“According to new research, there may be a surprisingly effective way for men to increase their lifespans — but it requires a pretty severe alteration to the physical body that may not appeal to everybody.
An international team led by researchers from the University of Otago in New Zealand were able to show that castration of male sheep delays the aging of DNA, and the same principles could apply to humans as well.
–Victor Tangermann, “Wanna Delay Aging? Get Castrated, Scientists Say
It’s not an ideal solution..” Futurism. July 7, 2021.
I’ll just point to “Ask Your Doctor: Is Castration Right For You?” published on this very blog on May 25, 2017. Now, we can add sheep to the myriad examples.
cafebedouin.org 
There’s gotta be an awful joke in there somewhere but I can’t formulate it. The thing that life extension folks seem to miss is that by depriving oneself of calories or testosterone or whatever, one is trading quality for quantity — and only if something doesn’t go badly wrong first (didn’t see that bus in time?). I’d rather have 60 years of robust life and 15–20 years of decline (the norm for most of us) rather than 90+ years missing out on stuff.
Part of me agrees with you. Part of me thinks that if castration became a normative gender choice and a sizable subset of the population of men chose it because it solved certain problems, like the 10% of U.S. men that choose vasectomies, it could be a public health intervention of significance. I also think there are men that would think that losing interest in sex due to castration and having a longer life as a win/win option.
I can’t generalize across an entire gender, or even the 160+ million Americans ones. No doubt there would be some earnest initiates seeking to be in the vanguard for the sheer weirdness of it. The embedded assumptions are what give me pause: that it’s (1) a salutary health invention and would be a good thing to (2) live longer and (3) forfeit libido.
A choice to give up libido and live longer would be one worth consideration. Of course, we don’t have that choice.
Also, unrelated to this thread but to yours, every time I get all excited about diversity in that community, I think about Maldonado spiking Riot Fest, how Chuy got into the 4th District (last minute retirement by Gutiérrez and Chuy the only one with enough signatures to get on the ballot), etc. And, I am reminded how many people view the world through the me and mine lens and not the melting pot lens, which makes me a little less excited about diversity as an unqualified good. It only works when everyone buys in, rather than the people in positions of power using the “earmuffs” to try to represent a particular community nationally or even locally, as we see with Riot Fest “concerns” that don’t seem to be there during The Puerto Rican Parade. At the same time, Riot Fest is probably a symptom of the larger gentrification changing the community, so why not fight it? Anyway, politics in the city is the worst.
I know nothing of Maldonado or Riot Fest, and my interest in Chuy Garcia ended when he stopped being a means of driving Rahm Emanuel out of office. Although I didn’t argue them, I have read evolutionary and public health arguments for xenophobia, which only make sense with low-information individuals. Others of us can rise above our base fears and instincts, and for that matter, muticulti concerns being used as a divide-and-conquer bludgeon.
Is it xenophobia to be in a Hispanic neighborhood and be against gentrification? Or, being white in once Hispanic neighborhood where Hispanic politicians represent their communities rather than the whole ward? And, there’s also the question the city itself raises, which is it valuable to have distinct ethnic communities as part of the larger fabric of the city or is diversity writ large better, in some sense? As with anything, there are trade-offs no matter what choices you make.