Discussion on:

Eunuch study may explain why women live longer than men

I don't know what planet you're from, but it sure ain't that way around here. Certainly not for my wife or daughter, nor for any of the women I know.

I'm not really sure what this research, if you can call it that shows.

Men who have been castrated early enough in life so they have major hormonal changes so they are different from normal men.

I'm not really sure the survey sample or control group have any bearing on the wider population.

"This is the strongest evidence yet that testosterone the key difference between the eunuchs and their peers in this study **and a proxy for the difference between women and men** plays a role."

A proxy for the difference between men and women - what a complete load of bollocks. It's obvious to anyone with a brain that this is complete rubbish, and the life and body chemistry of Eunach's is completely different from women. The circumstances of women and events in their lives through growth, sexual maturity, childbirth, menopause etc has not even been touched on, and it you say a man with no balls is broadly similar, you need fired for repeating this utter rubbish.

Unfortunately, this kind of literary manure has become the stock and trade of Smart Planet. They are repeatedly called out for by their more critical thinking readers and instead of responding accordingly with better efforts - they actually get worse. This has to be the overt decision of their editor and Andrew Nusca and their publisher CBS. The obvious conclusion here is that provocation - even stupid provocation sells better than hard facts and good journalism - which require competently training professionals in both journalism and subject matter to write about them. Of course the other obvious conclusion is that we are apparently are clinically insane (doing the same thing expecting a different outcome) for continuing to come here to read the articles.

...of the people who have called them out. But there are cogent facts here.

One fact is that men without gonads lived (much) longer than similarly-situated men WITH gonads in place. And another fact is that there is mostly just the ONE thing different, between with-gonads, and without-gonads groups, isn't there? And that one thing is down to the testosterone, isn't it?

So THERE is your male-female difference-by-proxy -- the lack of testosterone.

This IS science, but of the suggestive kind, not of the proof kind. But so what -- I doubt they spent much of anyone's money on it anyway...

And okay, next you are going to say what good is science without a proof... but if they had never done this study, we would have missed out on some really juicy information, now wouldn't we? So what, if we "have to" wait some more to get the answer -- they never SAID they had the answer, did they? And the counter-factual is that they never even told us this...

"This IS science, but of the suggestive kind, not of the proof kind. But so what -- I doubt they spent much of anyone's money on it anyway..."

Sorry, good science is evidence based, and the evidence has to be of 'quality', not any old hor5esh1t scraped off the floor. A man with no balls and low on testosterone is a Proxy for being a woman - it's despairing this is being touted as science news.

...is its editor. And I haven't let up for a moment.

I'm getting tired of the complaints. You're clearly not reading this website critically -- more than half of the writers who work for this site are tasked with doing original reporting, and that number has been steadily rising for more than a year. Where are your comments on the Q&As, foreign dispatches, expert columns and long-form feature stories that run every week? Or is it too easy to ignore those on the way to your conclusion?

If you don't like controversial science, that's fine. But don't confuse controversy with accuracy. What's written about above is presented accurately, fairly and -- above all -- it's not junk science!

You continue to insult the hard-working people of this publication by continually calling into question their credentials and professionalism. I'm more than willing to entertain suggestions, and I welcome them. But I'm tired of the trolling. I've given you my direct contact information multiple times, Durwood, with an open-door policy. You have yet to take advantage of that.

Look -- I appreciate your passion. Without question, I think scientific professionals (and independent business owners) like you make our community better. Your comments on articles about aquaculture and the industries that support it are priceless. We clearly share a desire to make SmartPlanet the best it can be. So why keep trying to tear everything down? Be a reader that contributes to, not detracts from, the conversation -- and perhaps we'll have a better one as a result.

You are conflating 2 sets of research data - Men low and testosterone living longer and women in general live longer than men. There is no real link between the 2, and calling a man without balls as being a Proxy for being a woman is just plain wrong. It's grubbing the bottom in the same manner as research on Homeopathy showing 'it works'.

Stand up for your journalism, instead of whinging you are getting your balls broken over this low quality piece of science news.

I think the article's title, once again, is misleading. These results strongly suggest that testosterone shortens men's lives, but it's another stretch of logic to say that it's "why women live longer." It's not out of the question though.

Just hating on Smart Planet or what?

...ANY article mentioning gonads is from Satan, and for people who had to look "gonads" up, it may be from even further down...

Add to that the "cutting off" thing, and...

And perhaps even more interesting are the hostile comments from readers. Anyone would think you were advocating for removing their gonads.

I see nothing wrong in this article, which is doing the job of drawing the lay-reader's attention to an interesting (and possibly controversial) study in ScienceNOW.

Science is always advanced at the expense of conventional wisdom. If conventional wisdom were correct, we wouldn't need science at all. To the more reasonable doubters, I would suggest that they re-read the article and consider that the researchers will have used scientific methods to eliminate other variables from the calculations - such as work load, worries etc.

I should come as no surprise since we also know that the corolary is true - increasing testosterone can shorten lifespan.

More like hear say.

What is wrong with this article is that is it conflating 2 sets of research.

I think the findings and the conclusions of the study group make a lot of sense.
Onyi

Did they have pain killer? 8(*%^#&)

Seriously, the normal way to castrate anyone is to put a simple rubber band around the scrotum above the testicles, and simply leave it there for a few days.

I've done lambs that way. Problem solved.

Hang in there Janet, 'all' information is good and welcome, whether it agrees with our present personal view is unimportant.. To admit otherwise is to say that we already know it all. As for me, no way ae they going to err - ahh -bhmmmm modify my physical characteristics. Too many damsels to rescue. from wicked windmills.

Don Jose de La Mancha

We want equality for the sexes! if guys live longer they should be able to give birth and raise children!!

Before I schedule the procedure... I need to know more about the deductible.

...those older guys taking testosterone supplements are committing suicide?

You ever pay attention to the list of potential side effects at the end of the ads for that stuff? Potentially deadly.

...are usually worse than the malady they are intended to cure.

...but of course they are trying to stay alive (to sex?) BY taking the supplements.

Do you suppose it occurred to the researchers consider what effect living a sheltered life in court, with good food, creature comforts, and protection from nasty social interactions like war, might have to do with longevity? Nah...

I copied this from the article so that you could read it here since you clearly didn't read it in the article itself.

"To rule out the effects of cushy conditions on longevity, they compared the eunuchs lifespans to those of uncastrated men of similar social status living at the same time . . ."

Such a comparison would only be in the most general sense - possible. From a scientific sense it would be impossible. The general lack of scientific illiteracy and critical thinking skills in the American public is absolutely amazing.

Because YOU are making sweeping assumptions of what was or was not possible for the researchers to discover through the records they had in hand.

They had the court records to tell them how long the eunuchs lived, so I think we can credit that they had records for other courtiers as well. They used those records to find out their data, and with a sample size of 81, and a LARGE difference in lifespan, I'd say the evidence was pretty "cut" and dried.

the eunuchs lived longer because they weren't constantly being reminded of their faults by women.

Perhaps it time you came out of the closet jtdavies...

C'mon - Yes, they did marry && could adopt castrated boys. Also does not mention the method of castration, ie gonads only or the whole package. Marriage and sex are not a given combo - just ask most men married for 10 years. (and some women...) And - if one require a penis for sex, there would be a lot of frustrated lesbians.

Women don't do as much? Do you KNOW any women, dude?

Women don't have to put up with as much stress? Do you know any MEN?

shorter happy life or a longer dull one.... bottom line

It's been known for some time that hormonal balance equals longevity, too much estrogen kills just as well as too much testosterone. As women get older their estrogen/testosterone balance has more testosterone - not less. As men get older and or gain weight (fat produces some estrogen an is why fat men get feminized features) their estrogen/testosterone balance moves more toward estrogen. This study if you can call it that has a totally - insignificant sample size, little if any context, has no scientific reproducibility associated with it and is basically only fit for junk science etabloids like "Smart" Planet - where sensationalism sells - as opposed to real journalism - now extinct.

There are a couple groups which could contribute to this line of research: Male to Female and Female to Male transsexuals.

MtoF transsexuals are castrated in the process of Gender Affirmation Surgery, which very rarely happens before the age of 18, and is preceded by some time of chemical testosterone suppression. (Some transsexual children do manage to avoid having the wrong puberty, but they are still a very small number, compared to the thousands of post-pubertal transitioners. Of course there is the complication that Gender Affirmation Surgery has only been really successful for about 50 years, so morbidity figures can't really be compiled with any degree of accuracy yet.

Looking at the other side of the equation, there are FtoM transsexuals who start taking exogenous testosterone, again usually post-puberty.

By examining these populations, we could get a much better picture of whether or not testosterone has deleterious effects.

This is not a scientific study. Besides someone has taken up this as a study and has reported this article. What a bunch of crock...... Well sometimes it may be true...... Look at our past presidents. They all may live a very long life as no one had the balls to correct the ills of the economy!

This is interesting data indeed, however if we're looking at eunuchs who served under kings we should also take into account lifestyle. Someone serving royalty would have access to much better food, healthcare, and living standards than a typical person, which are factors that could also extend their life. So if we're comparing lifespans of eunuchs to kings with the average male of the time, most of whom would be farmers or laborers with a markedly different lifestyle, then we can't ignore these important factors as part of the outcome. For example, what's the difference in average lifespan of someone in the royal circles vs. an average field work from that time period? I bet there would be enough of a gap to take into account.

"To rule out the effects of cushy conditions on longevity, they compared the eunuchs lifespans to those of uncastrated men of similar social status living at the same time:"

No ditch-diggers in the control group, is my guess...

Early on you say women outlive men by 5 years, then you say castrati outlive men with equipment by 19 years, huh?
Anyways, I married a Jewish girl, so I'll live a long time - happily.

Smart Planet didn't do the study or write the article, they are just reporting it, so don't shoot the messenger. Funny how upset men get if even the suggestion of a threat to their manhood is made...must be all that testosterone...lol

This is just research and theory that does give some valid points and food for thought which warrants further research. I do not understand why so many subscribers are getting so worked up about the subject.

The comments made here do to a certain extent prove that testosterone increases that chance of the human male to exhibit narrow minded,rude and aggressive behaviour at anything that is contrary to their own opinion.

To answer this question they study(?) 16th to 19th Century eunuchs? Surely, they can't be serious.

Women live longer for a variety of reasons, including (in no particular order)"

• Battle/war deaths are usually men.
  
• Stupid things young men do that get themselves killed. What are a redneck's last words? "Hey, y'all, watch this!"
  
• Murders. More men are murdered than women.
  
• Heart Attacks. Due to lifestyle issues, more men have heart attacks than do women. Of course, women are trying hard to catch up in this area.
  
• Dangerous jobs. More men work dangerous jobs than women.
  
• Life on the streets. More men than women live on the streets.

I could go on... It seems that testosterone may not be the cause. The effects of testosterone may definitely be a contributing factor.

Why do women want to be like men? Why give up the great things about being a woman to take on the worst things about being a man?

Why can't people be happy with themselves?

Why is the sky blue? Why is a shoe called a shoe?

If the hypothesis is borne out by further studies on, for example, Italian castrati, it will raise more questions. If exercise increases testosterone, how will this affect the longevity of post-menopausal women? Will testosterone patches make men die happier but sooner?
How does one balance fitness with potentially eroded immunity?

I suspect that the stats will prove themselves, but that the answer will be that castrati did not serve in the military, were less aggressive than unaltered males, and thus had a lower injury and side effect rate.

littlepitcher,
I agree with your viewpoint. The problem with an article like this is that causation (less testosterone = longer life) is often confused with correlation (eunuchs lived less dangerous lives = longer life). Having studied statistics, this is the biggest reason numbers and facts can be misused or misunderstood.

There are many others who raised good questions about the very small size of the group and the lack of any testing to support the article's premise. I don't think the writer meant any harm, only to raise an interesting question. I do think that the title is going to give the wrong impression to most readers. Some of the other cruder comments were really unfair.