Talk:David Reimer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, which collaborates on Psychology and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it needs.

---

Contents 1 Archive 1 -- Start a new discussion 2 =Legal Consequences 3 Iain M. Banks 4 Avoiding conflict 5 DanP 6 Room for Compromise 7 Walabio... 8 A personal comment 9 Problems in Later Paragraph 10 Did Reimer got a divorce? 11 his problem 12 Out of fashion? 13 Interviews 14 academia

[edit] Archive 1 -- Start a new discussion

---

[edit] =Legal Consequences

It's sad to know that those responsible for destroying his penis were not sued or at least lost thier license. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.160.197.209 (talk) 21:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

Actually, the Reimers did sue those involved, and were awarded a tidy sum of money, which was turned over to David when he reached the age of majority. This comes from As Nature Made Him. Jeanie821 19:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that you mention the outcome of the court case in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.29.144 (talk) 11:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Iain M. Banks

Could this story be part of the inspiration behind Iain Banks' novel, The Wasp Factory? See: http://www.iainbanks.net/f01.htm There are remarkable parallels between the two. Jontce 00:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Avoiding conflict

In the spirit of wiki, we discuss changes here and then make the agreed changes on the life article. Then we fight about the implementation of the changes. It seems to me that maybe, we should workout all of the details on a temp-page , which will also have its own talk-page.

• David Reimer/Temp
• Talk:David Reimer/Temp

--

Ŭalabio 06:46, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)

---

[edit] DanP

I am amazed that you consider removal of the word "accidental" from the phrase "penis was destroyed in a circumcision accident" as making it "NPOV." Do you think the doctor intended to destroy the penis? Then what POV were you removing? alteripse 00:43, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it was the word "accident". In its prior usage, the adjective "circumcision" suggests that the attempt to remove "just some" of his penis was accidental. Clearly that part was deliberate. Nobody says "a woman died after a rape accident". The last two words are incompatible. Either way, we shouldn't try to read the mind of the person being described, or use a POV to describe what happened. All we can say factually is that it was destroyed during a circumcision, instead of using some euphemism. DanP 00:56, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The POV that you removed was that the doctor did not set out to destroy the penis, just the foreskin. You consider that unwarranted speculation? You think he intended to destroy the whole penis? Do you understand just how bizarre you are? alteripse 01:04, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

But that's not how the sentence was constructed! While you might infer a meaning different than the one in the literal words, there is no reason not to clarify the sentence. Just as you say, leaving out the word "accident" still leaves the impression to the reader that destruction of the remainder of the penis was not intended. Since you're adamant that the intentions be explicit, I changed it to "inadvertent" which does not have the connotation of bad luck (as opposed to bad judgement), and made it modify "destruction" and not "circumcision". I hope that clarifies the meaning for both of us. DanP 01:41, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't really care whether it says accident or inadvertent. What POV meaning is there for "his penis was destroyed in a circumcision accident"? What's wrong with the sentence construction? "His nose was destroyed in a rhinoplasty accident" is a similar sentence, grammatical and meaningful. Please explain what you meant by "removing POV" when you changed it. Don't make accusations of POV unless you can show exactly what POV is being pushed. What POV did you remove? alteripse 03:51, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Alteripse, you do not have the balls to deal with this POV onslaught ... all you do is whine. - Robert the Bruce 06:04, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Now, has the foreskin mafia decided to hit this innocent article? Listen, I am sorry you underwent circumcision and later did not like it, but really, there is no reason whatever to push your particular POV, namely, that a circumcision is about the worst thing that can happen to a human being (that is at least what you sound like; on that point, I disagree), into any article it could be possibly pushed in. So stop it. -- AlexR 08:12, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Room for Compromise

How about "...the majority of his (or his entire) penis was unintentionally destroyed during a circumcision..."? Sematically, wouldn't that reflect both the intent to circumcise, and the non-intent to take all of the penis off?

Anon Lurker Shrew2u 4.3.67.30 00:04, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Your wording is fine; it conveys exactly the original meaning, but you are missing the point. No one disputes that the penis was destroyed. DanP removed the word suggesting accidental/inadvertent/unintentional, claiming it was "POV removal". I protested the bald-faced dishonesty of his description of his edit. alteripse 00:33, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Walabio...

Walabio, I've just had to make a bunch of corrections, some of which we went over months ago.

• (which is an inappropriate diagnosis for infants) - even the doctor you contacted said that it was always possible, if unlikely, for it to be appropriate.
• without ever trying less radical therapy - we agreed that we don't know this.
• This indicates that Bruce's circumcision was unnecessary. - unproven. they were individuals. discussed before.
• involuntary medically unnecessary - a) repetition, b) POV. we're supposed to report others' POV, not include it ourselves.
• libellous text about Money's reputation and so on - why?

- Jakew 00:09, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A personal comment

(by user:67.1.241.111, 22:54, 30 July 2005 moved here from the article)

I Michelle Ann Bryce Would like to add something to this Please... I was born with the Chomosomes Of XXY In the year of June 8,1958 My parents were told that I was to be growen up as a Boy, I was not a Boy, I was a Girl, I had a lot of the same things in school as him. They made me be a Boy and I was a Girl... If you want to get ahold of me you can get ahole of me at michelleangelgirl4u2c@msn.com Thank You From: Michelle Ann Bryce

Michelle, I had to move your comment to the talk page, because it just does not belong in the article. You are however decidedly not the only person with XXY chromosomes that, despite a basically male anatomy and upbringing, feels that she is really a woman. If you check transgender or transsexual support groups, you are bound to find other people with the same experience. -- AlexR 00:21, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Addendum: XXY is in fact a recognised intersex condition, and intersex support groups may be more appropriate. Lwollert 01:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problems in Later Paragraph

"In the face of Reimer's personal tragedy, few professionals felt secure enough to publicly question the accuracy of Reimer's recounted childhood experiences, nor whether the failure occurred because of the relatively late age of reassignment, nor how many more successful outcomes should be considered negated by this failure."

These sentences insinuate that the "traditional," post-Diamond, interpretation of this story is wrong, but provide no evidence to back it up. I thus have several questions. Is there an actual debate? I am not familiar with many contemporary gender psychologists who don't believe that gender identity has important prenatal components, or even that it's entirely established prenatally. The second sentence references successful reassignments. Are there published accounts, and if so, why aren't they cited in the references? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.188.195.86 (talk • contribs) .

These sentences most certainly do not insinuate that it is wrong, just that it is an unusual story that has been freighted with a huge amount of social significance. The sentence simply reminds the reader that the book and the current conventional lay interpretation represents a single retrospective point of view that perhaps might not have been experienced or interpreted the same way by other participants, and that it has been used to support causes that are only partly related. The sentence is exactly correct: his story is so humanly tragic that almost no professionals have even disputed some of the more egregiously exaggerated versions, or the more overblown interpretations it has been used to support. You can find in previous versions of wikipedia articles and talk pages, as all over the internet, enormously distorted versions of this story with preposterous interpretations. This article was not the place to reprise the history of intersex surgery; this article was about this non-intersexed person's story. Referenced in the latter article are the papers that indicate exactly how unusual this story was and how atypical the outcome. alteripse 23:16, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

This may be what you think it means, but that phrasing, by omitting specific criticisms or references, casts doubt without providing evidence to reinforce said doubt. Are there any citations that substantiate the following questions?

1) The story intimidated professionals from questioning Reimer's recounted experiences? (This is an attack on Reimer's credibility, because it implies he misremembered or lied.)

2) The story intimated professionals from arguing that Reimer's reassignment failed because he was too old. (This argument has, too my knowledge, been made, but most professionals don't find it likely.)

3) Successful outcomes . . . (What do "successful outcomes" mean here? Reimer's case is, as far as I know, unique. Are there other cases similar to Reimer's, or does it mean "intersex surgeries" in general? If so, it should be clarified: operations on infants with ambiguous genitalia do not correspond to Reimer's case, and Reimer's outcome doesn't mean anything for such cases either way.)

Silence, by itself, does not support the sentence I quoted above. The anonymous professionals could either agree entirely with Reimer's story, in which case the sentence is false, or all of them could have refused to say anything for fear of seeming impolite. The latter interpretation is much less likely than the former: there are a lot of gender psychologists, many of whom have taken controversial positions. Thus, without some sort of support, this assertion seems uncredible.

Many people have misinterpreted the story. However, this sentence doesn't talk about that, it impugns Reimer's credibility, implies an unverified statement about the development of gender identity (that Reimer's reassignment might have been successful if performed earlier), and leaps from Reimer's story to a broader statement about intersex surergy. It needs to be rephrased for neutrality. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.188.195.86 (talk • contribs) .

Reply This is the criticized sentence: In the face of Reimer's personal tragedy, few professionals felt secure enough to publicly question the accuracy of Reimer's recounted childhood experiences, nor whether the failure occurred because of the relatively late age of reassignment, nor how many more successful outcomes should be considered negated by this failure.

You make some valid points and perhaps we should change the wording. I do not pretend to "inside knowledge" that contradicts the account in the book, which I believe is accurate in its essentials, but think we should have learned by now to be wary about taking adult for-profit accounts of childhood sexual abuse at face value: we have had plenty of evidence over the last decade that adults do not always remember childhood "abuse" accurately. Secondly, professional ethics generally prevents a doctor from making a public rebuttal of a patient's accusations about mistreatment even when erroneous or an outright lie, and I suspect that the indisputable part of the story was so appalling that no one was willing to publicly question whether all of the details were precisely accurate. Since that was written, the poor man died, so I have no quarrel with de mortuis nil nisi bonum. See revised section. alteripse 01:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The current page is a definite improvement, and addresses my criticisms. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.188.195.86 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Did Reimer got a divorce?

This is probably something minor, but according to TLC's "Born a boy, brought up a girl", David Reimer only had separation with his wife. His wife still used his last name. Anyone care to confirm? Calyth 04:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Online sources confirming separation, not divorce: [1], [2], [3], [4]:

JANE REIMER: I needed some separation time, I knew that we needed separation time, and I remember telling him, you know I said I love you, I said I'm not asking for divorce I said but separation time I think we needed it so.

I've updated the article accordingly. --Muchness 12:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Many divorced women do continue to use their ex-husbands' surnames, especially if they have children who also have this name (which I do understand in this instance is not so). 24.131.12.228 00:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] his problem

so all of this happened because... the 2 doctors made a mistake on him, or the circumcision wasnt neccessary. i mean, they should have known what they were doing though.

• The botched circumcision was obviously a problem, but the larger problem was the response to it. Reassigining David's gender to female was John Money testing his theories on gender identity. He ruined this man's life. I wonder if he ever apologized. Clashwho 18:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

He never apologised, saying since both Bruce/Brenda/David and Brian had withdrawn from treatment, he no longer had access to the facts. He has since died. --Hugh7 08:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• The botched circumcision was the original problem. Money and the Hopkins' doctors attempted to reduce the harm caused by the orginal problem. The reassignment was not done "to test a theory" but to treat a patient who was brought to see them with a severe problem. One can reasonably infer from the outcome that reassignment was not a good solution to the problem of a destroyed penis for David Reimer, and perhaps not for anyone, though one can debate the degree to which the "lesson" can be generalized. I am glad you think every new difficult problem has a single obvious solution: it will make your life simpler. alteripse 16:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Even more original than the botched circumcision was the decision to circumcise. Their mother's description of the "symptom" is too vague to catergorise. That his identical twin brother's circumcision was not necessary (since he recovered without treatment), overwhelmingly suggests it was not necessary either, but to join these dots 1 and 2 would be OR that JakeW would remove.--Hugh7 08:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The decision to circumcise was incorrect on many counts. Every intact male has phimosis (a tight foreskin) up until puberty, it's not a pathological condition, it's the natural development of the penis. The condition (also termed phimosis) of a tight foreskin in adulthood is when circumcision is occasionally called for, circumcising an infant due to phimosis is completely uncalled for and shows spectacular ignorance of human anatomy on the part of the doctors involved. Blankfrackis 21:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Out of fashion?

I would like see a citation for where exactly the idea of gender as a social construct has somehow "Academically" fallen out of favor in the 90's? This is like saying evolution has "fallen out of favor" because creationists are more vociferous today than they were 10 years ago. SiberioS 23:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

You need to get out of the humanities departments. Money's theories were the dominant authoritative scientific theory of gender in the 1970's and they were entirely congruent with the most liberal political attitudes of the era: that gender identity was a social construction taught to children. In the last decade that continues to be a popular view in English departments but most scientific authorities are now more circumspect at attributing gender identity entirely to social construction and are more reluctant to entirely dismiss evidence (such as this case) of a biological influence. I am not aware of any scientific reviews of gender identity in the last decade that argue a pure social construction theory. Do you know of any? Your evolution analogy seems both incorrect and irrelevant: a better one would be to compare it to psychoanalysis, which was originally a widely accepted scientific theory of higher brain functions: these days the English departments are almost the only place it is taken seriously. alteripse 16:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Poring over my old contributions, I was amused to find THIS little response to my comment, mostly because it flirts so deliciously on an ad homeneim attack ("Ha! You actually believe people in the social sciences!"). That said, like in a civil case, the burden of proof rests on the accusser, and as we can see in the reply, no evidence is forthcoming. Meanwhile gender studies (suspciously tucked away in the humanities department; those un-scientific fiends!) trudge on, elaborating upon and revealing more about the role of gender (and the ability of individuals to choose and adopt it at will). SiberioS 07:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

You clearly don't understand ad hominem any better than you can spell it-- nothing in that reply said the argument was bad because the people were bad. My point is that no scientific researchers on human sexuality are arguing these days that gender identity is a purely taught/learned phenomenon with no biological substrate in the brain, which was the essence of Money's theory of the 1960s that led to the expectation that Reimer's identity would simply match what his parents told the child it was. You are also a little confused about who attacked what concept, as you offered no citations when you criticized the article. Here are a couple of current reviews for your education: both suggest we do not completely understand gender identity development but there is ample evidence for a role of biological factors: PMID 16876166 PMID 16870186 Can you offer a credible citation that supports a purely taught/learned gender identity that originates outside an English department? alteripse 11:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Whats with the English department stuff? Last time I checked I was in Sociology, which, despite your attempts to conflate the two, are not the same. Nor are our contributions to things somehow less credible because we don't wear lab coats. I guess then I can't even cite sources from my own discipline, because it doesn't meet your approval of being "not from an English department".(If only we had known we were english majors!). SiberioS 17:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Read again. I asked for something that originates outside an English dept-- as they are the principal folks with no credibility on scientific topics. Sociology is usually science. I had no idea what your field was, so it wasnt a personal criticism. So is there a recent sociology citation on gender identity that says it is all taught and learned? alteripse 21:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the attacks on those in the English discipline. Can a scientist credibly study Shakespeare? I would say yes, and indeed, many people are a part of both disciplines. Judgment needs to be made on an individual basis rather than a general condemnation of all those studying English. The poster said nothing about being in the humanities, and in fact, was asking for a citation of something mentioned in the article, which is exactly what Wikipedia editors should be doing rather than ridiculing entire subjects of study on a talk page. --Gloriamarie 05:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Once again, slowly. It is hard to cite a negative. It is like finding a citation that current scientists no longer think there are canals on Mars-- it's true but I can't quickly "prove" it by citation. I did not claim that all English professors misunderstand science, only that some do, quite publicly. The last brief book on Theory I read written by an English professor still seemed reluctant to give up the idea of gender as something chosen, but I don't claim expertise in Theory and simply excluded them from my assertion about what academic scientists currently believe because they arent scientists and many of them seem to play by epistemologic rules that can charitably be described as "not scientific". Don't accuse me of saying something I didn't so you can get all huffily self-righteous about it. alteripse 04:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Do any serious scientist really believe that Reimer could be brought up exactly as if he was born a girl? His parents knew he was born a boy, and virtually all people involved in his life would know. It's utterly naïve to think that at some stage he wouldn't be aware of this himself. Anyway the whole racket that must have been going on behind his back would be enough to make the poor guy's life a mess. This is real life involving human beings; not some experiment with isolated DNA in a controlled lab environment. It's pretty clear anyway that most natural scientists don't understand the basic idea of social contructionism. What's socially constructed here is the way people view themselves and acts in relation to sexual issues. No serious scientist today would deny that this is dependent on cultural and social contexts, Claiming it's dependent on biology alone would reviel a total ignorance of historical and cultural knowledge: the multitude of and differences between gender roles in different cultures and at different times are simply too obvious. (Though some scientists doesn't seem to have the abilities to look further than their nearest environment: Some time ago an American survey that caimed to prove that certain sides of gender roles were based on biology were referred to by Scandinavian media. Unfortunately the supposedly biologically based behaviour described in the report were unknown here.) Anyway, that Reimer chose to redefine himself as a boy in a situation where his sexual identity must have been considered a latent problem by all people around him, is rather a confirmation of social constructionist views than a proof of biological pre-destination. --Linkomfod 16:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Just an afterthough: Cold it be that the ignorance is even bigger than I thought, and that some of you don't realize what's so obvious to me that I didn't care to mention it: That the ideas and methods of the infamous John Money has nothing to do with today's social constructionism, but represent an older belief in "scientific methods" used in psychology and social research? So if it's a question whether Money's views are old fashioned, the answer is yes. But that's old news and has nothing to do with the Reiner case. --Linkomfod 18:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

You are correct that constructionism in English departments came after the cultural pendulum swing to "nurture" in the 1960s and 1970s. Money's theories were indeed based on observation of cases (i.e., medical science), not "theory". However, his taught-only theory of gender identity was quite congenial to the "nurture over nature" predominance of the 60s and 70s. Many feminist and other politically correct gender theorists of the era had rejected the old "anatomy is destiny" ideas and welcomed Money's theory as supporting the concept that all male-female differences were cultural (i.e., "learned") rather than biological. You can find published expressions of rejection or discomfort with one of the first published pieces of evidence suggesting a biologic basis to gender identity in the academic reactions to Imperato-McGinley's NEJM description (ca. 1979) of gender identity changes in adolescents with 5-alpha reductase deficiency. It is hard now to find any scientists, social or biological, who support a "purely-learned" or "purely socially-constructed" theory of gender identity, but contrary to your assertion, I know of no scientists who deny a cultural, learned, or constructed component to gender identity. The closest remaining thing to an academic champion of a "purely-socially-constructed" might be some of the Theorists who reject scientific epistemology. So, once again, please read carefully. Why argue against what has not been claimed? alteripse 16:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interviews

Interview with him and his mother can be founded at YouTube: [5], [6]. Is this worth to be added to article? --Yonkie 02:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] academia

"the malleability and cultural construction of gender identity (see also gender mainstreaming), already falling out of academic fashion in the 1990s"...I have a question about this. I'm not sure it has fallen out of fashion. the idea that gender is a social/cultural construct still seems to be going strong- at least in the humanities. Novium 23:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)