Talk:Eunuch/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Eunuch. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

old talk

I made an unconventional edit, which I would like to explain here. It is not like me to ever remove info from any article, but in this case I thought it clouded the issue. I removed the text:

"Some people would regard a man that has undergone sexual reassignment surgery to be a eunuch, whilst others would regard them as being a transgender woman."

I replaced it with a "See also:" which links SRS. The reason being that if the article defines a eunuch as a "castrated human male," then this does not apply to a post-op transsexual woman...because, simply, she is not a male. In most areas there is now a legal method for reassignment of legal sex listing, and there is abundant medical evidence for citing a trans woman as female rather than male, especially since the effects of HRT cause these women to have very similar health concerns to genetically XX women. Simply, when one is speaking of eunuchs, it is hard to conceive of a circumstance where one has in mind a post-op trans woman who has been on years of female hormones, adopts a female gender role, and looks entirely female without an in-depth medical examination. It does not seem to add clarity to the article, but rather removes it.

I think that there is enough info on the history of eunuchs and the modern sub-culture of eunuchs within the body mod scene that this article is not really the best place to define what a male is and to debate the sex of intersexuals and transsexuals. Since I know that some might say my POV is not entirely neutral here, I thought I would make the edit, explain my reasoning and if some one disagrees, they may re-edit it as they wish. - Paige 19:19, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Did the eunuchs in China and in the Arabian harems have their penises removed too? AxelBoldt 01:32, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

In China, yes. IIRC.

Does anyone have more information on this topic? I think it misses some things.

Like, if a boy was made into an Eunuch before puberty, did they still develop sexual desires? The article states that eunuchs castrated after puberty could perform intercourse. Well how about castration before puberty.
Maybe something of the cultural status of Eunuchs in the Middle Eastern harems.
And about their different status in China?
Were there Eunuchs in Western societies? Everybody knows about the stereotypical eunuch protecting the Harem of the Sultan and most people also know about the Eunuchs serving the Son of Heaven, the glorious Emperor of China.
The effects of castration? The traditional view of them being overweight and having round contours.
And everything I missed.

I am sure someone has a good book on this, or maybe has learned something in a history class. Maybe a doctor in the community with medical knowledge on the subject? Oh well, I would just like to learn a bit more about this subject. - magraggae 17:47, 14 Jul 2004 (GMT+1)

In Western Europe weren't boys castrated to keep their singing voice? But of course they were not eunuchs in any sense.

Oops, already in the article!

Preparation techniques?

IIRC, in China the severed parts were placed in a special jar (a kind of "Canopic jar" but for an external organ) to be preserved and, upon the eunuch's death, buried along with the rest of the body. IIRC.

Chinese eunuchs

It's interesting to see how the list of "famous Chinese eunuchs" describes them as "despotic", "infamous", power-grubbing, etc. I think some modern historians believe the official historians of the court (and intelligentsia in general) often maligned the eunuch class, with whom they struggled for power. So we perhaps get an exaggerated POV today. 4.250.48.238 22:41, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

For sure. Eunuch had acess to the emperor not just in the outer palace where the court sessions were held -- but they also could contact the emperor in the inner palace where all other men were forbidden to enter. That's a definite advantage that make the intelligentsia envious. In addition, there were seem as an abnormality that is neither yin or yang. Definitely some unpleasant anatgonism. But they did exerted immense power, sometimes abusing that great control as well. And not all eunuchs were vilified. Zheng He, for example, left much good reputation. --Menchi 00:00, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Eunuchs = Homosexual?

I remember seeing a site that claimed that most references to 'Eunuchs', especially in western classical culture, actually refer to homosexuals who were viewed as 'pre-castrated' because of their sexual preference. Is this a widespread viewpoint, or just a fringe theory?

Fringe.

Sounds real marginal to me. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 00:39, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to add the argument to the main page anway. It may be fringe, but it is compelling.

I've read the entire argument and to be frank, it is a top notch bit of research. I will, however, try to confirm the as many of the references as possible. (http://www.well.com/user/aquarius/contents.htm)

Ejaculation?

"According to Burnham, many women preferred eunuchs as lovers since they never ejaculated and could, therefore, maintain erections longer."

Is this correct? I read in the article on castration that those castrated after puberty can still ejaculate, though no pregnancy would be possible. Is that why it's in the myths section? I think it needs some clarification.

It's my understanding that males castrated after puberty can ejaculate. The ejaculate is from the prostate, which normally mixes a liquid with the sperm coming from the testes. Since there are no testes, there would be no mixing. Somebody probably needs to consult with a urologist to get the straight story. Gene McManus, 15 May 2005

What is a Eunuch?

According to our article, anyone who has been castrated or even mutilated is a eunuch. Is that accurate? My understanding is the term has significance in terms of social roles. For example calling a 21st century rapist who has been castrated by court order a "eunuch" seems incorrect. Eunuch is a historical term with historical meaning. Comments? Stbalbach 03:12, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

- I think the term eunuch can be applied to any man or boy whose testicles have been removed.-12.108.252.34 16:13, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
- There is a contemporary voluntary eunuch community in the Western world, and they do use the term "eunuch" to refer to themselves. The tens of thousands of men who are castrated as part of their treatment for prostate cancer tend not to use the term. In fact, most try to hide the fact that they have been castrated, though there are over a half million of them in North America alone.

Bible facts

In regards to this recent addition:

In actual fact, the term "eunuch" sometimes came to be used to refer to a person performing particular social functions, regardless of whether they had been surgically mutilated. It has been suggested that the Ethiopian referred to as a eunuch in the Bible in Acts chapter 8, had not actually been physically castrated. Arguments for this include the assertion that he was probably a Jewish prosylite, and that the Torah (Books of Moses) forbid a man to included in the "assembly of the LORD", if he has had severe mutilation to his reproductive system (Deuteronomy Chapter 23 v1).

Couple problems

The only example given is an interpretation of a passage from the Bible. That's not really appropriate to Wikipedia for a number of reasons. 1) We are not supposed to interpret Bible passages since its original research. 2) Many people don't consider the Bible to be a factual source.
"It has been suggested" is known in parlance as a weasel term. Who suggested it? But also see #1.
It says "in actual fact" then says "Arguments for this" as if it's a contested issue.

Saying Eunuchs are not always castrated is appropriate if there is evidence for it that can be cited.

--Stbalbach 01:27, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Experience of a Modern Eunuch

This was recently added by an anon user:

Truths

As a modern eunuch, I hope to be able to provide people insight to what life is like, and definitive answers to these mythical questions some wonder.

Emotional changes will often be experienced. A castrated male will likely experience more intense emotions, generally be more tearful and will statistically increase risk of possible depression (similar to women), and risk premature osteoperosis. Many will often report something termed the "Eunuch Calm"; a deep sense of peace and inner tranquility. Which will cause a much calmer, gentler personality.

Initially, a male may experience hot flashes (particularly at night) as body adjusts to change, but in some cases these will dissapear with time. A gradual re-distribution of body-fat will occur. Hips will become more rounded, and a slight gynecomastia may occur. Often head-hair will gain volume and become more woman-like and skin may become softer. Body hair may also thin slightly, and beard growth will slow and thin. Male pattern balding will almost certainly be avoided in later life.

The sex life of a eunuch is not all that different from a male. Eunuchs can indeed ejaculate, but no sperm are present. The act becomes far less physical and visual and becomes a much more romantic and emotional affair. Sex is a choice for most eunuchs, rather than an urge forced upon as a biological impulse. Orgasm will often take longer to reach, and will be softer for most. Some eunuchs feel comfortable not engaging in sex, and this will cause no distress, as any sexual thoughts can be comfortably overlooked.

It really violates a lot of Wikipedia rules. It's POV, written in the first person, un-verifiable, perhaps even originalresearch -- how can we verify this is true? It sounds true, but still, this is not really in the spirit of how Wikipedia operates. I'm moving it here and removing it from the main article for further discussion. Stbalbach 03:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm terribly sorry you feel that way Stbalbach. And I totally understand when you say it is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. After all, I did write the beginning as 'first person'. I can only beg and say that there is important information here that you will not find anywhere else. I am not a transsexual, and have never taken estrogen.

You can easily verify my claims by talking to the good people (there are hundreds I'm sure would be happy to vouch for my condition) at http://www.eunuch.org/vbulletin/

I can never have children. My family line ends here. And it would mean a lot, if my contributions to society could be to explain a condition that otherwise you would have nothing but out-dated history books to learn anything from.

How can you include "Myths" which clearly has some glaring innaccuracies (but some of which were on the mark), and claim that as fact, when it is written by someone who has done research, or once knew someone who thought they might be a Eunuch.

I beg you here, that I am here and I am quite genuine. I would love to talk, and it would really make me happy if you can find it to contact me at thefraj2002@yahoo.co.uk.

I'm just making a heart-felt plea not to throw away first-hand experience in a subject that would otherwise remain shrouded in mystery.

But obviously, I will respect you're opinion.

Responded via email. Stbalbach 13:52, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I understand the concerns about including first-person knowledge not being in the spirit of Wikipedia. On the other hand, the experience of and other information about modern-day eunuchs seems to be disappointly missing from this article. I do think information similar to what was in the removed first-person account could be found in existing literature. (A couple of months ago, I saw an article about the "plight" of modern-day eunuchs in the Philadelphia CityPaper (not totally sure about the name of the paper).) As such, it'd be nice if it were included. (Okay, maybe I'm being a bit lazy here in not doing it myself...maybe I will eventually.) Mas2265 01:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Distinctions of Eunuch

The article makes no distinction between how a person came to be a Eunuch. Historically speaking eunuchs were created to serve a specific social function, to the point the word Eunuch was associated with that position. This is unlike someone who was simply castrated as a form of torture or physical mutilation. It is therefore difficult to speak about Chinese eunuchs vs. modern rapists who have been castrated as punishment in the same sentence and be of any value. I think the article needs to seperate and define Eunuchs that were castrated to serve a social function, versus everyone else. One is simply a matter of physical, the other is social and historical. Stbalbach 02:58, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying Stephen. I suppose there is a spectrum of people castrated for a variety of reasons; medical conditions, punishment by the state or gender dysphoria. But the eunuchs of today are rarely made so [specifically] for social roles, more for reasons directly relating to the physical result.

So I suppose the obvious question is, what distinction would be drawn, and why? Maybe it's fair to call one group "Historical" and one "Modern". But even this can be misleading. Consider the Indian Hijra - have existed through a long period of history (and still do today!). Some are kidnapped at young ages, to perform the function of being a Hijra and joining the community. But - as the characteristcs of modern eunuchs, plenty come willingly, because they don't identify with being male (similar to transsexuals in the West). So how would one catagorise that?

I don't know but I'll have a careful think. But I can understand why - in essence - we are talking of two very distinct classes here arn't we? Separable by the purpose that castration is to serve thefraj 19:12, 27 September 2005 (GMT)

Mortality rate

The article contains the paragraph

[...]. The methods used varied across time and space. There have been some exaggerated reports of high mortality from the surgery, but the best documented rates are no higher than for other surgery at the time, e.g., about 3 to 5% for removal of both testes and penis in Qing Dynasty China. The highest well-documented mortality rate was when 329 of 1,565 boys from the Miao tribe in southern China died when they were castrated after defeat in battle during the early Ming Dynasty - a death rate of 20%.

With reference to the highest mortality rate being recorded as being 20%, in the last sentence of the above, please see the paragraph below, which is taken from the article on castration, which suggests a mortality rate of 90% for people treated in this particular way (I think it was added in the last month or so):

African slave traders also frequently castrated their charges in order to increase their commercial value. After denying the victim fluids for a day or two, they would sever the penis and testicles, and use a hot iron to cauterise the wound closed. They would then force the prospective slave to drink so that hopefully the pressure of the bladder would be able to force an opening in the wound for urine. It is estimated that 90% of the slaves so treated died in the attempt, however, castrated slaves were greatly valued and sought both in Europe and in the East, where Muslims and Jews formally discouraged the practice but informally were happy to purchase already-castrated slaves from Christian traders.

Polsequ95 21:21, 21 September 2005 (UTC) ____ If the mortality rate really were 90%, the newly created eunuchs would need to be worth at least 10 times as much as an uncastrated slave, just to break even. That eunuchs sold for only two to three times as much as uncastrated boys makes the 90% mortality rate seem highly unlikely. Slave traders were successful businessmen, after all. The extremely high death rates were publicised by anti-slavery activists and are very doubtful.

I have to agree, it wouldn't seem economically viable for this mortality rate to be too accurate - although I'm not disputing the menthods.

What I would be quick to point out: the mortality rates quoted here clearly state China. It's fair to assume that the rates would vary from one nation to the next, so what you're saying isn't strictly incompatible with the entry. But I would question a figure so high as to undermine your other point - since it simply wouldn't be econimically viable to make a profit. thefraj 20:05, 27 September 2005 (GMT)

While the exact mortality rate might be questionable, it was certainly very high historically, and that should be noted. However citations are needed, and if you're going to challenge a cited source it should be done with a superior cited source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.215.67 (talk) 18:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Posting Nonsense?!

I recently tried to add to the Eunuch page; however, my comments were immediately censored and deemed as 'posting nonsense'. I am disgusted that this has taken place, but it is highly expected due to the elusive, and all too often controversial, subject of Eunuchs. It never ceases to amaze me that homosexuals are not identified under the term "born eunuchs". Contrary to what some have been led to believe, men are not born castrated! This is a solid fact that should no longer be ignored or blatantly over-looked. This topic should not be discussed without covering the fact that homosexuals indeed fall into the category of "born eunuch". Anyone who censors such common sense is obviously trying to omit more than just words... they are trying to 'cut-off' [Isaiah 56:5] the history of a violently oppressed people with a rightful heritage that is found in every race, culture, and nation spanning the entire globe! Those men who are 'unique' by nature, and not by choice, deserve much better than outdated dictionary terminology, and bigoted, narrow-minded views to describe a vibrant and colorful past that should never be forgotten. Of course, as Jesus Himself once said to His male companions, “Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb… He, who is able to accept this, let him accept it.” [Matthew 19:10-12] Now why do you suppose men would have trouble accepting this teaching?

Regarding Jesus as a defacto eunuch ‘for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven’, let us not forget that at His arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus’ disciples all fled and left Him. All accept one certain young dedicated servant, who faithfully stayed at Jesus’ side to the very end. “And they all left Him and fled. Accept a certain young man was following Him, wearing nothing but a linen sheet over his naked body; and they seized him. But he left the linen sheet behind, and escaped naked.” It certainly seems as though the Holy Bible has not escaped the censorship of unprincipled men. Anyone who questions the validity of Jesus and his relationship with his beloved, I would refer you to ‘The Secret Gospel of Mark’ by the late Professor Morton Smith. Moreover, a new book finally proves the controversial legitimacy of ‘Secret Mark’ by studying a matrix of chiastic codes that are meticulously embedded throughout the gospel of Mark called ‘Decoding Mark’ by author John Dart. The real DaVinci Code: The young man to the right of Jesus at the Last Supper, painted for centuries as effeminate, is NOT John. Quite contrary to popular belief, The beloved disciple was not John the evangelist, nor, as some ridiculously maintain, Mary Magdalene; The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved, was none other than LAZARUS. The disciple Jesus emotionally rose from the dead, the first disciple and the last disciple.

“Lord, behold, he whom You love is sick.” John 11:3

“Jesus wept. And so the Jews were saying, ‘Behold how He loved Him’” John 11:35, 36

“But the young man, looking upon Him, loved Him and began to beseech Him that he might be with Him. And going out of the tomb, they came into the house of the young man, for he was rich. And after six days, Jesus told him what to do, and in the evening, the young man comes to Him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with Him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God. “~Secret Mark

“There was reclining on Jesus’ chest one of His disciples whom Jesus loved” John 13:23

“His grave was assigned with wicked men, yet He was with a rich man in His death, because He had done no violence, nor was there any deceit in His mouth.” Isaiah 53:9

Jesus said, “I tell you on that night there will be two men in one bed; one will be taken, and the other will be left” Luke 17:34

[“Two men will be in the field [garden]; one will be taken and the other will be left.”] Matt. 24:40, Luke 17:36

Jesus said, "Two will rest on a bed; one will die, one will live." Gospel of Thomas (61)

When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby [the cross], He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!” Then He said to the [beloved] disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour, the disciple took her into his own household. John 19:26, 27

“And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books which were written.” John 21:25

“These are the ones who have not been defiled with women, for they have kept themselves chaste. These are the ones who follow the Lamb wherever He goes. These have been purchased from among men as first fruits to God and to the Lamb. And no lie was found in their mouth; they are blameless.” Revelation 14:4

“To them I will give in My house and within My walls a memorial, and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name which will never again be cut off.” Isaiah 56:5

[1]

No wonder your edits were reverted as nonsense. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Some confusion over Ganymedes?

When clicking on the link to Ganymedes (Ganymedes (1st century BC) Highly capable adviser & general of Cleopatra VII's sister & rival, Princess Arsinoe. Defeated & almost killed Julius Caesar in battle at Alexandria, capturing his cloak in the process. Could have changed the history of Rome and of the eastern Mediterranean if he had not been displaced through Egyptian court intrigue.), I did not get directed to that subject, but was re-directed to Ganymede, of Greek mythology. It seems there is some confusion over the two names but I do not have enough knowledge to correct it. I assume that the direction from Ganymede to Ganymedes is inorrect. Can anyone advise/correct this? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I've put your description of the general in a new Homophones section in Ganymedes; a shortening in English of classical names is common whenever they are (or once were) fairly well-known. However googling for more hõmonyms, I found a general of Arsinoe to be historical FICTION, so please check where you read about him if there is a historical general meant. For actual historical figures, the best reference is generally Pauly-Wissowa (in German), but don't have it at hand (fills two library book cases in any really good scientific library's historical section) Fastifex 08:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Eunuchs in Fiction

I made the section in reference to Pirates of the Caribbean in which the fictional character Will Turner is jokingly referred to as a eunuch. Feel free to remove it if you feel that is is unnecessary or, rather, expand on it if you prefer. I came across this article while researching Castratos.--Lwieise -=- Talk to Me 18:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Hijra

It seems to me that paragraph about Hijras does not capture the essence of the Hijra article.

The article fails to mention that to many people in Indian society the Hijra are actually not reagarded as "lucky" or having "charm". In fact Indian officials have recently started using Hijra to scare people into paying taxes, as reported by Reuters News Service in an article titled "Dancing eunuchs taxing red-faced shopkeepers" and dated Friday, November 10th 2006. Most modern people in India consider Hijra somewhat unwelcome and are usually paying the Hijra to leave them alone. To see more click on the link to the Reuters article, which even quotes a top Indian tax official who says that the Hidras are meant to scare and embarrass people into paying back-taxes. He also calls using the Eunuchs "shock therapy".

The paragraph about Hijdra in this Wikipedia article presents what appears to be misinformed and/or biased information.

Reuters Article

See also the section titled "Social status and making a living" in the Wikipedia article Hijra.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.98.81.153 (talk • contribs)

You have a point, the idyll depicted in the section was quite absurd. I have tried to amend that. Next time, be bold and do it yourself! (Of course, no anti-hijra/anti-queer bias is admissible either.) --194.145.161.227 14:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding "Eunuchs in Fiction": See also, Goodwin, Jason. The Janissary Tree. Picador, New York: 2006. From the book jacket (ipso facto): "Investigator Yashim. A man both brilliant and near-invisible in this world, an investigator who can walk wihin the great halls of the empire, in its streets, and even within its seraglios-because, of course, Yashim is a eunuch(The Times, London)." 75.61.141.74 (talk) 01:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

born eunuchs

when I saw this article, I expected a discussion of eunuchs not as castrated men, but as biological males who were impotent with women, to be a large part of it. 'born eunuchs' are barely mentioned in the 'figurative use' section. the origional greek application of the word eunuch has nothing to do with weither or not a male's testicles were removed, and neither do most of the ancient words which can be translated eunuch. the majority of them describe a function, not a physiological state.

due to this glaring inadequecy, I've asked the author of http://www.well.com/user/aquarius/ to contribute to the article. I dearly hope he responds and will be willing to do so, as he's a credible expert if ever there was one. as it is mentioned above, his scholarship is impecable, and his website is literred with citations and quotes in their origional languages (the author is fluent in 5 languages, and familiar with several more). the ethical implications of the historical use of the word aside, it is important to note that it is only (relatively) recently that the usage has come to mean a castrated man, and not a biological male who has a certain social role.

discussions of weither or not jesus was a eunuch (as many early christians believed) are entirely secondary and have nothing to do with the undeniable fact that eunuchs in the ancient world were not exclusively, or even mostly, castrated men. this is not nonsense, weither or not attributing this status to christ is. even if that were true, and I'm not qualified to speak to that either way, saying anything about it would just lead to conflict...you can't say anything about a figure like christ without intellectual defense mechanisms going off. irrefutable evidence for that would just produce hostility, so poorly supported supposition on the subject is not just going to get the facts it was loosely based on ignored. PROVE jesus was a eunuch and you'll be ignored and your sources unfairly disregaurded. speculate on it, and you just hurt your source's credability. the verses cited there, by the way, do not ammount to academic support of anything. modern, heterosexual semetic men kiss eachother and lean on shoulders and such - it's not an indication of sexual or romantic attatchment at all. I've seen butch, hardened criminals in russia sitting in a row with their legs crossed like only women would do in america. indicators of things like homosexuality change from culture to culture. even if they didn't, there'd be no solid support for assuming those verses make christ gay. also, if you were attempting to make that point, you would want to include matthew 19:11, where christ actually mentions born eunuchs as a class distinct from castrated men. in verse 12 he goes on to say 'some have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven', which is sometimes translated 'renounced marriage' - it's pretty obvious that eunuch in his time was also distinction of social function, not just one of physiology. the scholarship at the website I mentioned above makes it abundantly clear that it was primarily the former. anyway, I'll stop and hope that the writer, Faris Malik, will provide us with his input.--Feralnostalgia 10:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I have in fact added a few lines to the section called "Figurative Use," stating that, under ancient Roman law, some eunuchs were distinguished from castrati, and were said to be capable of procreation and "not diseased or defective." The original citations in the Roman Digest are given. I also changed the section heading to "Non-castrated eunuchs." The former heading "Figurative Use" is prejudicial: it implies that only castrated men are real eunuchs. -- Faris Malik 20:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I see no sources or evidence for most of your claims, notably that there were non-castrated eunuchs (or rather that a term traditionally translated into English as "eunuch" denoted non-castrated persons) in other societies than late Rome-Byzantium and modern India, figurative use aside. The definition of the word "eunuch" shouldn't be changed, at any rate not without more sources - and then I mean academic secondary sources, and not primary sources interpreted by Mr Malik - about more societies. And excuse me, but implying that the ancients (especially in classical Antiquity) dared have no unambiguous designation for homosexuals as such and needed to replace it with "eunuch" would be ridiculous even if it didn't violate WP:NOR. --194.145.161.227 23:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

true? or error? a comment

'*..in effect acting as a shield between the emperor and his administrators from physical contact. Eunuchs were believed loyal and dispensable.'

  i did read where the eunuch, having no family(?) to carry on property rights etc...the eunuch therefore could easily disappear,so to speak....

but later, in a *different paragraph, the above...in the context of the sentence, i wonder if the eunuchs were believed loyal and IN-dispensable? i can see how it may work either way...and the author DID use the word 'dispensible'...it helps me understand the emperor and the condition the eunuch is living through.I want to be sure. sorry to be a bother. Mahu-ike

++ I'm sorry, don't want to hijack your category but I've got another factual concern: "# Sima Qian - old romanization: Ssu-ma Chi'en (2nd/1st century BC) Was the first person to have practiced modern historiography - gathering and analyzing both primary and secondary sources in order to write his monumental history of the Chinese empire."

++ Isn't Herodotus (From centuries earlier) generally considered the father of historiographical analysis of history? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.25.127 (talk) 14:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Some edits I'm making

The quotes from Digesta etc. refer to spadones, and they all make sense when you read the [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3D%2344853 dictionary entry] for spado: "A. one who has no generative power, an impotent person (whether by nature or by castration; hence more general than castratus), Digesta 50, 16, 128 ; 23, 3, 39; 28, 2, 6; 1, 7, 2; 40, 2, 14; opp. castratus, Just. Inst. 1, 11, 9 . B. B. In partic., a castrated person, a eunuch, Liv. 9, 17, 16; Quint. 11, 3, 19; Plin. 13, 4, 9, § 41; Hor. Epod. 9, 13; Juv. 14, 91 al.".

The text says that "Kathryn M. Ringrose demonstrates how eunuch societies included not only castrated men but also homosexuals, transgenders" etc. I'd like to see a word-by-word quotation of her saying that. This link of The Gay and Lesbian Vaishnava Association exctracts what it considers to be significant portions of the essay, specifically in the context of the "third gender". I would expect them, if anybody, to quote the part about eunuchs being homosexual; yet all it contains is "The term “eunuch” as used in Late Antique and Byzantine sources was broader and more nuanced than the simple phrase “castrated male” seems to imply... In its broadest sense the word “eunuch” refers not only to an individual who is physiologically incapable of rendering offspring but also to one who has chosen to withdraw from worldly activities and thus refuses to procreate." Nor is there a single word about gayness in this huge review of an entire book by Ringrose. There, it becomes clear that while the pagan ancient Greeks did base their definition of "eunuch" on physiology and genitalia, the Christian Byzantines emphasized behaviour (procreation), hence often including "for example, celibate monks and even nuns." Which means also that the claim that "in ancient terms, a eunuch means any man who is impotent with women" inaccurate, to say the least (the ancient Greeks being more "ancient" than the Late Romans and th Byzantines).

Finally, the hijra are mentioned so many times that, as in many other Wiki articles, it seems no editor actually tried to read the rest of the article and avoid repetitions. While the hijra are a case that supports Mr Malik's idea, this is not a reason to change the English definition of "eunuch" in the intro as it is given e.g. in Encyclopaedia Britannica and in any dictionary, but rather to avoid the word "eunuch" when referring to the hijra - as, indeed, the article about hijra suggests. If that has caused "many historians to wonder if a similar reality existed in other "eunuch" cultures around the world", as the text says, then that "widespread wondering" should be sourced. The "modern eunuchs" section is all about the hijra and should go to that article.

The bit about homosexual behaviour etc. is partly true, and yet it doesn't belong in the intro, since it really wasn't one of their primary functions. It should be sourced, too.

On another note, I am moving the "Myths" section to the talk page - it's too weird, so I think it needs a more reliable source to justify its inclusion. The author is not a serious scholar of any kind. --194.145.161.227 23:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Kathryn Ringrose writes in her article "Living in the Shadows: Eunuchs and Gender in Byzantium" (pp. 85-109 in G. Herdt, ed. _Third Sex, Third Gender_, New York, 1993) that the term eunuch "until the ninth century ... encompassed anyone who did not as well as could not produce children, including men who were born sterile, men who became sterile through illness, accident or birth defect, men who were lacking in sexual desire and men and women who embraced the celibate life for religious reasons" (p. 86). That is as close as Ringrose comes to stating that the term eunuch could include many of those who we call homosexuals today, and it's not very close. But she cannot get any closer than that, because, adhering to Michel Foucault's argument that "the homosexual" is an invention of 19th century science, Ringrose does not believe there were ANY homosexuals in ancient times - she has said so many times, both in her books and personally to me. Ringrose's chronology of the change in the meaning of the word eunuch is very confusing, as pointed out by Shaun Tougher in his review of her book _The Perfect Servant_ which is linked on this page. She says that the meaning of the term changed "within Byzantine society between the third and the twelfth century," but she does not say what its starting point was in the 3rd century and in what direction it went, what happened to it in the 9th century (see previous quote), or where it ended up in the 12th century, or how it got from there to the present day. She offers no proof that the Classical Greeks or Romans saw gender primarily as a matter of the genitals and she merely asserts that, if gender was seen as a function of procreative ability by the Byzantine Christians, it was due to developments in Christianity. That is demonstrably false. Even Aristotle recognized that an animal is male or female based on its function [logos] and, almost secondarily, the physical part that goes with that function. Throughout classical literature, doubts are expressed about this or that person's masculine gender based on nothing but their alleged lack of procreative ability, and even sometimes based on their desire to play the passive role in sex sith other men. Ringrose's argument leads to the misleading characterization (in this Wikipedia article) of the use of the word eunuch in the Roman Digest as a product of these Byzantine Christian attitudes, which it is not. The Digest is a compendium created in the 6th century, to be sure, but it is a compendium of legal pronouncements mainly from the pagan period around 200 AD. The relevant passages about eunuchs are quoted mainly from Ulpian, who was a pagan Roman jurist living in the early third century under pagan Roman emperors, and from Paulus, another pagan also from the same era. It is simply false to imply that the characterizations of eunuchs in the Roman Digest are the product of Byzantine Christian influence. The idea that eunuchs did not have to be castrated, indeed often were not castrated, but rather could be born eunuchs, and could still procreate, goes back well into the time when Christians were still being barbecued on the steps of pagan temples, and even before that. -- Faris Malik 01:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Moved to talk

Section title: Myths According to Tom Burnam's Dictionary of Misinformation, a common misconception about eunuchs is that, since they were castrated, they were either unable or unwanting to defile or perform sexual intercourse with the women in the harem they were employed to watch over. This was not always true, however. Though they would be expected to have a lower sex drive, eunuchs could often achieve an erection and engage in coitus, though no pregnancy could result. According to Burnham, some women preferred eunuchs as lovers since they never ejaculated and could, therefore, maintain erections longer. However, this does not hold true against present medical knowledge.^{[citation needed]} --194.145.161.227 23:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Moved to talk 2

"In her essay "Living in the Shadows: Eunuchs and Gender in Byzantium," Kathryn M. Ringrose demonstrates how eunuch societies included not only castrated men but also homosexuals, transgenders, ascetics, celibates and a wide range of men who were technically impotent or uninterested in women for a wide range of reasons."

For the reasons stated in the above section "Some eidts I'm making", I'd like to have a direct quote for the "homosexual and transgender" part. --194.145.161.227 10:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Definition of "Eunuch"

As a modern eunuch who never identified as male - surgically castrated by choice - who has contributed in the past, I am very pleased with how the moderators are looking after and caring for this article. (Particularly, protecting it from religious maniacs!) Eunuchs and gay people have existed across all cultures, all religions and all races since time immemorial. Long before The Holy Bible, or al-Quar`an was written! We have just had periods in our history where the tides of socio-political and religious ideologies have made homosexuality, eunuchism, and transgenderism a subject that one cannot talk about!

In that spirit, I am greatful for the existance of Wikipedia, and the gentle people who care for our article here. And would like to say that there are just a few very minor issues with this article:

Today, someone can be chemically castrated, using medications. If you speak to many in the community, you will find many that will try this prior to surgical castration as a means to experience the feelings, emotions and changes of being without testosterone before any irriversible surgery takes place.

If someone is chemically castrated, are they not also a eunuch?

So I politely suggest that "castrated male" is simply not good enough as a definition. I would like to suggest a definition based around one offered a while ago by someone else from our community: "A person born genetically male, who's testicles are removed (castration) or are non-functional". Because for many modern eunuchs, (as with a few cross-sections of historical ones!) there is also a gender identity issue that needs to be taken into account. And also some people 'born eunuchs' with genitals that are non-existant or inneffectual, Turners Syndrome, or with intersex conditions, Klinefelter Syndrome, etc.

EDIT: After reading the "Skoptic" section more carefully, I am happy that it is not being used to demonize the community, though I still question the purpose of including out-dated research from the 70's.

--thefraj ∇∆∇∆14:34 16th November 2006 (UCT)

Nick Evesham

The Nick Evesham entry in the famous eunuchs section looks bogus. I find nothing on the web about this person except obvious copies of the entire wiki entry. Anniepoo 06:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

Why aren't there any images of modern-day eunuchs? mrholybrain 's talk 01:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

You can add them deniz^T_C 05:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, except I don't have any. mrholybrain 's talk 10:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Eunuchs in fiction

Would anyone have an objection to removing "Eunuchs in fiction" and "other eunuchs" sections. It is indiscriminate trivia per WP:NOT. Encyclopedia articles are supposed to be about notable things, not a banal list of every Eunuch ever mentioned. If there is anything in those lists that is notable they should be 1) sourced and 2) say why they are notable. -- Stbalbach 21:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I object. This is not "indiscriminate trivia." This has been debated before on Wikipedia talk:Avoid trivia sections in articles, and the opinion of many users is that lists like these do NOT constitute "trivia." Most of the items are notable enough that the fictional works in question have their own articles in Wikipedia. —Lowellian (reply) 11:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Physical differences

There should be a section on physical differences of eunuchs compared to most men: voice differences, height differences (if any), etc. —Lowellian (reply) 11:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Eunuchs

How can I get my hands on a eunuch to use as a slave in this day and age? I think they would probably make good slaves. --124.197.54.130 06:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Pax Athenica?

The first entry under "Eunuchs in Fiction" seems pretty tangential; what's more, I notice that it cites a self-published novel. So--has anyone heard of Pax Athenica? If it's genuinely notable, I don't want to delete the reference, nominate the book on AfD, blah blah blah, but I'm wondering. Iralith 18:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Er, an additional note: Pax Athenica gets fifteen (expanded) Google hits. Five of those are Wikipedia itself; one's Amazon; four are an online bookseller; four are the author's MySpace page; and one's the author's friend's LiveJournal. I'm really doubting that this book is notable, and I'm definitely doubting that it ought to be mentioned on this page. Iralith 18:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Enh, I'm taking it out. Iralith 22:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Modern Eunuchs

I think that a section about eunuchs in contemporary society should be added. I'm not entirely sure as to what precisely the content should be; but as of now the article seems to portray eunuchs as a thing of the past, merely a historical artifact. There are individuals today that would identify as "eunuch" (aside from hijras) and the article is incomplete without at least some mention of this fact. Rootneg2 04:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Ottoman Empire Eunuchs

When many people think of 'eunuch' their mind immediately goes back to the harem of many fictional accounts, which pretty much refer to the seraglio of the Ottoman Emperor. How come there's no mention whatever of the Ottoman eunuchs, surely among the most well-known variant?194.109.254.26 (talk) 17:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Section: In the Bible

Removed this section, as its content is addressed in other sections. Drkeithphd (talk) 15:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

"Castrated by shrapnel in World War One"

I think a good rule of thumb would be to not call somebody a eunuch in the article if you couldn't address them as "a eunuch" in real life. Point being, if somebody were to cut off my balls, I don't think others would call me a eunuch unless they wanted to offend me [horribly]. As the article points out, the word eunuch connotes a rank or social standing, as well as deliberate castration. I'm taking the liberty of removing this.

Born Eunuchs

i think this should be incorporated into the article http://www.well.com/user/aquarius/contents.htm ~kp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.26.124.0 (talk) 01:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Incidental and non-notable

Comes along User:Spasemunki and decides on his own which references to Eunuchs in fiction are "incidental" and "non-notable" and without any discussion removes them from the article. So I returned them.

Both the criteria of "incidental" or "non-notable" mentions, as well as the desirability of deletion of such mentions, should be properly discussed before undertaking such steps. Debresser (talk) 13:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

There was a tag for cleaning the section, so I decided to be bold. Anyhow, I would say that first off, anything where it's just a mention- Johnny Dep's character calling Orlando Bloom a eunuch, for instance- is incidental. I'd prefer to limit it to works where the focus of the work is a eunuch character, or when the issue of someone being or not being a eunuch is central to the plot. I'd kill anything where a eunuch is a supporting character that has little impact on the story (lots of the 'eunuch guards' mentioned have, I believe, only a very passing part in the story where they occur). In other words, since these 'popular culture' sections tend to become very bloated and hat-rackish, I'd say limit it to examples where a eunuch or the concept is central to the work. Are there specific examples that were removed that you think ought to be restored? --Clay Collier (talk) 00:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Your criteria sound good to me. Debresser (talk) 12:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thoroughly Modern Eunuchs

On both the article for Mister and this one, the following text appears:

As a matter of interest, some modern day Eunuchs use the title or prefix "Eu." rather than "Mr.". ie: "Eu. John Smith".

Can this claim be sourced? As is, it just sounds like trivia or even one individual's opinion. I can only find information on the supposed "title" Eu. on two sites using a Google search, and they seem to use one individual's direct claim. Otherwise, I can't verify this and don't have the scholarly access to. It just sounds like P.C.-ness gone amok, to try to not just be inclusive, but to allow anyone's opinion as fact. FeygeleGoy/פֿײגעלע גױ‎ 02:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Just added more details on the page for Mister. I'm more polite there, though I'm still puzzled about this claim of a seperate formal title given to castrated males; it still sounds like someone taking their personsal life and pretending it's normal practice. FeygeleGoy/פֿײגעלע גױ‎ 03:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Utter rubbish. Removed from both articles. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 06:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

As a medical anthropologist studying the modern eunuch community, I've found about a half dozen who actively use "Eu." There are probably 8,000 to 10,000 voluntary eunuchs in North America, just very well hidden. My current sample size of voluntary eunuchs and eunuch "wannabes" is over 3,000. JAzevado (talk) 03:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. Do you have a WP:RS for it?

I've got 4 articles in referred journals so far and 2 more accepted. None references the "Eu" controversy, though. I am working on a short (200+/- word addition on the contemporary eunuch community that will have about 8 or 9 footnotes to referred sources. I hope to add it to this article soon. JAzevado (talk) 19:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

'Eu.' needs a reliable source - otherwise it is WP:OR, which however knowledgeable you may be, is not the purpose of an encyclopedia. Mish (talk) 20:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I was reacting to the comment above by FeygeleGoy. I would not recommend adding it for the sake of a half-dozen or so individuals out of the thousands of voluntary eunuchs. It will be briefly noted in the ethnography I'm writing, but even then I would not suggesting wasting the space to note it in the Wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JAzevado (talk • contribs) 21:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

By the way...

In the video game Art of Fighting 2...

the character "King" uses the word Eunich in a sentence depending if Robert or Ryo is selected... JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 07:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Melito of Sardis

The list section should consider adding Melito of Sardis, an early Church Father who was described as a eunuch when he died. ADM (talk) 06:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Improving the Eunuch article with modern day relativity

Could we better the eunuch article with information pertaining to modern day Eunuch's? In my opinion, this page should also incorporate information regarding modern day eunuch's. Also if we could note Elective Castration. I feel that it is apparent to anyone who searches the term eunuch online today finds a plethora of topics discussing current relation to the term. Zya (talk) 09:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm working on a brief section to add to this main article covering the contemporary eunuch community. I've sent it out to a professor of medicine, a psychologist, and members of the community for review. It will be well documented with references to referred sources.JAzevado (talk) 20:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I have been through what is there at the moment, and tidied it a bit and noted missing citations. I am not sure all of it is appropriate/relevant. Why there is a para on Hijra when they are already mentioned above (apart from to suggest they are not really eunuchs, which is problematic - especially without a source). Of course, they are contemporary. The next para starts out about there being more men with prostrate cancer - but of course, Hijra are not men, they are third-gender. A paragraph later starts off about CIS-TC, but points out that these people have testosterone replacement, which poses the question - why are they in the section? Prostrate cancer tends to be treated with oestrogens and/or surgery, but I am not clear this necessarily involves orchidectomy - so I'm left unclear that this claim (that men with prostrate cancer are eunuchs) can be substantiated. Is there a reliable source for this?

When you finish your revision for this section, could you make it available for discussion before posting it, please - to avoid possible conflicts. Mish (talk) 21:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Zheng He

The Chinese name Zheng He appears twice in the list of renounded eunuchs throughout history. From what I know there was only one... Bepp (talk) 06:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Pop culture

There are several pop culture references for Eunuchs, where should these be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 'Iw 'Ip ghomey (talk • contribs) 00:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be such a place. Mish (talk) 01:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

There was a 'in pop culture' section at one point, I believe, but most of the items in it didn't really fit per WP:IPC; they were mostly mentions of the word eunuch, or a book where a random character is a eunuch or is eunuch-like... There was a discussion above (under the heading 'Incidental and non-notable') where I cleaned out some of them- either I or another editor removed the rest at some point later. --Clay Collier (talk) 10:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I support you in that approach. Mish (talk) 11:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Splitting

At the moment the article discusses three groups of people

specific court officials who were castrated (or had other inability to procreate)
specific court officials who were NOT castrated (nor had other inability to procreate)
people who were castrated (or had other inability to procreate), but were NOT court officials

The last group really don't belong in discussion of the first two groups. Its like having an article about rubus fruticosus, and then talking about how good it for getting e-mails when you are on the move.

Therefore, I'm going to split some of the material into a new article - Spadones - to avoid confusion. The difference is

Spadones = someone who can't or won't have children via sexual intercourse, including castrati
Eunuch = a political position, the members of which may or may not be spadones.

Newman Luke (talk) 17:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

No, it's more like an article about apples (Eunuchs) & discussing different kinds of apples (castrati, court officials, spadon). If U want to add a paragraph about the historical (archaic), Latin definition of Spadon under Roman Law in this article, okay but you were wrong to split the articles without discussion first and, the article about Spadones does a poor job of documenting the definition. Even impotent men could be Spadon. Not even sure your Latin grammar is correct. BTW, there was no "confusion," until you split the articles! So, is Tom DeLay a eunuch (Court Official)?

There were three different types of eunuch identifiable by the three different methods of castration. The slaves whose penis and testes had both been severed were called castrati by the Romans and sandali or es-sendelle by the Arabs. Spadones was the word used to describe those eunuchs whose testicles had been literally torn from their bodies, but not cut off. By far the most common method of emasculation was to detach the testicles by a single cut, and these eunuchs, who were called thlibias or semivir, retained their penis. Source: COLIN BLAKEMORE and SHELIA JENNETT. "eunuchs." The Oxford Companion to the Body. Oxford University Press. 2001.

In Original Bible texts ";eunuch"; is described as saris (Old Testament, Hebrew) or eunouchos (New Testament, Greek). However, both words could also mean ";official"; or ";commander";. The 38 original Bible references to saris and 2 references to eunouchos were studied in order to determine their meaning in context. In the Septuagint saris was translated as eunouchos, except for Genesis 37:36 and Isaiah 39:7 where spadon was used, Source: (Acta Theologica: 2002 22(2): 114-125)

Page 102 HERE gives a definition of Spado as castrated. 68.0.135.137 (talk) 17:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

JAzevado (talk) 21:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)This appears to be an idiosyncratic attempt by an individual pursuing his private agenda. The goal of a proper encyclopedia, such as Wikipedia, is to survey and summarize the existing data, not to create an entirely new vision.

While I have a great many problems with this strange division of the “Eunuch” article into two parts, I will restrict myself to just a few of them. Enough, I hope, to get this reversed.

First of all, while “spadone” may be occasionally used in English language text as if it were an English word, it it most commonly used as a Latin word and glossed as “eunuch” in English. It is rare enough that it does not even occur in the 20 volume Oxford English Dictionary. Even if it were used correctly, it would seem very strange to use such a rare term as an article title in any English language encyclopedia.

Second, changing “eunuch” to “spadone” has perverted existing scholarship. For example, the author has changed “Male-to-Eunuch” gender dysphoria to “Male-to-Spadone” in a paragraph which has citations to three published articles in refereed medical journals which describe it as Male-to-Eunuch. Presentations titled, “The Development of Standards of Care for Individuals with a Male-to-Eunuch Gender Identity Disorder” were made at the 2009 meetings of both the World Professional Association for Transgender Health and the World Association for Sexual Health. A version of it has been submitted for publication to the International Journal of Transgenderism. “Male-to-Eunuch” is likely to be the useage in the next edition of the Harry Benjamin Standards. The document working its way up through the layers of committees toward the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition, specifies “Male-to-Eunuch,” not “Male-to-Spadone.”

Third, it seems to make little sense to have a division that puts provincial governors together with lowly harem attendants in one category and to lump military generals, religious fanatics, and singers in another. The division seems highly arbitrary and irrational.

It would be far better to recombine the articles and then to logically discuss differences within the category. ----JAzevado

eunouchos , ho, ( [eunê, echô] )

A. castrated person, eunuch, employed to take charge of the women and act as chamberlain (whence the name, ho tên eunên echôn), Hdt.3.130, al., Ar.Ach. 117, X.Cyr.7.5.60, etc.

Source: Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon.

spădo , ōnis, m., = spadôn.

I. Lit., one who has no generative power, an impotent person (whether by nature or by castration; hence more gen. Than castratus), Dig. 50, 16, 128 ; 23, 3, 39; 28, 2, 6; 1, 7, 2; 40, 2, 14; opp. castratus, Just. Inst. 1, 11, 9 . --Of horses, Veg. 6, 7, 2.--

B. In partic., a castrated person, a eunuch, Liv. 9, 17, 16; Quint. 11, 3, 19; Plin. 13, 4, 9, § 41; Hor. Epod. 9, 13; Juv. 14, 91 al.--

Source: Charlton T. Lewis, Charles Short, A Latin Dictionary

And,

spadôn [a^], ônos (and ontos LXX, Plu., and Artem., v. infr.), ho: ( [spaô] ):--

A. eunuch, LXX Ge.37.36, Is.39.7, Plb.28.21.5, D.S.30.17, Ph. 1.604, Plu.Demetr.25, Artem.2.69. Hence spa^dônismos , ho, castration, Zonar.

Source: Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon.

These sources show eunuch & spado are synonyms. 68.0.135.137 (talk) 17:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

JAzevado (talk) 18:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Again, you are citing Latin and Greek, not English. I maintain for more reasons than that, however, that your proposed division is irrational. Read my comments above.

This is an archive of past discussions about Eunuch. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Spadone

I've reverted the split of this article into Eunuch (court official) and Spadone. Although there is some evidence for the usage of the Latin term "spadone" in English in a few sources, it does not appear in any of the English dictionaries I have access to. Nor does it appear to be in general use in medicine or general scholarship. I do not believe that there is sufficient evidence for it to be regarded as common usage, or "more correct" than the common English term "eunuch" which is also extensively used in academic and medical sources (as well as being the generally-used English translation for the Latin word spadone). -- The Anome (talk) 13:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

In the Bible, the word 'eunuch' is used to refer to homosexual men

In the Bible, Matthew 19:12, the word 'eunuch' is used to refer to homosexual men (usually effeminate men). (Is the Bible Against Homosexuality?)

I removed the above text from the article, as it does not appear to be well-founded. All translations of this passage I can find use the word "eunuch" or an equivalent term, and discussions of the passage do not infer any association with homosexuality. The citation is hardly a scholarly source, and does not provide any evidence for its dubious assertions. ωεαşεζǫįδ ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Paragraph about the reasons for historical castration

There should be a paragraph of the effects of castration & the thought of benefit when fulfilling functions that arent directly obvious, like military commander or courtier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.116.238.65 (talk) 13:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Often castrated...

While many Eunuchs were castrated it is entirely inaccurate to describe them as castrated across the board. Stating that Eunuchs are/were castrated by definition is not historically correct or factual. It is similar to saying "basketball players are black". Many are, but not all. I have repeatedly changed "A eunuch ( /ˈjuːnək/; Greek: "Ευνούχος") is a person born male who is castrated" to "A eunuch ( /ˈjuːnək/; Greek: "Ευνούχος") is a person born male who is often castrated" because it is far more accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.47.200.235 (talk • contribs) 08:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Religious castration in Christianity

I adapted the passage about castration in the bible as this is somewhat taken out of context. The passage in the bible is about celibacy, not specifically about castration. So while I think the passage should stand, it is not saying that Christianity does not condone the practice of castration (enforce by the religion), but accepts people are eunuchs or have been castrated. Also I removed the section in the next paragraph suggesting a link between homosexuality and eunuchs in the bible. The passage in the bible which is reference is about celibacy and has no reference to sexuality. These are questions being asked of Jesus about marriage, divorce, and not being married. There is no reference to being gay, so I would suggest this has been added by someone with an agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grahamatwp (talk • contribs) 07:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Semiprotection

Sockpuppets of Borishuang have been posting things regarding "The title Eu. refers to a eunuch". Should this page be semiprotected to prevent this? Borishuang is a persistent block evader. Warrenkychu (talk) 05:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Clingschor or Klingsor

In the In popular culture section I believe it is worth mentioning the character Clingschor from Wolfram's Parzival, a sorcerer who castrates himself to prevent him acting on his impure thoughts. The same character appears as Klingsor in Wagner's opera Parsifal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aodh Mordun (talk • contribs) 23:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2015

This edit request to Eunuch has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

27.251.158.66 (talk) 09:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Stickee (talk) 09:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Regarding: Eunuchs in Indian Hindu sultanates (before Mughals)

Those sultanates were not Hindu, they were Muslim. This section even goes on to mention Alauddin Khilji specifically, he was a Muslim. Malik Kafur was a Hindu Rajput boy who was then converted to Islam and made eunuch. The Delhi Sultanate was Muslim. The term "Sultanate" itself is also a key hint as to the Islamic influence on the rulers and the other terms are Urdu terms as well. Please remove any references to the rulers and sultanates being Hindu in this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vedver (talk • contribs) 20:06, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

What are the consequences of castration?

There ought to be a section on the effects of being made a eunuch. Presumably there are more than just inability to reproduce and having a high singing voice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.151.138.148 (talk) 08:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Here's a medical report that says eunuchs live significantly longer than non-castrated males: "We studied the genealogy records of Korean eunuchs and determined the lifespan of 81 eunuchs. The average lifespan of eunuchs was 70.0 ± 1.76 years, which was 14.4–19.1 years longer than the lifespan of non-castrated men of similar socio-economic status. Our study supports the idea that male sex hormones decrease the lifespan of men." The lifespan of Korean eunuchs, Kyung-Jin Min1, Cheol-Koo Lee2 and Han-Nam Park; Current Biology, Volume 22, Issue 18, R792-R793, 25 September 2012. Where would this fit in the article? Raquel_Baranow (talk) 16:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Of course, the longer lifespans could in part relate to the effeminate, or womanly lifestyle they lead. Flight Risk (talk) 18:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Issue with the references

Number 177 is bad - it links to an article by The Economist, which mentions "a study on eunuchs", giving no further information whatsoever. The original study cannot be found via this reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.159.163.191 (talk) 13:53, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I checked the ref and it says what's in the article. Raquel Baranow (talk) 05:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Eunuch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Intro sentence and the meaning of the word "eunuch"

I've now twice reverted changes made by 67.48.96.13 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). They state that not every man who has been called a eunuch was not necessarily castrated, and therefore that eunuchs only may have been castrated. That is not the meaning of the word, and 67.48.96.13 is performing WP:SYN in attempting to adjust it.

The universally-agreed primary dictionary definition of the word "eunuch" is a man who has been castrated. Yes, the term has indeed sometimes been used for men who were not castrated, but this does not change the primary definition: this use is mentioned in the same paragraph in the lede, so this is already treated in the article.

Wikipedia policy requires that editors provide reliable sources for statements which are controversial. Well-established dictionaries are reliable sources for the meanings of words.

To @67.48.96.13: if you want to revert this again, please discuss this here before doing so. -- The Anome (talk) 13:52, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll be glad to discuss it here, but I'm leaving the current and accurate description where it is and where it has been since we did this in 2011. Your edit is not accurate. The definition in the dictionary is wrong and furthermore, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. There was a giant discusssion on this page once upon a time and it was reduced to my statement above ("Often castrated"). Please stop editing out accurate information. Thank you. OpenSorce (talk) 05:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Would you settle for "has (in most cases) been castrated"? OpenSorce (talk) 06:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I've changed the intro to read "The term eunuch ... generally refers to a man who has been castrated..." I hope this is enough to satisfy everyone now. -- The Anome (talk) 14:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I briefly re-edited it before I noted this change. I've since removed that edit. I think this is closer to acceptable than it was before. OpenSorce (talk) 09:36, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Korean Dog Bites?

The passage is unclear, and the second cited text only states "Many men became eunuchs mostly because of unfortunate accidents. It is well known that men who accidentally lost their sexual abilities became eunuchs during Joseon as well as Goryeo period. Goryeo-sa () states that "people had become eunuchs because their sexual organs were bitten by dogs" (69), directly indicating the main reason of men becoming eunuchs; eunuchs were mainly created by accidents." There are some confused Reddit posts linking to this portion, but from what I gather most eunuchs, prior to their popularity, were victims of accidents such as dog bites - rather than dog biting being a popular method of creating eunuchs. The first article is behind a paywall, so I will refrain from editing this portion, but some clarification might be appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.64.115.176 (talk) 03:00, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Eunuch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eunuch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added {{dead link}} tag to http://3g.e3ol.com/culture-view.asp?id=25072&page=3&s=3.
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.tmallze.com/html/no05_171797.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131021000516/http://onlineresearchjournals.org/IJAH/pdf/2013/jan/El-Azhari.pdf to http://onlineresearchjournals.org/IJAH/pdf/2013/jan/El-Azhari.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2017

This edit request to Eunuch has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Having researched and actually verifying the entire section labeled Coptic Involvement, there is simply no basis in truth for the entire section. It is derogatory to an entire religious group as they did not practice these actions. The source documentation states that the clergymen lived as if they were eunuchs; "A figure of speech also crept into use in which certain persons for religious reasons are said to have "eunuchized" themselves, who, in the opinion of commentators, underwent no mutilation, but merely lived in total celibacy, like eunuchs, as in the third class mentioned in Matthew, 19, 12. This habit of broadening the definition of words at the expense of their precision is a linguistic trait of oriental countries."

I am UNAMBIGUOUSLY requesting that the entire section be verified, and if found to not be true, to be deleted in its entirety. Diesel4982 (talk) 16:36, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Not done: There are numerous reliable sources cited. That is generally what on Wikipedia is considered to be verified. If you can find fault with the specific sources for specific statements feel free to continue discussion but I am not going to remove an entire section. Cannolis (talk) 23:50, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Hindu ceremonies .. reference ?

Re. "However, they are integral to several Hindu ceremonies which is the primary form of their livelihood. They are a part of dance programs (sometimes Adult) in marriage ceremonies. They also perform certain ceremonies for the couple in Hindu tradition" .. I am familiar with Hindu weddings in India and this is incorrect. The reference (228) is inapplicable. Please provide a reference.Sooku (talk) 09:42, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Eunuch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:49, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Wrong and unsourced information in the section "Non-castrated eunuchs"

The section on "Non-castrated eunuchs," contains several wrong and/ or unsourced information. They all suggest to convey the fallacy that in the ancient texts Eunuch is used for males who are impotent or otherwise non interested in procreation. This is pov pushed by a section of the lgbt, but it is wrong and unsourced.

The first such information claims to be sourced from Aristotle's Generation of animals, and quotes (or interprets) Aristotle as saying that the lack of faculty to procreate also renders a person to be a 'eunuch.' I researched the net thoroughly and failed to find any such mention in that particular work. The information is not cited. The second such information gives a citation (link) and claims that this 'broad' definition of eunuch is also contained in the compendium of ancient Roman laws collected by Justinian I in the 6th century known as the Digest or Pandects. The link given is: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3D%2344853

I researched the Pandects and it contains no such provision. The link provided only gives the definition of Spandon. Apparently, Spandon may be used for impotents and eunuchs both, but nowhere does it say that Eunuch can be used for impotents. All A's include B's and C's doesn't mean B's and C's are the same.

The rest of the text is also based on the false assumption that spandones and eunuchs are one. If All B's are A's, it doesn't mean all A's are B's.

Therefore, I am deleting the texts. Please give a proper citation if someone feels these texts need to be there. (Masculinity (talk) 13:13, 5 August 2017 (UTC))

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:19, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Deleted ungrammatical word string with reference to a 3rd gender, having no source, reliable or not.

I am reminded of the very humorous discourse in Plato's Symposium where the character Aristophanes (if I recall correctly) gives an explanation of sexual attraction of 3 types, but I don't think eunuch was one of the types. The dialogue goes on ending with Socrates as a speaker who exhibits no sexual itch at all, apparently a Platonic ideal, but he is not assigned the label as a 3rd gender. (We don't forget that the whole dialogue is humorous and not intended to be a treatise on gender, but more likely the minutes of a philosophical bull session.

There is this sentence, also, in the article which requires clarification: "But this is sometimes generalized to mean that eunuch may be used for impotent males, which is a fallacy." The pronoun "this" has no clear antecedent. Was the term "fallacy" the best term for this sentence? (PeacePeace (talk) 05:54, 1 November 2017 (UTC))

According to some laws Eunuch cannot be considered as "male human"

"refers to a man" is not correct. D1gggg (talk) 09:36, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Some papers (correctly IMO) consider them not as males or females but as another option: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2012.681178

This is far from useless debate: it matters when law and regulations are gender-specific. D1gggg (talk) 10:34, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Removed paragraph disputing etymology

Which stated as follows:

"One major problem, however, with the derivation from eunē ("bed") is that, according to the rules of Greek vowel contractions (see crasis), the ou in eunoukhos requires an o-sound between the contracted words, specifically e+o, e+ou, o+e, o+ei, o+o or o+ou, and cannot feature an a-sound there.^[1] As an alpha-declension noun, eunē features the stem-vowel -a-, but an a-sound will not combine with any other vowels to produce the ou that occurs in eunoukhos. All words (other than eunoukhos anyway) that are formed by adding onto eunē have an a-sound or long e-sound in the combined syllable, as in eunater or eunēter ("bed-fellow"), eunaios ("in one's bed") or eunēthen ("from or out of bed").^[2] By analogy, a compound between eunē and ekhein would be expected to come out as eunēkhos, or in English "eunech". Even if the form okhos ("carrier" or "holder") were compounded with eunē, as many dictionaries suggest, the stem-vowel a from eunē combined with the initial o from okhos would combine to form an omega, and the resulting word ("bed-carrier") would be expected to come out as eunōkhos, with the English word becoming "eunoch". On the other hand, the etymology offered by Eustathius (eunis + okheuein) would work only if eunis contributes an e-sound or o-sound to the compound. Unfortunately, there are no known compounds of eunis to use for comparison. Consequently, the rules of Greek vowel contraction at any rate favor the derivation from eunoos and ekhein ("having a well-disposed state of mind"). And in fact, other words that have the same ending -oukhos feature a stem-vowel o in the first word of the compound, such as skēptoukhos, rabdoukhos, lampadoukhos, ofioukhos and kleidoukhos.
Be that as it may, virtually all modern reference works cite the derivation from eunē and ekhein ("keeper of the bed")."

This is based on an incorrect/incomplete understanding of Greek synchronics. First-declension nouns do not retain their α/η in compounds (except in some rare cases such as ἀγγελιήφορος), but take an -ο- just like all other nouns. The listed words such as εὐναῖος are suffixed, not compounded; suffixed words do often (although not always) retain the stem vowel. Nor is ου instead of ω problematic; we regularly see ου in compounds of -οχος (as the paragraph even goes on to state); this is due to the original form *sokhos, where the *s dropped out and caused the vowels to contract. εὐνή + -οχος is just as phonologically plausible as εὖ + νόος + -οχος, and almost certainly more semantically plausible, which is presumably why it is adopted by most etymologists. ObsequiousNewt (talk) 19:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

References

^ Smythe, Herbert Weir (1920). Greek Grammar. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. pp. 20–21.
^ Liddell, H.G. and R. Scott (1883). Greek-English Lexicon. New York: Harper & Brothers. pp. 607–608.

Orphaned references in Eunuch

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Eunuch's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "ReferenceA":

From Asexuality: Chasin, CJ DeLuzio (2015). "Making Sense in and of the Asexual Community: Navigating Relationships and Identities in a Context of Resistance". Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology. 25 (2): 167–180. doi:10.1002/casp.2203. ISSN 1099-1298.
From Mongols: Janhunen, Juha (November 29, 2012). "1". Mongolian. John Benjamins Publishing Company. p. 11.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:07, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

There is a huge lack of information of heir general lives

How did these people develop sexually, mentally and body wise? There is little information about how their bodies were different from those of other men, could they pass as regular men if they tried? Would an enuch be recognized by apperence alone?★Trekker (talk) 23:07, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Added "Eunuchs and the Bible" back

I added the secion "Eunuchs and the Bible" back with additional references, including a Thesis with secondary resources backing up the point.

And in fairness I also included two links to people arguing the opposite point as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackal242 (talk • contribs) 03:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, better than it was, but you're still using a couple of internet essays & claiming this as evidence for what "many believe". & Frankly, those are hardly objective & persuasive essays: they both start from a premise that the Bible is gay-friendly (something that many would disagree with) then go cherry-picking scraps of incidental evidence or areas of ambiguity that support their case.

I think there's a bit of a undue weight problem here, as this really is a fairly obscure viewpoint, & seems rather a tangent from the subject of eunuchs as defined in this article. For now I've left the section in but neutralised the language some. ωεαşεζǫįδ ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I've also removed your comments from the article intro. A castrated man is the universally accepted definition of the English word eunuch in any dictionary. The fact that the Ancient Greek word for eunuch might have had other subtleties does not change the meaning of the word in English. ωεαşεζǫįδ ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah but the root of a word gives it contextual derivation and helps explain core understanding of the word and it's meaning. Perhaps you should read Etymology. :) I'll see if I can find more references and add a "Etymology of the word" section. User:Jackal242 (talk) Sat Dec 19 12:44:26 EST 2009

What are you talking about? This article already has an etymology section. ωεαşεζǫįδ ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Question: If homosexual men were not included within the biblical category of Eunuchs, what word was used for them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.151.50 (talk) 17:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Answer: There were no words used for homosexual men in bible, simply because the concept of a 'homosexual' is a modern western invention, and nothing comparable existed in the ancient or medieval world.(Masculinity (talk) 06:54, 22 February 2020 (UTC))

Non-castrated eunuchs

The Digest's acknowledgment of anatomically whole eunuchs does not reflect Christian influence on the meaning of eunuch, since it is pagan, not Christian, legal scholars cited therein (Ulpian, Paulus, Modestinus) who distinguish between "spadones" as a general group (who could in general procreate, get married to women, and institute posthumous heirs) and "castrati" as a specific and in some ways anomalous subset of that group (who could not do those things). This is sufficient evidence that Ringrose is wrong when she says the meaning of eunuch was broadened by Christian thinkers to include anatomically whole eunuchs who refrained from sex with women. She is also wrong to suggest that ancient pagan thinkers saw gender as entirely a matter of genitalia. Aristotle, for instance, saw gender as a capacity determined by the heart, which was only reflected in the physical part needed to put that capacity into effect. See Aristotle, Generation of Animals, Book 4, Chapter 1 (765b - 766b). The physical part (the genitalia) is a necessary condition for one's gender, but it is no more sufficient for determining that a person is male or female than an eye is for determining that a person can see. The physical part can be present without the corresponding capacity to use it for its purpose (in this case: procreation) being necessarily present, and if the capacity is not there, neither is the characteristic. In other words, one can have a penis, but if it won't stand up for any women because of a constitutional factor, and thus cannot be used for procreation, then one is not "male," according to Aristotle's definition, because one lacks the capacity that defines maleness. Faris Malik (talk) 20:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

What is the gender of a eunuch

Can someone with the language skills answer a question and add it to the page. In the classical languages, be it the Greek from with this page says 'eunuch' is derived from or Latin, state what gender does the word 'eunuch' has, and what was the rational for the gender classification of the word? I put eunuch in quotes simply to set it apart from the rest of the sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.27.111.8 (talk) 04:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The Greek words ευνουχος (gen.: ευνουχου) and σπαδων (gen.: σπαδοντος) both have masculine grammatical gender. The word ευνουχος is in the o-declension, which is mostly full of masculine and neuter nouns but also has female nouns. The -ος ending is most commonly found on masculine nouns in the o-declension, although there are also a number of feminine nouns that end in -ος. But adjectives and definite articles used with ευνουχος are marked with masculine gender, thus confirming that the word itself has masculine grammatical gender. The second word σπαδων is in the consonant declension, which is full of all three genders, but it is also masculine, as we can tell by the -ων ending in the nominative and by observing the forms of articles and adjectives used with it. As a noun referring to a non-female human being, it would be quite unusual for it to have feminine or neuter grammatical gender. I can't think of any examples of nouns for human beings that have neuter gender in Greek or Latin. Keep in mind, the word ανθρωπος ("human being") also has masculine grammatical gender even though it is applied to individuals (such as eunuchs!) or mixed-gender groups to which the ancient Greeks would not have applied the word male (ανηρ, ανδρος). The situation in Latin is analogous for the words eunuchus and spado. Faris Malik (talk) 23:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Faris Malik

Eunuchs are 'third genders,' a conglomeration of all the genders that are neither man nor woman.(Masculinity (talk) 07:00, 22 February 2020 (UTC))

POV concerns

There is a particular editor who keeps putting in unsubstantiated and misleading text to push his contention that the term Eunuch in ancient world used to refer to 'homosexuals.' The entire article is full of references to 'lack of male-female penetration capability' (when what is meant in the ancient texts was simply lack of 'penetration') and 'lack of desire for sex with females' (when the ancient document only referred to lack of desire for sex, or meant something else altogether). Sometimes, references are also shown for some of these entries, but it is impossible for a layman to verify those entries with the references provided. Since, this editor is known to misrepresent facts on his own website through distortion of historical texts, it is imperative that someone with more access to scholarly works clean up this article and make sure that this editor does not get to push his agenda again. (Masculinity (talk) 09:10, 22 February 2020 (UTC))

I have read through this page, but it I am not immediately seeing this bias. I note your deletion of material attributed to Lucian but with a sub standard Harvard ref. I see why you have deleted that material, but even there does not clearly appear to be an agenda. The material could simply be read as saying that sterility was being used as an evidence someone was a eunuch or similar. Elsewhere I don't see obvious POV pushing - are there passages you are concerned about?

Nevertheless, having read the article, I do observe some other issues. There is quite a lot of WP:OVERCITE and also significant amounts of material are duplicated in Castration. Although the articles are on very similar subjects, they should not repeat each other, so some reorganisation of material is called for. There are five "citation needed" templates, three dating back to 2009. The article is quite long but has a lot of good information in it. Yet, I wonder if it needs a more generalised history section sooner, before launching into the "by region/epoch".

I will look at citations in the first instance, and try to deal with missing citations and the WP:OVERCITE. This will take me a while, but happy to discuss the other issues (and even happier if any other editors want to deal with the same issues).

Finally, talk page section titles have to be neutral, so I changed it to "POV concerns". -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:49, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I have now dealt with all the "citation needed" templates. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:49, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Era

An editor changed three BC dates to BCE. The article already had two such BCE dates, and one CE date, but the majority usage on this page is AD/BC. With th ethree converted BC dates, and one or two other, it appears a close run thing, but there were 11 uses of AD and only one of CE, so the majority style is definitely AD/BC. Thus per MOS:ERA I reverted those changes and also changed all dates to conform to AD/BC.

This does not have to be a done deal. Per MOS:ERA, change of era style is possible if it reaches consensus in talk. Thus I opened this section in case anyone wants to argue for the alternative format. If there is WP:SILENCE, I will leave it as it is. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:01, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

The path to the occupation

The first sentence of this section says:

"In Ming China, the royal palace usually gets eunuchs in two ways: foreign supplies of eunuchs and domestic supplies of eunuchs."

Isn't that like saying "All animals are usually foxes, or not foxes"? I mean, first the "usually" is entirely superfluous, because the categories "foreign" and "domestic" cover every possible case; and by similar reasoning, any statement of the form "The [something] gets it's [something else] either from X, or from not X" is vacuous, needs no citation, and can be deduced without knowing the values of [something], [something else] or X, using pure logic.

I propose to delete the sentence and the citation, somewhere between a week and a month hence. BTW, I didn't bother to read the citation; if it substantiates that phrasing, then it's not worth reading. MrDemeanour (talk) 13:36, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

OK, on reading (some of) the cited source, I find support for the claim that eunuchs were acquired from both domestic and foreign sources. I did not find anything resembling the mangled logic in the paraphrase in this article. I will substitute text similar to what I have found support for, in the next couple of days, and let the citation stay; the author seems well-informed and literate (and the source seems itself to be widely cited). MrDemeanour (talk) 16:17, 19 April 2020 (UTC).

Implicit cultural and ethnic bias

Although mentioned in the context of castrati, the relatively recent practice of castration n Europe is conspicuous by its absence from the 'By region and epoch' section. This elevates the European practice to the implicit heights of being for artistic reasons, whilst consigning other cultures' practices to appearing to be primitive, historical quirks.

There should be consistency of presentation of facts in an encyclopaedia.app — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.146.35.114 (talk) 19:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

this article is wrong

dictionary definitions should not be references. eunuch does not mean castrated in GREEK. but clearly homosexual. Yoandri Dominguez Garcia 10:02, 29 June 2020 (UTC) or queer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoandri Dominguez Garcia (talk • contribs) 10:02, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Possible issues with the coptic involvement section

There are serious problems that are NOT resolved with this section. 1. As the article notes, one of the 'sources' (Spooner) copies Remondino. This Reddit article summarizes the 'echo chamber' quality of the 'references'. 2. The putative location (Mount Ghebel-Eter) is unknown to Google search EXCEPT with respect to Remondino and THIS article. Wikipedia references its own article on "Gabal Elba", but that article does not use the words "Ghebel" or "Eter". 3. Likewise, the putative monastery "Abou-Gerghè" is unknown to Google, except for Remondino and copyists. 4. The economics seem doubtful. Slave traders are, historical, merchants-for-profit. With a 90% death rate, and what ever fee was to be paid to the supposed surgical monks, plus cost of care and transportation, a live eunuch boy slave would have be at least 15x more valuable than a live uncastrated slave boy. I suppose this is possible, but no supporting evidence is provided. 5. According to Wikipedia(!), most Coptic Christians (and presumably any Coptic monasteries) are found in the northern parts of Sudan, where it is too dry for bamboo to grow, and be used as a urethral catheter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PoolDoc (talk • contribs) 19:13, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 18 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): BDMesser531.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Eunuchs and LGBTQIA+ in the New Testament

I was under the impression that Jesus affirmed the LGBTQIA+ community with his reference to eunuchs. Is this true? Is it actually possible that the term eunuch may have been used in this sense, even figuratively? If so, this would have outstanding significance for the LGBTQIA+ community and their allies. It would be substantial for all of humanity itself.2601:98A:401:9A10:B19E:D040:C04D:F18D (talk) 04:33, 8 April 2022 (UTC)