Hubbry Logo
David ReimerDavid ReimerMain
Open search
David Reimer
Community hub
David Reimer
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
David Reimer
David Reimer
David Reimer
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

David Reimer (born Bruce Peter Reimer; 22 August 1965 – 4 May 2004) was a Canadian boy raised as a girl following medical advice and intervention after his penis was severely injured during a botched circumcision in infancy.[1]

Key Information

The psychologist John Money oversaw the case and incorrectly reported the reassignment as successful and as evidence that gender identity is primarily learned. The academic sexologist Milton Diamond later reported that Reimer's realization that he was not a girl occurred between the ages of 9 and 11 years[2] and that he was living as a male by the age of 15. Well known in medical circles for years anonymously as the "John/Joan" case, Reimer later went public with his story to help discourage similar medical practices. He killed himself at age 38, two days after separating from his wife.

Life

[edit]

Infancy

[edit]

David Reimer was born in Winnipeg, Manitoba, on 22 August 1965, the elder of identical twin boys.[3] He was originally named Bruce, and his identical twin was named Brian.[4] Their parents were Janet and Ron Reimer, a couple of Mennonite descent who had married in December 1964.[4] At the age of six months, after concern was raised about how both of them urinated, the boys were diagnosed with phimosis.[5] They were referred for circumcision at the age of seven months. General practitioner Jean-Marie Huot performed the operation using the unconventional method of electrocauterization,[6][7] but the procedure burned David's penis beyond surgical repair.[8] The doctors did not operate on Brian, whose phimosis later cleared without surgical intervention.[9]

The parents, concerned about their son's prospects for future happiness and sexual function without a penis, took him to Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore in early 1967 to see John Money,[10] a psychologist who was developing a reputation as a pioneer in the field of sexual development and gender identity, based on his work with intersex patients.[11] Money was a prominent proponent of the "theory of gender neutrality"—that gender identity developed primarily as a result of social learning from early childhood and that it could be changed with the appropriate behavioural interventions.[12] The Reimers had seen Money being interviewed in February 1967 on the Canadian news program This Hour Has Seven Days, during which he discussed his theories about gender.[13]

At that time, surgical construction of the vagina was more advanced than construction of the penis, and Money believed that Reimer would be happiest in adulthood living as a woman with functioning genitalia.[14][15]

Money and the Hopkins family team persuaded the baby's parents that sex reassignment surgery would be in Reimer's best interest.[16] At the age of 22 months, David underwent a bilateral orchiectomy, in which his testes were surgically removed and a rudimentary vulva was constructed by genital plastic surgery.[17] David was reassigned to be raised as female and given the name Brenda (similar to his birth name, Bruce).[18] Psychological support for the reassignment and surgery was provided by[19] John Money, who continued to see Reimer annually[20] for consultations and to assess the outcome.[21] This reassignment was considered an especially important test case[22] of the social learning concept of gender identity for two reasons: first, Reimer's identical twin brother, Brian, made an ideal control because the brothers shared genes, family environments, and the intrauterine environment; second, this was reputed to be the first reassignment and reconstruction performed on a male infant who had no abnormality of prenatal or early postnatal sexual differentiation.[1]

Forced "sexual rehearsal"

[edit]

Money reported on Reimer's progress as the "John/Joan case", describing apparently successful female gender development, even after David informed his father at age 14 that he had always felt that he was a boy, bringing the experiment to an end.[23]

According to John Colapinto, who published a biography of Reimer in 2001, the sessions with Money included what Money called "childhood sexual rehearsal play".[24] Money theorized that reproductive behaviour formed the foundation of gender, and that "play at thrusting movements and copulation" was a key aspect of gender development in all primates. Starting at age six, according to Brian, the twins were forced to act out sexual acts, with David playing the female role—Money made David get down on all fours, and Brian was forced to "come up behind [him] and place his crotch against [his] buttocks". Money also forced David, in another sexual position, to have his "legs spread" with Brian on top. On "at least one occasion" Money took a photograph of the two children doing these activities.[24]

When either child resisted these activities, Money would get angry. Both David and Brian recall that Money was mild-mannered around their parents, but ill-tempered when alone with them. When they resisted inspecting each other's genitals, Money got very aggressive. David says, "He told me to take my clothes off, and I just did not do it. I just stood there. And he screamed, 'Now!' Louder than that. I thought he was going to give me a whupping. So I took my clothes off and stood there shaking."[24]

Money's rationale for these various treatments was his belief that "childhood 'sexual rehearsal play'" was important for a "healthy adult gender identity".[24]

Both David and Brian were traumatized[24][25] with Brian speaking about it "only with the greatest emotional turmoil", and David unwilling to speak about the details publicly, although his wife, Jane Fontane, stated that David had privately told her the same story.[24]

Puberty and adolescence

[edit]

Estrogen was given to David during adolescence, therefore inducing breast development.[26]

Money wrote, "The child's behavior is so clearly that of an active little girl and so different from the boyish ways of her twin brother."[27]

The twins attended Glenwood School in Winnipeg, and from the age of 14, David attended R.B. Russell Vocational High School. He eventually ceased attending the school and was tutored privately.[14]

By the age of 13 years, Reimer was experiencing suicidal depression and he told his parents he would take his own life if they made him see Money again.[28] Finally, on 14 March 1980, Reimer's parents told him the truth about his sex reassignment,[29] following advice from Reimer's endocrinologist and psychiatrist. At the age of 14, having been informed of his past by his father, Reimer decided to assume a male gender identity, calling himself David. He underwent treatment to reverse the reassignment, including testosterone injections, a double mastectomy, and phalloplasty operations.[30][9]

Adulthood

[edit]

Reimer worked in a slaughterhouse and then worked odd jobs.[9][31] On 22 September 1990, he married Jane Fontane and would adopt her three children.[32][33] His hobbies included camping, fishing, antiques and collecting old coins.[34]

His case came to international attention in 1997 when he told his story to Milton Diamond, an academic sexologist who persuaded Reimer to allow him to report the outcome in order to dissuade physicians from treating other infants similarly.[2] Soon after, Reimer went public with his story and John Colapinto published a widely disseminated and influential account[35] in Rolling Stone magazine in December 1997.[36] The article won the National Magazine Award for Reporting.[37]

This was later expanded into The New York Times best-selling biography As Nature Made Him: The Boy Who Was Raised as a Girl (2000),[38] in which Colapinto described how—contrary to Money's reports—when living as Brenda, Reimer did not identify as a girl. He was ostracized and bullied by peers (who dubbed him "cavewoman"),[7][39] and neither frilly dresses[40] nor female hormones made him feel female.

Death

[edit]

In 2004, Reimer was grieving for the death of his twin brother, Brian, from an intentional overdose of psychiatric medication two years earlier, and visited his grave every day.[41][9][42][25] He had recently lost his job,[9] had lost $65,000 in investments,[43] and had separated from his wife.[41][9][42] On the morning of 4 May 2004, Reimer killed himself with a shotgun[42][44] in his hometown of Winnipeg.[9] He was 38 years old.[41] He and Brian are buried in St. Vital Cemetery in Winnipeg.[45]

Money never commented publicly on Colapinto's book or on Reimer's suicide, although colleagues said he was "mortified" by the case.[46]

Legacy

[edit]

For the first 30 years after Money's initial report that the reassignment had been a success, Money's view of the malleability of gender became the dominant viewpoint in the field, reassuring practitioners that sexual reassignment of infants was the correct decision in certain instances.[47] Money claimed the success of Reimer's gender transition as support for the optimum gender rearing model for intersex children.[48] Researcher Mary Anne Case argues that Money's view on gender also fuelled the rise of the anti-gender movement.[49]

Diamond's report and Colapinto's subsequent book about Reimer influenced[clarification needed] several medical practices, reputations, and even current understanding of the biology of gender. The case accelerated the decline of sex reassignment and surgery for unambiguous XY infants with micropenis, various other rare congenital malformations, or penile loss in infancy.[47][verification needed]

Colapinto's book described unethical and traumatic childhood therapy sessions and implied that Money had ignored or concealed the developing evidence that Reimer's reassignment to female was not going well.[25]

Documentaries

[edit]

The BBC science series Horizon based two episodes on Reimer's life: "The Boy Who Was Turned into a Girl" aired in 2000 and "Dr Money and the Boy with No Penis" in 2004.[50][42]

A 2001 episode of the PBS documentary series Nova entitled "Sex: Unknown" investigated David's life and the theory behind the decision to raise him as female.[51][52]

An episode of BBC Radio 4 Mind Changers, "Case Study: John/Joan—The Boy Who Was Raised as a Girl", discusses the impact on two competing psychological theories of nature vs. nurture.[53]

Archival footage of Reimer and his story was included in the 2023 documentary about intersexuality, Every Body.[54]

Reimer's story was included in chapter 11 of American author Sam Kean's 2021 nonfiction book The Icepick Surgeon, which chronicles many instances of scientific and medical malpractice over time.[55]

[edit]
  • The Chicago Hope episode "Boys Will Be Girls" (2000) was based on Reimer's life. The episode explored the theme of a child's right not to undergo sex reassignment surgery without consent.
  • Reimer and his mother appeared on an episode of The Oprah Winfrey Show in 2000.
  • The NYPD Blue episode "Dress for Success" (aired 2004, season 12, episode 1) features a fictional character with many similarities to Reimer. The character was injured during circumcision, raised as a girl, and ultimately transitioned again to live as a man.
  • The Law & Order: Special Victims Unit episode "Identity" (2005) was based on David and Brian Reimer's lives and their treatment by Money.[56]
  • "Hymn of the Medical Oddity", a song by the Winnipeg-based indie rock band The Weakerthans, concerns Reimer.[57][58]
  • Boy (2016), a play produced by the Ensemble Studio Theatre, was inspired by Reimer's story.[59]
  • Taiwanese film Born to be Human (2021) shares a similar plotline to Reimer's story, where a child undergoes sexual reassignment surgery without consent at the insistence of an authoritative doctor.[60]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

David Reimer

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
David Reimer (August 22, 1965 – May 4, 2004) was a Canadian man born a biological male who, following a botched that destroyed his at eight months old, underwent experimental sex reassignment surgery and was raised as a girl in an attempt to prove that is primarily determined by nurture rather than nature. The case, directed by psychologist at , was publicly portrayed as a success by Money to support his theory of gender malleability, but Reimer experienced severe psychological distress, rejected the female role by , and successfully lived as a male after learning his biological origins at age 14, underscoring the enduring influence of innate biological factors on sex identity. Born Bruce Reimer in , , as the elder of identical twin boys to and Ronald Reimer—his brother named Brian—Reimer's genitalia were irreparably damaged during a routine using an electrocautery device in July 1966, leading his parents to consult , who advocated for bilateral , feminizing genital reconstruction, and female socialization starting in 1967. Despite Money's assurances and hormone treatments, Reimer displayed male-typical behaviors from early childhood, resisted feminine upbringing, and suffered , depression, and , with Money reportedly coercing compliance during follow-up visits that included forcing the twins to simulate sexual acts. At 14, informed of his birth sex by his father, Reimer immediately adopted a male identity, later undergoing and testosterone ; he married Jane Fontaine in 1990, worked as a and janitor, and became a to her three children, though ongoing struggles culminated in his by gunshot shortly after his brother's death from a schizophrenia-related overdose.

Early Life and Circumcision Accident

Birth and Initial Health Issues

David Reimer was born Bruce Peter Reimer on August 22, 1965, in , , , as the elder of identical twin boys to parents (née Schultz) and Ronald Reimer. His twin brother was named . The twins were genetically male and non-intersex, with no reported complications during or delivery. At birth, both Reimer twins were healthy, showing no immediate medical concerns beyond routine newborn care. However, around seven to eight months of age, and developed urinary difficulties, diagnosed as minor issues possibly related to or infections, prompting medical advice for non-therapeutic s to address the problem. These early urinary tract concerns were the primary health issues in infancy prior to the circumcision procedure.

Botched Circumcision and Immediate Aftermath

On April 27, 1966, at approximately eight months of age, Bruce Reimer underwent a routine circumcision at a Winnipeg hospital to address urinary difficulties experienced by both him and his identical twin brother Brian. The procedure, intended to resolve phimosis-like adhesions, deviated from standard practice when the physician employed an electrocautery needle rather than a scalpel or clamp, resulting in a malfunction that burned and completely destroyed Bruce's penis, leaving only a scarred nub. The following morning, Reimer's parents, and Ron, received a call alerting them to the catastrophe; upon arrival, they observed the severe burns and tissue loss, prompting immediate distress and demands for explanation from medical staff. Initial assessments confirmed the was irreparably damaged, with physicians advising against immediate reconstruction due to the era's limited surgical options for functional penile restoration in infants, estimating poor outcomes for sensation, , or . The parents, in shock, diapered the infant to conceal the injury from family and opted for secrecy, while preliminary consultations with urologists suggested delaying further intervention until or considering alternatives like bilateral , though no definitive plan was set at this stage. Brian's scheduled was canceled to avoid similar risks.

The John Money Gender Reassignment Protocol

Parental Consultation with Money

Following the botched circumcision on April 27, 1966, which destroyed eight-month-old Reimer's penis, his parents, and Janet Reimer, consulted multiple local physicians in . These experts presented grim options, including rudimentary reconstruction—deemed unreliable and scarring for an infant—or complete followed by raising the child as female, as penile function for urination and reproduction would be impossible. Distraught and facing no viable path for a normal male life, the Reimers sought specialized counsel and contacted , a prominent New Zealand-born and sexologist directing the Psychohormonal Research Unit at in . Money had gained renown for his studies on conditions (then termed hermaphroditism), advocating that was primarily environmentally determined during a critical early developmental window rather than innately biological. In their consultation with , likely in mid-1966, the Reimers traveled to , where Money examined the infant and asserted with authority that reassignment to was feasible and preferable. He argued that, at under 18 months, the child's remained plastic, allowing surgical removal of remaining penile tissue and testes, supplementation at , and rigorous to instill a —potentially rendering the outcome indistinguishable from a typical girl. Money cited successes from his cases, where he claimed early intervention had aligned psychological with assigned , and noted the identical twin brother as an ideal control for comparison, bolstering his experimental confidence. The Reimers, overwhelmed by Money's credentials—he held a Ph.D. from Harvard and led pioneering research—and the absence of better alternatives amid medical limitations, accepted his protocol despite its untested application to a non- child. Money's recommendation reflected his broader theory of "" at birth, emphasizing nurture's primacy over nature, though subsequent evidence from the case itself challenged this by demonstrating persistent male-typical behaviors despite interventions. The parents proceeded, renaming Bruce as post-castration surgery on July 3, 1967, at age 21 months, under Money's oversight, initiating annual follow-ups to monitor progress.

Surgical and Hormonal Interventions

In 1967, at 22 months of age, David Reimer—then known as —underwent bilateral and removal of the remaining penile tissue at , as recommended by psychologist to facilitate rearing as a . Surgeons also constructed rudimentary female genitalia, including a vestigial and shallow vaginal canal, while creating a small abdominal opening to direct urination, resulting in external appearance approximating that of female infants subjected to similar procedures for conditions. These interventions, performed without Reimer's consent or awareness, aimed to eliminate male anatomical markers and support Money's theory of malleability through environmental conditioning rather than . No further genital surgeries occurred during childhood, leaving the constructed structures non-functional for typical female sexual activity and requiring dilation to prevent closure, though compliance was inconsistent. During , around age 13 (circa 1978), Reimer received estrogen hormone therapy under Money's oversight to promote female secondary sex characteristics, including and fat redistribution, while suppressing any residual male traits absent gonads. This regimen aligned with Money's protocol for cases of early , drawing from observations of patients, but lacked long-term empirical validation for . The combined surgical and hormonal approach rendered Reimer infertile and incapable of natural without intervention, with inducing physical changes that later contributed to upon revelation of his biological sex. Money cited the case pseudonymously as "Joan" in publications from onward, portraying it as evidence for successful reassignment despite private reports of behavioral resistance, though independent reviews later highlighted methodological flaws in his assessments.

Psychological Conditioning and Annual Assessments

Following the sex reassignment surgery on July 3, 1967, at age 22 months, the Reimer family initiated annual visits to for psychological assessments and conditioning under John Money's supervision, continuing until 1978. These sessions, required as part of Money's protocol to validate his theory of psychosexual neutrality and the primacy of over biology, involved evaluating Brenda's adoption and providing directives to the parents for home reinforcement. Money instructed the family to enforce feminine behaviors, such as dressing Brenda in skirts and dresses, providing dolls for play, and training in neatness and domestic tasks, while prohibiting masculine activities like roughhousing or toy guns. Compliance was framed as essential to prevent gender confusion, with the parents, Ronald and Janet Reimer, adhering rigidly despite growing reservations. The conditioning extended to explicit interventions during visits, including forced "sexual rehearsal play" where Brenda and her twin brother Brian, at ages around 6 to 7 (notably June 19, 1972), were directed to simulate genital intercourse and other coital positions in Money's office, positions photographed for clinical records. Additional methods encompassed showing the children anatomical diagrams, nude photographs, and discussions of sexual to normalize the imposed identity, alongside routine genital examinations that provoked acute distress in Brenda. Money's approach drew from his broader framework, asserting that repeated reinforcement during a critical developmental window—before age 18 months for initial plasticity, extending through childhood—could override innate biology, a claim later contradicted by Brenda's outcomes. Assessments revealed discrepancies between Money's optimistic reports and observed realities; for instance, at age 7 on April 24, 1973, Brenda resisted inspections and displayed tomboyish traits, while by age 9 in November 1974, she experienced a nervous breakdown amid escalating depression. Money publicly touted the case as a success in works like his 1972 book Man & Woman, Boy & Girl and a 1973 American Association for the Advancement of Science presentation, attributing any progress to conditioning while downplaying resistance. In the final documented visit on May 2, 1978, at age 13, Brenda exhibited panic, refused proposed vaginal surgery, and fled the examination, prompting the family to discontinue the trips amid profound psychological strain, including parental guilt and marital discord. Local clinicians, such as those in , corroborated the child's masculine inclinations and emotional turmoil, contrasting Money's narrative and highlighting the experiment's coercive elements over empirical validation.

Upbringing and Identity Conflicts as Brenda

Childhood Behavioral Deviations

Reimer, raised as Brenda following the gender reassignment, exhibited persistent masculine behaviors and rejected feminine norms from an early age. She refused to wear dresses, complaining to parents and teachers about feeling , and displayed boyish mannerisms that contrasted with her twin brother Brian's more typical female-raised behaviors under the same environmental influences. In play preferences, shunned dolls—which, as she later recalled, "sat in a corner collecting dust"—and favored rough, aggressive activities and toys associated with boys, such as those belonging to , leading her mother to note that "girls didn’t want to play with her because she wanted to play boy things." These traits rendered her "very rebellious" and resistant to feminine pursuits, despite parental efforts to encourage them. Janet Reimer described Brenda as "very masculine," with the deviations so evident that "it was just so obvious to everyone, not just to me." Reimer herself reflected that she "didn’t like dressing like a ... behaving like a ... [or] acting like a ," contributing to her identification as a who was bullied at school for masculine characteristics and experienced with almost no friends. These family-reported behaviors, documented in direct interviews, diverged markedly from John Money's published assertions of successful feminization, which relied on selective annual assessments without independent verification.

Puberty Challenges and Suicidal Ideation

As puberty approached around age 13 in 1978, Reimer, raised as Brenda, exhibited intensified rejection of her imposed female identity, displaying persistent male-typical behaviors such as rough play and aversion to feminine clothing and activities, which clashed with ongoing psychological conditioning efforts. Despite prior castration, residual biological influences contributed to psychological distress, as Reimer reported feeling inherently male and tormented by secondary sexual development mismatched to her self-perception. Reimer was prescribed estrogen supplements during adolescence to induce female secondary sex characteristics like , though consent was irregular and marked by reluctance, reflecting deep internal conflict over feminization. She refused further surgical interventions and visits to , threatening at age 13 if compelled to continue the treatments, underscoring the failure of nurture-based reassignment to override innate predispositions. Severe depression ensued, requiring constant psychiatric care, with Reimer attempting at least once during her teens amid escalating and isolation from peers who sensed her incongruence. These episodes highlighted the profound psychological toll of suppressing biological sex congruence, as Reimer later described the period as akin to "." The persistence of at this stage precipitated family discussions about revealing her biological origins, though the truth was withheld until a subsequent .

Transition to David Reimer

Revelation of Biological Truth

In 1980, at approximately age 15, David Reimer's parents disclosed to him that he had been born biologically male, revealing the full details of the botched , subsequent sex reassignment surgery, and the experimental protocol overseen by . This revelation came amid Reimer's escalating distress during , including severe , rejection of female clothing and roles, and repeated , which had prompted his parents to reconsider withholding the truth despite Money's earlier assurances of successful . Upon learning his biological origins, Reimer experienced immediate relief and affirmation, stating later that "suddenly everything clicked" and that the disclosure explained his lifelong aversion to being treated as female. He rejected the name outright and selected "" in honor of his deceased paternal , signaling an instinctive reversion to male identity without external . This response directly contradicted Money's theory that could be fully shaped by rearing and environment, as Reimer's alignment with his natal persisted despite 15 years of intensive as a , including treatments and psychological reinforcement. The family's decision to reveal the truth marked a break from Money's influence, as the Reimers had grown disillusioned with his optimistic reports that ignored Reimer's behavioral resistance and emotional turmoil during annual assessments at . Post-revelation, Reimer ceased female and began exploring options for male reconstruction, though initial medical consultations proved challenging due to the case's experimental and Money's prior publications touting it as a success. This episode underscored the primacy of biological factors in formation, as evidenced by Reimer's rapid and unprompted self-identification as male upon factual disclosure.

Male Reassignment and Phalloplasty

At age 14 in 1979, Reimer's parents informed him of his biological sex and the circumstances of his early reassignment, prompting him to reject the female identity imposed upon him and opt to live as , adopting the name . He immediately ceased treatments and began asserting male behaviors, including adopting and interests, which aligned with his longstanding discomfort in the female role. Reimer commenced testosterone injections shortly after the revelation to induce secondary male sex characteristics, such as deepened voice, growth, and increased muscle mass; these changes, starting around age 15 in 1980, facilitated his physical masculinization and helped mitigate the he had experienced during . On October 22, 1980, at age 15, he underwent a double to remove tissue developed from prior exposure, marking the initial surgical step in reversing the reassignment. Phalloplasty procedures followed in adulthood to construct a functional using skin grafts, typically from the or other sites, as reconstructive options for penile or loss; Reimer underwent at least two such operations by his early 20s around 1986, aimed at enabling urination, , and sensation. These surgeries yielded partial functionality, permitting and penetrative , though complications like reduced sensation, scarring, and erectile limitations persisted, reflecting the inherent challenges of in non-congenital cases without intact neurovascular structures. Despite these interventions, Reimer reported ongoing genital dissatisfaction and psychological distress tied to the original trauma and experimental upbringing, underscoring the limitations of surgical correction after prolonged mismatch with biological sex.

Adult Life and Personal Struggles

Employment, Marriage, and Family

Following his reassignment to a identity at age 14, Reimer entered adulthood facing employment challenges compounded by his traumatic history and limited . He worked as a in , a physically demanding role that provided modest stability until he lost the position in amid personal crises. Reimer met Jane Fontaine, a single mother of three children, around age 23 and married her on , 1990. He adopted her three children, serving as their , though his surgical interventions rendered him unable to father biological offspring. The resided in , where Reimer contributed to household responsibilities despite ongoing psychological difficulties.

Brother's Death and Marital Breakdown

David Reimer's twin brother, Brian Reimer, who had been the "control" subject in John Money's gender experiment, developed schizophrenia and depression in adulthood. On July 1, 2002, Brian died at age 36 from an intentional overdose of antidepressant medication at his residence in Winnipeg, Manitoba. David, already contending with his own psychological scars from the failed reassignment, grieved deeply over Brian's suicide, which compounded the family's longstanding trauma from the Money interventions. Reimer had married Jane Fontaine, a single mother of three children whom he adopted, on September 22, 1990. The marriage initially provided stability amid Reimer's challenges, including periods of and job instability in roles such as butchery and work. However, ongoing marital strains emerged, exacerbated by Reimer's persistent identity conflicts, financial difficulties, and the emotional toll of Brian's . On May 2, 2004, Fontaine informed Reimer that she wanted a , a development that occurred just two days before his own .

Suicide and Contributing Factors

David Reimer died by suicide on May 4, 2004, at the age of 38, in , , where he shot himself with a sawed-off in the parking lot of a grocery store. His wife was at work at the time, following a discussion of two days earlier on May 2. Immediate precipitating factors included severe depression exacerbated by recent personal losses: the death of his twin brother in 2002 from a , after losing a job at a , and financial ruin from a $65,000 investment scam. Reimer had separated from his wife Jane after nearly 14 years of , during which she had endured his recurring and depressive episodes, and he had spent months in isolation in a small . His mother, Janet Reimer, attributed the suicide to an accumulation of hardships that left him feeling he had "no options," stating he would likely still be alive absent the childhood experiment. Longer-term contributors stemmed from the psychological trauma of the John/Joan case, including the botched circumcision at eight months old in 1966, forced female , treatments, and annual assessments involving coercive of a female identity under John Money's supervision, which Reimer later described as abusive. These experiences led to lifelong identity conflicts, multiple prior suicide attempts, and persistent brooding over his "blighted childhood," as noted by journalist , who collaborated with Reimer on the 2000 book . Colapinto described the suicide as resulting from a "" of multiple motives converging, with the early reassignment not as an isolated cause but as a foundational element that haunted Reimer and amplified his vulnerability to later stressors. Despite some public royalties from media depictions of his story providing temporary financial relief, Reimer's underlying scars from the experiment persisted, contributing to his inability to fully overcome depressive cycles.

Critique of John Money's Theories

Falsification of Case Outcomes

John Money published several reports on the case, pseudonymized as "Joan/John," portraying the gender reassignment as a success that demonstrated the malleability of through nurture alone. In these accounts, Money claimed that "Joan" (David Reimer) had adapted well to a female role, exhibiting appropriate by age 7 and later, with no significant male identification persisting. These assertions were used to bolster Money's theory that gender is primarily a , overriding biological sex, and influenced intersex treatment protocols for decades. Contrary to Money's depictions, Reimer exhibited lifelong rejection of the imposed identity, including masculine behaviors from toddlerhood, aversion to feminine and activities, and repeated assertions of being a , as documented by accounts and clinical notes not included in Money's publications. Money omitted or downplayed these failures, reportedly instructing the Reimer parents to suppress male-typical behaviors and threatening to withdraw support if they deviated from the regimen, while selectively citing compliant episodes during annual visits to . Reimer's twin brother, , provided a control comparison, developing normally as male without intervention, yet Money's reports framed "Joan" as comparably successful without addressing the stark divergences in self-perception and adjustment. The discrepancies were exposed in John Colapinto's 2000 book , based on extensive interviews with Reimer (who had reverted to living as male at age 15) and his family, revealing that Reimer's female upbringing resulted in severe , social isolation, and by , directly contradicting Money's success narrative. Money responded to the revelations by dismissing them as politically motivated distortions, attributing media coverage to conservative bias rather than engaging with the primary evidence of Reimer's maladjustment. This selective reporting invalidated the case as empirical support for Money's theories, as subsequent analyses confirmed the outcomes aligned with innate biological influences on rather than .

Evidence for Innate Gender Identity

David Reimer, born Bruce Reimer on August 22, 1965, exhibited male-typical behaviors and a persistent of maleness despite surgical, hormonal, and interventions aimed at establishing a from approximately 21 months of age following penile at 8 months. These included preferences for , standing , boys' , and like guns over dolls, contrasting with efforts that included therapy starting at age 13 months and reinforcement of female roles by parents and clinicians. His identical twin brother, , raised as male without intervention, served as a near-perfect control, yet Reimer (as "Brenda") consistently displayed behaviors more aligned with Brian's male-typical patterns than expected female norms, suggesting prenatal androgen exposure had masculinized his brain and identity independent of rearing. Reimer's rejection of his assigned female identity manifested in severe psychological distress, including multiple suicide attempts by age 13, aversion to his reflected image, and declarations of feeling like a boy internally, which persisted despite John Money's biennial "reinforcement" sessions at emphasizing female-appropriate behaviors. Money publicly claimed the case demonstrated successful malleability through nurture, but private correspondence and later disclosures revealed Reimer's non-compliance and , with Money allegedly coercing participation through threats and physical comparisons to the compliant twin. Upon learning his biological male sex in 1980 at age 14, Reimer immediately adopted a male name () and identity, underwent testosterone therapy, and pursued , reporting profound relief and congruence only after realignment with his natal sex. This outcome, corroborated by Reimer's own accounts and independent psychological evaluations, falsifies the hypothesis that forms primarily through postnatal socialization, as intensive environmental conditioning failed to override biological substrates. Comparative analyses with underscored innate divergences: while twins shared and early environment, Reimer's resistance to feminization—evident in play patterns, spatial abilities, and —aligned with male-typical dimorphisms observed in broader twin studies of gender nonconformity. The case's evidentiary weight derives from its longitudinal scope (1967–2004) and the rarity of identical-twin controls in sex-reassignment research, though Money's institutional influence at —where his constructivist views dominated—delayed publication of failures, introducing . Subsequent critiques, including those by endocrinologist , who tracked Reimer post-revelation, affirm the primacy of biological sex in over learned roles.

Ethical Lapses and Abuse Allegations

John Money's involvement in the Reimer case involved significant ethical violations, primarily stemming from inadequate and the experimental nature of the intervention. The Reimer parents, distressed by their son's in 1966, were advised by that reassignment to female was the optimal path, but they were not fully apprised of the procedure's unproven status or the risks of psychological maladjustment in a genetically raised as female. framed the recommendation as routine medical practice rather than a test of his theory that is malleable through nurture, thereby coercing parental agreement without disclosing the ideological motivations or lack of long-term evidence. This omission breached principles of autonomy and beneficence, as the family could not weigh alternatives like phallic reconstruction, which later proved viable for after his reassignment at age 14. Further ethical lapses included Money's failure to obtain ongoing assent from the and his prioritization of theoretical validation over welfare, evidenced by continued reinforcement of the female identity despite early signs of distress reported by the parents as young as age 7. Money's publications, such as those in , misrepresented the case as a success—"John/Joan"—to support his nurture-over-nature paradigm, suppressing contradictory data from clinic visits and parental feedback, which constituted by altering outcomes to fit preconceived hypotheses. Allegations of abuse center on the coercive therapeutic sessions at , where Money required the Reimer twins—David (as Brenda) and his brother Brian—to disrobe and engage in simulated sexual behaviors during annual evaluations starting around age 6 or 7. later recounted that Money photographed their genitals in various poses and directed Brian to mount Brenda from behind in mimicry of copulation, escalating to instructions for mutual genital stimulation when resistance occurred; refusal prompted verbal aggression from Money, including threats and shouting. These episodes, justified by Money as "sexual rehearsals" to normalize gender roles, inflicted profound trauma, with describing the sessions as "nightmarish" and contributing to his lifelong aversion to intimacy; Brian's similar experiences exacerbated his own psychological decline, including diagnosed in adolescence. While Money defended such practices as standard for gender therapy in his era, first-hand accounts from , corroborated by parental reports, indicate boundary violations amounting to psychological and potential , unmitigated by therapeutic safeguards.

Broader Implications and Controversies

Impact on Psychological Research

The David Reimer case, initially promoted by as a successful demonstration of gender malleability through socialization, profoundly undermined psychosocial theories positing that is primarily environmentally determined. Money's reports from the 1970s claimed that Reimer, reassigned female after a accident in 1965 at eight months old, had adapted seamlessly to a female role, supporting his "optimum gender of rearing" protocol which advocated early surgical and hormonal interventions for genital anomalies to align with imposed sex. However, Reimer's rejection of female identity by adolescence—manifesting in male-typical behaviors, distress with female anatomy, and eventual reversion to male identity in 1980 at age 14—revealed the experiment's failure, as documented in follow-up studies by and others starting in the . This outcome contradicted Money's assertions, providing empirical counterevidence that biological factors, including prenatal exposure and , exert a dominant influence on formation over postnatal rearing. The exposure of the case's true trajectory in the 1990s, particularly through David Reimer's public disclosures and Diamond's 1997 publication, catalyzed a paradigm shift in psychological research on sex and gender. Researchers increasingly prioritized biological determinism, integrating evidence from twin studies, neuroimaging, and endocrinology to argue against the "blank slate" model of gender development. For instance, the case contributed to the decline of routine early sex reassignment surgeries for intersex conditions, with guidelines from bodies like the American Academy of Pediatrics in the early 2000s emphasizing deferral of interventions absent clear medical necessity, informed by Reimer's long-term psychological harm including depression and identity conflict. Money's falsification of data—omitting Reimer's resistance and exaggerating compliance—eroded trust in self-reported case studies, prompting stricter standards for ethical oversight, longitudinal verification, and transparency in sexology research. Ethically, the Reimer episode highlighted systemic flaws in mid-20th-century psychological experimentation, including lack of from parents (who were coerced by Money's authority) and absence of independent oversight, influencing modern institutional review boards to mandate rigorous risk-benefit analyses for interventions altering core identity traits. While some defenders, like those critiquing post-hoc narratives in 2024 analyses, argue Money's broader contributions to understanding paraphilias warrant nuance, the consensus in peer-reviewed literature views the case as a cautionary falsification of nurture-dominant models, redirecting funding and inquiry toward innate substrates of . This shift has persisted, informing contemporary debates where biological evidence trumps socialization in explaining incongruence outcomes.

Relevance to Modern Gender-Affirming Practices

The David Reimer case serves as a cautionary precedent against interventions that seek to override biological sex in treating gender incongruence, particularly in minors, by illustrating the limits of conditioning to establish a discordant with chromosomal and anatomical realities. Reimer, born on August 22, 1965, as a genetically XY , underwent surgical and administration at 21 months following a accident, then was reared as "Brenda" under John Money's protocol asserting malleability through nurture. Despite intensive feminization efforts, Reimer exhibited -typical behaviors from toddlerhood, rejected female socialization, and developed severe , depression, and aggression by age 13, ultimately reverting to identity at 15 after learning his history. This outcome contradicted Money's claims of success, which he publicized until exposure in the , revealing falsified reports that suppressed evidence of Reimer's distress. Critics of contemporary gender-affirming practices, which include social transition, puberty suppression, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries for adolescents, reference Reimer to highlight parallels in prioritizing affirmation over . Psychiatrist Paul McHugh, who oversaw the closure of ' gender clinic in 1979 after reviewing follow-up data showing no benefits from reassignment, has argued that such procedures treat rather than resolving it, drawing on cases like Reimer's to assert that is rooted in , not indefinitely fluid. Empirical reviews echo this, noting that Money's discredited persists in guidelines endorsing early despite weak longitudinal evidence; for instance, a 2025 analysis critiques U.S. endorsements of youth interventions for ignoring biological substrates, akin to Money's overreliance on environmental factors. Detransitioner testimonies often invoke Reimer, reporting similar post-treatment regret and suicidality when biological incongruence is not addressed. The case underscores ethical concerns in pediatric care, where irreversible steps mirror Reimer's without his or full comprehension. Reimer's lifelong sequelae—marital dissolution, , and on May 4, 2004, at age 38—align with studies showing elevated risks post-transition (up to 19 times higher in some cohorts), challenging claims of net benefit. While affirmative models cite improved short-term satisfaction, the absence of randomized trials and high desistance rates (80-90% of childhood resolving by adulthood without intervention) suggest Reimer's failure warns against hastening medical paths, especially amid institutional biases favoring affirmation over . Proponents counter that Reimer's trauma stemmed from , not affirmation per se, yet the empirical primacy of innate sex-linked traits in his rejection of imposed identity persists as a evidentiary anchor for restraint.

Diverse Viewpoints on Nature vs. Nurture

The David Reimer case has been pivotal in the debate on , with initially portraying it as evidence that environmental conditioning could override biological sex in shaping . Money, a at , argued in publications from the 1970s onward that Reimer's successful adaptation as "Joan" demonstrated as a malleable , citing annual follow-ups where the child reportedly thrived in a female role. However, post-revelation accounts by Reimer's family and journalist revealed persistent male-typical behaviors, such as rejection of dresses, preference for rough play mirroring his twin brother Brian, and genital discomfort during "female" socialization, culminating in Reimer's reversion to male identity at age 15 after learning his biological history. This outcome empirically undermined Money's nurture-centric claims, as the identical rearing of the twins isolated as the differentiating factor. Proponents of interpret the case as falsifying extreme nurture theories, asserting that Reimer's innate male identity—evident from toddlerhood urination stance, toy preferences, and adolescent —persisted despite intensive interventions including and surgical . Scholars like those in have cited it alongside twin studies showing heritability rates for gender nonconformity around 20-50%, arguing causal realism favors prenatal exposure in the as the primary driver, with nurture modulating but not overriding core identity. The case's control element—Reimer's genetically identical brother developing unremarkably as male—strengthens this view, highlighting how post-circumcision trauma alone failed to induce female identity, as Reimer exhibited no affinity for even pre-puberty. Critics of a strict nature position, often from social constructivist perspectives influenced by mid-20th-century academic trends favoring environmental explanations, contend the experiment's flaws—such as Money's coercive "sexual rehearsals" involving genital exposure between siblings and suppression of Reimer's male inclinations—confounded results, potentially amplifying trauma over pure nurture effects. Some argue generalizability is limited, as Reimer lacked conditions like seen in cases where partial sex reversals occur, or voluntary transitions where self-reported identity aligns with nurture-adjusted outcomes. These viewpoints, however, face scrutiny for downplaying biological data; for instance, Money's own falsified reports of success, later exposed in 1997 by Colapinto's , reflected institutional pressures in to align with egalitarian ideologies over empirical rigor, including overlooked dissent from endocrinologists noting Reimer's XY chromosomes and testosterone-driven resistance to feminization. Contemporary syntheses emphasize gene-environment interplay, positing Reimer's case as evidence against nurture monocausality while acknowledging secondary influences like family secrecy exacerbating distress, yet affirming biology's primacy in 95% of typical sex development cases per longitudinal data. This has informed policy shifts, such as cautions against non-consensual pediatric reassignment, prioritizing verifiable sex determination via and gonads over ideological nurture assumptions. Despite biases in media and academia historically amplifying Money's narrative—e.g., uncritical citations in 1970s —the empirical record tilts toward nature's dominance, with Reimer's lifelong incongruence underscoring limits to social engineering of identity.

Media and Scholarly Representations

Key Documentaries and Publications

As Nature Made Him: The Boy Who Was Raised as a Girl, authored by journalist and published on February 20, 2000, by , provides a detailed of David Reimer based on interviews with Reimer, his family, and medical professionals involved in the case. The book exposes the experiment's failure, documenting Reimer's persistent male-typical behaviors despite female rearing, his psychological distress, and his transition back to male identity at age 15 in 1980, contradicting John Money's assertions of successful malleability. Colapinto's work drew from Reimer's firsthand accounts, revealing Money's falsification of outcomes in publications and the severe long-term harm inflicted. The BBC Horizon documentary Dr. Money and the Boy with No Penis, directed by Tim Wardle and first broadcast on May 3, 2000, in the UK, reconstructs the Reimer case through archival footage, expert interviews, and family testimonies. It highlights Money's coercive interventions, including reported instances of forcing the twins to simulate sexual acts during clinic visits, and underscores the biological innateness of by detailing Reimer's rejection of his assigned female role from early childhood. The program, which aired shortly after Colapinto's book, contributed to public scrutiny of Money's theories, interviewing critics like , who had earlier challenged Money's claims in peer-reviewed papers. Additional scholarly publications include Milton Diamond's 1997 critique in Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, which first publicly detailed the case's true outcome after corresponding with Reimer, arguing against Money's based on Reimer's male identification despite upbringing. Diamond's earlier 1982 paper in had already questioned Money's methodology, predating Reimer's cooperation. These works, grounded in empirical follow-up data, contrast with Money's own reports, such as his 1972 book Man & Woman, Boy & Girl, which misrepresented the case as a success to support nurture-over-nature views.

Influence on Public Discourse

The revelation of David Reimer's true experiences in John Colapinto's 2000 book As Nature Made Him: The Boy Who Was Raised as a marked a pivotal shift in public discussions on , exposing the discrepancies between John Money's reported success and the actual outcomes of enforced gender reassignment. Previously, Money had cited the anonymized "John/Joan" case in academic circles as evidence that roles could be fully imprinted through post-infancy, influencing mid-20th-century theories favoring over biological innateness. Colapinto's account, based on interviews with Reimer and his family, demonstrated Reimer's persistent male-typical behaviors and eventual despite female rearing from age 7 months onward, prompting widespread reevaluation of Money's claims and amplifying arguments for biological underpinnings in development. This narrative fueled critiques of social constructivist views in gender theory, with the case serving as empirical counterevidence against the notion of at birth. Media coverage, including Colapinto's 1997 Rolling Stone article and subsequent documentaries like BBC's Dr. Money and the Boy with No Penis (2000), brought the story to broader audiences, eroding trust in psychosexual interventions that prioritized nurture over nature and highlighting ethical concerns in experimental treatments on minors. Public reaction often framed the case as a , contributing to on the limits of parental and medical authority in altering sex characteristics, as seen in scholarly analyses questioning in such procedures. In ongoing debates, Reimer's story has been invoked to scrutinize practices echoing Money's paradigm, such as early gender transitions, underscoring causal evidence for innate in psychological . While academic sources initially resistant due to entrenched constructivist frameworks, the case's documentation of Reimer's reversion to male identity at age 14—corroborated by longitudinal observations—has sustained its role in challenging malleability hypotheses, influencing discussions on and youth interventions with calls for greater emphasis on biological data over ideological priors.

References

  1. http://mhs.mb.ca/docs/people/reimer_dp.shtml
  2. https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/david-reimer-and-john-money-gender-reassignment-controversy-johnjoan-case
  3. https://www.simplypsychology.org/david-reimer.html
  4. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2004-may-13-me-reimer13-story.html
  5. http://www.mcrcad.org/reimer.html
  6. https://isna.org/faq/reimer/
  7. https://www.bbc.com/news/health-11814300
  8. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dr_money_prog_summary.shtml
  9. http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/2005to2009/2006-david-reimers-legacy.html
  10. https://www.amazon.com/As-Nature-Made-Him-Raised/dp/0060192119
  11. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dr_money_trans.shtml
  12. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2813gender.html
  13. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2004/may/12/scienceandnature.gender
  14. https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/david-reimer-john-money-john-joan-1235282697/
  15. https://slate.com/technology/2004/06/why-did-david-reimer-commit-suicide.html
  16. https://scienceandculture.com/2020/12/the-boy-who-was-raised-as-a-girl/
  17. https://trans.fandom.com/wiki/David_Reimer
  18. https://timelinetheatre.com/app/uploads/TimeLine_Boy_Backstory.pdf
  19. https://rucforsk.ruc.dk/ws/portalfiles/portal/57473580/Delusions_of_Gender_-_group_2_-_94950.pdf
  20. https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/16482516/brian_henry-reimer
  21. https://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/12/us/david-reimer-38-subject-of-the-john-joan-case.html
  22. https://www.magellantv.com/articles/dont-you-want-to-be-a-normal-girl-john-money-the-reimer-twins-and-intersex-autonomy
  23. https://www.harperacademic.com/book/9780061120565/as-nature-made-him/
  24. https://learn.rarediseases.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/As-Nature-Made-Him-1-Colapinto-John-As-Nature-Made-Him-2012-HarperCollins-libgen.li_.pdf
  25. https://aranchagayoso.com/en/david-reimer-case-sex-reassignment-ethics/
  26. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/journalist-john-colapinto-on-the-tragic-tale-of/id1441708286?i=1000627402463
  27. https://opentextbc.ca/psychologymtdisupplement/chapter/ethics-and-gender-identity-research-david-reimer-mistreated-by-john-money/
  28. https://quillette.com/2024/06/16/in-defence-of-john-money/
  29. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-human-beast/201803/the-gender-reassignment-controversy
  30. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0092623X.2025.2456066
  31. https://www.nature.com/articles/531171a
  32. https://static.nsta.org/case_study_docs/case_studies/gender_reassignment.pdf
  33. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8089603/
  34. https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1061&context=djglp
  35. https://eastside-online.org/showcase/understanding-nature-versus-nurture/
  36. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0605135/
  37. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/after-identity/tragedy-of-david-reimer/7AA5923F5A9633609D4A4DB5A2501EE9
  38. https://www.supersummary.com/as-nature-made-him/summary/
  39. http://www.publishersweekly.com/9780060192112
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.