Marius Gustavson is facing prosecution in London for castrating men and live-streaming the procedure for the pleasure of others.

I have to ask: why is he being prosecuted? All the “victims” identified as eunuchs, volunteering for the procedure, which Marius has undergone himself.

We used to understand that people who want to mutilate their bodies were nuts (or in the grip of a bizarre fetish). Then the LGBTQ+ lobby promoted gender identity. This gang was -allegedly- run by a campaigner for trans rights. A coincidence I’m sure….👇https://t.co/en2Xwqokkp

— Malcolm Clark (@TwisterFilm) March 23, 2023

So what’s the big deal? It was “gender-affirming care,” right?

London — A Norwegian man who had his own genitals, nipple and leg amputated appeared in a U.K. court this week accused of livestreaming the castration of other men on his “eunuch maker” website. Marius Gustavson, 45, along with eight others, is alleged to have performed extreme “body modifications” — including the removal of men’s penises and testicles — and streamed the clips for paying subscribers, the Westminster Magistrates’ Court in London heard.

Gustavson, who’s originally from Norway but lived in North London, is said to have been the ringleader of a wide-ranging conspiracy involving as many as 29 criminal offenses. He and eight other men were said to be part of a subculture of genital “nullification,” in which men willingly have their genitals removed to become “Nullos.”

What could possibly be wrong with this? The live-streaming aspect? Jazz Jennings has gone further than this, having her entire life, including the surgeries that mutilated him in a vain attempt to become a girl, to the entire world. For a lot more money than anything this guy made.

The movement is not new, and the case playing out in the U.K. isn’t the first high-profile incident related to it. In 2012, Japanese artist Mao Sugiyama, 23, had his genitals removed and then cooked and served them to paying guests at a banquet.

In a February 2022 interview with the Irish Independent, Gustavson said he had performed the genital nullification procedure on 58 other men, and that he kept the removed genitals in his freezer or stored them in alcohol.

The court heard that Gustavson, who appeared in the dock Tuesday in a wheelchair, had his own leg, penis and nipple removed. He told the Irish newspaper last year that he had the procedure done to himself because he wanted to “look like a ken doll down there.”

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Who wouldn’t want a leg cut off? And nipples on a man? Useless and apparently unsightly. And no Ken doll has a dong, so lop it off and become a “Nullo.”

Obviously, everything involved in this case is hideous, and the mind and soul recoil when one hears about it.

But given gender ideology and its near-universal acceptance these days, what exactly was wrong with any of it? It sure sounds like these men got out the other side with fewer medical problems than Jazz Jennings and lots of others have had from authorized medical procedures.

The mental gymnastics we are being forced to go through in order to maintain the cognitive dissonance necessary to accept modern gender ideology has us all turned into pretzels. There is nothing complicated about any of this in reality.

Only the current “critical consciousness” craze that rewrites the underlying truths that form the foundation of our world can justify the indefensible. The acts involved in this case are horrifying, but surely no more horrifying than sterilizing and mutilating anybody else. Less so, in fact, than what is now routinely done to children in the Western world.

If Marius Gustavson is wrong, why is it acceptable to do this and worse to children who haven’t the mental capacity to give informed consent?

There is, of course, a simple answer to what was wrong with all this: just as with children, the people involved could not actually consent because anybody who wants this done is mentally ill and in need of psychiatric treatment, not a surgical treatment.

We generally recognize that mentally ill people who present a danger to themselves need to become wards of the state or some other responsible adult because sane people don’t seek to harm themselves. Cutting off body parts would seem to qualify, don’t you think?

But apparently it depends upon some arcane ruling by an activist group. If they say it is OK, it must be. If they don’t, it isn’t.

So, gender ideologues: is what this man did to himself or others a good thing–affirming the self image of these men–or a bad thing?

I know what I would vote.