I was terribly sad to hear that David
Reimer was pronounced dead, a suicide, in a
Winnipeg hospital on May 4, 2004. Known as
"the boy who was raised as a girl," and
immortalized in John Colapinto's book of that
title, David was the focus of many articles,
television shows and debates. His 38-year life
was a testament to the contradictory influences
of self-determination and innocence abused.
First documented as "the John/Joan case,"
Reimer's story both shocked and intrigued the
world as the quintessential gender experiment,
complete with a twin "control" against which to
compare data. Professor John Money of Johns
Hopkins University was the scientist in charge,
and he took only what he needed from his time
with David to promote his theory (popular in the
1960s) that gender was primarily a social
construction that could be manipulated by social
mirroring and reinforcement.
In the 1960s a great deal of social
experimentation was going on in many
institutions, from schools to manufacturing
plants. Medicine was not immune to the lure of
"futuristic" thinking. Relevant to gender
theory, Money, J. G. Hampson and J. L. Hampson
published an article in 1957 documenting that,
for the 155 intersexed individuals they studied,
gender identity was almost always congruent with
the assigned sex, regardless of any biological
markers (chromosomes, genitals, etc.). Given
this data, it did not seem unreasonable to
theorize that a boy who had lost his penis could
be raised successfully as a girl. I think Money
was working with the best knowledge available at
the time, and he seemed to be headed toward
demonstrating that, even though most people
experience their body and gender as the same,
there is an inherent disjunction that exists
between the physical body and the sense of self
that each of us uses that thing called gender to
express. The same rationale was used later to
support transsexual treatments at Hopkins. Not
everything that Money wrote has stood the test
of time, but Money published a great deal of
work that was instrumental in advancing what we
now think of as progressive gender theory.
According to Colapinto, Money didn't seek
David out: David's parents came to him wondering
what they could do to help their child who had
experienced this horrible tragedy when they
learned that he was doing biochemical and
surgical work to "help" intersexed children. At
the time, the idea of a man without a penis was
implausible, and apparently Dr. Money advised
that David's best chance at a sexually
satisfying life lay in conversion to a female
body. Now David's mother, Janet, and many people
in the trans community are expressing anger and
resentment toward John Money for convincing the
parents to go through with the social
experiment. No one at that time had the insights
we have now with respect to gender identity and
body issues, and we still don't have all the
answers.
It wasn't the gender study by itself that led
to the emotional hardship that David suffered.
What about the responsibility that rests with
the doctors, nurses and technicians who were
present when David's penis was irreparably
burned away with a cauterizing tool? I've made
the point before, and I'll make it again, that
David's story is less parallel to the intersex
and MTF transsexual stories to which it is
compared than it is to the experience of FTMs
who are told they can't be men because they have
no penis, and for whom surgical solutions are
not sufficiently advanced to permit the kind of
social/sexual functioning that most nontrans men
(and many nontrans women) believe is necessary
for healthy male self-actualization. But nothing
that any ordinary transsexual child experiences
compares to the damage inflicted on his body and
soul brought by that particular original
trauma.
What Money should be held accountable for is
not recognizing and not making public the
failure of his experiment when he discovered
that failure years later, and further for not
assisting David in reintegrating himself as a
man once he reclaimed his identity. He just
washed his hands of the whole business, as if
nothing had happened to a human being.
I know David's life was hard, and he bore up
(very possibly) better than most, given the
circumstances of the original disaster and then
his subsequent treatment by John Money. But is
John Money more responsible for David's
emotional turmoil than the children at school
who were cruel and tormenting because David
(then called Brenda) did not seem like a girl to
them, or the administrators at the school who
did nothing to prevent the harassment and abuse
that David endured?
David was devastated by the death of his twin
brother, Brian, two years ago. What's more, he
had recently lost his job and his wife left him,
perhaps because (and I am blatantly conjecturing
here) she was not able to connect with him
emotionally due to his depression. Who knows?
Whatever the exact details, the barest facts
inform us that David's view of his life was
exceedingly bleak.
According to a story by Katie Chalmers in the
Winnipeg Sun News on May 10, Janet said she'll
remember her son as "the most generous, loving
soul that ever lived. ... He was so generous. He
gave all he had."
David's death cannot be avenged by
figuratively crucifying John Money. He alone is
not responsible for the extreme difficulties of
David's life. A fitting legacy for David would
be a commemoration of the love that his family
had for him and he for them, acknowledgement
that he did not harbor bitterness toward his
parents, who did the best they could to help him
all his life, and recognition of the gentle soul
that was so impaired by tragedy yet so
courageously tried to be himself and to give of
himself as much as he could.
The profound mourning of those who loved him
should be honored with respect for the gift of
David's soul. He need not be enshrined as a
martyr for the cause of transgender or
transsexual or intersex issues or people, but if
he is to come to symbolize anything, let it be
innocence. He will forever stand as a reminder
of the callousness of some medical practitioners
and theorists, such as that exhibited by some of
those who treated David throughout his
foreshortened life. The memory of David Reimer
should inspire us to hold accountable those
people whose work impacts the lives of all
children. May he rest in peace.
