They also brought on as co-author Thomas W Johnson, who contributed a section on eunuchs. His life's work kind of speaks for itself:
If "Castration for Pleasure" and "Sadomastic Erotica: Insights from the Eunuch Archines" do not qualify as perversion to you, I believe we've hit an impasse and agree to disagree.
We've hit the impasse from the get-go, as you promoted anti-gay discrimination in housing and workplaces. And as you chestpounded about "science" while spouting out blind fanatical religious dogma. And here's that :
You are utterly pathetic in your ignorance. You take a researcher's list of scientific production and scream at perversion and blasphemy because oh noes naughty words. He could have studied shuar heads shrinking practices or ache endo-cannibalism you'd have accused him of barbaric decapitations and anthropophagy. He could have studied rural afghanistan or the motivation of shawl-wearing girls in Paris, you'd have accused him of talibanism. He'd have studied the US bible belt or french extreme-right movements you would have assumed he was your friend. In fact, a friend of mine studied prostitution (you'd call her a whore) as for me, you'd also jail me for "criminal activities".
Because you belong to a subculture which adores ignorance, adores not knowing, replacing science with blind faith, with distant prejudices. Considering that there is "nothing to know" and that investigation is suspicious, that curiosity is taboo, that interest in mankind is pointless, that the danger of re-humanizing otherness (in particular fringe, radical, counter-intuitive otherness) is an intolerable risk, that it's better not to know, better to hate from afar, better to replace fieldwork-grounded understanding with "well, w can imagine, that, logically, it should go like this".
I knew nothing about willing castration (beyond Heloïse's Abelard), it's a whole new subject to me. It's absolutely fascinating, because it boggles the mind. It makes me want to understand this new counter-intuitive human "weirdness" - what is the idea behind it, what are the representations, how does this subculture operate, what are the discourses, the practices, the explicit and implicit values. It's an absolute blind spot yet it exists, and if it exist it has to be comprehended and accounted for. By anthropological means - the suspension of judgement at least for the time of fieldwork, empathic understanding, familiarization, and proximity/distance analysis. This is how we know humans and, be extension, what being a human means in practice, what it encompasses and how. Descriptive before normative. You'll know or understand nothing about it if, not only, one keyword suffices for you to construct an imaginary version of it from afar, and then to even demonize those who do the work of checking out what's going out in reality (what, how, why, etc).
It's no surprise. You're the one who freely redefines words and concepts to fit your views, and deny the existence of what doesn't fit. You're so smugly ignorant that you don't even comprehend the tools for knowledge. I see "zoophilia" brandished as a boogeyman word throughout this forum, the fact is that barely anyone here truly know what it's about (and which opposing currents clash within it), and if I happen to know a bit about its nuances, complexities and proximities with "us", that's because I was lucky enough to assist in a presentation by a researcher who dedicated enough investigative time among zoophile circles. While the "closest", most "neighbouring" subcultures are often fascinating to grasp, the most "remote" (in terms of geography or sensitivity or even legality) are usually the most difficult fieldworks - my admiration is absolute for the researchers who immerse themselves in the most uncomfortable fields, be them gangs of drug dealers or white supremacist groups. Or odd sexualities. And my contempt is absolute for the people like you, who glorify blindness and denounce actual research.
So yes of course. If we need expertise on sexualiies and gender, better have a specialist who has studied, on the field, sexual minorities of all kinds. And knows what s/he's talking about. Better than someone who just stayed at home licking his bible and imagining the world outside before passing judgement.