May 12, 2004
A VICTIM OF POST-MODERNISM:
David Reimer, 38, Subject of the John/Joan Case, Dies (THE ASSOCIATED PRESS, 5/12/04)
David Reimer, a man who was born a boy but raised as a girl in a famous medical experiment, only to reassert his male identity in the last 20 years of his life, died on May 4. He was 38. His family says he committed suicide.Mr. Reimer shared his story about his life in the pages of a book and on Oprah Winfrey's television show.
His mother, Janet Reimer, said she believed that her son would still be alive had it not been for the devastating experiment, which led to much emotional hardship.
"He managed to have so much courage," she said Sunday. "I think he felt he had no options. It just kept building up and building up."
After a botched circumcision operation when he was a toddler, David Reimer became the subject of a study that became known as the John/Joan case in the 60's and 70's. His mother said she was still angry with the Baltimore doctor who persuaded her and her husband, Ron, to give female hormones to their son and raise him as a daughter.
As he grew up as Brenda in Winnipeg, he faced cruelty from the other children. "They wouldn't let him use the boys' washroom or the girls'," Ms. Reimer recalled. "He had to go in the back alley."
His sexual reassignment was then widely reported as a success and proof that children are not by nature feminine or masculine but through nurture are socialized to become girls or boys. David's identical twin brother, Brian, offered researchers a matched control subject.
But when, as a teenager, he discovered the truth about his past , he resumed his male identity, eventually marrying and becoming a stepfather to three children.
In 2000, John Colapinto wrote As Nature Made Him: The Boy Who Was Raised as a Girl, providing David an opportunity to tell his story. He wanted to save other children from a similar fate, his mother said.
God rest his tortured soul. John Money should be prosecuted for his murder. Posted by Orrin Judd at May 12, 2004 11:21 AM
Amen.
Posted by: Paul Cella at May 12, 2004 12:18 PMI'll regret to my dying day agreeing, however reluctantly, to my son's circumcision.
The procedure is barbaric and medically worthless. Any risk of complication, no matter how small (not small enough, in my son's case, although it was correctable), is far too great.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at May 12, 2004 12:38 PMOne indicator that the Islamization of Europe is well underway will be when circumcision becomes routine there.
Posted by: Raoul Ortega at May 12, 2004 12:57 PMOJ: Not evil, just not the best possible alternative.
Jeff: I say this with a sense of awe: Amen.
Posted by: Chris at May 12, 2004 1:09 PMChris:
http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/genesis/genesis17.htm
Seems worth a flap of skin.
Posted by: oj at May 12, 2004 1:17 PMI thought we settled this as optional 2000 years ago.
Posted by: Paul Cella at May 12, 2004 2:26 PMJeff:
Putting on my medical/secular cap here, I went through a little difference of opinion on that when my son was born. Couldn't find a doctor in favour and boy, was I ever a real bad guy. Then we found a young female pediatrician who described what children who had to have it done in later life, or who had other problems from not having it done, went through. My good.
Posted by: Peter B at May 12, 2004 2:28 PMNot until we hear it from the Big Guy Himself.
Posted by: oj at May 12, 2004 2:33 PMOJ: You misunderstand me. I meant that bottle-feeding isn't evil, just the not-best alternative.
That said, although I can understand circumcising for religious reasons, there's no reason I can see to do it for any other. The pediatrician suggested doing it, because of unrelated health issues; the urologist/nephrologist we saw for those related issues pointed out that any slight benefit was more or less non-exent by six months old. Seems like a lot of pain for nothing (again with the religion caveat).
Posted by: Chris at May 12, 2004 4:49 PM>>Not until we hear it from the Big Guy Himself.
Orrin: If God required circumcision for Christians, I expect He would have said so either directly (as in Acts) or through one of the Epistles. I was always given to understand that circumcision was to be a special mark of the _Jewish_ covenant with God.
Posted by: Joe at May 12, 2004 6:09 PMChrist was.
Posted by: oj at May 12, 2004 6:20 PMWhat is all this handwringing about the pain or barbarism of circumcision? The kid screams for about thirty seconds and it is over forever. He will suffer as much or more from the several needles he'll get poked with (with nary a tear shed) in the name of public health. There are religious, hygenic and medical reasons in favour, and some quite remote medical risks--again less than of reactions from the needles.
Some do, some don't, but this modern "do you feel his pain?" crusade is surely a sign of cultural weeniness.
Posted by: Peter B at May 12, 2004 9:29 PMPeter:
As the doctors at the time said, there is no medical benefit to be had from the procedure, given that one is capable of anything like normal hygene. They also said that while there are some risks from not having a circumcision, they are less than the risk the procedure itself represents.
As my son nearly found out. His procedure went wrong; much further wrong, and he would have been permanently disfigured.
In the fighter pilot business, we called this sort of decision "Operational Risk Management." If the payoff doesn't outweigh the risk, don't do it.
This falls well into the don't do it column. After all, if people hadn't been doing it for 2,000 years, no one would suddenly develop a burning desire to start.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at May 12, 2004 9:45 PMJeff:
Of course, as conservatives, Peter and I think the doing it for 2,000 years part suffices. Our doctors here are adamantly opposed on political grounds, so one intentionally biffed our eldest son's. We made sure we hade a non-nut for the second.
Posted by: oj at May 12, 2004 11:22 PMJeff:
Can you please tell me how several generations of North American males went through the operation as a matter of course without anyone hearing about any problems? Suddenly, the political tide turns and it is spoken of as if it were akin to elective liposuction. Like Orrin, I couldn't believe the zeal of doctors on this one--made me feel like I was Abraham about to sacrifice my son.
Fortunately we had a Jewish doctor (plenty liberal and politically correct) who was able to recognize the nonsense on this one.
I'm sorry about your son, but when I did a little amateur research, once I got by the polemics, it seemed that it was far less risky than vaccinations.
And how can a rigorous rationalist like you square your doctor's statements that there were "no medical benefits" with "there were some risks from not having a circumcision."? Did you thing he was warning you about God's wrath for breaking some covenant?
Posted by: Peter B at May 13, 2004 6:07 AMPeter:
Given normal hygene, a circumcision has absolutely no medical benefit, yet the procedure itself carries some risk. Therefore, it simply isn't worth the candle.
In contrast to, say, removing a suspicious mole.
As for "..there were some risks ...", heck, even I can't figure out what I was trying to say there.
OJ:
Circumcision is a completely material event subject to material considerations. If those considerations convincingly argue the procedure isn't justified, then it isn't. No matter how long some sect has been practicing it.
Presumably, you wouldn't argue for female genital mutiliation just because it has been going on for centuries.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at May 15, 2004 8:42 AMFemale circumcision isn't part of Abraham's Covenant with God.
Posted by: oj at May 15, 2004 8:47 AMBeing part of Abraham's covenant doesn't make it smart.
Besides, according to you, 2,000 years of tradition is self-justifying.
No different from female genital mutiliation.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at May 16, 2004 8:08 AM