 (2), 151 163.
Kessler, S.J. and McKenna, W., 1975. Toward a theory of gender. In: S. Stryker and S. Whittle eds.
Trans studies reader. New York: Routledge, 165 182.
Kim, Y., et al., 2008. Quality of life of couples dealing with cancer: dyadic and individual
adjustment among breast and prostate cancer survivors in their spousal caregivers. Annals of
behavioral medicine, 35 (2), 230238.
Kornblith, A.B., et al., 1994. Quality of life of patients with prostate cancer and their spouses: the
value of a database in clinical care. Cancer, 73 (11), 2791 2802.
Laken, V. and Laken, K., 2002. Making love again: hope for couples facing loss of sexual intimacy.
Sandwich, MA: Anthill Press.
Lorber, J. and Moore, L.J., 2007. Gendered bodies: feminist perspectives. Los Angeles: Roxbury.
Maliski, S.L., et al., 2008. Renegotiating masculine identity after prostate cancer treatment.
Qualitative health research, 18 (12), 1609 1620.
Meyerowitz, J., 2002. How sex changed: a history of transsexuality in the United States. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
Mitamura, T., 1992. Chinese eunuchs: the structure of intimate politics. North Clarendon, VT: Tuttle
Publishing.
Mulhall, J.P., 2008. Saving your sex life: a guide for men with prostate cancer. Chicago: Hilton
Publishing.
Mulhall, J.P., Rojaz-Cruz, C. and Muller, A., 2009. An analysis of sexual health information on
radical prostatectomy websites. BJU international, Jul 20.[Epub ahead of print].
Nanda, S., 1998. Neither man nor woman: the hijras of India. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Press.
Navon, L. and Morag, A., 2003. Advanced prostate cancer patients ways of coping with the
hormonal therapys effect on body, sexuality and spousal ties. Qualitative health research,
13 (10), 1378 1392.
Navon, L. and Morag, A., 2004. Liminality as biographical disruption: unclassifiability following
hormone therapy for advanced prostate cancer. Social science and medicine, 58 (11),
2337 2347.
Noble, J.B., 2006. Sons of the movement. Toronto: Womens Press.
Oliffe, J., 2005. Constructions of masculinity following prostatectomy-induced impotence. Social
science and medicine, 60 (10), 2249 2259.
Oliffe, J., 2006. Embodied masculinity and androgen deprivation therapy. Sociology of health &
illness, 28 (4), 410 432.
Penzer, N.M., 1993. The harem. New York: Dorset Press.
Perlman, G. and Drescher, J., 2005. A gay mans guide to prostate cancer. New York: The Haworth
Medical Press.
 Journal of Gender Studies 269

Ringrose, K.M., 1993. Living in the shadows: eunuchs and gender in Byzantium. In: G. Herdt, ed.
Third sex, third gender: beyond sexual dimorphism in culture and history. New York: Zone
Books, 85 110.
Ringrose, K.M., 2003. The perfect servant. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Ringrose, K.M., 2007. Eunuchs in historical perspective. History compass, 5 (2), 495 506.
Roberts, L.F., et al., 2008. A passion for castration: characterizing men who are fascinated with
castration, but have not been castrated. Journal of sexual medicine, 5 (7), 1669 1680.
Robertson, S., 2007. Understanding men and health: masculinities, identity, and well-being.
Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.
Roesch, S.C., et al., 2005. Coping with prostate cancer: a meta-analytic review. Journal of
behavioral medicine, 28 (3), 281293.
Rueckert, L. and Naybar, N., 2008. Gender differences in empathy: the role of the right hemisphere.
Brain and cognition, 67 (2), 162 167.
Sabo, D. and Gordon, D.F., 1995. Mens health and illness: gender, power, and the body. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Schover, L.R., 2001. Sexuality and cancer: for the man who has cancer and his partner. Atlanta:
American Cancer Society.
Segal, R., 2001. Islams black slaves: the other black diaspora. New York: Farrar, Straus and
Giroux.
Shahinian, V.B., et al., 2005. Increasing use of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists for the
treatment of localized prostate carcinoma. Cancer, 103 (8), 1615 1624.
Smith, M.R., 2007. Androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer: new concepts and concerns.
Current opinion in endocrinology, diabetes & obesity, 14 (3), 247254.
Soloway, C.T., et al., 2005. Sexual, psychological and dyadic qualities of the prostate cancer
couple. BJU international, 95 (6), 780 785.
Stone, S., 1991. The empire strikes back: a post-transsexual manifesto. In: J. Epstein and
K. Straub eds. Body guards: the cultural politics of gender ambiguity. New York: Routledge,
280 304.
Taylor, G., 2002. Castration: an abbreviated history of western manhood. New York: Routledge.
Totman, R., 2003. The third sex kathoey: Thailands ladyboys. London: Souvenir Press.
Turner, B.S., 1992. Regulating bodies: essays in medical sociology. London: Routledge.
Turner, V., 1969. The ritual process: structure and anti-structure. London: Penguin.
Vale, K., et al., 2010. The development of standards of care for individuals with male-to-eunuch
gender identity disorder. International journal of trangenderism, 12 (1), 40 51.
Walker, L.M. and Robinson, J.W., 2010. The unique needs of couples experiencing androgen
deprivation therapy for prostate cancer. Journal of sex & marital therapy, 36 (2), 154 165.
Walker, L.M. and Robinson, J.W., 2011. A description of heterosexual couples sexual adjustment to
androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer. Psychooncology, 20 (8), 880 888.
Warkentin, K.M., Gray, R.E. and Wassersug, R.J., 2006. Restoration of satisfying sex for a castrated
cancer patient with complete impotence: a case study. Journal of sex & marital therapy, 32 (5),
389 399.
Wassersug, R.J., 2003. Castration anxiety. OUT, Sept 66 72.
Wassersug, R.J., 2004. Eunuch power in old Byzantium. Gay & lesbian review, 11, 18 20.
Wassersug, R.J., 2007. Disfiguring treatment? No, it was healing. The New York Times, 27 Mar.
Wassersug, R.J., 2009a. Passing through the wall: on outings, Exodus, angels, and the ark. Journal of
religion & health, 48 (3), 381 390.
Wassersug, R.J., 2009b. Mastering emasculation. Journal of clinical oncology, 27 (4), 634 636.
Wassersug, R.J., 2010. On the invisibility of the emasculated. Anthropology today, 26 (1), 1 3.
Wassersug, R.J. and Gray, R., 2011. The health and well-being of prostate cancer patients
versus male-to-female transsexuals on androgen deprivation therapy: a qualitative study
with comments on expectations and oestrogen. Psychology, health and medicine, 16 (1),
39 52.
Wassersug, R.J. and Johnson, T.W., 2007. Modern day eunuchs: motivations for and consequences
of contemporary castration. Perspectives in biology and medicine, 50 (4), 544556.
Wassersug, R.J. and Lieberman, T., 2010. Contemporary castration: why the modern day eunuch
remains invisible. British medical journal, 341, c4509.
270 R.J. Wassersug et al.

Wassersug, R.J. and Oliffe, J.L., 2009. The social context for psychological distress from iatrogenic
gynecomastia with suggestions for its management. Journal of sexual medicine, 6 (4),
989 1000.
Wilchins, R.A., 1997. Read my lips: sexual subversion and the end of gender. Ann Arbor: Firebrand
Books.
Yost, M.J., 2006. Demystifying gynecomastia: men with breasts. Oakland: Gynecomastia.org.
Zita, J.N., 1998. Body talk: philosophical reflections on sex and gender. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Copyright of Journal of Gender Studies is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or
emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.