What does the David Reimer case have to say about the concept of gender identity?

[Namechange4thispost]

So much in this tragic case to discuss.
articles.latimes.com/2004/may/13/local/me-reimer13

I don't think it's relevant at all.
Following a botched circumcision, the poor boy was simultaneously subjected to an unethical medical/psychological experiment and also childhood abuse, resulting in his suicide.
It is absolutely tragic and I think it would be far more respectful to him and his life not to use it as an argument for/against gender identity.

Quentin put my thoughts very eloquently.

The doctor in this case should have gone to jail.

I'm certainly not intending to be disrespectful. I'd not come across this story before. Neither am I trying to make an argument in either direction. But there is much in that 2004 obituary (which may not all be correct of course) about 'sex roles' and the views of prominent feminists like Kate Millet which I thought was worthy of discussion.

Yy what Quentin said.

One of the biggest fictions about David Reimer's life was that he was "raised as a girl". No, he wasn't. He had an extraordinarily abusive childhood that bears no resemblance to how any child (girl or boy) is normally raised. It had tragic consequences.

Let the poor man alone and allow him the dignity in death that he was denied in life.

One of the sentences that jumped out at me was:"What went unreported until decades later, however, was that Money's experiment actually proved the opposite -- the immutability of one's inborn sense of gender."

I can't quite make sense of this.

One of the sentences that jumped out at me was:"What went unreported until decades later, however, was that Money's experiment actually proved the opposite -- the immutability of one's inborn sense of gender."

I can't quite make sense of this.

That's because it's obvious bollocks. No matter what the facts of the case were, it was one single case and could not possibly prove anything, "actually" or otherwise.

I think the thing that was actually immutable for David, was his inborn sense of his own biological sex.

His case demonstrates that a sense of biological sex is innate and no amount of gender pretend can overcome that.

Having said that, it’s anecdotal. He was subject to an inordinate amount of cruelty and psychological experimentation, and there should have been prosecutions. We can’t extrapolate.

John Money tried to make David "into a girl" by role-playing sex positions "as a girl" when David was a child.
I think this case is best laid to rest as massive malpractice gone horribly wrong.

Aren't screenshots lovely things? To post to twitter n'stuff.

There’s a lot of info out there about this case. What that boy went through was horrific and unethical. Children are not there to be experimental guinea pigs.

This quote from the Guardian about the case:

For Lynne Segal, the story of the experiment does not settle the nature/nurture debate one way or the other - her view, widely shared today, is that the dichotomy is false - but it shows the perils of psychologists trying to prove too much through research. "It's far too simplistic, and far too interventionist, this idea that we can control and model and shape people to prove one thing or another.”

Doctors who prescribe puberty blockers and certain charities that promote them for gender non-conforming children will eventually got the way of John Money. To be viewed in horror.

*go the way

I watched his documentary years ago.

What I took away from it was that it unnecessary surgery is a really bad idea. All surgery has a risk, but goodness knows what they managed to do in this case that was so extreme.

The rest of it was an attempted cover up of terrible bodging and professional narcissism and cruelty.

It proves that you need good professional standards and oversight and evidence based practice.

His case demonstrates that a sense of biological sex is innate and no amount of gender pretend can overcome that.

This makes me uncomfortable because once you say that there is an innate "sense of biological sex", it doesn't seem far to go to say that someone's sense of biological sex could go wrong and be different from their real sex, and that would open the door to the whole ladybrain nonsense.

Not saying it isn't true though or that it can't be upheld as a different thing from "gender identity".

What I took from the old John Money documentary was that the poor kid had a very restrictive type of femininity drummed into him, and was told that as a girl he was expected to be quiet, let his brother boss him around etc. He was given a terrible impression of what it meant to be a girl. Add to that the unconscious transmission of anxiety and guilt around the subject by parents who knew they were deceiving him. I wasn't surprised in the least that he wanted to be a boy instead, especially once he was told about his history. I don't think you need to bring in any talk of innateness to explain that.

Gender identity is measurable and identifiable in many situations.

As much as there is a pushback against intersex conditions and trans identities being linked, there are many intersex conditions that give rise to an immutable gender identity opposite to chromosomal and physical identifiers.
Identical twins are more likely to both be trans than non-identical.

None of this is news to the medical establishment, there are policy papers and position statements on the existence of gender identity.

It seems the only people that refuse to accept this are the same people campaigning to limit trans rights.

Which is why fighting natural diversity is doomed to fail.

When I read people and sometimes posts on here that say there is no evidence for gender identity or trans people are the result of disordered behaviours, it sometimes amuses me just how uninformed it requires someone to be to follow this transphobic mindset.
And why more and more people see you.

Gender identity is measurable

How? Unless you can answer that clearly and plausibly I'll assume the rest of your post doesn't make sense.

Identical twins are more likely to both be trans than non-identical.

I'm fully prepared to believe that an uncomfortableness in one's body is genetic, after all anorexia is more likely in identical rather than non-identical twins too.

I'm not getting what that has to do with intersex people?

It has nothing to do with intersex people.

It is however an example of the throw-it-all-against-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks school of argument.

Those whole case is incredibly sad and yes, exposes some entirely unethical practise.

The biggest question it leaves me with though, is the issue of routine male circumcision (as is common in the USA).

And that isn’t a topic I would bring to this board.

Damn that man was abused as a little boy, made to roll play sex with his twin brother apart from anything. His identical twin brother died from an overdose of antidepressants even before he did.

I think the point about that case is that it is consistent with the possibility that there might be some kind of innate sense of biological sex. But that's nothing like proof.

However, I also got the impression that the treating him like a girl didn't start until he was around 18 months old, which to me would be enough time as a boy to quite possibly cause his subsequent feelings that he ought to be a boy, even though he couldn't consciously remember that time period.

There's no way this case proves anything except that children who are systematically abused may develop depression and suicidal tendencies.

The kid had to urinate through a tube in his abdomen til he was a teen. He couldn't have really thought he was a "normal" girl!