Talk:David Reimer

External links

I've removed the following from the article - they're all news stories, easily used as footnotes; per WP:ELNO, they're not good choices as external links. I've removed the IMDB link completely - he wasn't an actor and appeared only in one program. I suppose it could be replaced, but I don't see the point. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Chalmers, Katie (May 10, 2004). "Sad end to boy/girl life", Winnipeg Sun
• Review of John Colapinto's book on David Reimer from "The Weekly Standard"
• Colapinto, John (June 3, 2004). "Gender gap: What were the real reasons behind David Reimer's suicide?" Slate
• BBC documentary: "Dr Money and the Boy with No Penis" shown (2007) in North America on TLC under the title Born a Boy, Brought Up a Girl.
• CBC online article David Reimer The boy who lived as a girl additional background information [1]

Recent changes

Here's the reasons for my edits:

• [2] Chicago hope's claim is pretty specific, unsourced, and flagged for citation for a year and a half. Per WP:PROVEIT, I've removed and it's up to the replacing editor to find a citation. It also states that it was based on Reimer's life, which is a strong claim. Law & Order I condensed because this is a page about Reimer, not about a specific L&O episode. It's too much detail. I also linked to the season the episode appeared in.
• [3] The foreskin claim may be sourced, but presents a synthesis that there was no reason for the removal. None are specific to the Reimer case, and based on this talk page and the archive, appeared to be a legacy of an anti-circumcision activist on wikipedia. I also corrected wikilinks to intersexuality, gender identity, social learning, testicle, gender of rearing, adjusted wording, added a citation to a statement that has been unsourced since October, 2007, removed a statement that would have a blatant biography of living persons violation were Money still alive (and in this case was essentially unsourced anyway, unduly prejudicial) and added a citation template for the Rolling Stone article. I think the biggest issue is the removal of the section about Money taking pictures of Brian and David naked and sexually abusing them. I'd rather a better citation than "20/20 documentary".
• here I remove a statement that is unnecessarily wikilinked (it's already linked above).
• here I'm adjusting my citation template
• here per the guide to layout I split the references into footnotes and general references
• here I moved the external links to the talk page - per WP:ELNO point number 1, and per WP:ELYES point 3; as I state above, these could easily be integrated as inline citations but make poor choices for external links. The EL section is not a holding area for sources waiting to be integrated.
• here I remove a category that I think is unnecessary. My reasoning is in the edit summary. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Though it is very likely that the Chicago Hope episode is based on David Reimer's story, there does indeed need to be a strong citation for such a claim. However, it seems perfectly reasonable to include it as an allusion to David Reimer's story, so I have added it back with much more careful language. --Lingwitt (talk) 04:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I've threaded your response per WP:TPG. I founda terrible, extremely partisan reference on the net that can be used, so now all four pop culture statements are sourced. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I think information about the allegations of sexual abuse is ok. When David and Brian came forward with their story, they did claim that Money forced them to get naked, into sexual positions, and photographed them. Although there is no physical evidence of it (although the Reimer's claimed it was sealed in a file housed at the Kinsey Institute) and it was beyond the MD statute of Limitations to launch an investigation, they did publicly make those allegations. As long as we keep NPOV I think they could be included, and if I don't see any problems with that idea posted here I'll do so. --MTHarden (talk) 16:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Phimosis and Reimer's penis

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)

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)

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)

Financial Status

Under the section pertaining to Reimer's death, it states he was financially secure as a result of the split book profits, but this article clearly shows that he was not financially secure, even with those profits. What would be the best way to go about correcting this? Does it pertain to his death any more/less? Could his death be partially attributed to his fiscal status, as the article provided implies? Thoughts please. 173.74.141.167 (talk) 05:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

For now I think it's best to delete the original statement. Your article makes it clear that Colapinto was speculating on Reimer's late financial status, rather than knowing first-hand, and you can never assume someone is in good financial condition just because you hand them a wad of cash. However, I don't personally think it would be appropriate to say, based on only this information, "Reimer may have suffered from poverty contributing to his depression." It does make me wonder about the verifiability of the information presented here. Theinactivist (talk • contribs) 06:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm very much in agreement. It's unverified and smacks of editorialism - Alison ^❤ 07:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

doesn't seem like an accident IMHO

Using electricity, a hot knife as a surgeon, do I choose my finger over some guys penis? Hippo' says NO. It starts to go wrong and get too hot, how does this surge affect location? Hot stuff burn granted, but it takes movement to burn off a penis. IMHO the psych wanted f***d up patients; and slipped surgeons money to ultimately ruin and kill someone of their life. As I look at this cold, I would appreciate all relevant parties declaring no links, in which case our anger is irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.120.55.35 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 24 November 2010

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)

Naming him

Although I didn't find clear guidelines on cases of name changes, my interpretation of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies), especially the section Family members with the same surname is that he should be referred to as "Reimer" throughout the article except where there could be confusion, in which case (I think) he should be referred to as "David", since that's his name in the article title. In particular, I think it's unjustifiable to refer to him as "Bruce" when describing events during the period of time when he was known as "Brenda".

The phrase "Reimer's parents" seems distractingly peculiar to me since they presumably also had the same surname, and it could possibly be understood as referring to David's grandparents. Paradoxically, I think simply "The parents" would be clearer. Other possibilities are "David's parents", "The twins' parents", "The parents of the twins", etc. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

David is the correct choice. It is generally considered "polite" to refer to people by the gender they identify as and by the name they most identify with. The only time I'd use Brenda is if it were necessary to mention his earlier name. Celynn (talk) 06:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

2010 BBC radio documentary

Health Check: The boy who was raised a girl seems to include some new material. Sorry but I can't add this material myself at the moment. -- Trevj (talk) 16:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Pun

Colapinto means "Bond-dick" in portuguese. How bizarre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.46.169.93 (talk) 21:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

NOVA episode

I don't yet know how to edit the pages, but there is a NOVA episode on this as well with transcript here .. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2813gender.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.239.254.19 (talk) 12:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Feminist Gender Theory

Well well looks like feminism isn't all pro man after all, here poor david and his brother just wnet through hell to prove or disporve that gender in a learned behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkproxy (talk • contribs) 21:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure that this is the opening to a fair, balanced and constructive discussion.Scunner3rd (talk) 01:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

That's because feminism is neither fair, balanced or constructive. 2 lifes ruined so social freaks can confirm their theories that nothing is set on stone and everything is a learned behaviour. Sickening that this man continues to have influence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.40.138.167 (talk) 12:25, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on David Reimer. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/reimer/

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Checked. Mathglot (talk) 02:08, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Phimosis: One cannot diagnose phimosis before puberty.

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, 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) )

Full protection

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 ^❤ 22:14, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Please see discussion below. Mathglot (talk) 02:54, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Work with me or I work alone.

I make proposals on the talk page. I get no objections. I apply them. You revert. We can agree on 2 facts:

• The Brothers Reimer did not meet the diagnostic criteria for phimosis.
• I shall not let you censor this article.

I would like to work with other contributors on this talkpage for creating an uncensored article, but if I get no feedback on the talkpage and you keep censoring the article, I shall just have to return daily and uncensored it alone.

76.102.233.65 (talk) 20:55, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

You have been getting feedback in various locations, have you been reading it?

You got feedback on this talk page above, you got feedback at your Talk page here, here, and here; and various editors (@Onejaguar, Mathglot, Flyer22 Reborn, I am One of Many, and Maunus:) have given you feedback in the Edit summary when they reverted your drumbeat of edits (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7), some long, some short, some very short, but all tending to the same point you wish to make without consensus.

On your talk page, you said,

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.

Please don't go it alone, that is contrary to the collaborative nature of Wikipedia, which is based on reaching consensus with other editors. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 23:37, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

• @IP76.102.233.65, the Reimer brothers were diagnosed phimosis. This is what the sources state. They do not state that it was a misdiagnosis. Whether it was or was not the correct diagnosis does not matter. The only thing that matters is what reliable sources state. --I am One of Many (talk) 00:05, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I know that the fee hunters misdiagnosed the the Brothers Reimer. I do not hide the fraud. I merely point out that the diagnosis is against medical science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:643:C000:5C2A:BC95:AED3:7437:E678 (talk) 19:40, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I got a not about synthesis, but one cannot diagnose phimosis before puberty, so that is irrelevant.

76.102.233.65 (talk) 17:05, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

• You apparently don't understand your own sources or reliable sources. You do not know that the Reimer brothers did not have pathological phimosis. So, stop your disruptive editing.--I am One of Many (talk) 17:54, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Intel Graphics Accelerator Driver has stopped working and has recovered.

Meta-discussion on how to reach consensus on phimosis issue

@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)

Consensus

As an editor who has been uninvolved until now, here is how I see it. We have a proposal to add "The Brothers Reimer did not meet the diagnostic criteria for phimosis." We have sources that suggest phimosis would not be a valid diagnosis in this case, but without mentioning Reimer. Everyone except the anonymous editor(s) agree that putting this in with the sources we have is SYNTH and not acceptable. Consensus does not require unanimous agreement. I do not see any need to go to RFC with this, but of course our anonymous editor is welcome to do so. Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:41, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree there already is a consensus, it is only one editor refusing to acknowledge it.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I disagree:

"We have sources that suggest phimosis would not be a valid diagnosis in this case, but without mentioning Reimer."

If we agree that a diagnosis is invalid for a group, then it is invalid for all members of that group. Let me give an example:

If we agree that Dutch-Elm-Disease is an inappropriate for humans and Jane Doe is diagnosed with Dutch-Elm-Disease, we should be able to put in the article about Jane Doe that her diagnosis of Dutch-Elm-Disease is wrong. Otherwise, we would would have to find a medical journal stating that the diagnosis of Jane Doe with Dutch-Elm-Disease is wrong; since very few patients are cited by name in medical journals, we would have to let the misdiagnosis stand in the article.

76.102.233.65 (talk) 06:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, under current iwkipedia policies we would have to write that Jane Doe was diagnosed with Dutch Elm disease, if that is what the sources report. Then by linking to Dutch Elm Disease the reader could read the article about Elm disease and realize that it only affects elm trees. Apart from that there is several flaws in your line of argument. For example the fact that current standards say you cannot diagnose phimosis before adolescence does not retroactively make past diagnoses into "misdiagnoses". Secondly the word "misdiagnosis" implies that Reimed did not in fact have phimosis, which we do not know if he did and will never know. What we do know is that the doctor believed he did and therefore diagnosed him. By saying misdiagnosis we are impælying that he did not have the condition - that is misleading. Thirdly the reason phimosis is not considered diagnosable in children is because the symptoms frequently correct themselves with maturation - not because children cannot have the condition. Finally, every case is different, since you were not there to see Reimer's genitals when he was born and the doctor who diagnosed him was, we may assume that the doctor for some reason considered the symptoms to be so severe and clear that he felt confident in diagnosing the condition even in a child - perhaps the saymptms were actually causing problems for the child. There are therefore many reasons no just the fundamental policy reasons, that your argument does not work and we cannot write "misdiagnosed" in wikipedia's voice. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

You block me from moving forward and I stop you from moving backwards. This is an impasse. When I awoke, it occurred to me that perhaps we can move sideways; it is not as good as forward, but it will have to do until you stop censoring (you probably would require a citation if I put in the biography of Jane Doe that she is mortal):

"At the age of six months, after concern was raised about how both of them urinated, the boys were diagnosed with phimosis, despite their age."

It does not state that the diagnosis is wrong, just unusual, which it is because one cannot diagnosis phimosis before puberty. It might get people to read the article about phimosis.

While I was thinking sideways, it occurred to me to quote John Colapinto:

"It only added to the young couple's misery that Brian's phimosis had phimosis had long since cleared by itself, his health penis a constant reminder that that the disastrous circumcision on Bruce had been utterly unnecessary in the first place."
Colapinto, John (2001).
As Nature Made Him:
The Boy Who Was Raised as a Girl.
Harper Collins.
ISBN 0-06-019211-9.
OCLC 42080126.
Page # 17

Unlike creationists, I do not quote-mine, but if you want, I can type in the whole paragraph, although this is the important part. I hand-typed, so it might have errors, so I invite others to check it. It is too bad that we cannot mention that the brothers probably just had normal ballooning, and the diagnosis and surge was probably just a cash-grab.

76.102.233.65 (talk) 18:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: It is important to keep in mind the reason why David Reimer's case is notable. This case is not notable because he was diagnosed correctly or incorrectly with phimosis. His case is notable because he was a test case for the theoretical idea of gender neutrality, which tragically failed. To emphasize the diagnosis of phimosis is to place undo weight on a non-notable aspect of this case. @76.102.233.65, you really need to step back from this and recognize that you are pushing an agenda that is contrary to Wikipedia policies. --I am One of Many (talk) 20:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I would agree to use that Colapinto quote to include in the article the fact that Brian's urinating problems cleared themselves without intervention, as that part is actually relevant to the article, since it is likely that Bruce/David would have gotten better to; but lo, it is already included. Most of the times, including the relevant facts like this is enough to inform the readers and allow them to reach their own conclusions, without having to telegraph them the opinion you think they should have. Diego (talk) 22:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Extended commentary regarding præpucectomy, unrelated to the content of this article

The case is notable as an example of the harm unmitigated fee-seeking behavior causes: Because we pay doctors for procedures and tests, doctors look for reasons to perform procedures and order tests. This hurts and kills patients. That is why doctors embraced præpucectomy, despite knowing that Doctor Kellogg is a quack: Back in the 19th century, other doctors knew that masturbation does not cause blindness and insanity, but by backing Kellogg, could make quick easy money. Since then præpucectomy has been a cure in search of a disease: It has been used for curing bedwetting, venereal disease, cancer, HIV, UTIs, et cetera. Bad studies show benefit, until their flaws are exposed, but the doctors could not fudge the numbers enough to show cost-effectiveness: We mentioned Wiswell (a præpuce is just 125 dollars to him) and his study comparing healthy boys receiving præpucectomy to premature, sick, and deformed boys not receiving præpucectomy, if we except his numbers, præpucectomy reduces UTIs, but one needs to sexually mutilate the genitals of 200 boys for preventing 1 UTI. a præpucectomy costs more than antibiotics, but even if we assume that a course of antibiotics cost the same as præpucectomy, because one must præpucectomize 200 boys for preventing 1 UTI, universal præpucectomy costs 200 times more than doing nothing and using antibiotics as needed. Penile cancer is the worst example of this: By comparing old poor intact men to young rich sexually mutilated men, one gets the impression that præpucectomy prevents penile cancer. The trouble is that penile cancer is so rare that even if we accept the numbers on face-value, we would have more fatalities (about 50 times) and spend more on the præpucectomies (about 500 times the cost) than by just treating the penile cancer as it arises. Let us look at the African HIV-Studies, whose methodological flaws were pointed out before they even began (this might be why they had to journal-shop): The procedures for the studies were thus: Randomly devide intact sexually active HIV-negative intact stallions into 2 groups. Sexually mutilate 1 group. At 6 months test both groups for HIV. Destroy the control group by sexually mutilating their genitals, thus preventing followup. The sexually mutilated group could not have sex for months. Unsurprisingly their HIV-rate was lower. Before the study began, Doctors Against Circumsion recommended this protocol: Randomly devide intact sexually active HIV-negative intact stallions into 2 groups. Sexually mutilate 1 group. Wait 1 Year. Test both groups. Remove all HIV-positive ponies from both groups (Because of healing, the mutilated group could not have sex for months. One must also take into account latency between infection and detection. This step makes the groups comparable again.) Wait 1 more year. Test both groups. Preserve the control-group for followup. Using the bogus numbers the bad methodology generates, præpucectomy reduces the HIV-iInfection-rate to 40% of doing nothing. The thing is that condoms are cheaper and reduces the HIV-Infection-rate to 10%. Since condoms cost less and are more effective, using the numbers of the researchers, condoms are more cost-effective than præpucectomy. David Reimer is a cautionary tale of bad incentives. If we would pay doctors a flat salary, so that doctors receive the same amount of money if they perform 0 procedures and order 0 tests as they would if they performed infinite procedures and ordered infinite tests, we could avoid tragedies like what befell David Reimer. 76.102.233.65 (talk) 05:46, 7 July 2016 (UTC) God, you are annoying. You are completely missing the point that the other editors have(which is perfectly valid) and abusing the word "censorship". Whether or not the diagnosis is valid is not relevant to the article. As someone else mentioned, this can be discovered by going to the linking article itself. If you don't have any sources that explicitly state that he was misdiagnosed, then it cannot be in the article. Get off it. 2601:183:8380:218:4827:850D:B234:5BE9 (talk) 06:30, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

User 76.102.233.65, please read our WP:NOTFORUM and WP:NOTADVOCATE policies. Talk pages are intended for discussing improvements to the article; if you want to write elaborate explanations of your motives for wanting to evolve the article in certain directions, that's better kept to user talk pages.

Regarding you "sideways" proposal, I think there's a place for Colapinto's quote in the article; I would include it in the "Legacy" section, attributing to Colapinto the stance that Reimer's circumcision was unnecessary, if other editors don't oppose. Diego (talk) 08:33, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

That is acceptable.

2601:643:C000:5C2A:D58D:D186:D3ED:B72C (talk) 17:32, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Legacy

"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)

Colapinto's book

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)

Cause of Death

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)

Citation needed

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)

External links modified

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)

"Assigned male at birth" in lead

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)

External links modified

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)

"Committed suicide" vs. "died by suicide"

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 a 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", 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)