This conversation has been long overdue. We are, once again, at crossroads and asking ourselves what to do when sexual violence persists despite tough laws and loud promises. The latest proposal of introducing chemical castration for certain sexual offenders has – expectedly – ignited outrage, applause, fear and misinformation in equal measure.
I read the comment section underneath one popular news outlet on the said topic and the comments were appalling, to say the least. To turn this into a gender war is quite disturbing, because isn’t the war on sexual violence supposed to unite us all? Is it not a fight all of us should be fighting? And why are people behaving as if there are no female sexual offenders? Why does a specific gender feel targeted? Does that not then, speak volumes about them than anything else?
“My biggest concern why does it have to affect one gender? Boy child seems to be the only offender as sexual offences are concerned” one user commented. “Feminist ideology. What benefits does it bring after castration. Nothing , it is just satisfying feminist anger.” another one commented in fury.
I understand where these people are coming from (to be honest I don’t, but I am at least trying to…) however, why do you feel like you are being targeted, if deep down you know this has nothing to do with you? If your conscious is clear, why does a discussion on what to do to sexual offenders have you so worked up? Unless of course, there is something you know that the rest of us do not.
Another one said, “I support all moves that promotes deterrence to sexual offenses. However hii ya castration it need to be looked at properly. Some cases in the past, when appealed, have found the offense was a fabrication due to some various issues. How bad will it be when someone lost their transformer to castration on a fabricated offense?“
And that right there sums up all the fear and misinformation doing the rounds on social media.
For starters, this is not about first time offenders. So the probability of someone being chemically castrated for a wrong they did not do is close to nil. And it is not about vigilante justice. The proposal as it currently stands, targets repeat and serious sexual offenders, particularly those convicted of defilement and sexual violence against children and persons with disabilities. Now, good sir, do you still feel targeted?
What Is Chemical Castration?
Chemical castration is a medical intervention and not a surgical one. It involves the administration of drugs that suppress testosterone production, thereby reducing sexual drive and compulsive sexual urges. The most commonly referenced medications are anti androgens or hormone suppressing drugs, administered under medical supervision.
Now, if you just read the word testosterone and thought, “there, there it is. This just targets men,” you couldn’t be further from the truth. And the truth is, Chemical castration works by suppressing sex hormones that influence libido and sexual behaviour. In men, the focus is testosterone while in women, it would involve suppressing oestrogen and progesterone or altering hormonal pathways that influence sexual drive. So while medically speaking the procedure is not exclusive to men, in practice almost all legal frameworks that provide for chemical castration are designed with male physiology in mind and applied almost exclusively to male offenders.
Why? You might ask. It is not rocket science really.
Female sexual offending does exist. However, it is statistically rarer, differently patterned and often prosecuted under different legal and psychological frameworks. Mostly because the overwhelming majority of repeat sexual offenders globally are men, especially in crimes like defilement, serial rape and child sexual abuse. The numbers don’t lie.
This is the reason why the drugs most commonly used (anti-androgens like medroxyprogesterone acetate or GnRH analogues) are tested, standardized and studied primarily for testosterone suppression.
So before you come online shouting that feminists are out to completely finish you and framing this as a “war on men,” you need to understand that the policy is less about gender and more about patterns of repeat offending and risk management.
“How bad will it be when someone lost their transformer” brings us to the next issue of contention.
Under chemical castration, no organs are removed, the process is reversible if treatment is discontinued and most importantly, it does not sterilize a person.
Chemical castration has been used in varying legal frameworks, in countries such as Germany, Poland, South Korea, Indonesia, parts of the United States and some European jurisdictions, usually as part of sentencing or parole conditions for high risk offenders.
Who the Kenyan Proposal Targets
Let us circle back to one the loudest objections raised online. And that is the fear of mistaken convictions. A very valid concern which deserves to be taken seriously – that we can all agree on. However, it must also be placed in its proper legal context.
The current proposal does not apply to:
- People accused but not convicted
- First time offenders
- Cases still under appeal
Instead, it focuses on repeat offenders and those convicted of particularly grave sexual crimes.
This proposal would require amendments to Kenya’s Sexual Offences Act, 2006, which already provides for severe custodial sentences for crimes such as defilement, gang rape and sexual offences against persons with disabilities. The Act is firmly anchored on post conviction punishment, following investigation, prosecution and judicial determination. Therefore, an accusation alone is not enough.
Under the current framework, penalties escalate based on the severity of harm, age of the victim and repeat offending, meaning any additional sanction such as chemical castration would be layered onto an already conviction based system rather than operating outside it.
It therefore (and this is the bottom line) builds on an existing legal structure that recognizes patterns of offending, rather than introducing an entirely new or arbitrary punishment regime.
The categories most frequently cited include:
- Serial defilers
- Offenders who target children or persons with disabilities
- Individuals who reoffend after serving custodial sentences
The argument that any man could be chemically castrated after a false accusation simply does not align with how the proposal is framed.
Kenya already has some of the harshest penalties for sexual offences in the region, including long prison sentences and life imprisonment. Yet conviction alone has not stemmed the tide. Government task forces and gender based violence experts point to a grim pattern: high recidivism among certain categories of sexual offenders, particularly those whose crimes are compulsive and repetitive.
Chemical castration is for this reason being floated as a risk reduction tool and not revenge. It is an attempt to limit the likelihood that a known, convicted offender will harm again upon release. This will not be a punishment per se, but about “How do we prevent the next victim?”
The Ethics, the Law and the Uneasy Middle Ground
Human rights organisations have raised legitimate concerns. For exampe, does compulsory medical intervention violate bodily autonomy? Can consent truly exist within a penal system? And does the punishment fit crimes rooted in power and violence, not just sexual desire?
Medical professionals have also warned about potential side effects, including bone density loss, cardiovascular risks and mental health impacts.
Yet supporters counter that the rights of convicted offenders must be weighed against the rights of potential victims, particularly children who often have no power or voice, and no protection once the offender reenters society
The intensity of the backlash says as much about Kenya’s collective anxiety as it does about criminal justice. Sexual violence has become both ubiquitous and unresolved. That the topic is discussed endlessly and punished harshly but still keeps recurring (to an extent we are now looking at castration as an option) is baffling, for lack of a better word.
Chemical castration is not a silver bullet. But dismissing it through fear based arguments about imagined scenarios risks derailing a conversation we desperately need to have.
As Parliament and the public engage with this proposal, the challenge will be to remain anchored in facts, not fury, and to remember who this debate is ultimately meant to protect.
Because at its core, this is not a question about men versus women but rather about whether society is willing to confront repeat sexual violence with tools that prioritize prevention over outrage.
And that conversation is long overdue.
