Talk:David Reimer/Archive 2

I pointed out in the article that one cannot diagnosis phimosis before puberty because the præpuce is fused to the glans at birth and separate over childhood. Misdiagnosing phimosis before puberty and diaper-rash as an infection are common ways doctors get fees from unnecessary circumcisions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.233.65 (talk) 19:17, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello @76.102.233.65:. It looks like your (this time even longer) paragraph on phimosis got deleted again. I agree with those deletions as I've said before in an edit summary on this article and on your talk page. As the article talk page is the right place to resolve content disputes about the article and seek consensus with other editors, if you still have a beef about the article content, this is the place to do it, as I said at your Talk page.

Background for those editors new to this: So far, there's been some edit warring going on about a paragraph User:76.102.233.65 wishes to add to the article and has now done three times, here, here and here, all of which were reverted by different editors.

I had several objections to your edit, the chief of which was that the content you added concerned details of a medical procedure, which, if appropriate anywhere on Wikipedia, would only make sense at the Phimosis article, and not on the biography page of every (or any) person that happened to have the procedure. I stand by that.

At this point, if you wish to pursue this, you should try to seek consensus of other editors by laying out as clearly as possible here what you would like to add to the article, and why you think it would be an improvement. You tried to do that to some extent earlier on your talk page, but I don't think you helped your cause. I'd say try to focus here on the specific wording you want to add, and why that will improve the article about Daivd Reimer, and why it belongs here and not somewhere else. Hope that helps. Mathglot (talk) 09:11, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

As additional background info: in a section from 2009 above entitled Phimosis and Reimer's penis allusion was made to a similar dispute years ago. This led me to discover two edits by User:Lingwitt, to wit: 15:35 17 Jan 2009 and 21:41 29 Jan 2009, each of which was reverted shortly thereafter. Mathglot (talk) 09:57, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

If an article states that someone died during a procedure for removing the influence of leprechauns, we should mention that leprechaun-infuence is not a recognized condition. Please explain why we should let whitewash stand. Maybe, we can add this sentence:

"According to the article on phimosis and these references, ^{[1] [1] [2] [3][4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [9] [13]} phimosis cannot be diagnosed before puberty."

References for comment above

76.102.233.65 (talk) 14:46, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Once again, we have censorship in the article. I left the proposed version here for a day without objections. I refuse to censor that the diagnosis of phimosis is quackery. Maybe I should just change the sentence to this:

"At the age of six months, after concern was raised about how both of them urinated, the boys were given the quack diagnosis of phimosis (not a valid diagnosis in that age-group)."

It is too bad that it is unencyclopædic to hypothesize in the article because I am pretty certain what really happened:

It was probably just ballooning; as the præpuce separates from the glans and the præputial opening is still narrow, it is normal for urine to cause the præpuce to inflate with urine. This helps with the process of the præpuce and glans separating from each other.

Diagnose the the ballooning as phimosis, diaper-rash, if present as an infection, amputate the præpuce. It is a quick way to make easy money.

If none object to my idea about pointing out the truth that the diagnosis is quackery within a day, I shall add that to the article. In the edit-summary, I shall ask the censors to read the talk-page and voice their objects here, instead of just censoring for no reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:643:C000:5C2A:B8A0:DB9B:B41:5E79 (talk) 19:35, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Can we please keep the thread about this topic all in one place? Above, at #Phimosis and Reimer's penis at 21:26, 19 June 2016 user 76.102.233.65 said,

The article should mention that phimosis is not a valid diagnosis before puberty. Not mentioning it would be like the progun-people changing the article about Abraham Lincoln so that it reads that he died from lead-poisoning. After all, the bullet was made of lead. It hides the fact that the diagnosis is inappropriate for infants. As the article reads now, it looks like what happened was a tragic accident during a necessary procedure, rather than the truth, which is that the procedure was totally unnecessary.

But this is just a restatement of what you've said before, and the response is still the same. No, the article shouldn't mention it, because this is not an article about a medical procedure, so it's irrelevant here. What's relevant is that reliable sources confirm that doctors performed the procedure, whether it was advisable in your opinion or not, and that's what the article says. Furthermore, your Lincoln analogy is absurdly wrong-headed. Mathglot (talk) 18:52, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I have no intention of letting you are others censor the article. As it stands, this article is like a biography about someone who died from treatment of Dutch Elm Disease without mentioning that Dutch Elm Disease is a quack-diagnosis for humans. I plan to uncensored the article. Given that you know that it is a quack-diagnosis, I do not understand why you want to hide the truth. I shall mention in the article that it is a quack-diagnosis. — Preceding unsigned comment added at 12:57, 23 June 2016‎ by User:76.102.233.65 (talk) (sig added by Mathglot (talk) 23:48, 28 June 2016 (UTC) )

"For the first thirty years after Dr. Money's initial report that the reassignment had been a success, Dr. Money's view of the malleability of gender became the dominant viewpoint among physicians and doctors, reassuring them that sexual reassignment was the correct decision in certain instances, resulting in thousands of sexual reassignments."

This sentence seems a bit biased against sexual reassignment to me - perhaps it should be considered for rewording? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.210.3 (talk) 17:39, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

We have three refs to Colapinto's book. All three have "page needed" tags on them. But it seems to me this statement doesn't need a page number, since it's just saying that the book exists: "This was later expanded into a full-length book As Nature Made Him: The Boy Who Was Raised as a Girl,^{[8][page needed]}..." Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

@Alison, 76.102.233.65, Onejaguar, Flyer22 Reborn, I am One of Many, and Maunus:
@2601:643:C000:5C2A:B8A0:DB9B:B41:5E79 and 2601:643:C000:5C2A:BC95:AED3:7437:E678:
Alison said above, "Ok - this has been going on and on and on. I've fully protected the article at an arbitrary revision for a week. Please, all sides, thrash out the problem here and come to some sort of agreement. I've fully-protected out of fairness to the anon editor - Alison ❤

I support the protection. I've been scratching my head trying to figure out how to come to some consensus about this. I wish to address in this section not so much the subject of contention, but how to reach consensus. I'm well aware of WP:DISPUTE. We could try some of the "outside help" suggestions in WP:CONTENTDISPUTE I suppose, but for the reasons stated below, I'm not optimistic about that; still, it's worth a try. Also, there is some fuzziness in this dispute as I think it's a mix of content as well as a conduct dispute.

What I see going on here is a lone wolf who has added certain material nine times by my count, which has been reverted nine times by five editors, and who has stated their intent to go it alone in the face of any disagreement as noted above and here:

I shall not let censorship stand. If I revert it daily, I shall not be in violation of #R and after a while, the censorers will get tired of censoring. I have the truth on my side that phimosis is not a valid diagnosis before puberty, so have no intention of letting this whitewash stand.

I don't quite see how to reach consensus in a situation when one editor has stated so clearly their intent to prevail by dogged persistence and exhaustion of other editors.

Do we want to try the RFC route? For example, should the following be an RFC question? "Should the David Reimer article mention that phimosis before puberty is a misdiagnosis?" (The RFC should be worded in a way that pleases the lone wolf—I don't claim to speak for them but that is my best guess of how they might word an RFC question.) An RFC seems predestined to fail in the face of universal opposition, but then again, we haven't heard from unininvolved editors, and I'm certainly not against an RFC, so maybe we should try it.

To the extent that part of the issue is a user conduct dispute, I'm not sure how to draw a clear dividing line between that and the content dispute. In addition, you can't resolve an issue when a user won't respond: several editors including myself have made reference to aspects of the conduct issue at the User's Talk page and initially there were responses, but there has been no engagement by the user about the issue since 18 June.

I'm all ears about how to proceed. Mathglot (talk) 02:54, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

• @Mathglot your analysis is correct, the only thing I would add is that we already have a clear consensus that the editor behind the IP address is attempting to introduce WP:SYNTHESIS into the article. I think that it was a good thing Alison protected the page though Alison might consider changing it to semi-protection since, looking a the history, Mathglot has been working on improving the article and I see no reason why an IP—editing against policy—should, through their actions, prevent a constructive editor from improving an article. --I am One of Many (talk) 05:29, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

@I am One of Many: Thanks and certainly can't disagree with the semi on principle, but I can work on other things for now, there's no hurry here, plus I don't want to create even an appearance of anything that could give cause for a false grievance. Who knows, maybe the week will calm things down. In the meanwhile, still soliciting suggestions on how to find consensus. Anyone? Mathglot (talk) 07:16, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

You are as bad as antivaccers. Diagnosis of phimosis before puberty is not valid I do not understand why you hide this. I have an hypothetical situation:

Let us suppose that a tree-surgeon diagnosed Dutch-Elm-Disease in Jane Doe. He treated the Dutch-Elm-Disease by removing her crown, which when done to a human, means he cutoff her head. Jane Doe died minutes after the operation. Is it synthesis for the contributors of the article about Jane Doe to point out that itch-Elm-Disease is an inappropriate diagnosis for humans, that cutting off her head was quackery, and that the tree-surgeon committed homicide against Jane Doe?

It seems to me that not only would it not be synthesis to add those 3 obvious facts to the article, but it would be censorship not to add those 3 facts.

All of you acknowledge that phimosis is not a valid diagnosis for babies because the prepuce is still partially fused to the glans and the præputial orifice is not yet wide enough for full retraction, but you censor the article anyway. Since you all agree to these facts, why do you censor them?

73.93.143.43 (talk) 01:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

@73.93.143.4 and 76.102.233.65: Hello. I have not seen your IP before, but given the tenor of your comments, may I assume you are the same user as 76.102.233.65 who has previously contributed here? Please correct me if I am mistaken.

• With respect to your comment "All of you acknowledge that..." and "Since you all agree..." please see User_talk:76.102.233.65#Consensus_by_diktat.
• With respect to your use of the word "censor", please see User_talk:76.102.233.65#Wikipedia is a collaborative platform.

A talk page is a place to reach consensus and discuss how to improve the article. In particular, given the apparent stalemate here, rather than locking horns on a point that everyone understands is the crux of a disagreement, I was hoping to engage you about process. So I'm making a direct appeal to you: How do you propose to resolve the current dispute given that simply repeating our respective positions over and over is not going to work? If you're not familiar with the Wikipedia policy on dispute resolution please read it and make a suggestion here. One of Wikipedia's dispute resolution methods is called Request for Comment. Would you like to try that? If not, how do you see this going forward towards a resolution? Please see WP:CONTENTDISPUTE for further suggestions. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 06:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)-

We can end the dispute by not censoring the article. Except for extreme malformations and mechanical injuries, one does not need to perform præpucectomy to neonates. Misdiagnosing normal nonretractability and ballooning as phimosis and diaper-rash as infection are cash-grab misdiagnoses.

76.102.233.65 (talk) 23:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

This is a very easy case to solve. All you need is reliable sources that explicitly state that David Reimer was misdiagnosed with phimosis. If there are no such resources, then pleas move on to something else. --I am One of Many (talk) 23:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

!

Your solution is to bow to censorship. I do not accept your suggestion. This misdiagnosis is an obvious cash-grab. Even if it would have been a true diagnoses, præpucectomy is a last resort —— not a 1st option. The "trouble" urinating was just ballooning. Scumbags and their fee-seeking behavior! A simple solution would be to pay doctors a flat salary (they get paid the same amount no matter what they do), ban sexual genital mutilation of boys, intersexed, and girls, and only allow science-based medicine (evidence-based medicie is not sufficient because of bad evidence such as Wiswell* generated in his UTI-Study where all of the boys received præpucectomies except the sick, premature, and those with deformed genitals who became the control group while the healthy boys became the experimental group) but that will not happen.

• Wiswell is infamous for saying:

"I have some good friends who are obstetricians outside the military, and they look at a foreskin and almost see a $125 price tag on it. Each one is that much money. Heck, if you do 10 a week, that's over $1,000 a week, and they don't take that much time."
——
Dr.Thomas Wiswell,
quoted in "The Age-Old Question of Circumcision"
by Betsy A. Lehman, Boston Globe, June 22, 1987, p. 43

76.102.233.65 (talk) 05:53, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

User 76.102.233.65, please read our WP:BURDEN and WP:WEIGHT policies and try to understand why having a reference is essential to include the content you want to add. References allow readers to verify how exactly each assertion is relevant to the topic at hand; you'd be doing our readers a disservice by stating out of the blue that it was a misdiagnosis, without further context, and without a way to verify the circumstances of such diagnosis in a reliable source. Off the top of my head I can think of many reasons why the phimosis diagnosis may have occurred:

• such diagnosis may have not been considered incorrect for minors, given the scientific knowledge at the time
• the doctor may have been ignorant that such diagnoses could not be done on boys that age
• the doctor may have used the diagnosis as a covert way to promote circumcision

My point is that, without having a reliable source putting in context the reason why such inadequate diagnosis was made for the toddler, I as a reader would be left wondering why this happened, which ones of my above musings may be correct or incorrect, and why the Wikipedia article mentions the fact but utterly fails to explain its relevance. Without a reliable source explaining it, it is therefore better to omit the fact rather than casting aspersions but failing to substantiate them, leaving the reader wondering about the motives of whoever wrote the article.

All of this would be nil if we had a reference explaining why the doctor issued such diagnosis, of course; if we had such explanation from a reliable source, I would support including it. Diego (talk) 11:41, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not in the business of making medical diagnoses. Neither do we second guess or reevaluate diagnoses made by doctors and reported in reliable sources. The basic policies WP:OR and WP:SYNTH prohibit us from making the suggested edit.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I saw a lot of Citation needed. Maybe this source can help? http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2004/06/gender_gap.html

Dnm (talk) 08:18, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David Reimer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141205154626/http://www.ffwdweekly.com/music/previews/metaphorical-cats-medical-oddities-and-men-brooms/ to http://www.ffwdweekly.com/music/previews/metaphorical-cats-medical-oddities-and-men-brooms/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:05, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

The editorializing on phimosis is unnecessary - it really looks like a comment saying "this entire procedure could have been avoided by not having any genital surgeries or circumcisions". The page, based on the archive, seemed to have been the subject of a lot of disputes and POV-pushing by anti-circumcision activists. Per WP:MORALIZE, it's unnecessary and contrary to the purpose of wikpedia. There's no need for the links to be reintroduced, that information should be in the phimosis page and not here. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The article should mention that phimosis is not a valid diagnosis before puberty. Not mentioning it would be like the progun-people changing the article about Abraham Lincoln so that it reads that he died from lead-poisoning. After all, the bullet was made of lead. It hides the fact that the diagnosis is inappropriate for infants. As the article reads now, it looks like what happened was a tragic accident during a necessary procedure, rather than the truth, which is that the procedure was totally unnecessary.

76.102.233.65 (talk) 21:26, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Excellent point. According to our article on phimosis, this condition even appears to be completely regular and unpathological before puberty, making not only the treatment, but already the diagnosis criminally incompetent. The article omits this critical information. Being unable to give consent, infants should not be operated upon without unambiguous medical indication. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:45, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Currently, death_cause in the Infobox is just 'Suicide'. Can we add '(self-inflicted gunshot)' to clarify? — Lasse Havelund (p · t · c) 19:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

An infobox just summarizes important highlights, and the cause of death was suicide. The agency of his suicide is already covered in detail in the section on his death. Mathglot (talk) 18:38, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David Reimer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160521153837/http://www.ensemblestudiotheatre.org/current-season-1/2016/1/8/boy to http://www.ensemblestudiotheatre.org/current-season-1/2016/1/8/boy

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:54, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Why is this phrase necessary? Reimer wasn't "assigned" anything at birth. Male child. The assigning started after the botched operation. pablo 08:18, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey @Mathglot: you reverted, care to discuss why? You know, BRD and all? pablo 11:09, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

@Pablo X: The word "assigned" might seem like the wrong word here, but as wikipedia editors, we don't get to choose the term in situations like this, we must use the common name used in the preponderance of reliable sources. As the terms "sex assignment" and "assigned male at birth" are overwhelmingly the ones used in this situation, we must follow that usage.

I noticed that the term "assigned male at birth" lacked a wikilink in the lead sentence, because the term "reassignment" later in that sentence already linked to the sex assignment article. I've moved the link up, which hopefully will resolve any confusion. Mathglot (talk) 17:52, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

No, these are not the terms used in this situation. There is no evidence that Reimer had an intersex condition. His sex was observed at birth; male. It was not until after he was mutilated during the foreskin surgery that any though of "assigning" emerged. pablo 08:03, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Just more of the insane leftist terminology that's permeating Wikipedia. 2A02:C7F:8E0C:6600:88B6:24D2:6772:76C7 (talk) 18:27, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

@Pablo X: I think you misunderstand. It's not that this term is used only for intersex conditions, if that were the case then you would be right. This term is used to describe what happens at time of birth, for every baby. When the birth attendant says, "It's a boy!" the baby was assigned male at birth. Nothing to do with intersex, or not intersex. It's appropriate here, for the same reason that it is appropriate for your birth, my birth, everyone's birth. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 16:42, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Patronising much?
This term is not "commonly used to describe what happens at birth". Certainly not any birth I've attended. Definitely not in 1965. It adds nothing to the sentence "David Peter Reimer (August 22, 1965 – May 4, 2004) was a Canadian man" except a false layer of doubt about whether Reimer was male. But if you feel happier with adding unnecessary revisionist woo to a simple sentence, knock yourself out. pablo 07:20, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the wording "assigned male at birth" is superfluous in the lead. I also agree that it introduces uncertainty and jargon, and that this is not necessary. Trankuility (talk) 09:17, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Trankuility. Perhaps it's not technically incorrect, but "assigned male at birth" is normally said about intersex or ambiguous births, and it's just confusing to use that term in this case. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 10:49, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't believe that is true either. Sex assignment is typically used by trans people, to distinguish their identity from a birth sex assignment. The idea that it is an assignment is implied by the concept of reassignment. It has relevance in some situations, but here it is superfluous. Trankuility (talk) 11:09, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

You're right. I still agree with you that it's superfluous and prefer the original opening sentence (before this change). Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 13:26, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

We can change "was a Canadian man assigned male at birth but reassigned as a girl" to "was a Canadian man reassigned as a girl." Mentioning the reassignment in this case is important for obvious reasons, which is why "assigned" was even included; it was to complement "reassigned." But we can simply include "reassigned" and provide a link to what we mean by it (like we did before). As for using "born biologically male," I know that many transgender people object to such wording; I'll leave including that wording up to others in the case of this article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we need anything between "man" and and "raised". i.e.

David Peter Reimer (August 22, 1965 – May 4, 2004) was a Canadian man raised as a girl following medical advice and intervention after his penis was accidentally destroyed during a botched circumcision in infancy.

is plain English; accurate, clear, and unambiguous. pablo 10:05, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I think this version is adequate. "Assigned male at birth" is unnecessary and only serves to confuse people. Natureium (talk) 03:24, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

The current version of "...born physically male but reassigned as a girl and raised female..." still sounds off to me, especially the last part, since "raising" just doesn't go with "female". How about, "...but reassigned and raised as a girl..." instead? Mathglot (talk) 09:21, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

That could probably work. However, the "reassigning" part is pretty obvious in that sentence. "Born physically male but raised female after..." explains everything. Natureium (talk) 15:31, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Mathglot to go with sex and gender distinction wording in this case. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Natureium, Just to clarify: I wasn't addressing the "reassigning" part, but merely including that for context as part of the longer quoted snippet, including the "raised female" part, which I find discordant since "raising" is a social activity that is often gendered (i.e., "raised as a girl" or "raised as a boy") but not sexual ("has female chromosomes"/"has male zygotes"). The proposal was intended to rationalize to "raised as a girl" (as Flyer says, to observe sex/gender distinction) without violating the sense of the remainder of that clause. Mathglot (talk) 23:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I wonder if the links to the 'doggy style', 'bottom', and 'missionary' articles are necessary in this section? It at least seems in poor taste to have these here in a description of apparent sexual abuse of children. 108.17.4.7 (talk) 02:33, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I disagree, people deserve to know about Money's sick mind as a partial background for his insane theories about gender. However much some may wish to deny this truth, humans naturally incline towards a gender identity (whatever that may be, I try not to judge based on gender identity, race, religion, or creed but only based on the content of your character). Okay, rant over.

Edit: I think I may have misunderstood your argument, please disregard if this is so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.9.85 (talk) 07:20, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

The irony in what you wrote (of which I don't necessarily disagree with, any of it) - Money's "insane ideas about gender", &c - is that it was Money that originally created the modern concept of sex-gender distinction. "Gender" as a concept exists because of him. Firejuggler86 (talk) 06:06, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

"The psychologist John Money oversaw the case and reported the reassignment as successful and as evidence that gender identity is primarily learned."

Contains the illusion of meaning ("gender identity is primarily learned") without any actual meaning. Not that great of a grammatician, but I know enough to know this sentence is wrong and nonsensical. If gender identity is learned, cite the source, and have the discussion. Who said it was learned, is there medical consensus on this, can Wikipedia make this claim, etc... and who is John Money anyways. A "psychologist" can mean anything from a 4-year degree from a non-accredited university to someone with multiple doctorates, and a world-renowned reputation. To make the claim, an encyclopedia requires some evidence of credibility, some connection to both the psychologist, and some connection to the topic of the Article. Tbh, it feels like POV pushing, done badly. Someone wanted to make the statement "gender identity is learned" in an Article that had something to do with gender identity and so they hammered and screwed bits of text together to create this sentence, and it's horrific. Worst, it's actually in the Lede. I find it difficult to believe this sentence is in the Article, and no one has said anything about it due to oversight. Once you get past the nonsensical grammar, who is John Money to declare the reassignment "successful"? Also what's the nature of his "oversight"? Was he directly involved on a day-to-day basis, or did he read about it and offer an opinion long after the surgery was complete?Tym Whittier (talk) 22:55, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I would tend to agree. I would hardly consider a lifetime of suicidal depression and ultimate suicide as "successful". In addition, the article states that Reimer reversed the gender reassignment at a young age, which again, would seem to indicate that it was not "successful". I appreciate that this is simply the opinion of John Money, but putting it in the lede seems at best misleading, at worst, disingenuous. Whether or not gender identity is learned is probably beyond the scope of this article, but having the claim in the lede here needs some discussion. 2001:BB6:289B:4258:6C66:AE43:1574:E619 (talk) 15:19, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Agree, that statement should not be in the lede; it should, perhaps, be placed further down in the article, but not without a comprehensive background explanation. And further, it needs to be made clear that despite what Money's assessment was at the time when David and his brother were still prepubescent children (I'm assuming that that was when Money made the statement in question, or else he would have been one delusional luney tune), it ultimately turned out to be a failure.

Regarding the background context, over the use of "gender identity" - if that is used here, the context needs to be explained. Basically, that John Money was the person who came up with the modern concept of "gender"; before then, such a concept was non-existent in our society. There was only sex, and "gender" was only used in the context of language, i.e. grammatical gender (masculine, feminine, and neuter). Money created the modern concept of gender, along with his own pet theory to go along with it (that it is "learned"). David Reimer was his first test subject. His theory has been fairly soundly debunked, but his concept of gender as something distinct from sex has gained wide (but not universal) acceptance. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:38AF:FCF0:ABA4:79B (talk) 21:16, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

"Notes by a former student at Money's lab state that, during the follow-up visits, which occurred only once a year, Reimer's parents routinely lied to lab staff about the success of the procedure. The twin brother, Brian, later developed schizophrenia.[18]"

This is not in the article, nor in the questions or transcript? Maybe this should be removed or at least state that it's unsourced? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chronicler87 (talk • contribs) 14:05, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Good spot. I have removed the statement not mentioned in the source. --Blurryman (talk) 20:00, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

IrTo (talk · contribs), regarding this and this, when you are reverted because of a style issue, it is common practice to take the matter to the talk page. Not simply revert while marking the edit as WP:Minor. The edit is not WP:Minor. So do not mark it as such. Anyway, like I mentioned when reverting you, "died by suicide" has been discussed at the WP:Manual of Style talk page times before. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 160#Wording on articles about suicide in line with recommended best practice based on research, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch/Archive 7#"Committed suicide" and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies/2017 archive#Usage of "Committed suicide"

Many editors (me included) find "died by suicide" poor wording and awkward. We can at least try to come up with some alternative wording, meaning wording that does not use "committed suicide" or "died by suicide." Simply stating "killed himself" would work in this case. I'll contact WP:Manual of Style about weighing in. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:30, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

"Committed suicide" is normal English and does not imply criminality ("commit" has multiple meanings in English - one should commit to committing them to memory). It is by far the most common construction, which is easily provable . "Died by suicide" is actually quite rare (surely owning to its archaic awkwardness, shades of "died by [his/her] own hand", "died by misadventure", etc.). "Killed [him|her]self" (combined) have a bit less than 50% the usage rate in modern works as "committed suicide". There are other ways to write this sort of thing, like "death was ruled a suicide" (if we have official reports that say so), and rearranging the sentence: "His/her suicide ...". There are others (see Suicide terminology), but most of them are awkward. We've spent too many cycles on too many pages arguing about this. People who think that "commit suicide" auto-implies a crime are just flat-out wrong as a matter of English language usage, but in the end do we really care? It's easier and faster to re-word than to keep arguing about this on page after page for the next decade. But "died by suicide" is pretty much the last option; virtually no reliable sources use it other than a few newspapers who've jumped onto the oversensitivity pandering bandwagon. This "died by suicide" stuff is the advocacy position of a particular organization ; pushing it here is a WP:NPOV policy problem. While we should not revert rewordings of "committed suicide" that are actual improvements (and "died by suicide" is not, or way more than around 1% of sources would use it), programmatic editwarring against "committed suicide" has to stop. This is rapidly approaching disruptive editing levels, and is a major drain on editorial productivity. It's consumed probably several hundred editorial person-hours just in the last couple of months.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  00:20, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Your point about the use of the word "commit" is a gross oversimplification of a controversial argument. Commit is not a neutral word in the context. Personally, I would just rephrase the sentence to use the next most commonly used style of 'killed himself'. ToastButterToast (talk) 00:45, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Terminology may or may not be changing in this area; the topic is covered somewhat in the Suicide article, and more in the Suicide terminology article, including medico-legal terminology, but with specific attention to "commit" as well, here: Suicide terminology#Controversy over use of "commit" and "committed". In any case, the proper place to have this discussion, if you would like to establish a clear consensus for avoiding "commit suicide" is not here, but on one of the Manual of Style pages which would then govern usage across the encyclopedia, if adopted.

Ah-ha! I was about to link it for you, but I see that Flyer has beat me to it. Imho, the correct place for this discussion would be at WT:MOS. Mathglot (talk) 01:53, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Just to be clear (given the number of links above), the current and ongoing discussion is Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Use of "died by suicide" at the David Reimer article (archive link) (which is no longer about the David Reimer article in particular; the attempt to point people to this discussion instead sparked a general discussion of the issue at WT:MOS).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  15:44, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussions at the guideline talk page haven't helped to establish a consensus on the "committed" matter so far. I don't see that the current one will either unless an RfC is started there. And, yeah, I know that I often rely on RfCs. But per what you stated above, it seems to me that we do need an RfC on this at the WP:Manual of Style talk page -- one to point editors to -- since "committed" is being removed from articles so often. People are going to keep referring to certain sources/style guides on the matter as justification for removing "committed." If Wikipedia does not support that route, then Wikipedia needs to be very clear about that. I wouldn't mind "committed" being removed and being replaced with "died by suicide" if "died by suicide" was actual standard language. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:55, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

'Committed suicide' is the most common and natural language. If someone wants to Right Great Wrongs, they need to go out and fix the world first. Wikipedia can follow after the majority of common language has changed. Alsee (talk) 18:23, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

The Article now states he "committed suicide". Given there hasn't been a post in this section since 2017, this section could probably be archived.Tym Whittier (talk) 23:00, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

For anyone else who wants to find it, the MOS discussion is here. Of the universe (talk) 16:31, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

He didn't transition. This erroneous statement should be revised. This article is about a man who underwent abusive treatments without his consent and finally got (some of) the abuse to stop in his teens. A man receiving male hormones to supplimemt the ones he could no longer produce due to the aforementioned abuse is not transitioning. 74.192.154.173 (talk) 13:45, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this here. Unfortunately, transition is the right word. The word resume means to start something up again that was already there; in Reimer's case, he never lived as a boy, tragically, due to the botched circumcision in infancy, and the decision to raise him as a girl from the start. If you can find that a majority of reliable sources do use the word resume instead of transition, then you can make the change. Please accompany it with a citation to one of the strongest sources that are typical of the majority view. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 18:00, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense. Reimer would have been living as a boy for the first few months of his life before his genitals were chopped off. He was born biologically male. That is evidence enough that he was living as a male for the first few months. Reliable sources aren't needed; this is self-evident. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:12, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Your specific statement "from the start" would imply "before birth". The sex reassignment surgery occurred several months after Reimer was born, so it in fact was *not* from the start. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:14, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, would agree, text says the operation was when he was 22 months old, so up to that point he had been living as a male --FMSky (talk) 18:16, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I originally edited the adjective to "returned", but I've changed it to "began" since I think that's a bit more neutral (whatever that means). This article certainly does play a major role in the transexuality information war, but we have to report the facts of this case as they stand individually, regardless of the wider political implications. "Transitioned" simply isn't the correct adjective in this case, but "returned" or "resumed" could be considered slightly loaded. So, "began" it is. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:21, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not convinced there is anything wrong with the use of the word "resumed" for David. It's factually accurate for this article about an male individual who, in his earliest days post-gestation, underwent a botched penile circumcision. That alone is proof that he didn't "begin" living as a male in his teens. He resumed. This shouldn't be contentious as the individual in question was never trans himself nor identified as such. If David were female why would he undergo a circumcision at infancy? Such practices are illegal. I also fail to see how this contribution warranted a block. 74.192.154.173 (talk) 22:46, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I would say that Reimer was forced to transition from male to female at the ages of 6-22 months. So, when he was female (nominally), he had been forced to transition to that gender/sex, and I would consider that first act to have been a transition, albeit involuntary. The moment that he became male, he was indeed resuming his desired gender, so I would not call that a transition. In transexual theory, it is possible for someone to transition to the opposite gender and then "transition" back. I believe that's why there was pushback to your edit; the pushback was clearly politically motivated. In Reimer's case, he didn't actually "transition" back since he never agreed to the first transition in the first place, hence that first transition was nullified. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 22:59, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree that an exercising of the Will must be present for a person to transition. Such an exercise was never present for David hence what was done to him specifically (and I want to emphasize that when I use this term, it is explicitly in the context of this individual since I understand its inflammatory potential if lifted out of that context) was a mutilation. Further I would posit that conflating what was done to David as a transition would only be a disservice to transpersons and the procedures that they, with full consent, undergo. For these reasons I would describe this particular instance as a male individual who, after a botched circumcision and many years of abuse while being raised as a female, "resumed" living as a male. I can appreciate that some may have a knee-jerk hesitation to the term 'resume' but for David the nuance is there and, at least to the best of my knowledge, supports its use. 74.192.154.173 (talk) 23:44, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

"transition" in plain English just means changing from one state to another. I don't see how the word "transition" is inappropriate. He went from being socially recognized as a girl, medically taking estrogen, to being socially recognized as a boy and taking testosterone. Yes he was always male, and was abused. "Transition" does not imply he was not abused or that he was ever female. Of the universe (talk) 02:06, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

What if we said "he was living as a male by the age of 15" to sidestep the issue? Of the universe (talk) 02:13, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

that sounds like reasonable solution 74.192.154.173 (talk) 02:15, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

No state changed. He was inappropriately given estrogen and ceased it as soon as he could so that his body would stop reacting to the abuse caused by it. He then went on HRT to recover from said abuse. Whether or not society recognizes it is irrelevant. 74.192.154.173 (talk) 02:14, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

You can say that someone "transitioned from middle school to high school." The word doesn't necessarily imply anything deep about ontology. (Anyway, this disagreement doesn't really need to be resolved if other editors are okay with the "was living as" solution) Of the universe (talk) 02:26, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

The problem with the term "transition" is that it has a particular jargonistic connotation that is very specific to the theory of transexuality. Hence, although "transition" might be seen as a harmless term in normal English usage, in the context of transexuality, it is actually a very loaded term that denotes a specific process. Hence, it is inappropriate to use this term in this specific context. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:11, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. Of the universe (talk) 03:51, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree, however the nature of what this boy went through doesn't lend to that meaning of the word 'transition' to be the first that comes to mind. It seems needlessly obtuse at best and intentionally deceptive at worst. 74.192.154.173 (talk) 03:14, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I will also add that what happened to David Reimer was needlessly cruel. He was exploited as the poster boy (girl) of a political movement that he never wanted to be a part of in the first place. There exists a lot of pushback to describe what happened to Reimer as "abuse" since he was spearheaded as a major figure in the transexual movement. However, this was clearly done against his will. So, despite the political ramifications of what describing his situation as abuse might entail, we can only do him justice by describing his situation exactly as such. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:19, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Not sure where you get your perception of political forces? In my reading, David is much more admired by trans people as his true self than as "Brenda." A lot of transgender men especially see themselves in the story of being coerced into girlhood against their will (although obviously there's a difference because he's male and trans men are female) Of the universe (talk) 03:50, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

The problem is, David Reimer isn't actually trans and never truly was, so he shouldn't really be a figure of admiration among transgender people in the first place. Reimer was born male and always wanted to be male, but he was mutilated, deceived, brainwashed, abused, tortured, and exploited as a young boy in order for a psychotic megalomaniac sociopathic "psychologist" to explore his twisted theories of gender theory, which included child pornography and molestation, as well as public ridicule and Reimer's eventual gruesome suicide from chronic depression. There's nothing admirable about Reimer's situation, his entire life was torture in some form or another. He deserves sympathy and empathy, not admiration. Perhaps he can be admired for standing up for himself against that monster, but nothing more than that. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 06:54, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understand the part where I was saying that Reimer never wanted any of this. The fact that he became famous from this entire ordeal is a crime in and of itself. He should have been allowed to live a quiet life of his own accord. Instead, he was exploited without consent in order to represent a cause that he didn't believe in. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 06:58, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

He never wanted to be raised as a girl. He never wanted to be famous. But you're downplaying his agency. He willingly went public with his story in order to discourage similar medical practices. Of the universe (talk) 07:08, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and that shouldn't make him only and specifically an inspiration to transexual people. He should be an inspiration to everyone who has suffered torture and abuse from crazy doctors (and equally stupid parents who let this happen) from such a young age. For example, he might be considered inspiring for the victims of female genital mutilation in certain countries, which is a similar condition (except my understanding is that it only involves the mutilation of the vulva, rather than the removal of the ovaries). In any case, he is not a transexual and he has no special significance to the transexual cause above a whole number of other causes that he might also represent to some degree or another. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 07:30, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Also, don't forget, that the doctor, "Money", used Reimer as an example in his studies for many years after he initially performed his crazy experiments with Reimer as a kid. So, Money not only exploited Reimer but also profited from his suffering and abuse, which makes Money's crimes all the more heinous. Money should have been locked away in a maximum security prison for life. That is the gravity of his crimes. The fact that he lived to see old age and a pension is truly shocking to me. His name was never said in vain until after he died, when Reimer began to reveal the dark truth behind that monstrous man. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 07:34, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Note: Reimer came out with his story towards the end of Money's life, rather than after Money's death. But Money was already an old and presumably wealthy man by that point, and there was no way that Reimer could cause serious harm to either Money's wellbeing or reputation at that point. Money kicked the bucket in 2006 at the ripe old age of 84. Notably, he was not being held in a maximum security prison at the time. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 07:37, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, I was initially wondering why I had bookmarked this page when I saw activity in my Watchlist just yesterday. But now, I understand. This story is honestly one of the most messed up things I have ever read in my life, and it's made all the more tragic by the fact that the bad guy got away with it in the end. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 07:38, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Reimer was also sterilized as a young boy as a result of his sex reassignment surgery. His testicles were removed, which means that he was deprived of his fundamental human right to reproduce, and it's something that he could never gain back. Even with the lack of a penis from the botched circumcision, he still had his testicles until they removed those too. He was never transgender and never consented to the removal of his sexual organs. He became a eunuch, and not of his own accord. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 07:07, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

True. Agreed. Imo, the involuntarily sterilization is the worst part of the horrible story. Of the universe (talk) 07:10, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Involuntary sterilization is about 500 times more serious than merely "a girl being raised as a girl". Sorry to burst your bubble, but girls have been raised as girls for thousands of years. There's nothing abnormal about that. Obviously, in the progressive societies of the contemporary day, we would prefer it if girls were allowed to express themselves more freely. But again, gender roles are a natural part of human society and have been for as long as we have existed as a species. On the other hand, involuntary sterilization is a crime nearing the level of murder and genocide (indeed, sterilization is classified as a component of genocide by the Geneva Convention). So yeah, your comparison to girls wanting to behave more like men (irrespective of their private parts) is laughable and offensive. David Reimer was a man who had his dick and balls ripped out of him without his own consent. Two totally different scenarios. Pardon my French. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 07:24, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

"second, this was reputed to be the second reassignment and reconstruction performed on a male infant who had no abnormality of prenatal or early postnatal sexual differentiation."

I've never heard this anywhere before. What's the source? I've always heard that Reimer was the first normally developmental male to be reassigned. Which case is the first if this is not the case? The Colapinto biography states that when Diamond challenged Money to come up with a case of a boy successfully reassigned and raised female, he couldn't come up with one. Everything suggests that David is the first boy ever reassigned (that was normally developmental at least). Chronicler87 (talk) 14:00, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

@Chronicler87 Thanks! You are correct AFAIK, I've changed the article accordingly. Of the universe (talk) 19:44, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

@Chronicler87 "Everything suggests that David is the first boy ever reassigned (that was normally developmental at least)." Please provide any sources you have on hand so that we can better support "first developmentally normal boy" Of the universe (talk) 19:48, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't have anything on hand. I was just suprised since I have always heard David Reimer was first and there was no source stated suggesting he would be the second. As far as I know the 2nd boy to be reassigned was in 1970, while David was in 1967. Chronicler87 (talk) 00:36, 1 September 2022 (UTC)