Talk:Skoptic syndrome

Comments

I have removed a section about people taking medications, which I myself added a few months ago, because the term "Skoptic Syndrome" is being used to demonize those with a gender dysphoria similar to myself.

It is a term that was first coined in the 70's and is likely to disappear very soon, with the publication of the DSM-V

I personally find the term "Skoptic Syndrome" highly offensive and would like to see it disappear, along with words like "nigger", "faggot". It is offensive, and used to demonize a very real subsection of society who are perfectly healthy and are gender or body dysphoric and dysmorphic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.189.132.221 (talk) 22:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Using Victor T. Cheney as a reference

I do not think that Victor T. Cheney, who is used as a reference in the article, is a reliable source of information. Although he admits that there are disadvantages to castration, he still seems to think that castration is a miracle cure for a variety of maladies. He even recommends involuntary castration for those infected with HIV. In addition, his views on race have been outdated for many years and are scientifically inaccurate. For example, he claims, "In Germany, the Nordic stock actively fostered and maintained their purity under Hitler." The notion of racial purity was debunked decades ago (there are several other problems with his various racial comments). Also, he either offensively equates Mongolians with the mentally retarded or offensively uses "Mongolian" as a synonym for Down syndrome (it is not clear from the context which one it is). This all comes from the 2004 edition, so there is no excuse for the outdated information about race or the offensive use of the word "Mongolian".

He apparently has no degrees that make him qualified to write about the subject. We are told that, "He has been empowered to reveal first-hand insights based on his extensive research, and his personal health conditions both before and after castration." However, in my opinion, to be able to write intelligently about a medical procedure and its psychological and social effects (let alone to claim that you are "America's foremost authority on castration"), you need to have, at the least, a bachelor's degree that relates to the subject, such as pre-med or biological science. I have been unable to find out if Cheney ever went to college at all, but his mistakes in simple biology as well as his views on race make me suspect that he did not get a degree, at least not one that is relevant to the subject. Also, I think that a degree would have been mentioned on his web page for the book, as it contained a lot of other information about him. In addition, his first hand insights about the effects of his castration are not relevant to many of his claims, as he had his testicles removed due to prostate cancer. That is unless he also suffered from "schizophrenia, psychosis, violent behaviors, paraphilias, mania, overactive libido, baldness, sleep apnea... and sexually transmitted diseases."

Cheney claims to have done extensive research over the past 25 years, yet he complains that there was no information about castration and eunuchs in libraries, with the exception of a few foreign language titles. He says that in 2001, only three years before the release of the 2004 version of his book, that he found out by searching the web "that information available on castration had changed from scarcity to adequacy." However, I did not have much success in locating reliable sources that support his position, even though the web has greatly expanded since 2001.

Finally, his publisher, American Focus Publishing, also called USCCCN International, publishes material that is of questionable validity. For example, "The Illuminati's Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion" is one of their books, but The Protocols of the Elders of Zion has been proven to be a hoax. There are also many books about alleged Satanic ritual abuse, which is now believed by most experts to be a myth. -- Kjkolb (talk) 03:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

"Cutters"

I removed the following section from the article due to lack of citation. The citation-needed tags have been up for 5-6 months with no resolution, and the claim is quite extraordinary.

An underground network of castrators, also called "cutters", without medical licenses has formed. Surgery performed by untrained personnel outside a properly equipped medical facility is dangerous and there have been cases of severe bleeding and other medical emergencies. Alternatively, self-castration, also called autocastration, is occasionally performed, though it carries significant risk. Many who desire castration travel to developing countries, where medicine is less tightly regulated, and have the procedure performed by a doctor.

mcs (talk) 21:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I now place it back with this source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2050116115300362

A Wider Lens (talk) 15:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

article possible candidate for deletion?

this article is a mess, it sounds like it's not a recognized disorder, that the people with this consider calling it "a disorder" offensive, and most of the article is like "why castration is good actually" which, is weird. and it sounds like the main source for that is a eugenics guy? this is a mess. how is this even relevant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.247.146.29 (talk) 05:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Notability

Is this article notable as it stands? Is there an article it might be merged with? It seems to be predicated on this paper alone [1], and a couple of primary sources repeating the term do not really verify it as a notable subject. There is a notable subject in here somewhere, I think, but it is not at all clear that it goes by the name of Skoptic syndrome. I'd take it to AfD, but not if there is somewhere we could simply merge it, or if someone has evidence it is more than a neologism coined for a particular paper. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Definitely not, I'll see if I can find anything more on it though. The article also talks specifically as it being phenomena in males/men, but also never states it is specifically exclusive to males, so I'll try to find anything on occurrences in females/women. I'll also see if I can find s similar disorder/phenomena under a separate name. That'll be... interesting to search. ¿VØ!D? ✨ 22:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I looked into it and coudn't find much apart from a very few mentions. I think AFD is the best solution because there's not much to merge, there's 2 sentences that fail verification (that it's a body dysmorphic disorder), and 2 paragraphs to unreliable sources (neither of which actually use the term) talking about castration in general. Eunuch#Religious Castration mentions The 18th-century Russian Skoptzy (скопцы) sect was an example of a castration cult, where its members regarded castration as a way of renouncing the sins of the flesh, so I think expanding that if we have sources is the move. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

We already have a page on the Skoptsy but that is not what this article is about. We don’t have an article on the more widely used term, Klingsor syndrome, although it does get mentioned elsewhere. Maybe AfD would be for the best, yes. Redirect to emasculation might also work, as there is a relevant section there. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:26, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Agree there is nothing to merge here. All we have is an alternative name for genital self mutilation. In the first instance I am going to WP:BLAR to emasculation. If there is a subject it is likely to be GSM and not this subject. Klingsor syndrome gets more coverage but still largely primary, and disagreement about the extent of the term. GSM is teh subject if there is one, but it is covered in emasculation and can be spun out from there if necessary. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Eunuch/Skoptic Syndrome/Castration fetish

My edits were constantly deleted in the past two weeks. I would like to clarify how I got to know about the term and why SS is similar to the Eunuch fetish and/or desire to either castrate somebody or to be castrated, as well as the fetish to cut off somebody's penis and/or to have your own penis removed. It's a type of extreme SM fetish. On this archive link you can very soon get a clear impression what kind of fetish we are dealing with when you click on some of the stories. https://web.archive.org/web/20020802221016/http://www.eunuch.org/index2.php This eunucharchive is the main internet hub where people who have this fetish gatter and chat and make appointments to meet eachtother. The Skoptic Syndrome is an obscure term. Graham Linehan wrote an article about it and Genevieve Gluck did a highly detailed study about the above mentioned website to uncover what this is all about: https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/genevieve-gluck-on-her-investigation In this YouTube (also in the Linehan article as a link): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS8ZfFZ-Bc0 When you listen to this complete Youtube talk you understand exactly what Skoptic Syndrome is and that it is literally the same as what is mentioned in the DSM-VI as well as the now called Eunuch-'genderidentity'. Also you will understand how problematic this relates to WPATH's SOC-8 and the problems with crime/pedophilic castration fetishes that are prominently featured on the Eunuch Archive. I hope the other wikipedia contributors do some research on the links I bring in to get a better understanding of what is exactly going on. A Wider Lens (talk) 18:35, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

@A Wider Lens none of these are WP:Reliable sources, this is entirely WP:Original research.

Your edits were reverted because you continuously added material that either 1) didn't have a source 2) was not supported by the source of you included or 3) was cited to an unreliable source. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

The DSM VI is a reliable source, but apparantly you wish to read somewhere 'Skoptic Syndrome is...' in a 'reliable source'. The Linehan/Gluck links are totally reliable as experts both on the whole trans debate. They for sure have an opinion, but both know 100% what they are talking about. Linehan is writing for years about this topic and published his story in the book Tough Crowd. You have a very broad definition of what OR is. I disagree, but hope others will spend some time on this very serious topic and understand Skoptic Syndrome is not just a hoax, but a fetish/'gender identity' with some serious concerning aspects, even more, because it has now become so intertwined with WPATH downfall recently. A Wider Lens (talk) 19:17, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

It is DSM IV. And it does not mention the subject by this name. See my earlier comments. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I meant IV yes, sorry. Linehan mentions the term in the YouTube, that is how I got to know about it. He also refers that it was in the DSM IV and brings up the issue that it was deleted in the V version, oddly enough. As if the castration fetish doesn't exist anymore all of a sudden. Doesn't that raise any questions? Linehan and Gluck have their thoughts about it. A Wider Lens (talk) 19:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Linehan thinks it was in the DSM IV. That is his interpretation but we have no RS agreeing. Linehan and Gluck have their thoughts, sure, but we base articles on reliable sources - not people's blogs and tweets. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:49, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

They are good sources to learn from. Gluck brings something to the surface that was formerly close to the dark web. An important researcher. But you may ignore her as a reliable source. The conversation in the YouTube explains a lot about SS en the Eunuch fetish and that it is 100% the same as what is described in the DSM IV. A Wider Lens (talk) 19:55, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

As if the castration fetish doesn't exist anymore all of a sudden. It is evident you are unaware of the changes of approach between DSM IV and DSM V. If you were to look into that, you would understand there is no such revisionism going on. No matter though, because neither version of the manual mentions skoptic syndrome - the page subject. That is the point. Again, I refer you to my earlier comments - there is probably a subject here, but I am unconvinced it goes by this name. What secondary sources discuss this? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

It disappeared in the V, how can that not be revision? My source i have is Gluck/Linehan (links mentoined above). Gluck is as far as i know the only investigative journalist that accuratelly researched the Eunuch Archive. She broke in this secret website and wrote about 5 articles about it. Also she exposed the Archive links in this process and how this dark web website is connected to WPATH, leaked castrations done by Marci Bowers and a massive archive of ‘fiction’ about children/young adult castration. I find it pretty unbelievable such a source is assumed to be either OR or No RS. Her articles are full of screenshots even.

Second, the term Skoptic syndrome was mentioned by Linehan in their Youtube where they explain this cult-like fetish group/website. He says something like: ‘this paraphilia is known among psychiatrists. It is described in the DSM IV. Which is totally true, but not with the literal mention of the words ‘Skoptic syndrome’. But how does SS differ from what is mentioned in that specific paragraph? It simply does not: guys that desire to remove testicles and penises. That is what it is, for both the DSM as well as the Skoptic Syndrome. Here is a link written by John Money about SS: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J056v01n01_09

and here one by Eli Coleman:

https://psychotherapy.psychiatryonline.org/doi/abs/10.1176/appi.psychotherapy.1990.44.2.204?download=true&journalCode=apt

That proves Linehan was not just making up some term.

More recently WPATH published the SOC-8 in which they newspeaked the paraphilia as being a gender identity: the Eunuch identity. Again this exactly what SS is and what is described in the DSM IV.

This all above is pretty much all the sources you will find online: Money, Coleman, Linehan, Gluck. Money and Coleman are undeniable RS on this topic. I understand trans activistic motivated people will deny Linehan and Gluck, since they are gender critical activists. Let’s not call then ‘anti-trans’. They are critical on the cultlike movement and on the iatrogenic aspects of the provided form of healthcare. They consider trans kids unfortunate misled victims. Not Anti. They are anti dodgy people abusing the gender privileges (weird dudes on toilets that film themselves, infringement issues on women’s rights, prison issues, healthcare malpractice, etc). That is not ‘anti-trans’.

2A02:A443:5030:1:51E1:C770:69C8:D433 (talk) 06:47, 31 March 2024 (UTC) (A Wider Lens)

Money (2008) is the primary source that framed this term. See Notability section above. Coleman and Cesnik (2018) use the term, but the paper is again a primary source examining a proposed treatment. What secondary sources use this term? Remember that Wikipedia is a tertiary source and notability is established by, and articles should be written based on, secondary sourcing. Please note that trans activism is a red herring. I am asking about the sourcing for this term. I have said nothing about trans activism. As for the difference between DSM-IV and DSM-5, I said it was not revisionism. Clearly there was a revision. If you know the methodology and thinking behind DSM-5, you will understand why that took place. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:54, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I think you have a strange view on the issue of primary sources and secundary sources. When there is only one primary source that is a claim by an unknown irrelevant guy it makes sense to ask for a secundary source to prove the primary source makes sense. But John Money is the authority on this subject in this case. Anyway, I found multiple sources now and will add them in the main text as the secundary sources, supporting John Money as the primary source. Money's article as well as that of Eli Coleman is cited by plenty of reliable and relevant institutes on top of that even.

To name a few that mention the Skoptic Syndrome articles:

• International Journal of Sexual Health [2]
• Uk's NHS (National Health Service) [3]
• American Psychological Association[4]
• Again APA [5]
• British Medical Journal [6]
• ScienceDirect [7]
• European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry [8]
• Current Psychiatry Reports [9]
• BMJ again [10]
• A Marilyn manson painting. (How can the term not exist when this painting depicts the phenomenon?)[11]
• Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde, Dutch main magazine for healthcare. [12]
• Academia.edu [13]
• International Journal of Transgender Health [14]
• I guess I have cited enough scientific institutes now that acknowledge the term Skoptic Syndrome.

A Wider Lens (talk) 15:05, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I do not have a strange view about primary sources. I linked the policy above. See WP:SECONDARY which says:

Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if it has been published by a reliable secondary source.

As I also said, secondary sources are required to establish the notability of a topic. Furthermore, Just googling the term and pasting the results will not do. You need to understand the sources to neutrally assess what they are saying. Let's look at these to examine what you found. I'll keep the same order you list above:

• [15] is just Money (2008) again! As explained at least twice now, this is WP:PRIMARY
• [16] is just Coleman and Cesnik (1990) again. I misdated it above, but it is the same one you cited before! Primary source as above. The NIH is not the NHS, and is in any case not the publisher. That would be the American Journal of Psychotherapy. Elsewhere in this discussion, you have misquoted DSM-IV, got the numbering confused, and said you only know what is in DSM because of a YouTube video you watched. Here you don't seen to be able to read a citation, nor recognise a primary source from a secondary one. I think you may be out of your depth here.
• [17] - Money (1998). Yes, that Money. Just another paper from the person who has coined this. See Notability section. Primary source.
• [18] - again this is Coleman and Cesnik (1990). It is the APA again because this is the same paper. Primary source examining a treatment.
• [19] This BMJ case report is titled Genitalia self-mutilation commanded by hallucinations: a psychointensive case of Klingsor syndrome. So not Skoptic syndrome, although it suggests some literature may call it that. Primary source.
• [20] - Just a list of abstracts. Which paper are you even referring to?
• [21] Primary source that merely cites Coleman and Cesnik (1990).
• [22] - Abstract does not mention Skoptic syndrome. Appears to be a case report. Primary source. Did you read this paper? Or any of them?
• [23] - BMJ again because it is the same case report as above. Did you look at the doi number even?
• [24] - A wiki. Self published source. Not reliable.
• [25] Nothing in the summary about Skoptic syndrome. Did you read the article?
• [26] - A master's degree class assignment paper. Not a WP:RS. Possibly the first secondary source cited, but nope, masters degree assignment papers are not considered reliable.
• [27] Autocastration and Autopenectomy as Surgical Self-Treatment in Incarcerated Persons with Gender Identity Disorder. Does not mention Skoptic syndrome in the abstract. Did you read this paper? Primary source.

So this was a waste of time. None of these are reliable secondary sources, your list is heavily repetitive, and it appears that you did not realise that. You do not seem to know how to cite a paper, and I see no evidence you read or understood any of these. You show no evidence of evaluating the sources. Indeed, you don't seem to know what was in them. Competence is required to edit Wikipedia, and I am sorry, but I do not think you have the competence to edit an article such as this. You appear to be trying to make some points you have seen in a video. You do not seem to understand the subject. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:40, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@A Wider Lens the DSM 4 is indeed a reliable source, but does not mention skoptic syndrome. You are right we absolutely want to see reliable sources saying "skoptic syndrome is ...", that applies for any article.

Graham Linehan is an anti-trans activist, not " totally reliable as experts both on the whole trans debate." Linehan ranting about trans people for years on his Twitter account and blog does not make him an expert by any stretch of the imagination. Nobody but him and his fans think he's an expert. But even ignoring that, WP:Self Published Sources are not reliable sources.

Skoptic Syndrome is not just a hoax, but a fetish/'gender identity' with some serious concerning aspects you have yet to provide reliable sources for this statement. I think you will find Wikipedia has a consistent definition of original research, you insisting something is true with 1) no citations to RS and 2) citations to a dude ranting on his blog and the materials of conversion therapy lobbyists like Genspect will continue to be OR no matter who you ask Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:35, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

The fact that you use words such as 'anti-trans activist' and calling Genspect a conversion therapy lobby group exposes that you are highly TRA (activistic defending the WPATH-ideology). That is fine, I have a different opinion obviously. Genspect is not a 'conversion therapy lobby group' but a group devoted to Evidence-based medicine and highly critical on the gender affirming care models such as the Dutch protocol and SOC-8. The English wikipedia doesn't even have the Dutch protocol article yet. How on earth is that possible? See https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_protocol and google translate. There are plenty of articles about that protocol and how problematic it is and how it relates to WPATH and SOC. For instance this one: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0092623X.2022.2150346

Or more eay to read: https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2023/04/gender-affirming-care-debate-europe-dutch-protocol/673890/

About Genspect: check the advisory board on their website. It is full of high profile experts. Not just a bunch on 'ranting' anti-trans activists. It is the serious scientific opposition of the activistic WPATH in fact. With WPATH fast declining in memberships and this group is flourishing very fast in acceptance. Biggs, Shellenberger, Pluckrose, Marcus Evans (former GIDS), Sue Evans (former GIDS), Hakeem (former Tavistock), Littman (ROGD) Steven Levine, Shrier and O' Malley are not a bunch of low profile people on this topic. A Wider Lens (talk) 19:52, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

@A Wider Lens I despise WPATH but keep guessing. I suggest you strike your personal attacks and stick to discussing content rather than attributing motives. Graham Linehan is indeed an anti-trans activist, and Genspect is a WP:FRINGE advocacy organization that pushes Gender exploratory therapy, a rebrand of conversion therapy. If you want to argue that Genspect is the new WPATH and a reliable source, or Graham Linehans blog is a reliable source, take it to WP:RSN, but don't expect anyone to agree. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:00, 30 March 2024 (UTC)