Is there some deep flaw in this assumption? Does the removal of the testicles result in a longer life expectancy fairly consistently?
-
Similar question– WilliamCommented Aug 17, 2018 at 2:18
-
A proposal for a double blind test has been rejected by the ethical committee.– Count IblisCommented Aug 21, 2018 at 14:37
-
@CountIblis do you have a source for this? I find it interesting sterilization is okay(transgender is okay with female hormones) but removing testicles is well considering not allowed.– WilliamCommented Aug 21, 2018 at 14:58
-
Data from such studies won't be as good as from properly conducted double blind studies :) .– Count IblisCommented Aug 21, 2018 at 15:03
1 Answer
To answer this question properly is going to need a prospect double blinded controlled trial. That is not going to happen in a normal world.
You can try looking at historical data, like the one referred to in this Huff Post article but that type of restrospective data is highly flawed.
their average non-eunuch contemporaries, who tended to live between 50.9 and 55.6 years.
So, the intact men were living short lives, much shorter than contemporary men suggesting that there was something in that ancient era that affected their health then. But what's the relevance to modern society?
-
Animals trails show longer life expectancy. With the transgender there could be an interesting argument made I think l.– WilliamCommented Aug 17, 2018 at 23:24
-
Dogs are prone to perianal tumors unless you castrate them. Doesn't really help in providing definitive human data which is what this site is about. Commented Aug 17, 2018 at 23:26
-
Isn't there also a link with violence and crime leading to premature deaths? The vast majority of all violent crime incidents are committed by men. If a society would castrate all men before puberty, would that make crime rates plummet? And would the subsequent savings on the police and judicial infrastructure allow more money to be allocated for healthcare? Commented Aug 21, 2018 at 15:11