Talk:David Reimer/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

"Gender development" and the question of whether gender is a "choice" or not

Do not feed.

@When the Wind Blows: Wikipedia only reports information from reliable sources, and does not follow any viewpoints per WP:NPOV. Old research is biased. Good research takes time to be published. Most journal editors and researchers are not LGBTQ+, can never imagine what it's like to be LGBTQ+, and many of them discriminate against LGBTQ+ people, with the motive of concealing, malforming, compromising or diminishing good research about LGBTQ+ traits, in order to make LGBTQ+ people invisible and to erase them from society. A research paper discusses why "social construction" of gender is entirely incidental, incoherent, and has loopholes. The Incoherence of Gender as a Social Construct While both are not binary, and both are biological, sex and gender are different, because sex is determined by genes like SRY and WNT4, while gender is a biological trait resulting from complex interplay between hormones and genetic factors. — CrafterNova [ TALK ] [ CONT ] 07:42, 30 October 2023 (UTC) We at Wikipedia follow a left-wing doctrine. Please adjust your content accordingly. When the Wind Blows (talk) 07:59, 30 October 2023 (UTC) What policy states that? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:03, 30 October 2023 (UTC) Wikipedia does not follow any such "viewpoint-leaning" policy, rather it follows a neutral policy based on neutrality. — CrafterNova [ TALK ] [ CONT ] 08:26, 30 October 2023 (UTC) What has any of this got to do with improving the David Reimer article? WP:NOTFORUM. Zenomonoz (talk) 08:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC) See the edsum of this edit [1]. But yes, the point is that any revert of an edit should explain what is wrong with the content of the edit, and not be based on a (mis)understanding of Wikipedia's philosophy. I couldn't see anything wrong with that edit. @When the Wind Blows, please focus on the content in this discussion. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:14, 30 October 2023 (UTC) Looks @When the Wind Blows is engaging in trolling. "We at Wikipedia follow a left-wing doctrine. Please adjust your content accordingly" is obvious trolling. Their edit summaries are also trolls: e.g. here and here. I guess this could constitue WP:DISRUPTIVE editing if they persist. Zenomonoz (talk) 08:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC) Money continued to supervise and report on the twins' "gender development" as the "John/Joan case" until the twins were 13 years old. The phrase "gender development" is ambiguous, and is solely based on Money's theories which are not widely accepted by current scientific consensus. Gender does not develop after birth, rather it develops before birth, is permanently fixed at birth, and cannot be changed after that. On the other hand, sex can be changed by sex reassignment surgery, which aims to affirm gender of individuals whose sex does not match the gender they were born with. This article needs to consistently differentiate between sex and gender, in order to be WP:CONSISTENT with the article sex-gender distinction. On a side note, I do agree that David Reiner was never transgender, rather he was a boy who born male and then forced to undergo sex reassignment surgery just because of unreliable medical advice regarding phimosis, failed circumcision and unnecessary electrocauterization which brutally damaged his penis. Reimer made the right decision by making his story public, in order to discourage such unnecessary medical practices. — CrafterNova [ TALK ] [ CONT ] 08:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC) I am not sure what to do with "gender development" in that sentence. The point is that gender development refers here to his theory, which the case ultimately disproved. As such, it is the right term, but placing it in quotes looks like scare quoting. It may need to be recast slightly to make it clear. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:49, 30 October 2023 (UTC) Yes, either "gender development" should be in quotation marks, or it should be recast slightly to make it clear, just as you said. I agree with both the actions, but if it needs to be made clear to readers, I would say, the text can be reworded to make it clear. — CrafterNova [ TALK ] [ CONT ] 09:33, 30 October 2023 (UTC) Collapsed per WP:NOTFORUM. Mathglot (talk) 02:08, 1 November 2023 (UTC) References

Requirement of explicit mention of Reimer being born as a male

@Sirfurboy: Since sex reassignment surgery was performed in Reimer's case, his sex was changed from male to female, and then again, from female to male.

Without the explicit statement of what an individual's sex is, their sex can be male or female or intersex, which makes the possibilities more ambiguous, especially in cases of sex change. Therefore, it is necessary to specify that Reimer was born male. — CrafterNova ^{[ TALK ] [ CONT ]} 07:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

The lead says "... was a Canadian man raised as a girl following false medical advice and intervention after his penis was severely injured..." Nothing there needs further clarification that he was born male. It is neither confusing nor unclear. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:19, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Just because an individual has a penis does not mean that they are male.

Just because an individual has a vagina does not mean that they are female.

Besides genitals (external sex organs), sex is defined by presence of many anatomical structures such as gonads (internal sex organs e.g. testes, ovaries), accessory reproductive organs (uterus, fallopian tubes, cervix, prostate, etc.), sex hormones, secondary sex characteristics, etc.

I know anatomy has nothing to do with the article.

But differences between sex and gender must be stated.

Male ≠ man

Female ≠ woman

Intersex ≠ non-binary

Sex and gender are different things.

It is possible for people to be born without any gender, and they are called agender people.

But it is impossible for people to be born without a sex.

Reimer was always a boy who was born male, and was born cisgender, not transgender.

This statement needs to be stated in order to make it clear that Reimer was not transgender; many people make such assumptions when cisgender people are misled into transitioning, thinking that they "are trans" when they are cis, or are forced to transition because of discriminatory societal norms based on sex. — CrafterNova ^{[ TALK ] [ CONT ]} 08:14, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

The current first sentence is quite clear, in line with MOS:LEAD. "Man, born male" would be uselessly repetitive in the context. The point you appear to be trying to make is fully covered in the second paragraph of the lead. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:50, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy: In April 2021, did you have a problem with the lead sentence being "...a Canadian man born male but raised as a girl following medical advice and intervention..." in this revision by FMSky?

That's not relevant, but MOS:LEAD itself does not differentiate between sex and gender; that's because this policy considers "man born male but..." and "woman born female but..." as "uselessly repetitive" when it's a useful distinction according to the sex-gender distinction article. — CrafterNova ^{[ TALK ] [ CONT ]} 15:02, 3 February 2024 (UTC)