Talk:David Reimer/Archive 1

Death date
How certain is the date of death? This Yahoo news link says he died on the 4th, not the 5th. - Nunh-huh 08:43, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, we originally got it as the 4th, but then another source (CBC, I think) gave it as the 5th.

Explanation & justification for some of the changes. This is a good topic for an article and this was a tragic but highly significant story.

No offense intended, but there are some erroneous, or at least highly improbable statements and allegations. I offer the changes to improve accuracy and help the reader understand the background and motives better, and a fuller account of the impact of the story.


 * For instance, the primary purpose of his reassignment was to improve this child's psychosocial development. That it did not do so is the reason this is newsworthy, but it reduces the credibility of the whole story if you turn it into an unsubstantiatable and improbable criminal accusation.


 * Not sure why to link to canada and winnipeg-- would be same story if he was born in wisconsin, & this had no special local impact.
 * while no one can dispute the circumcision was "botched," it's not very encyclopedic language. Rephrasing conveys same meaning, but with a less heavy-handed prod to the reader's reaction.


 * The primary intention of all the physicians and his parents was to improve his life. The reassignment was not done for the primary purpose of conducting an experiment. That would be criminal assault technically, as well as an implied accusation of parental complicity or amazing stupidity. It would also be a bizarre claim that a "lowly" psychologist could get surgeons to do illegal, unethical surgery at his bidding (if you don't know the hierarchy at a university teaching hospital, I can assure you that psychologists don't tell surgeons what to do).


 * A more accurate description of the secondary research purpose was as a "test case," to see whether this unproven treatemnt for this rare problem would result in a better outcome.


 * It is improbable and likely inaccurate that Money "overlooked" the 2 years of being raised as a boy-- at the time, no one had conducted more research or published more on the relationship of timing of gender identity development and consequences of age of reassignment than he had. It is infinitely more likely that he thought (erroneously as it turned out) that the child was not too old. An error of judgement or prediction is not the same as an error of neglect.


 * Article previously read: "Money's lies about the result of the Reimer experiment (known as the 'John/Joan' experiment) encouraged thousands of doctors to perform unnecessary sexual surgery on ambiguously sexed children or those whose genitals just seemed a bit too large (if female) or small (if male)."


 * This is a combination of unprovable allegation and sheer fantasy. It is arguable but not provable that Money "lied" (deliberately and knowingly deceived people). An alternative and perhaps at least as plausible explanation is that he deceived himself by refusing to see or accept the child's resistance and discomfort. An even more charitable explanation would be that Reimer's memory of how much information he had given Money about his gender discomfort was faulty. It is hard to remember details of what you told someone as a child, and he/she may have passively endured the visits without contradicting everyone's assumptions that the reassigment of gender identity was successful. We just don't know, and I think we need to provide what we can know and leave speculation about motive to the reader. I tried to do exactly that, leaving open the possibility of deliberate deceit, but also the possibility of distorted memory.


 * The claim about numbers is absurdly inflated. The number of US physicians performing newborn sex reassignment and reconstructions since 1970 is likely less than 50--- this is highly specialized work. The number of XY infants reassigned and operated on because of penile injury or penile birth defects (distinct from ambiguous genitalia) in North America since 1970 is likely a few hundred if not less. I'll put a reference with specific numbers from Hopkins in here this week.


 * On the other hand, the number of reassignments and surgeries performed because the genitals "seemed a bit too large or small" is close to zero. I have never seen or heard of that being done. I doubt you could find evidence of even one single case of reassignment and surgery in the US in the last 4 decades that meets your description.


 * I did not want to out any of my friends, but Patricia Robinette outed herself:


 * I know many sexually mutilated people, some of whom are women. I shall talk just about the girls:


 * When Ob/Gyns see a protruding clitoris, they see dollar signs. The tell the parents that their daughters have unusual genitals and they can fix them  --  for a price.  They cut off the glans and præpuce.  This happened to Patricia Robinette and many other women known to me.  Most never know what happened to them.  I would not be surprised if this happened to more than one hundred thousand little girls a years.


 * It would not surprise me if about one thousand children a year with ambiguous genitals have "corrective" surgery.


 * None of those girls required surgery. Most babies with ambiguous genitals eventually require corrective surgery, but the gung ho correcting the problem that it is very common to cut the genitals down to girl-like genitals  --  it is easier to dig a hole than build a pole  --  that usually almost all erogenous tissue goes onto the medical incinerator.  Many intersexed people report that the decision of whether to be turned into whatever the surgeon chose, usually female, was a mistake.  It would be better to choose a gender at birth, at graduation from elementary-school, let the child decide on a final gender (if it is different than that of raising, the child goes to a different junior-high-school than the elementary-school-peers), and carry out corrective surgery so that as few nerve-paths and as little sexually sensitive mucosa experiences damage as possible.


 * &#364;alabio 07:23, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)


 * I deleted the phrase "victim of both circumcision and involuntary and medically unnecessary sex-reassignment" for a couple of reasons. We usually use "victim" in a situation where we are accusing a perpetrator of intentional infliction of harm. I am aware that some people feel strongly that any kind of infant genital surgery is evil, but if the reader of this tragic story has to be hit over the head with your POV, it's pretty weak. I was also curious why you didnt attach the phrase 'medically unnecessary' to circumcision rather than sex reassignment surgery. No one claims that circumcision is medically necessary, not even proponents. When you use it in the context of sex reassignment surgery, it is more arguable, because lots of "medically unnecessary" surgery is performed to correct birth defects such as cleft lip. Arguments about quality of outcome are much more powerful arguments for or against sex reassignment surgery than whether it is lifesaving.

Alteripse 16:16, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I still believe that we should use the full name of David Peter Reimer:

When her dad, Ron Reimer, told her that she was born a girl, the first question Brenda Lee Reimer asked was, "¿What was my name?". Bruce died at the age of eight months, so he became David Peter Reimer --  after considering Joseph. I feel that we deserve to call David Peter Reimer by his full name. We do have redirects, after all. &#364;alabio 07:23, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)


 * And I think that we should rename New York Mets to The Unquestionable Kings of Baseball. Sorry, articles don't get named based on what the subject 'deserves'. I looked around on Google before my round of edits, and the only person on the web who writes "David Peter Reimer" is apparently you. Rhobite 12:53, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)


 * For the first 13 years some odd months, he was denied his name. It would be easy to give David Peter Reimer his name without loosing any readers due to the magic of redirects.  I recommend that you read As Nature Made Him and The Boy With No Penis.


 * &#364;alabio 13:56, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)


 * However sad the story is, it doesn't change the guy's name. Rhobite 16:12, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)


 * It is just such a sad story. The circumcisiophiliacs took everything from David Peter Reimer  --  including his name.  ¡It is so tragic!  I suppose that only Intactivists mourn for the sexually mutilated children.


 * On page 195 of As Nature Nature Made Him, one finds:

"On 22 September 1990, two years and four months after they first met, David Peter Reimer and Jane Anne Fontane were married at a ceremony in Regents Park United Church in the city of Winnipeg. Jane's two daughters were bridesmaids.  David wore a white tuxedo; Jane wore a white dress.  Standing before the congregation of some one hundred and thirty guests, made up of friends and family, on an unseasonably warm fall morning, David and Jane spoke vows that they had written for one another." As Nature Made Him -- John Colapinto


 * That is my source of the name David Peter Reimer.

David Peter Reimer
Why did you move David Reimer to David Peter Reimer? Wikipedia policy is to use the most common name that he's known by. RickK 05:58, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)


 * I felt that everyone should know the name David Peter Reimer. One should never forget David Peter Reimer.


 * &#364;alabio 06:21, 2004 Jul 27 (UTC)


 * This response doesn't answer the question. Why did you add his middle name?  Wikipedia policy is to keep names to the most commonly known, and the name without the middle name receives almost twice as many Google hits as with the middle name.  RickK 06:29, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)


 * It just seemed right. I felt like all should know his name.  His is such a tragic life.


 * &#364;alabio 07:02, 2004 Jul 27 (UTC)

I understand you are a crusader on this topic, but I have to agree with RickK on this. You just made the article less accessible because 99% of people will search under David Reimer. Did you at least change the references in other articles that link to it? Secondly, can you supply the source for the Milton Diamond epitaph? You made it look like Diamond himself dropped in to edit our article. Third, your editorial comments on the necessity of phimosis surgery look "crankish" and excessively push a POV. Unless you have evidence that his phimosis was caused by foreskin retraction, you are editorializing and speculating and this is not best place. Do we have articles on phimosis, balanitis, and foreskin care? I understand you feel strongly, and I actually share your opinion that circumcision is unnecessary and recommend gently to parents that they don't have to do it, but your edits suggest a monomania on this topic to those who read them. The paragraph you inserted might as well say, "ATTENTION: THIS ARTICLE IS ANTICIRCUMCISION PROPAGANDA. Interpret all information here with the understanding that the author will not miss an opportunity to hit you over the head with his sermonizing mission!" Is this how you want it to read? Does any of this make sense? Alteripse 10:58, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I must to get to work, so I shall get back to your other points in about twelve hours. As for Milton Diamond, he donated the paragraph to me in private email correspondence for an article about for retell the life of David Peter Reimer so that other people should not suffer as he suffered.  The article was supposed to be published on Intact Day, on Kuro5Hin.Org, but procircumcision-people, vetoed it.  I merely refactored the donated paragraph.  I suggest that you write Milton Diamond if you do not belief me.


 * &#364;alabio 13:58, 2004 Jul 27 (UTC)

Don't misunderstand me. I assumed Diamond's note was genuine. I just thought it was quoted from somewhere and I thought it needed context or attribution or source to avoid looking like he dropped in on our article and editorialized. I suggest we preface it with a sentence such as "Milton Diamond contributed his feelings about David Reimer's life and death to the Intact Day website:..." Does that seem acceptable? Obviously I don't feel as strongly as you do that the main message of Reimer's life is that circumcision is evil, and I think you risk turning the article into something that will be perceived as a fringe rant that justifies the "poster boy" phrase you removed if you mix opinion with fact in such a way that the reader will think you don't know the difference. I'm not threatening an edit war but I doubt your phrasing will endure unchallenged if you don't put a little "encyclopedic distance" between the facts of the story and the moral you want the reader to take from it. Does this make sense? Alteripse 17:22, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * First things firstly, things interrupted by going to work:


 * "Third, your editorial comments on the necessity of phimosis surgery look "crankish" and excessively push a POV. Unless you have evidence that his phimosis was caused by foreskin retraction, you are editorializing and speculating and this is not best place."


 * The præpuce serves many functions throughout live. For cutting a long story short, we shall focus on the germane issues of the infantic præpuce:


 * Both the inner surface of the præpuce and the glans are fused in infancy; thus the outer præpuce protects both the inner præpuce and the glans. Phimosis is an inappropriate diagnosis for infants.


 * Many doctors who cannot trick parents into letting them sexually mutilate their children, tell the parents to retract the præpuce and clean between the præpuce and glans using soap and cottonswabs. This is like a veterinary telling people to pop open the eyes of kittens and clean between the eyelid and the eyeball.  ¡Forcefully retracting the præpuci of babies is abuse!


 * Forced retraction and cleaning using soap and cottonswabs causes tearing, mechanical and chemical irritation, and infection. Balanitis almost always follows forced retraction and cleaning.  The proper treatment for balanitis would be antibiotics and leaving the genitals alone.  The doctors diagnose the balanitis as phimosis and mutilate the baby.  It is an old scam.  Doctors learn the scam orally in medical school.


 * Forced retraction and cleaning also leads to urinary-tract-infections. Wiswell arrogantly uses iatrogenic urinary-tract-infections for justifying sexual genital mutilation.


 * The correct way to wash a baby is:


 * 1) Rinse the baby with warm clean clear plain water
 * 2) Lather the baby in mild soap
 * 3) Rinse the baby with warm clean clear plain water


 * The genitals require no more attention than the toes or the ears.


 * Response to the last thing you wrote:


 * "Obviously I don't feel as strongly as you do that the main message of Reimer's life is that circumcision is evil, and I think you risk turning the article into something that will be perceived as a fringe rant that justifies the "poster boy" phrase you removed if you mix opinion with fact in such a way that the reader will think you don't know the difference."


 * I mourn David Peter Reimer. He and his entire family suffered so terribly.  What is so tragic is that all of this suffering was needless; none of what happened should have happened.  I want his death to have some meaning.  It seems that the only way this story can help society is as a cautionary-tale.  It is very important to me to stop others from suffering the life of David Peter Reimer.


 * I suggest we preface it with a sentence such as "Milton Diamond contributed his feelings about David Reimer's life and death to the Intact Day website:..."


 * I shall add something like that to the article.


 * ¿Do you believe a specific section about the life of David Peter Reimer as a cautionary-tale would be a good idea? I have been dancing around that issue for months.  The part about why intactivists show so much interest in the life of David Peter Reimer has cautionary-tale as and undertone, plus we mourn this needless tragic death.


 * &#364;alabio 00:30, 2004 Jul 28 (UTC)

First, I think your phrasing for the Diamond quote is fine. Second, your speculation about Reimer's phimosis is plausible, but I still think it's a bit speculative to include in the article.

Third, I guess I am amazed that we can see such a different set of potential "cautionary tales" in the same story.

I rewrote this whole article to present what I thought was a tragic story of this person harmed by the pursuit of the idea that gender could be so easily changed just by parents and doctors deciding to do so. Hubris about things we don't completely understand, tragedy of well-intentioned but uncorrectable error, blindly refusing to see when your theory is going wrong, primacy of hormones over teaching, all ingredients of a completely different "cautionary tale." And the surgical accident just seemed to me the way the story started--- it would have played out the same way if his penis had been accidently destroyed by a hair cutting off the circulation causing gangrene (as strange as it sounds it has happened).

And obviously to you the major point of the whole story is that none of the other problems would have occurred if someone had not tried to circumcise him. It's a true tragedy that can serve two separate cautionary tales. Maybe we ought to have two different articles. You can leave mine alone as it was and you can rewrite a David Peter Reimer article to revolve entirely around the circumcision story. Our viewpoints, tones, and writing styles are so different that I'm not sure we can tell both stories in the same article without half of it seeming irrelevant to the main "message" and the whole seemed terribly disjointed and inconsistent.

Lest you think I am entirely unsympathetic, I happen to think that circumcision is an unnecessary and somewhat transiently heartless thing to do to baby boys (and I omit the personal details that would prove that I practice what I preach), and I have several times suggested to parents who seemed set on it that it would be ok NOT to do it. I don't do primary care, so these are usually infants with other problems. However I can't recall that I ever successfully persuaded someone not to except when the boy had a micropenis or malformation. I also suspect that if I had made an impassioned plea or even worse, accused them or the doctors of bizarre and sinister or sadistic or pecuniary motives, I would have lost all credibility. Most pediatricians I know tell parents to leave the foreskin alone and not to worry about it, but the circumcision rate in the eastern US is probably 95%. It's the parents who want it. Most pediatricians and the American Academy of Pediatrics don't recommend it, they just don't come out strongly enough against it (they weasled back from a half-hearted recommedation against it back in the early 1980s, I think. It seems to most of us a usually harmless cultural practice that most of us survived just fine. When you accuse doctors of trying to "trick parents into sexually mutilating" their babies, you insult both doctors and parents, and you come across as a fringe lunatic. When you phrase things like that you may be enjoying your own self-righteousness, but you won't persuade most people that an intelligent, rational adult (as I and the rest of your "average readers" fancy ourselves) might hold these opinions. Which is more important to you? Alteripse 03:10, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"First, I think your phrasing for the Diamond quote is fine."


 * I did not write the words. I wish that I should remember who did.  ;-)


 * Actually, his needless mutilation is the beginning of the story. yor take is the middle.  his suicide is the end.  The story you see is also important to intactivists:


 * Intactivists oppose mutilating genitals for no good reason.


 * &#364;alabio 05:00, 2004 Jul 28 (UTC)

Birthday
It is the birthday of David Peter and Brian Reimer. This must be a terrible day for Ron and Janet Reimer. This is so tragic. I and all other Intactivist mourn his death.

It sickens me that Max Cham, Jean Huot, and John Moey will never be punished for their crimes.

&#364;alabio 00:11, 2004 Aug 22 (UTC)

I removed the word medically from the phrase "medically unnecisary circumsicion-accident". It made the sentance read ackwardly and is redundant anyway. That issue is discussed more fully in the Social Impact section. --Starx 20:45, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

NPOV
I've adjusted the introduction (to remove the judgemental word "unnecessary"), and the overview (to remove the speculative statement about the 'true cause' and to try to restore neutrality. &#364;alabio, I have asked you before to cease the personal attacks. You are doing so in edit summaries. Please cease. - Jakew 15:04, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Gairdner determined in Whither the foreskin that the præpuce is suppose to be both fused to the glans and have to too narrow opening for retraction in infancy. Therefore, phimosis is an inappropriate diagnosis in infancy.  It is obvious what this is:


 * The doctors must have deliberately ordered the parents to forcefully retract and clean under the præpuce. Bruce and Brian developed iatrogenic balanitis which the doctors deliberately miss diagnosed as phimosis.  The doctors then recommended an emergency circumcision.  ¿Why do I make these claims?  ¡Because North American doctors have pulled this trick tens of millions of times in the twentieth century!


 * As for my claims that you wish to hide the truth, you wish nontherapeutically to circumcise medically unnecessarily all poor defenseless babies. I shall not get into why you want to do this.  The truth that what happened to Bruce could have been prevented by not circumcising hurts what little case you have.  ¿Why do you insist on the medically impossible diagnosis of phimosis when we have tens of millions of examples of deliberate iatrogenic balanitis from deliberate forced retraction deliberately misdiagnoses as phimosis leading to the treatment by nontherapeutic medically unnecessary circumcision?  Your actions seem to indicate that you wish to hide these facts.  I have no intention of letting Max Cham and Jean-Marie Huot escape culpability.  If you cannot admit that Bruce would be better off if the doctors would have left him alone, then I see no point in interacting with you.


 * &#364;alabio 16:04, 2004 Oct 23 (UTC)

&#364;alabio, the diagnosis was made at 8 months of age. Gairdner's The fate of the foreskin (which I assume you mean, since Gaidner didn't write 'Whither') showed that 4% of newborns had a retractible foreskin, rising to more than twice this during the first year of life. As you may be aware, true phimosis is distinct from a non-retractable foreskin, and this may well have been what was diagnosed - remember that he was having trouble urinating. True phimosis is not medically impossible at 8 months, though it is, I'm sure, rare.

It is pure speculation to assume that doctors 'ordered' retraction, and there is no basis in fact for this. Nor is there any reason to suppose that qualified professionals would confuse phimosis with balanitis. Your conspiracy theories are not adequate for Wikipedia articles.

I have no interest in hiding the truth, but I do not intend to allow the article to become a vehicle for your POV. It must remain grounded in reality.

2004-10-21T16:21 GMT, Jakew:

&#364;alabio, the diagnosis was made at 8 months of age. Gairdner's The fate of the foreskin (which I assume you mean, since Gaidner didn't write 'Whither') showed that 4% of newborns had a retractible foreskin, rising to more than twice this during the first year of life. As you may be aware, true phimosis is distinct from a non-retractable foreskin, and this may well have been what was diagnosed - remember that he was having trouble urinating. True phimosis is not medically impossible at 8 months, though it is, I'm sure, rare.

You may gloat. I eat crow. I get Preston and Gairdner confused because of their colorful titles for papers. Infants do not develop phimosis. I have my doubts that anything was wrong (it could have been nothing more than ballooning).  I knew that certain people would fight the possibility of nothing wrong and it could not be phimosis, so I found a plausible condition (iatrogenic balanitis).

It is pure speculation to assume that doctors 'ordered' retraction, and there is no basis in fact for this. Nor is there any reason to suppose that qualified professionals would confuse phimosis with balanitis. Your conspiracy theories are not adequate for Wikipedia articles.

It was standard practice during the 1960s to order parents who refuse to allow circumcision forcefully to retract and then clean under the præpuce in the hope that baby will develop some sort of problem so that the doctor might get the circumcision-fee after all. My own personal theory is that only benign ballooning occurred, but I knew that circumcisiologists would reject that possibility, so I found a plausible theory It could not be phimosis because nonretractability does not become a problem until puberty, when nonretractability can interfere with sex). Doctors of that era circumcised babies reacting to ammonia from the breakdown of urea:

H2O+H4N2CO=>CO2+2(NH3) plus energy for bacteria

These doctors use the rash as an excuse to circumcise. They know perfectly well that meatal ulcer will almost certainly result. The fact is that doctors do stuff like this all of the time.

I have no interest in hiding the truth, but I do not intend to allow the article to become a vehicle for your POV. It must remain grounded in reality.

I have no intention of letting you escape responsibility for your actions. I have gone out of my way by letting you list a plausible medical condition. One thing it could not be is phimosis. After the circumcision of Bruce went terribly wrong, the doctors decided to postpone the circumcision of Brian. Brian recovered and never needed a circumcision.

If it were not for people pushing circumcision, none of what happened would have happened. Rather than the family being extremely disfunctional (after what happened, ¿how could it not?), and Brenda and Brian suffering at the hands of John Money as he performs bizarre experiments on them, all of this eventually leading to alcoholism for Ron, attempted suicide for Joan, and completed suicide for Brian and David Peter, the family would have fared better.

Imagine how much better everything would have been if the pædiatrician would have been a foreskin-friendly doctor opposing circumcision. ¿Would not things have turned out much better?

I intend to make certain that the article clearly states that the circumcision was unnecessary by citing the recovery of Brian. You will not escape responsibility for your circumcision-pushing.

&#364;alabio 12:03, 2004 Oct 24 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't the place for theories, no matter how plausable they may be. Only facts should be presented, and as I understand it there is no agreement in the medical community on whether the circumcision was necessary so neither side can claim fact. --Starx 15:05, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * ¿Do you know what? You are right.  I never should have tried to placate certain people by finding something that will satisfy them, because those people complain at the thought that, perhaps absolutely nothing was wrong with a præpuce hurts their world-view.  Without placation (hopefully, certain people will not get to mad with the removal of comforting pathology) reads more like this:

The parents Reimer worried about how Brian and Bruce urinated. The pædiatrician gave an impossible diagnosis of phimosis (phimosis is a tight nonretractable præpuce, but infants have a tight nonretractable præpuce anyway). 1966-04-27, the doctors Jean-Marie Huot and Max Cham tried to use a Bovie Cautery Machine for circumcising Bruce, which is not for use on extremities and genitals. Max Cham and Jean-Marie burned the penis of Bruce off. The hospital canceled the circumcision of Brian. Brian developed normally, meaning that the circumcision of Bruce was totally medically unnecessary and nontherapeutic.

It throws no bones to certain people, but I like it better. I say we include it.

&#364;alabio 19:49, 2004 Oct 24 (UTC)

It's still too judgmental, Walabio. The last sentence should be ditched totally, and the remainder changed considerably. - Jakew 21:07, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Some argue over facts. I listed the facts:


 * 1) The Parents Reimer reported that something happened when Bruce and Brian urinated
 * 2) An unknown pædoprician (¿Does anyone know who this is?) diagnosed Bruce and Brian as developing phimosis (an inappropriate diagnosis in infancy because the glance and præpuce of infants are suppose to be fused)
 * 3) No evidence exists that anyone tried a less radical treatment before circumcising
 * 4) Max Cham and Jean-Marie Huot decided to use a Bovie Cautery Machine
 * 5) One should not use a Bovie Cautery Machine on extremities and genitals
 * 6) Jean-Marie Huot and Max Cham burned off the penis of Bruce Reimer
 * 7) After the accident of Bruce Reimer, one cancelled the circumcision of Brian Reimer
 * 8) Brian Reimer continued to develop normally as an intact boy and man, thus proving that the circumcision of Bruce Reimer was totally medically unnecessary and nontherapeutic.

I integrated the facts into the paragraph:

"The parents Reimer worried about how Brian and Bruce urinated. The pædiatrician gave an impossible diagnosis of phimosis (phimosis is a tight nonretractable præpuce, but infants have a tight nonretractable præpuce anyway).  Non tried a less radical procedure before attempting circumcision.  1966-04-27, the doctors Jean-Marie Huot and Max Cham tried to use a Bovie Cautery Machine for circumcising Bruce Reimer, which is not for use on extremities and genitals.  Max Cham and Jean-Marie Huot burned the penis of Bruce off.  After the accident of Bruce Reimer, the hospital canceled the circumcision of Brian Reimer.  Brian Reimer continued to develop normally as an intact boy and man, thus proving that the circumcision of Bruce Reimer was totally medically unnecessary and nontherapeutic."

The last sentence contains a valuable fact.

&#364;alabio 02:36, 2004 Oct 25 (UTC)

The true facts:


 * Bruce (and Brian?) were having trouble urinating. Do we know what trouble, and/or who reported it?
 * They were diagnosed with phimosis (a rare but not impossible condition - see above discussion)
 * His penis was destroyed.
 * Brian's circumcision was cancelled (postponed indefinitely?)
 * Brian recovered. This does not prove anything, as he and Bruce were distinct individuals.

- Jakew 10:43, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

How about this?


 * After concern was raised about Bruce and Brian having difficulty urinating, both boys were diagnosed with phimosis (a rare and overdiagnosed condition in infants). They were referred for circumcision. On April the 27th, 1966, the surgeons Jean-Marie Huot and Max Cham performed the circumcision with the aid of a Bovie Cautery Machine (which is not intended for use on extremities). Bruce's penis was destroyed. After this, Brian's circumcision was cancelled, and he made a full recovery from his condition without further treatment. Some suggest that this indicates that Bruce's circumcision may not have been necessary.

-Jakew 11:07, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Let us play U. S. Congress. We have a bill. The Senate has one version and the House of Representatives another. Let us try to work out the differences:

Firstly, my facts are true. Let us review your facts:


 * Bruce (and Brian?) were having trouble urinating. Do we know what trouble, and/or who reported it?
 * Definitely Brian too had the same condition. The parents reported the condition.  The condition may have been nothing more than benign ballooning.
 * They were diagnosed with phimosis (a rare but not impossible condition - see above discussion)
 * Phimosis is only a problem for the sexually active because it interferes with sex, and therefore only a pathology after puberty because phimosis interferes with sex. Phimosis would not have been a pathology for over a decade.
 * The doctors never tried a less radical procedure than circumcision. One can treat almost all præputial conditions nonsurgically.
 * His penis was destroyed.
 * Because Max Cham and Jean-Marie Huot had to play with their new shiny toy. ¡They make me sick!  It is too bad, that we cannot include this    --  safety is no accident.  
 * Brian's circumcision was cancelled (postponed indefinitely?)
 * True.
 * Brian recovered. This does not prove anything, as he and Bruce were distinct individuals.
 * With the same diagnosis.

"After concern was raised about how Bruce and Brian urinated, both boys were diagnosed with phimosis (a rare and overdiagnosed condition which is an inappropriate diagnosis in infancy). They were referred for circumcision without ever trying less radical therapy.  On April the 27th, 1966, the Surgeon Jean-Marie Huot and Anæsthesiologist Max Cham performed the circumcision with the aid of a Bovie Cautery Machine (which is not intended for use on extremities and genitals).  Bruce's penis was destroyed. After this, Brian's circumcision was cancelled, and he made a full recovery from his condition without further treatment. Some suggest that this indicates that Bruce's circumcision may not have been necessary."

Since we only know that the parents Reimer believed that Brian and Bruce had trouble urinating (ballooning can be misinterpreted as trouble urinating) I changed the first sentence to how Bruce and Brian urinated. I find no evidence that nonretractability is a problem before puberty. I added that none even attempted more conservative treatment (nothing like having ones leg amputated for curing an ingrown toenail). I corrected the specialty of Max Cham to Anæsthesiologist. I added "and genitals" to the things on which one should not use a Bovie Cautery Machine.

¿What is your opinion of the counter proposal? I do believe that we can work this out before the weekend.

&#364;alabio 06:45, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)

&#364;alabio, strictly speaking it's redundant to say "and genitals", since the (male) genitals are extremities, but I don't feel too strongly about it, so - ok, I agree to that one. The term Phimosis has a variety of interpretations, of which non-retractable foreskin is but one. I agree that a non-retractable foreskin is normal in an infant, but we cannot know what the real problem was. There are certain cases where a diagnosis of phimosis is appropriate in an infant, so we should delete "...which is an inappropriate diagnosis...". Alternatively, we could remove the parenthetical comment and add a brief discussion in a following paragraph. What would you prefer? - Jakew 20:28, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

We are getting close. I know that genitals are extremities, but some readers might think about extremities as limbs. As for phimosis in infancy, I try currently to get doctors to look into this (it is hard to find a doctor with the time to help). You are certainly free to try to find a doctor. If we cannot find a doctor between us, a brief discussion in the following paragraph would be nice. I propose that we set a goal for compromise of 2004-11-01T00:00:00 GMT/UTC. I am confident that we can meet the goal with time to spare.

I see now that I did not need to call for help for working with you. Working with you is much more pleasant and productive than working with a certain other user.

&#364;alabio 06:22, 2004 Oct 27 (UTC)

I found a Doctor
I sent out some emails and I got a response from Perinatologist David C. Jones M. D. (a member of Doctors Opposing Circumcision) This is the message:

From:	davidcjones@mac.com Subject:	Re:	David Peter Reimer Date:	October 30, 2004 00:23:15 GMT To:	Walabio@MacOSX.COM

I will look this over this weekend. I have been up (in Labor & Delivery) since about yesterday morning at 8:00 and just got home an hour ago!

&#364;alabio 01:50, 2004 Oct 30 (UTC)

Sadly you don't get it do you. In this particular case there is absolutely no point in trying to introduce the opinion of one from DoC (Doctors Opposing Circumcision) and suggest that you are contributing to NPOV here. This desperate POV pushing is getting tiresome. - Robert the Bruce 02:04, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * ¿Then why do you not get an opinion from Thomas (when I see a foreskin, I see 125 dollars) Wiswell? &#364;alabio 02:25, 2004 Oct 30 (UTC)


 * Sadly you don't seem to understand that neither's opinon should be sought in this matter. You obviously have yet to grasp the concept of NPOV as you seem desperate to push your anti-circumcision POV come what may. - Robert the Bruce 02:32, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Members of Doctors Opposing Circumcision uphold all six principles of medical ethics:

From Medical Ethics:

Six of the principles commonly included are:


 * Beneficence - a practitioner should act in the best interest of the patient. (Salus aegroti suprema lex.)
 * Non-maleficence - never do harm (primum non nocere), from the Hippocratic Oath.
 * Autonomy - the patient has the right to refuse or choose their treatment. (Voluntas aegroti suprema lex.)
 * Justice - concerns the distribution of scarce health resources, and the decision of who gets what treatment.
 * Dignity - the patient (and the person treating the patient) have the right to dignity.
 * Truthfulness - the patient should not be lied to, and deserves to know the whole truth about their illness and treatment.

Thomas (when I see a foreskin, I see 125 dollars) Wiswell upholds no ethics.

Well anyway, I and Jakew  are very close to a compromise. Please do not ruin it. You, just like Jakew  are free to try to find a doctor.

&#364;alabio 03:38, 2004 Oct 30 (UTC)

It is always good to test these self professed "ethical" doctors by asking them to comment on the quality and integrity of Van Howe's meta analysis. One will very quickly establish whether or not there is any integrity in this person. Once that is done we can ask him to comment on Hammond's findings as to the mental health and substance abuse of and among foreskin restorers. I can't wait. Let him come. - Robert the Bruce 05:40, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, meta-analysis is all we can afford, because we are not a 300mega$ (200$*1.5megababies=300mega$) industry. You point to a weak study, but we have punched holes in studies with confounding variables so conspicuous that it is hard miss:

Noting that in East Africa the intact Animists have an higher rate of HIV than circumcised Muslims. They neither noticed that circumcising South Africa has an high rate as does circumcising United States of America. Do a study about UTIs in Army-hospitals without realizing that one finds the right way, the wrong way, and the Army-way, which in this case meant that one circumcises all babies except premature, underweight, with hypospadias, or sick and forcefully retract all intact boys. Compare rates of cervical cancer in Catholics speaking Spanish in the third world which basically does nothing more than compare the rate of cervical cancer on the isolated islands of the Philippines with the Americas.

As for the mental well-being of restorers, the study is of men who know their sexual mutilation. The fact that most circumcised men do not know their sexual mutilation. These men are like the people in the Country of the Blind. ¿Do these men respond differently than amputees?

&#364;alabio, I agree that Doctors Opposing Circumcision claim to uphold those principles, though I'd argue that they fall short of upholding the principle of Truthfulness. Regardless of this, what you don't seem to understand is that we cannot get the opinion of every single qualified doctor on earth. I don't know what your doctor friend will say, but given that we know that at least one doctor considers it an appropriate diagnosis (since he/she diagnosed David), this seems a pointless endeavour. - Jakew 10:37, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * You are absolutely correct Jake. There is no point in Wally introducing a member of DoC into the discussion. In any event any such self respecting doctor would recuse himself from such input on the basis of a conflict of interest, no? - Robert the Bruce 03:06, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * If Thomas (when I see foreskin, I see 125 dollars) Wiswell refuses to recuse himself, ¿why should a member of Doctors Opposing Circumcision?	&#364;alabio 21:14, 2004 Oct 31 (UTC)


 * A diagnosis of phimosis in infancy is an oxymoron. I met a Texan pædiatrician who did not learn that the præpuce is not retractable in infancy until after she began practice.  I recounted the story [ here. ]]  As far as truthfulness, are better than circumcisers because they do not try to sell an unnecessary procedure.  &#364;alabio 21:14, 2004 Oct 31 (UTC)

From:	davidcjones@mac.com Subject:	Re: David Peter Reimer Date:	October 31, 2004 03:21:57 GMT To:	Walabio@MacOSX.COM Well, looking over what is written, merely that the child had "phimosis," there is little to go on. Clearly, it is not abnormal to have a non-retractable foreskin at that age. What is not clear is whether the non-retractable nature of the foreskin was causing (or believed to be becausing, more likely) some problem. If there was no "problem" other than non-retraction, then my medical opinion was that nothing was wrong and nothing needed to be done. If there was some other problem, then whatever those facts are would come to bear on the appropriateness of the surgery. If, for instance, there was some problem for which circumcision was believed to be the most appropriate treatment at that time back in the 1960s (even if we know better now), such surgery might potentially have been appropriate then but not now, depending on exactly what the evidence was that circ was the best treatment.

In short, from the limited information present, it would appear that there was no pathology present and nothing needed to be done, but we might not have all the data.

DJ

I propose that use this paragraph:

"After concern was raised about how Bruce and Brian urinated, both boys were diagnosed with phimosis. They were referred for circumcision without ever trying less radical therapy.  On April the 27th, 1966, the Surgeon Jean-Marie Huot and Anæsthesiologist Max Cham performed the circumcision with the aid of a Bovie Cautery Machine (which is not intended for use on extremities and genitals).  Bruce's penis was destroyed. After this, Brian's circumcision was cancelled, and he made a full recovery from his condition without further treatment. Some suggest that this indicates that Bruce's circumcision may not have been necessary."

Followed by one paragraph each of analysis of the necessity of the procedure. I offer to let the other side decide whether to have thew first or second paragraph.

¿Do we agree that it is time to unlock the article and precede? If so, either I or Jakew  or  Robert the Bruce  can leave a message on the talkpage of  Theresa Knott  asking her to remove her block, and the rest of us can sign ( ~ ~ ~ ~ ) it.

&#364;alabio 21:14, 2004 Oct 31 (UTC)

The above paragraph shouldn't imply that circumcision is radical, that's POV that not everyone will agree with. What if you change it to:

...both boys were diagnosed with phimosis and referred for circumcision. On April the 27th...

And leave everything else the same. It just states the facts without any POV about the appropriatness of circumcision. Also the other paragraphs you suggested about the necessity of the procedure are bound to be fought over and should be ironed out before the block is lifted, so I don't think the article should be unprotected just yet. --Starx 22:30, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * It is important to mention that none attempted less radical treatment. I ask a rhetorical question:

¿Who is a better dentist?:


 * 1) ¿The toothpuller using toothextraction as a first resort?
 * 2) ¿The toothrepairer using toothextraction as a last resort?

This all has to do with standard of care.

As for unlocking the article, If you believe we need more time, then fine, but what I had in mind was that they write their paragraph and the intactivists leave it alone and the intactivists write our paragraph and they leave it alone (of course this is Encyclopædia WikiPedia.Org so others might edit the paragraphs, but we shall both assume that these are third parties editing the paragraphs in good faith and try to integrate in changes).

This would be just these two paragraphs since a paragraph exists about what David Peter Reimer means to intactivists. The other side, can certainly write a paragraph in the same section about what David Peter Reimer means to them.

I am willing to go forward with unprotection or wait and I believe that it is important to note that none tried less radical treatment.

&#364;alabio 23:36, 2004 Oct 31 (UTC)

Your toothpuller is a strawman. If you know the tooth needs to be pulled then there's no reason to try anything else first. I don't know if he needed the circumcision, neither do you. I'm sure you have your beliefs but this is an encyclopedia and is only concerned with verifiable fact. Your own doctor said that he didn't have enough information to know for sure. Also, in keeping with this being an encyclopedia we shouldn't have a paragraph of each sides analysis, there shouldn't be any analysis. Just verifiable facts. The readers should be allowed to make their own analysis. --Starx 23:53, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * The toothpuller is not a strawman. Before amputation, one should try less radical treatments.  If you want only verifiable facts, we should remove references to phimosis because this is unverified and just plain unlikely for an infant.  &#364;alabio 00:25, 2004 Nov 1 (UTC)

&#364;alabio, it is unverifiable that David had phimosis, but it is a verifiable fact that he was diagnosed with it. I'm quite happy with describing this as rare (and overdiagnosed), but we shouldn't pass judgement. For the purposes of an encyclopaedia article, we shouldn't be concerned with 'better' or 'worse' toothpullers - we should just report the facts.

Incidentally, I'm not happy about the idea of 'dividing up' Wiki into 'territories'. We should work together on building an NPOV encyclopaedia, not a mixed handful of POV paragraphs. I have no objection to a paragraph stating explicitly what DPR means to anti-circers, however, but it ought to be neutrally reported and factual. I'm happy to work with you to achieve this. - Jakew 19:19, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

2004-11-01T19:19 (UTC), Jakew:

&#364;alabio, it is unverifiable that David had phimosis, but it is a verifiable fact that he was diagnosed with it. I'm quite happy with describing this as rare (and overdiagnosed), but we shouldn't pass judgement. For the purposes of an encyclopaedia article, we shouldn't be concerned with 'better' or 'worse' toothpullers - we should just report the facts.

I want the facts, but the fact is that Max Cham and Jean-Marie Huot violated the standard of care one would find in more enlightened countries like the European Union. At least Jean-Marie Huot and Max Cham did not try bloodletting.

Incidentally, I'm not happy about the idea of 'dividing up' Wiki into 'territories'. We should work together on building an NPOV encyclopaedia, not a mixed handful of POV paragraphs. I have no objection to a paragraph stating explicitly what DPR means to anti-circers, however, but it ought to be neutrally reported and factual. I'm happy to work with you to achieve this. - Jakew 19:19, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The trouble is that we are incompatible:

Intactivists believe that one should not perform nontherapeutic procedures on minors, while your camp believes that parents should do anything they want to the genitals of their children. By the way, I shall say this one more time, we do not care what you do with consenting adults, but we do care what you do to children. If you would just leave children alone, we would leave you alone.

I have no objection to you helping our paragraph achieve NPOV, but please do put words in our mouth. I can summarize what David Peter Reimer means to intactivists:

David Peter Reimer is important to intactivists because he symbolizes everything wrong with modifying genitals of minors. He suffered what was almost certainly a nontherapeutic circumcision which went terribly wrong. Then John Money tried to make him into a girl. The results were disastrous; Ron became an alcoholic, Joan tried suicide, and Brian and David Peter committed suicide. We also see what happened as a needless tragedy. Intactivists mourned the death of David Peter Reimer.

¿Did anyone from your camp shed a tear for David Peter Reimer? As you might have noticed, we have much emotional investment in David Peter Reimer. We are very protective of his memory. Any of of us, including you, could have shared his fate, and some people did.

If you try not to change the facts, I welcome your help. Please do not make me regret this.

I reread the study of Michael Glass about your camp. I understand now that many of you just like a naked glans. ¿Is Gymnoglansphile the proper term? If all you want is a naked glans, ¿have you ever thought about just permanently retracting your præpuce instead of cutting off pieces of your body?

&#364;alabio 02:19, 2004 Nov 2 (UTC)

&#364;alabio, you say: I want the facts, but the fact is that Max Cham and Jean-Marie Huot violated the standard of care one would find in more enlightened countries like the European Union.

We don't know that, so let's not say it.

You say: Intactivists believe that one should not perform nontherapeutic procedures on minors, while your camp believes that parents should do anything they want to the genitals of their children.

I don't particularly like being told what I believe. Anyway, what either of us believes is irrelevant to what the article should say. Wikipedia, being an NPOV encyclopaedia, should neither endorse nor reject any belief. Let's try to work on the paragraph. Here's a suggested revision. As you can see, I haven't tried to delete anything, but have just altered the wording:


 * David Peter Reimer is particularly important to Intactivists, because he symbolizes everything that they believe is wrong with modifying genitals of minors. He suffered, they say, what was almost certainly a nontherapeutic circumcision which went terribly wrong.  Then John Money tried to make him into a girl.  Ron became an alcoholic, Joan tried suicide, and both Brian and David Peter eventually committed suicide. Many Intactivists say that these were all consequences of David's circumcision. Many mourned the death of David Peter Reimer, citing what happened as a needless tragedy.

You also say: ''I reread the study of Michael Glass about your camp. I understand now that many of you just like a naked glans.''

I'm afraid I'm not a sheep, I'm an individual. If Michael Glass has written about my 'camp', then I'm afraid I haven't had the pleasure of reading it yet. - Jakew 20:29, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Jakew, 2004-11-02T20:29:

I'm afraid I'm not a sheep, I'm an individual. If Michael Glass has written about my 'camp', then I'm afraid I haven't had the pleasure of reading it yet. - Jakew 20:29, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am tired. It seems that Walden W. O'Dell did as he promised, and fixed the election. Walden W. O'Dell has much to learn about fixing an election:

Walden W. O'Dell could have given Dubya Shrub a clear victory in both the popular vote and in the electoral college by flipping less than half as many votes fliped from the Warhero to the Chickenhawk, this time, if he would have focused on states where the election is close. This dumping of votes all over the place nearly backfired and is obvious. Well luckily for Walden W. O'Dell and Dubya Shrub, it worked, and since no papertrail exists, the only evidence is the statistical discrepancy between the exitpolls and the results (if Walden W. O'Dell would have cooked the books right, the statistical discrepancy would be much smaller). This just proves that Joseph Stalin said:

"It is not who votes, but who counts the vote." -- Joseph Stalin

We need a voterverifiable papertrail.

This is the article by Michael Glass:

[http://cirp.org/pages/cultural/glass0/ Circumcisers: What  drives their knives? ]

After you finish the first chapter, just go to glass1, glass2, et cetera. Basically, it states that Gymnoglansphiles like the exposed glans because it makes the penis look erect, which sexually arouses Gymnoglansphiles.

&#364;alabio 08:34, 2004 Nov 3 (UTC)


 * I know you're partial to creating your own words in pseudo-latin, but if you're considering adding "gymnoglansphile" to an article, please don't. Rhobite 01:43, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)


 * No.  Jakew  felt that the popular term circumfetishist was insulting.  I tried to create more proper terms such as circumcisiophile and circumcisiosexual.  He still did not like that.  I hit the books and determined that circumcision is just a means to an end and again tried to create the hopefully nonoffensive term of gymnoglansphile.


 * I currently compose a response to Jakew  and plan to offer some suggestions from Hugh Young as well.


 * &#364;alabio 02:48, 2004 Nov 4 (UTC)

&#364;alabio, it's the concept that is insulting, not the word chosen. Suggesting that I'm sexually aroused by circumcision is as inappropriate and offensive as suggesting that your only interest in the subject is a fetish for foreskins. It's called an ad hominem attack. Like your comments on the US election, it's also far off-topic. I look forward to your response regarding D.P.R. - Jakew 12:03, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

¡I am Sorry! I figured that you are like the people on [nntp:alt.sex alt.sex]. I have only ever encountered procircumcisionpeople who have a either fiduciary or prurient or sadistic interest. From what I encountered from [nntp:alt.sex alt.sex], I always figured that all people advocating genital mutilation are circumcisiophiles. After reading your objections and rereading Michael Glass, I figured that although most people advocating sexual mutilation on [nntp:alt.sex alt.sex] are circumcisiophiles, most are mere gymnoglansphiles. If you are not a gymnoglansphile, ¿do you have a fiduciary interest in genital mutilation? If none of this applies to you, then ¿why do you advocate sexual mutilation?

You are right that the stuff about the election being off topic. It started out as an explanation about why I did not reply, but became a lament about the death of democracy in the United States of America. As much as I hate Walden W. O'Dell, I hate the stupid people who bought the closed-source paperless voting systems. Understandably, if someone would take advantage of an offer like this, it would not be someone like John McCain, but Dubya Shrub. If Walden W. O'Dell would be a democratic ideologue, we would probably have Ted (I left a woman to die) Kennedy as President. I do not choose John McCain at random because Karl Rove stole the the Republican Nomination from John McCain in 2000 using lies which make Warheroes look like traitors (I see a recurring pattern in the election of 2004). Ike (a man with experience fighting Fascists) tried to warn us about the risk of Fascistic takeover on 1961-01-18T01:30:00 GMT/UTC, but we did not listen. We have exactly the kind of government we deserve.

2004-11-02T20:29 (UTC), Jakew:

&#364;alabio, you say: I want the facts, but the fact is that Max Cham and Jean-Marie Huot violated the standard of care one would find in more enlightened countries like the European Union.

We don't know that, so let's not say it.

In a country like Finland, the circumcision rate is so low that one cannot be certain what they are. If we place the rate of circumcision by age 100 as <1% (which is definitely higher than the true rate), then the rate per year is <.01%. The rate of circumcision of <.01% in the first year, the standard of care for ballooning, ammoniadermatitis, et cetera is not the opthamological equivalent of eyectomy for conjunctivitis.

You say: Intactivists believe that one should not perform nontherapeutic procedures on minors, while your camp believes that parents should do anything they want to the genitals of their children.

I don't particularly like being told what I believe. Anyway, what either of us believes is irrelevant to what the article should say. Wikipedia, being an NPOV encyclopaedia, should neither endorse nor reject any belief. Let's try to work on the paragraph. Here's a suggested revision. As you can see, I haven't tried to delete anything, but have just altered the wording:

¿Then why do you advocate nontherapeutic medically unnecessary sexual mutilation of minors?

David Peter Reimer is particularly important to Intactivists, because he symbolizes everything that they believe is wrong with modifying genitals of minors. He suffered, they say, what was almost certainly a nontherapeutic circumcision which went terribly wrong. Then John Money tried to make him into a girl. Ron became an alcoholic, Joan tried suicide, and both Brian and David Peter eventually committed suicide. Many Intactivists say that these were all consequences of David's circumcision. Many mourned the death of David Peter Reimer, citing what happened as a needless tragedy.

It is okay, but "they say" has to go. I doubt that doctors in the European Union would have circumcised.

This is what Hugh Young wrote to me:

What is wrong with it is not so much what is in it, as what is left out -- notably all reference to his twin brother, who had the same "symptoms", was not circumcised, and suffered no physical ill-effects.

"Intactivists often cite David Peter Reimer because he underwent both [infant] circumcision and [involuntary] sex reassignment, both of which Intactivists oppose. Intactivists [actively try to prevent --  change to, campaign against] children [delete: from] undergoing such procedures. They treat the story of David Peter Reimer as a cautionary-tale about why one should not needlessly modify the genitals of unconsenting minors. They also mourn the death of David Peter Reimer, believing it to be a senseless tragedy that was [ultimately] caused by his surgeries."

These last two sentences are pecularily distancing. They throw the focus on to Intactivists, as peculiar people. For once, the passive voice would be more appropriate, "about why the genitals of unconsenting minors should not be needlessly modified" since the circumcisors are so numerous, certainly not "one".

He makes some interesting points.

You also say: ''I reread the study of Michael Glass about your camp. I understand now that many of you just like a naked glans.''

I'm afraid I'm not a sheep, I'm an individual. If Michael Glass has written about my 'camp', then I'm afraid I haven't had the pleasure of reading it yet. - Jakew 20:29, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This is the article by Michael Glass:

[http://cirp.org/pages/cultural/glass0/ Circumcisers: What  drives their knives? ]

After you finish the first chapter, just go to glass1, glass2, et cetera. Basically, it states that Gymnoglansphiles like the exposed glans because it makes the penis look erect, which sexually arouses Gymnoglansphiles.

I believe we can compromise. You are much harder to understand than a certain other user. I know exactly what motivates the other user. You, on the other hand are an enigma.

&#364;alabio 06:06, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC)

&#364;alabio, you ask: "If you are not a gymnoglansphile, ¿do you have a fiduciary interest in genital mutilation? If none of this applies to you, then ¿why do you advocate sexual mutilation?". If you really want to discuss this, I'm happy to do so, but I suggest that a more appropriate place is my user talk page. I'm also (as a British man) truly sorry about the US election, but this really isn't the place to discuss it.

It is true that in some countries, circumcision is very uncommon, but the fact remains that the rates are non-zero. That means that the possibility remains that even if David lived in Finland, there is a chance (however slight) that he would have been circumcised.

You say: "It is okay, but "they say" has to go. I doubt that doctors in the European Union would have circumcised." "they say" should say, since otherwise the article is endorsing that view (which isn't NPOV). How about something stronger, like "they maintain"? I live in the European Union. About one fifth to one sixth of young men are circumcised in my country. It seems entirely possible that doctors would have circumcised him here.

Regarding Hugh Young's comments, his first concerns DPR's brother. I think we've already agreed on mentioning that in the introduction, haven't we?

The second comment suggesting passive voice is ok with me.

--Jakew 11:33, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

2004-11-08T11:33 (UTC), Jakew

&#364;alabio, you ask: "If you are not a gymnoglansphile, ¿do you have a fiduciary interest in genital mutilation? If none of this applies to you, then ¿why do you advocate sexual mutilation?". If you really want to discuss this, I'm happy to do so, but I suggest that a more appropriate place is my user talk page.

Okay.

I'm also (as a British man) truly sorry about the US election, but this really isn't the place to discuss it.

¡WOW! ¡Ike was in Britannia! ¡All of the clocks in mine house give time in UTC, just like Britannia!

It is true that in some countries, circumcision is very uncommon, but the fact remains that the rates are non-zero. That means that the possibility remains that even if David lived in Finland, there is a chance (however slight) that he would have been circumcised.

A baby with conjunctivitis might require an eyectomy, but this is unusual. If a doctor removed eyes just for conjunctivitis, the doctor would be a quack.

You say: "It is okay, but "they say" has to go. I doubt that doctors in the European Union would have circumcised." "they say" should say, since otherwise the article is endorsing that view (which isn't NPOV). How about something stronger, like "they maintain"? I live in the European Union. About one fifth to one sixth of young men are circumcised in my country. It seems entirely possible that doctors would have circumcised him here.

Men born between 1981-1984 have a rate of 11.7%. The rate continues to fall. Besides, it is not POV to write that Bruce Reimer, did not need a circumcision.

Regarding Hugh Young's comments, his first concerns DPR's brother. I think we've already agreed on mentioning that in the introduction, haven't we?

Agree.

The second comment suggesting passive voice is ok with me.

It is not quite okay with me. I always felt that only lazy people should use the lazy people should use the passive voice. I believe that we should find intransitive verbs. In Esperanto, one can just suffix "i&#285;". Greek has a middle voice. I feel that we can find intransitive verbs. One of the problems is that we do not consider the same text:

I demonstrated the intactivistic view by writing out our view, in a nutshell, here. You started to edit it. Hugh Young referred to the version in the article. Propose that we merge the paragraphs and then edit them:

"Intactivists often cite David Peter Reimer because he underwent both [infant] circumcision and [involuntary] sex reassignment, both of which Intactivists oppose. Intactivists [actively try to prevent --  change to, campaign against] children [delete: from] undergoing such procedures. They treat the story of David Peter Reimer as a cautionary-tale about why one should not needlessly modify the genitals of unconsenting minors. They also mourn the death of David Peter Reimer, believing it to be a senseless tragedy that was [ultimately] caused by his surgeries.   Intactivists  often cite David Peter Reimer because he underwent both circumcision and sex reassignment, both of which Intactivists oppose. Intactivists actively try to prevent children from undergoing such procedures. They treat the story of David Peter Reimer as a cautionary-tale about why one should not needlessly modify the genitals of unconsenting minors. They also mourn the death of David Peter Reimer, believing it to be a senseless tragedy that was caused by his surgeries."

Now that we are on the same page, we can work out these things.

--Jakew 11:33, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

&#364;alabio 02:15, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)

Put that about what we agree in the article
Just like with the paragraph about what David Peter Reimer means to intactivists, we forgot that the article itself exists. I took our paragraph and the first paragraph from the section Overview and merged them. We still have other issues to resolve, but I hope that we can resolve them here, on the talk-page.

--&#364;alabio 21:08, 2004 Dec 4 (UTC)

Who is the "we" you speak of? - Robert the Bruce 04:06, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * The we are &#364;alabio  and  Jakew.   --  &#364;alabio 04:43, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)

It is good that you two have agreed. Now I suggest that you seek to sell this version to the broader community. You will get some help with the process from here on here. - Robert the Bruce 07:11, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

--

&#364;alabio 06:46, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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? &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.188.195.86 (talk &bull; 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. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.188.195.86 (talk &bull; 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. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.188.195.86 (talk &bull; contribs).

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:, , , :
 * 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)

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)

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:  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)

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

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)

Two conflicting stories for suicide under Death section
There are two separate reports under Death. He consumed alcohol and OD'd on drugs. He shot himself in the head.

They read separately, in two separate paragraphs, although they are not necessarily contradictory -- he could have done both, but it reads as if the OD killed him, and then the shotgun is mentioned later.

Please fix this. Which was it? Both? ... also, please keep him (and those close to him) in your prayers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newagelink (talk • contribs) 04:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Reimer's death
According to the Horizon documentary, "Dr Money and the Boy with the Burned Off Penis", David Reimer committed suicide in the parking lot of a car dealership, not a grocery store. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.62.185.70 (talk • contribs)

Inconsistency when he identified as male
"he began living as male at age 14."

"At 13, Reimer decided to assume a male gender identity"

"In 1980, Reimer's parents told him the truth about his gender reassignment" (he was born in 1965, so was 14 or 15)

the web sources don't seem to say when precisely he identified as male, though it seems certainly later than 13, so I'm changing that one to 14 to be consistent. if somebody has the books, perhaps they could correct this. -Ethan (talk) • 2009-02-26 08:53 (UTC)


 * I'm not quite sure what that third quote has to do with it, it's not necessarily the case that he might only have began living as a male after he became aware of his childhood mutilation - in fact it might only have been because of his rejection of a female identity that his parents decided to tell him the truth. --86.172.115.11 (talk) 16:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Gender studies portal
As the misfortunes of David Riemer are often cited in connection with gender identity discussions I think a reference to the Gender Studies Portal might be usefully added to the article Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Suicide
In this Wikipedia article it states that david's brother commited suicide. In the article on John Money, it states that his death was accidental. Can somebody research this and correct it?99.224.12.9 (talk) 00:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If there's no note, it's hard to tell. The sources seem to scrupulously avoid saying one way or another.  I've reworded to say what he died from but avoided any speculation on his reasons.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, I think we should remove the definitive tone as to the cause of David's suicide. Lot's of contributing factors may have led to his suicide, including family history of mental illness, financial difficulties, marital strife, not to mention his extraordinary upbringing. But unless he left some sort of note (which I didn't think he did) then we can't know what his reasons were for taking his own life. So if I don't see any other discussion here in the next few days, I'll rewrite the suicide portions to be less definitive. --MTHarden (talk) 15:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)