The BBC headline read, “‘Eunuch-maker’ mutilator jailed for 22 years’[i] – it was enough to grab anyone’s attention. The article spoke of a degenerate group, led by Marius Gustavson, impersonating surgeons and performing ‘extreme body modifications’ on paying customers, then streaming the procedures online for subscribers.
I will not recount the story in detail, but the BBC article does highlight one significant phrase used by the defence to explain Gustavson’s actions: ‘Body Integrity Dysphoria’ (BID).
BID is defined as “a rare… condition in which there is a mismatch between the mental body image and the physical body.”[ii] Surgery for it is illegal in the UK, and its sufferers are recommended intense psychotherapy.
Seeing themselves as ‘transabled’, BID individuals (or ‘wannabes’) may wish to undergo surgical intervention to disable them, allowing them to live as their ‘true’ selves. Gustavson is one of these wannabes, having had his own genitalia removed, as well as part of his nipple, and his leg frozen.
In Gustavson’s case, Judge Lucraft concluded that sexual gratification was a significant factor informing Gustavson’s actions. All sixteen charges were related to the mutilation of the testicles or penis of his victims – hence, ‘Eunuch-make’.[iii]
Lucraft also remarked that the 22,800 subscribers to the website which broadcast these butcheries, were doing so “no doubt… for their own sexual gratification.”
The men obtaining Gustavson’s ‘services’ were often asking for these procedures to be done; he was not kidnapping them – Lucraft concedes there was some element of consent. So clearly, some of Gustavson’s victims desired their emasculation.
The emasculation and BID elements of this case show the intersection between ‘transitioning’ either sexually or in ability, through autogynephilia.
Autogynephilia is “a male's propensity to be sexually aroused by the thought of himself as a female”.[iv] It can range from imagination or cross-dressing to surgical intervention. BID fantasies also often cause sexual arousal,[v] and without surgical ‘help’, wannabes may wrap limbs or use wheelchairs to ‘present’ as disabled.[vi]
The issue at the core of the Gustavson case is autogynephilia to its most extreme paraphilic extent.
In the 80’s, psychologist Ray Blanchard showed that male-to-female transsexuals, if not driven by homosexuality, were overwhelmingly autogynephilic. This study was reemphasised by Dr Anne Lawrence (a transsexual and self-proclaimed autogynephile) in 2017.[vii]
If many in society already accept surgery for autogynephilia, why not transabling surgeries? The medical ethic of non-maleficence has already been eroded by gender-reassignment and abortion; it’s not lunacy to expect that this will soon include ‘transabling’ people.
The Gustavson case has rightly been seen as evil, but how long before correct empathy for the victims is allied to the trans-rights movement; before “my body my choice” is not just a cry for surgical gender-reassignment and the right to kill babies, but for the right to remove limbs or sever spinal cords? The research is already moving down this slippery slope.
Intersectional literature on BID and transsexuality often supports surgery for BID. In their BJPsych article[viii], Barrow and Oyebode conclude that, despite medical ethics opposing it, BID may require surgical intervention:
“There is, in our view, no logical difference between the conceptual status of BID and transsexualism. Hence, given that individuals with transsexualism are offered gender reassignment surgery it seems to us that individuals with BID ought at least to be considered for treatment, including elective amputation in some cases.”[ix]
This information isn’t in some whacky magazine, it’s in a journal endorsed by the Royal College of Psychiatrists.
Barrow, Oyebode and others[x] see little difference between a transsexual getting surgery to remove genitalia, and transabled person getting surgery to amputate an arm.
Sadly, they are right!
We need to be ready to respond when BID inevitably gathers public support. Christian's are uniquely positioned to do this thanks to our values.
In Catholicism for example, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith recently published Dignitas Infinita. It reemphasises the dignity and value of human bodies, stating that unnatural bodily change (in this case sex-change) “risks threatening the unique dignity the person has received...”[xi]
Some helpful lines from the document, originally about ‘gender theory’ but applicable to BID, say:
“Desiring a personal self-determination… apart from this fundamental truth that human life is a gift, amounts to a concession to the age-old temptation to make oneself God...”[xii]
Additionally, the document reminds us, as Pope Francis said, that “we are called to protect our humanity, and this means, in the first place, accepting it and respecting it as it was created.”[xiii]
We must be ready to oppose calls for surgical intervention for BID, even if it means being labelled ‘transabilist’ or ‘transablephobic’. However, there is hope. Small shifts are happening in public perception.
The recent Cass Review[xiv] showed the lack of evidence to support transitioning children, recommending non-medical interventions to ‘manage gender related distress’. In 2022, the Tavistock centre, which offered gender reassignment to children, was closed. In both cases Dr Cass has recommended greater psychological help for gender dysphoric children; particularly around neurodivergence and autism.
In 2023 the DfE published its guidance for schools around ‘gender questioning children’.[xv] Outlining a ‘parent-first approach’, it protects pupils and staff from any legal obligation to comply with a pupil’s chosen pronouns.
Despite these positives, we need to ready for BID. Thankfully, Christianity gives us some good starting points.
Bibliography
[i] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-68977469
[ii] Blom, Rianne M. et al. “Body integrity identity disorder.” PLOS One 7(4) (2012): e34702. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0034702
[iii] https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/R-v-Gustavson-and-others-Sentencing-Remarks.pdf
[iv] Anne A. Lawrence, ‘Autogynephilia: An Underappreciated Paraphilia’, in R. Balon (ed.), Sexual Dysfunction: Beyond the Brain-Body Connection, (2011) https://doi.org/10.1159/isbn.978-3-8055-9825-5
[v] Barry, Peter Brian. ‘The Ethics of Voluntary Amputation.’ Public Affairs Quarterly 26, no. 1 (2012): 2–3. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41698212.
[vi] Barrow E, Oyebode F. ‘Body Integrity Identity Disorder: clinical features and ethical dimensions. BJPsych Advances, 25(3) (2019): 187-195. doi:10.1192/bja.2018.55
[vii] Lawrence, Anne A., ‘Autogynephillia and the Typology of Male-to-Female Transsexualism’, European Psychologist, 22(1) (2017): 39-54. https://annelawrence.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Lawrence-2017-AGP-and-typology-of-MtF.pdf
[viii] Ibid.
[ix] Ibid.
[x] See Baril, Alexandre, and Catriona Leblanc. “Needing to Acquire a Physical Impairment/Disability: (Re)Thinking the Connections between Trans and Disability Studies through Transability.” Hypatia 30(1) (2015): 30–48. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24542057.
[xi] Dignitas Infinata, 55-60. https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_ddf_doc_20240402_dignitas-infinita_en.html
[xii] Ibid., 57.
[xiii] Ibid., 60.
[xiv] https://cass.independent-review.uk/home/publications/final-report/
Catholic Herald version - https://thecatholicherald.com/body-integrity-dysphoria-what-it-is-and-why-catholics-need-to-be-aware-of-it/
Photo: From official Metropolitan Police website https://news.met.police.uk/images/marius-gustavson-dot-jpg-3023777