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

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

--

Ŭalabio 06:46, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)

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)

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, 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)

(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)[reply]

"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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.188.195.86 (talk • contribs)

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

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.188.195.86 (talk • contribs)

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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