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.