Extreme body modification case

ArabellaScott · 23/03/2023 10:06

Yes, here he is. Actually, there are two.

I remember the article, it's nauseating and enrages me that they're out there, doing their thing.

These cases are still dragging through the courts

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12864573/Hotel-worker-admits-taking-castration-extreme-body-modification-plot-operations-livestreamed-Eunuch-Maker-website.html

It is a major difference and if they are following medical norms then it wouldn't be GBH. However, though someone medically qualified is unlikely to commit gbh they still sometimes do things that are not medically required, and people who are completely untrained might sometimes do something that is medically required (eg cutting off a trapped limb whilst on expedition).

The thing with gender affirming surgery is that there seems to have been a decision that it medically necessary to do this when someone has gender dysphoria. How it can be justified as medically necessary for cosmetic/ideological purposes is another question.

We’re the people doing the penis removal medically qualified and licensed to practice?
Thats a major difference

There is an interesting Reduxx article on the ringleader in this current case, Marius Gustavson, (aka The Eunuch Maker) re: his positions in various LGBT orgs.

I won’t direct link to it while the trial is ongoing for risk of getting the thread pulled.

Seems like it’s a really complicated case with multiple defendants, possibly split into more than 1 trial?

Three men have been charged with causing the injuries that Gustavson had chosen to have inflicted on him, so the main defendant is also a victim, from a criminal charges POV (even if not from a moral/ethical POV?!)

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/paying-audience-watched-livestream-penis-29529110.amp

so while changing the shape of someone’s nose or breasts for aesthetic reasons is an arguably justifiable endeavour, removing them entirely is not.

So then the argument will be "it's unkind to say that someone with no nose/breasts/leg isn't aesthetically pleasing. Therefore removing them "for reasons I say are aesthetic" is fine, and you can't argue it's any different."

The whole thing is really interesting and clearly an example of why we should be looking at the whole person and the reasons they want to modify their body.

This case is interesting to me as my current position on gender related physical interventions is that it should be classified as something in the extreme body modification/cosmetic surgery realm - ie it should be entirely self funded and only available to adults.
But this becomes a bit of an issue in that doctors can’t just be amputating healthy bits on a person’s say so because medical ethics are (rightly!) a thing, so while changing the shape of someone’s nose or breasts for aesthetic reasons is an arguably justifiable endeavour, removing them entirely is not.
This is reflected in current cosmetic surgical practice in the UK, eg a woman can choose to have a breast reduction or enlargement as long as she is an adult, seems mentally competent, has a realistic expectation of the outcome and is able to pay for it.

Whereas ‘top surgery’ (double mastectomy for aesthetic reasons) requires a gender Dysphoria diagnosis and a separate surgical referral (usually from a specialist psychiatrist or clinical psychologist although there are a couple of UK based surgeons who are a bit less stringent re: who the make the referral).

But NICE say there is insufficient/very low evidence that current NHS interventions (hormones/mastectomy/genital modification surgeries) are an effective treatment for gender dysphoria so I’m not convinced that these extra requirements are much more than a buck-passing charade?

Someone I (vaguely) know IRL got a custodial sentence for amputating an ear (and splitting a tongue and removing a nipple).
All of these were ostensibly consensual body modifications paid for by the customers who had signed paperwork stating their consent (the man who had his ear amputated later said he wouldn’t have gone ahead with it if he’d known the legal implications).

None of the customers pressed charges and nothing went wrong with the procedures - however the premises were deemed unsuitable (typical body piercing studio in a retail area so licensed by the council on the basis of cleanliness/sharps disposal etc but not a medical facility).

https://www.expressandstar.com/news/crime/2019/03/21/dr-evil-extreme-body-artist-gets-40-month-sentence-for-ear-and-nipple-removal/

Obvs it’s not safe to be cutting bits and bobs off people in a retail unit without any medical qualifications so I’m not objecting to the prosecution in this case, but philosophically it seems to me to be much more ethical to agree to cut off someone’s ear or nipple because they like the aesthetics of only having one ear or no nipples than it is to agree to cut off someone’s breasts or testicles to ‘affirm’ their cross sex ‘gender identity’.

A castration in a hospital by a qualified doctor is physically safer than a home castration by a castration enthusiast(?) but is it psychologically safer?

I listened to the most recent episode of the Witch Trials of JK Rowling yesterday and the 17 year old transman, Noah, makes a massive deal about how his mastectomy was recommended by doctors as a treatment for medically diagnosed Dysphoria and that because it was approved by doctors and therapists it’s obviously the right thing to do and thus Noah will live happily ever after and never regret anything because: doctors.

At least getting your bollocks chopped off by a hobbiest bollock-chopper in a grubby back bedroom doesn’t come with a load of false promises 🤷‍♀️

As a pp noticed, there is a CSA charge there too.

Eliza Mondegreen who posts on Twitter attended a WPATH conference and talked to Benjamin Boyce about eunuchs etc if I recall. In the unlikely event of anyone wanting to find out more.

Take your point on comparisons AmuseBish.

I suppose you could argue that the opportunity to participate in the process by "live-stream' is not that far removed from plastic surgery being televised or featured on a surgeon's tik tok account. And I often feel uncomfortable at how 'GoFundMe' pages for top surgeries, lead to an obligation to show 'progress' and a steady stream of topless photos of young men and women to anyone who has bunged £5 into the kitty - in a kind of 'I helped pay for those breasts/that breast removal - I need to see where my money has gone'.

I just thought the adjacency of a ghoul who's had their penis, nipple and leg removed for the satisfaction of their own and others' sexual paraphilia, was a wee bit... blunt? And we have no way of knowing if any of the participants were non-consenting or not able to give consent to such procedures. It's a horrific case.

But then again, that issue of "being able to give consent' rings a bell too...

The fact that the NHS continues to use WPATH to base guidelines on is just astonishing to me.

For clarity: Profs, academics, not medical doctors. But working with WPATH.

Yes, here he is. Actually, there are two.

https://reduxx.info/top-academic-behind-fetish-site-hosting-child-sexual-abuse-fantasy-push-to-revise-wpath-guidelines/

in many jurisdictions, it would be a crime to try to dissuade them?

This is the most terrifying part of all. We used to be clear that <think caring for a horse> was rightly illegal, but now there seems to be a widespread mindset that the people trying to prevent it are the baddies acting illegally.

Wasn't there something about a male doctor (?), who is a central figure in these eunuch archives (where he goes by the name 'Jesus'). He writes disturbing stories about his fetish and doles out advice among the subculture. He is/was either on the WPATH board or gave them lots of advice. This is insane to me. Tinfoil hat territory, in most circumstances. But it happened!

Why does someone who has a disorder that makes them want to sever an arm, mentally ill but if that same person wants the same to their genitalia, they're perfectly sane and, in many jurisdictions, it would be a crime to try to dissuade them?

I read this with horror - but, just like you, OP, struggled to see how it was really any different from a very young adult identifying as trans having the same done to them.

Technically, they consent; but we've all seen and heard the testimonies of detransitioners and it's very clear that they were not consenting with anything like full awareness of the lifelong consequences - how many people would truly want that 'trade', if they were in full possession and understanding of the facts?

It's widely sold as simply moving from fully and healthily functioning as one sex to fully and healthily functioning as the other sex, but the truth is starkly different - how could it be anything but?

When you compare two things, you're not (necessarily) saying "they are exactly the same", but pointing out the similarities (both to achieve a gender desired by the person) and differences.

So because charity person didnt live stream it, it's different?
WPATH are the only "experts" on trans so their word is gospel. Therefore eunuch is a valid identity, never mind how they came to be that way.

I read about this with mounting horror. It seems one of the accused has carried out self-mutilation, consented to their own mutilation by others and inflicted it on other (willing? unwilling?) victims.

I think it's harsh of people to try and compare this to what a certain charity person had done to their child. No matter what you think of that person and the outcome, it really doesn't compare to this allegedly porn-addled, sadistic bunch. They were live-streaming and getting people to pay and watch FGS.

I agree with the disgust that WPATH seek to legitimise nullification and eunuch status but the digs elsewhere are going too far I think.

Seems to depend somewhat on the body part.

Doctor who amputated legs when someone had BIID got in bother. This person is accused of amputating someone's leg.

But sex organs seems to be acceptable so long as one has the correct certification.

Is it only GBH when the person doing the cutting off isn't medically qualified? And when the person being cut admits it's a fetish? Otherwise it's life-saving care, right?

It's a bit transphobic of the Guardian not to recognise eunuch gender tbh and calling them a "subculture". This is gender-affirming healthcare.

Eunuch is a legitimate, recognised gender according to WPATH. Some UK orgs including some NHS get their gender policies from WPATH.

genevievegluck.substack.com/

Her more recent interviews with Glinner and possibly Boyce are shocking

I believe all of that is ensconced in the WPATH guidelines, Genevieve Gluck has done a lot of research on this.