Talk:David Reimer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

"Assigned male at birth" in lead[edit]

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(talkcontribs) 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(talkcontribs) 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)

"Committed suicide" vs. "died by suicide"[edit]

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 [1]. "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 [2]; 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 ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  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 ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  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)

Nonsensical Clause? in the Lede[edit]

"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)

Links to sex position pages in Later Childhood and Adolescence[edit]

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)