David Reimer and the case for innate gender identity

[NotTerfNorCis]

I'm sure most people here will know the case of David Reimer. An American boy who suffered a botched circumcision, he was brought up 'as a girl' but became extremely unhappy and reverted to being known as male at the age of fifteen.

It's worth noting that both David and his twin brother Brian were traumatised by the sexually abusive practices of their psychologist, John Money. David and Brian both committed suicide as adults. The damage here went well beyond one boy being raised in a feminine gender role.

However, TRAs are pushing this as proof that gender identity is innate - that David knew he was male even when everyone was telling him he was female.

It seems that David began to suspect he was male between the ages of nine and eleven. Some thoughts:

1. If gender identity was innate, wouldn't David have had suspicions much earlier in life?

2. At nine, he would have had more idea about male and female anatomy. He would probably have noticed that although he didn't have conventional male anatomy, he didn't have female genitalia either.

3. He had an identical twin who was male. If looking at his twin was like looking in a mirror (save for the clothes and hair), he must have realised how 'boy-like' he appeared.

4. By nine, certainly by 11, he may have been noticeably taller and stronger than the average girl. Certainly, he wasn't at all feminine in his mannerisms. His classmates bullied him, calling him 'cave woman'.

5. Although his parents tried to raise him as female, they were religious traditionalists and would have had deeply ingrained ideas about gender. They had after all been forced into this rather than choosing it. Studies have shown that parents unconsciously raise children according to gender stereotypes even if they don't mean to - sometimes, even if they're fighting against it. So they put David in a dress and gave him a girl's name, but in their hearts they knew he was male. They may have treated him more like a boy in some respects, like encouraging him to take risks and play rough, while failing to compliment him on being pretty, passive, caring and vulnerable. That means David would have developed more 'boylike' behaviours.

What do you think? Do David's suspicions about being male prove innate gender identity? Or was it simply a reflection of the fact that he was male?

People know what sex they are just as they know what height they are or how many legs they have.

I'm not sure this is as straightforward as some might think. There is an element with these things that is about the brains image of the body, and sometimes that can be disrupted.

On a slight tangent - I don't have the link to hand, but I read a document / brochure that was aimed at care homes I think - how to sensitively care for LGBT residents. I think I came across it in a FWR thread.

Anyway, what was fascinating to me was the section that described some of the challenges that carers might face with LGBT people who are in their care.

An example was a lesbian or gay man who is maybe now suffering from dementia. They might experience anxiety or stress because they have forgotten that they have 'come out' so they might think people around them will not be aware of their sexual orientation and feel worried at the idea of having to tell them. Or they have forgotten that same sex rights have advanced in recent years and think that we are still in the era of having to be closeted or homosexuality being looked down upon etc so they feel worried about what those around them might think if they found out. Stuff like that.

Another example, was of a transgender person with dementia who has forgotten they have transitioned and being distressed at what has happened to their body or genitals. Or confused when being told by staff they have to wear the gendered clothing of the opposite sex.

I thought that the brochure inadvertently touched on something quite significant and it would be a fascinating area of research to look into LGB (and straight) people with dementia versus trans people with dementia.

There is evidence that sexual orientation is quiet deep seated (formed in the womb?), and not some 'preference' or easily changed the way gender ideology likes to claim. The example was striking that the homosexual person never 'forgot' their sexual orientation, but they could forget more recent memories around social conventions or of having told others about being gay etc. Has there been any case of sexual orientation being forgotten?

In sharp contrast, the example of the trans person actually forgetting that they are trans or being surprised / distressed at having transitioned indicates that claims of 'gender identity' being innate cannot be right. You surely cannot forget something that is an intrinsic part of you. Whatever it is that drives people's perceptions of a 'gender identity', it is susceptible to change or even being forgotten.

sexual orientation is quite deep seated ...

I'd heard that as well. It does suggest that transgenderism happens as a result of a life experience and can be forgotten when the brain 'resets'.

David Reimer is a terrible example for genderists.
He can't be proof of an innate gender identity as the opposite sex because his identity was his actual sex.
It's a sad case and not the gotcha they think it is.
Money was clearly a predator, too, and both Reimer boys were abused by him.

The only thing that would prove innate gender identity is if we found a human raised by robots and who had zero human socialisation who somehow transitioned to try to look like the opposite sex.
How they would do that without knowing what the opposite sex looked like or acted like (stereotypically) would be difficult, but that is the only way I can imagine that all other influences are accounted for and transgenderism could be argued to be innate.
Every other example suffers from being sliced by Occam's razor.

Whereas we have examples of homosexuality in animals, in humans who live in areas with no homosexual role models, in humans who hide their homosexuality, and in humans of all ages, races, etc. The percentage seems to be steady in all studies, somewhere between one and five percent of human adults are homosexual.
I think there might be some biological differences in gender non-conforming brains, but having argued I was "born this way" for years I'm now wary of that approach because of the reality of scientific advances meaning homosexual foetuses could be selectively aborted in future.
I wonder if those who advocate that trans people were "born this way" have considered that a trans gene being identified isn't such a great thing?

Also if there were an easy medical test for either homosexuality or transgenderism why would we assume it would be a positive thing? There are tests for HIV and the result of that can mean being denied entry to certain countries, why would we assume being proved to be transgender would be a positive thing?

Lastly of course trans rights activists will argue that any such testing is gatekeeping anyway. Imagine the fury if a test result was required for a GRC?

Imagine the fury if a test result was required for a GRC?

I imagine great. I’ve heard the argument, quite a lot, that they have the brain of the opposite sex. In which case, a brain scan ought to be compulsory to get a GRC. Surely that protects vulnerable children from sexist parents, children going through puberty and those adults who are traumatised and de-transitioning. Protecting people isn’t what gender ideology is about. I’m sure those who genuinely believe in men’s and women’s brains would be heavily campaigning this for credibility, however I’ve seen no such campaigns.

I’ve heard the argument, quite a lot, that they have the brain of the opposite sex.

But if we apply logic to the idea that some one can have the brain of the opposite sex, we find that this is, in fact, impossible.

Suppose that there is some attribute of brains which is only ever found in female brains. By definition, this attribute, being exclusively female, will never be observed in male brains.

Now suppose that a man's brain is analysed, and he is found to have this attribute which it was thought was only ever present in women's brains. What this means is that the original assumption (that this attribute is exclusively found in female brains and never in male brains) was incorrect, and the attribute is actually found in both male and female brains, but is more commonly found in female brains. It doesn't mean that this man has a 'female' brain in his male body.

If there was a brain test for transgenderism, it would actually prove that transgenderism doesn't exist in the sense of having a brain of the opposite sex to the body.

If you are both straight or gay you are attracted to the opposite sex or the same sex - so clearly you have m internal sense of your own sex

No. Regardless of your own sex, you know that you find males and/or females attractive. Your own sex is irrelevant to your desire, it's what you think of other people that matters. A lesbian doesn't think to herself "I am homosexual and I'm female, therefore I must fancy women." It's the other way around: she thinks "I fancy women and I am myself a woman, therefore I must be lesbian."

There is an element with these things that is about the brains image of the body, and sometimes that can be disrupted.

The key point, though, is that in those cases it's the brain that's wrong, not the body. Genderism attempts a reversal on that.

The key point, though, is that in those cases it's the brain that's wrong, not the body. Genderism attempts a reversal on that.

I think the usual defence on this idea has been that we don't have much idea about how to fix things on the brain end. Which seems true in some cases at least.

It looks to me like gender ideology is making two possible leaps or innovations. One being that this element of the brains image of the sexed body is best characterised as this thing called gender identity. These kinds of terms are always in a sense an attempt to model something that we can't see directly, and it seems pretty normal in psychology to be a little loosey-goosey about naming thee different capacities or whatever you'd call them, but in any case it seems like many people see this as a concrete thing.

Then the other thing is the claim that it's perfectly normal for some people to have mismatched image and body, and that makes for a particular type of person. Whereas generally when people have some sort of disruption with the way their brain sees their body its seen as a malfunction.

I think the usual defence on this idea has been that we don't have much idea about how to fix things on the brain end.

Yet when it comes to anorexia patients and indeed most mental health conditions, we try. Only gender dysphoria is the glaring exception.

I didn't know that the story of David Reimer was being used to try support the notion of gender identity. I'm pretty horrified by that tbh. This was a child who was subjected to deeply traumatic and unnecessary surgery, bullying, and ongoing sexual abuse.
The only lesson that should be drawn from his tragedy is that children should never be subjected to unnecessary surgery and we should let them grow up free of gendered nonsense.
How anyone thinks it's okay to use him as a 'gotcha' to argue for transitioning children is fucking low and utterly horrifying.

I honestly dont know how anyone can look at that case and think that the real problem it all went wrong was because Reimer didn't have some natural inner sense of femininity.

I think the usual defence on this idea has been that we don't have much idea about how to fix things on the brain end.

Older types of psychotherapy have in many cases been replaced in the last 20 years by cognitive-based therapies, which have been demonstrated to be more effective. Yet there seems to have been no systematic trial of CBT for gender dysphoria.

I suspect this is a case of clinicians in the 70s and 80s leaping on the idea that psychotherapy for the condition had been "disproved", and then developing alternative drug and surgery based treatment protocols, which then became set in stone as the unchallengable "gold standard".

This kind of thing isn't unheard of in medicine - look at the resistance to new discoveries about the causes of stomach ulcers, for example.

Their mistake was in assuming that there would be no future improvements in psychotherapy; and now they are in so deeply invested in the drugs/surgery protocol that they are refusing to even think about this possibility.

Is “gender identity” a red herring here, actually?

You’ve a family that went through a traumatic medical accident, parents who were unable to cope with a son who lost his penis, a narcissistic doctor using them all for his own ego and abusing this pair of twins, you also have disruption in family dynamics, parents being told to role play and lie to their children, creating a deep “family secret,” and a kid being told to engage in behaviours he didn’t like, on medication and needing to see doctors for reasons that were opaque to him.

It reads to me not so much about “gender identity” as to the disastrous consequences of self-appointed experts that advocate for experimental “treatments.”

Especially in the case of something like “gender identity,” which is so nebulous and subjective.

Nonny, here's a BBC news article about it: www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-43365446

The document can be downloaded from here:

www.wales.nhs.uk/sitesplus/861/document/326481

You’ve a family that went through a traumatic medical accident, parents who were unable to cope with a son who lost his penis, a narcissistic doctor using them all for his own ego and abusing this pair of twins, you also have disruption in family dynamics, parents being told to role play and lie to their children, creating a deep “family secret,” and a kid being told to engage in behaviours he didn’t like, on medication and needing to see doctors for reasons that were opaque to him.

Money was involved in at least two of these twin cases. The Reimers and another one.

I'm a bit late but, RoyalCorgi, can I pick at your phrasing? You say perhaps we'd feel different if we'd been raised as the opposite sex. It just struck me that this suggests the two sexes are opposite yet equal - which is really not the case when it comes to gendered socialisation.

I'm female, and I was raised as a member of the supposedly lesser sex. I've been fighting that mismatch and the dysphoria it brings all my life. Had I been raised as the opposite sex, ie socialised as a male, I dare say I'd have been more conventionally successful, and doubtless a horribly arrogant dick, but aside from being slightly confused by people using the wrong sex-based pronoun, I don't think dysphoria would have been the result.

Everyone gets rightly upset about what was done to that poor boy, but I think it's important to consider that people were trying to raise him as a member of what he will have unconsciously learned is the lesser sex. Which happens all the time, to girls.

David Reimer doesn't tell us anything about gender identity. But he does tell us that raising a subset of children in the belief that they are innately lesser in myriad ways doesn't contribute to good mental health outcomes.

Socialised as a girl, sexually abused as a girl, lifetime of mental health troubles, eventual suicide. What David Reimer tells me is that treating people as socially-constructed girls is bad for them, regardless of sex.

Then the other thing is the claim that it's perfectly normal for some people to have mismatched image and body, and that makes for a particular type of person. Whereas generally when people have some sort of disruption with the way their brain sees their body its seen as a malfunction.

I can sort of see where someone with good intentions might be going with that argument, as being stigmatized is never a positive thing and they're following on from some of the changes in language around disability, but the problem is that if the mismatch makes it difficult for the person to function then that is by definition a problem. Doesn't mean you give up on the person and don't try to find ways to help, but that has to start from a position of recognizing that help is needed because something is wrong.

Pthagonal thank you very much for those links!!! They are invaluable and I'll be keeping a reference of them for future discussions. I'm sorry I didn't see your post earlier. I have only finished reading the in-depth article about David Reimer this morning and went looking for the original threads on the topic.

I don't know how anyone can read about the care of transgender patients with dementia and not have some serious doubts about the veracity of 'gender identity'. If a gender identity or gender soul is innate, how can a transgender individual 'forget' it? If biological sex is a social construction and 'assigned' at birth, then the person with dementia should be more likely to forget all about it and behave more in line with their 'true' identity. TRAs can't claim that trans people are trying to live their lives according to their 'true' identity while at the same time trans people with dementia are forgetting this 'true' identity and exhibiting distress at what's happened to their bodies.