Talk:David Reimer/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

How certain is the date of death? This Yahoo news link says he died on the 4th, not the 5th. - Nunh-huh 08:43, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, we originally got it as the 4th, but then another source (CBC, I think) gave it as the 5th.

Explanation & justification for some of the changes. This is a good topic for an article and this was a tragic but highly significant story.

No offense intended, but there are some erroneous, or at least highly improbable statements and allegations. I offer the changes to improve accuracy and help the reader understand the background and motives better, and a fuller account of the impact of the story.

  • For instance, the primary purpose of his reassignment was to improve this child's psychosocial development. That it did not do so is the reason this is newsworthy, but it reduces the credibility of the whole story if you turn it into an unsubstantiatable and improbable criminal accusation.
  • Not sure why to link to canada and winnipeg-- would be same story if he was born in wisconsin, & this had no special local impact.
  • while no one can dispute the circumcision was "botched," it's not very encyclopedic language. Rephrasing conveys same meaning, but with a less heavy-handed prod to the reader's reaction.
  • The primary intention of all the physicians and his parents was to improve his life. The reassignment was not done for the primary purpose of conducting an experiment. That would be criminal assault technically, as well as an implied accusation of parental complicity or amazing stupidity. It would also be a bizarre claim that a "lowly" psychologist could get surgeons to do illegal, unethical surgery at his bidding (if you don't know the hierarchy at a university teaching hospital, I can assure you that psychologists don't tell surgeons what to do).
  • A more accurate description of the secondary research purpose was as a "test case," to see whether this unproven treatemnt for this rare problem would result in a better outcome.
  • It is improbable and likely inaccurate that Money "overlooked" the 2 years of being raised as a boy-- at the time, no one had conducted more research or published more on the relationship of timing of gender identity development and consequences of age of reassignment than he had. It is infinitely more likely that he thought (erroneously as it turned out) that the child was not too old. An error of judgement or prediction is not the same as an error of neglect.
  • Article previously read: "Money's lies about the result of the Reimer experiment (known as the 'John/Joan' experiment) encouraged thousands of doctors to perform unnecessary sexual surgery on ambiguously sexed children or those whose genitals just seemed a bit too large (if female) or small (if male)."
  • This is a combination of unprovable allegation and sheer fantasy. It is arguable but not provable that Money "lied" (deliberately and knowingly deceived people). An alternative and perhaps at least as plausible explanation is that he deceived himself by refusing to see or accept the child's resistance and discomfort. An even more charitable explanation would be that Reimer's memory of how much information he had given Money about his gender discomfort was faulty. It is hard to remember details of what you told someone as a child, and he/she may have passively endured the visits without contradicting everyone's assumptions that the reassigment of gender identity was successful. We just don't know, and I think we need to provide what we can know and leave speculation about motive to the reader. I tried to do exactly that, leaving open the possibility of deliberate deceit, but also the possibility of distorted memory.
  • The claim about numbers is absurdly inflated. The number of US physicians performing newborn sex reassignment and reconstructions since 1970 is likely less than 50--- this is highly specialized work. The number of XY infants reassigned and operated on because of penile injury or penile birth defects (distinct from ambiguous genitalia) in North America since 1970 is likely a few hundred if not less. I'll put a reference with specific numbers from Hopkins in here this week.
  • On the other hand, the number of reassignments and surgeries performed because the genitals "seemed a bit too large or small" is close to zero. I have never seen or heard of that being done. I doubt you could find evidence of even one single case of reassignment and surgery in the US in the last 4 decades that meets your description.
    • I did not want to out any of my friends, but Patricia Robinette outed herself:
    • I know many sexually mutilated people, some of whom are women. I shall talk just about the girls:
    • When Ob/Gyns see a protruding clitoris, they see dollar signs. The tell the parents that their daughters have unusual genitals and they can fix them -- for a price. They cut off the glans and præpuce. This happened to Patricia Robinette and many other women known to me. Most never know what happened to them. I would not be surprised if this happened to more than one hundred thousand little girls a years.
    • It would not surprise me if about one thousand children a year with ambiguous genitals have "corrective" surgery.
    • None of those girls required surgery. Most babies with ambiguous genitals eventually require corrective surgery, but the gung ho correcting the problem that it is very common to cut the genitals down to girl-like genitals -- it is easier to dig a hole than build a pole -- that usually almost all erogenous tissue goes onto the medical incinerator. Many intersexed people report that the decision of whether to be turned into whatever the surgeon chose, usually female, was a mistake. It would be better to choose a gender at birth, at graduation from elementary-school, let the child decide on a final gender (if it is different than that of raising, the child goes to a different junior-high-school than the elementary-school-peers), and carry out corrective surgery so that as few nerve-paths and as little sexually sensitive mucosa experiences damage as possible.
  • I deleted the phrase "victim of both circumcision and involuntary and medically unnecessary sex-reassignment" for a couple of reasons. We usually use "victim" in a situation where we are accusing a perpetrator of intentional infliction of harm. I am aware that some people feel strongly that any kind of infant genital surgery is evil, but if the reader of this tragic story has to be hit over the head with your POV, it's pretty weak. I was also curious why you didnt attach the phrase 'medically unnecessary' to circumcision rather than sex reassignment surgery. No one claims that circumcision is medically necessary, not even proponents. When you use it in the context of sex reassignment surgery, it is more arguable, because lots of "medically unnecessary" surgery is performed to correct birth defects such as cleft lip. Arguments about quality of outcome are much more powerful arguments for or against sex reassignment surgery than whether it is lifesaving.

Alteripse 16:16, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I still believe that we should use the full name of David Peter Reimer:

When her dad, Ron Reimer, told her that she was born a girl, the first question Brenda Lee Reimer asked was, "¿What was my name?". Bruce died at the age of eight months, so he became David Peter Reimer -- after considering Joseph. I feel that we deserve to call David Peter Reimer by his full name. We do have redirects, after all.

Ŭalabio 07:23, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)

And I think that we should rename New York Mets to The Unquestionable Kings of Baseball. Sorry, articles don't get named based on what the subject 'deserves'. I looked around on Google before my round of edits, and the only person on the web who writes "David Peter Reimer" is apparently you. Rhobite 12:53, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
For the first 13 years some odd months, he was denied his name. It would be easy to give David Peter Reimer his name without loosing any readers due to the magic of redirects. I recommend that you read As Nature Made Him and The Boy With No Penis.
Ŭalabio 13:56, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)
However sad the story is, it doesn't change the guy's name. Rhobite 16:12, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
It is just such a sad story. The circumcisiophiliacs took everything from David Peter Reimer -- including his name. ¡It is so tragic! I suppose that only Intactivists mourn for the sexually mutilated children.
On page 195 of As Nature Nature Made Him, one finds:

"On 22 September 1990, two years and four months after they first met, David Peter Reimer and Jane Anne Fontane were married at a ceremony in Regents Park United Church in the city of Winnipeg. Jane's two daughters were bridesmaids. David wore a white tuxedo; Jane wore a white dress. Standing before the congregation of some one hundred and thirty guests, made up of friends and family, on an unseasonably warm fall morning, David and Jane spoke vows that they had written for one another." As Nature Made Him -- John Colapinto

That is my source of the name David Peter Reimer.

Contents

David Peter Reimer

Why did you move David Reimer to David Peter Reimer? Wikipedia policy is to use the most common name that he's known by. RickK 05:58, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

I felt that everyone should know the name David Peter Reimer. One should never forget David Peter Reimer.
Ŭalabio 06:21, 2004 Jul 27 (UTC)
This response doesn't answer the question. Why did you add his middle name? Wikipedia policy is to keep names to the most commonly known, and the name without the middle name receives almost twice as many Google hits as with the middle name. RickK 06:29, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
It just seemed right. I felt like all should know his name. His is such a tragic life.
Ŭalabio 07:02, 2004 Jul 27 (UTC)

I understand you are a crusader on this topic, but I have to agree with RickK on this. You just made the article less accessible because 99% of people will search under David Reimer. Did you at least change the references in other articles that link to it? Secondly, can you supply the source for the Milton Diamond epitaph? You made it look like Diamond himself dropped in to edit our article. Third, your editorial comments on the necessity of phimosis surgery look "crankish" and excessively push a POV. Unless you have evidence that his phimosis was caused by foreskin retraction, you are editorializing and speculating and this is not best place. Do we have articles on phimosis, balanitis, and foreskin care? I understand you feel strongly, and I actually share your opinion that circumcision is unnecessary and recommend gently to parents that they don't have to do it, but your edits suggest a monomania on this topic to those who read them. The paragraph you inserted might as well say, "ATTENTION: THIS ARTICLE IS ANTICIRCUMCISION PROPAGANDA. Interpret all information here with the understanding that the author will not miss an opportunity to hit you over the head with his sermonizing mission!" Is this how you want it to read? Does any of this make sense? Alteripse 10:58, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I must to get to work, so I shall get back to your other points in about twelve hours. As for Milton Diamond, he donated the paragraph to me in private email correspondence for an article about for retell the life of David Peter Reimer so that other people should not suffer as he suffered. The article was supposed to be published on Intact Day, on Kuro5Hin.Org, but procircumcision-people, vetoed it. I merely refactored the donated paragraph. I suggest that you write Milton Diamond if you do not belief me.
Ŭalabio 13:58, 2004 Jul 27 (UTC)

Don't misunderstand me. I assumed Diamond's note was genuine. I just thought it was quoted from somewhere and I thought it needed context or attribution or source to avoid looking like he dropped in on our article and editorialized. I suggest we preface it with a sentence such as "Milton Diamond contributed his feelings about David Reimer's life and death to the Intact Day website:..." Does that seem acceptable? Obviously I don't feel as strongly as you do that the main message of Reimer's life is that circumcision is evil, and I think you risk turning the article into something that will be perceived as a fringe rant that justifies the "poster boy" phrase you removed if you mix opinion with fact in such a way that the reader will think you don't know the difference. I'm not threatening an edit war but I doubt your phrasing will endure unchallenged if you don't put a little "encyclopedic distance" between the facts of the story and the moral you want the reader to take from it. Does this make sense? Alteripse 17:22, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

First things firstly, things interrupted by going to work:
"Third, your editorial comments on the necessity of phimosis surgery look "crankish" and excessively push a POV. Unless you have evidence that his phimosis was caused by foreskin retraction, you are editorializing and speculating and this is not best place."
The præpuce serves many functions throughout live. For cutting a long story short, we shall focus on the germane issues of the infantic præpuce:
Both the inner surface of the præpuce and the glans are fused in infancy; thus the outer præpuce protects both the inner præpuce and the glans. Phimosis is an inappropriate diagnosis for infants.


Many doctors who cannot trick parents into letting them sexually mutilate their children, tell the parents to retract the præpuce and clean between the præpuce and glans using soap and cottonswabs. This is like a veterinary telling people to pop open the eyes of kittens and clean between the eyelid and the eyeball. ¡Forcefully retracting the præpuci of babies is abuse!
Forced retraction and cleaning using soap and cottonswabs causes tearing, mechanical and chemical irritation, and infection. Balanitis almost always follows forced retraction and cleaning. The proper treatment for balanitis would be antibiotics and leaving the genitals alone. The doctors diagnose the balanitis as phimosis and mutilate the baby. It is an old scam. Doctors learn the scam orally in medical school.
Forced retraction and cleaning also leads to urinary-tract-infections. Wiswell arrogantly uses iatrogenic urinary-tract-infections for justifying sexual genital mutilation.
The correct way to wash a baby is:
  1. Rinse the baby with warm clean clear plain water
  2. Lather the baby in mild soap
  3. Rinse the baby with warm clean clear plain water
The genitals require no more attention than the toes or the ears.
Response to the last thing you wrote:
"Obviously I don't feel as strongly as you do that the main message of Reimer's life is that circumcision is evil, and I think you risk turning the article into something that will be perceived as a fringe rant that justifies the "poster boy" phrase you removed if you mix opinion with fact in such a way that the reader will think you don't know the difference."
I mourn David Peter Reimer. He and his entire family suffered so terribly. What is so tragic is that all of this suffering was needless; none of what happened should have happened. I want his death to have some meaning. It seems that the only way this story can help society is as a cautionary-tale. It is very important to me to stop others from suffering the life of David Peter Reimer.
I suggest we preface it with a sentence such as "Milton Diamond contributed his feelings about David Reimer's life and death to the Intact Day website:..."
I shall add something like that to the article.
¿Do you believe a specific section about the life of David Peter Reimer as a cautionary-tale would be a good idea? I have been dancing around that issue for months. The part about why intactivists show so much interest in the life of David Peter Reimer has cautionary-tale as and undertone, plus we mourn this needless tragic death.
Ŭalabio 00:30, 2004 Jul 28 (UTC)

First, I think your phrasing for the Diamond quote is fine. Second, your speculation about Reimer's phimosis is plausible, but I still think it's a bit speculative to include in the article. Third, I guess I am amazed that we can see such a different set of potential "cautionary tales" in the same story.

I rewrote this whole article to present what I thought was a tragic story of this person harmed by the pursuit of the idea that gender could be so easily changed just by parents and doctors deciding to do so. Hubris about things we don't completely understand, tragedy of well-intentioned but uncorrectable error, blindly refusing to see when your theory is going wrong, primacy of hormones over teaching, all ingredients of a completely different "cautionary tale." And the surgical accident just seemed to me the way the story started--- it would have played out the same way if his penis had been accidently destroyed by a hair cutting off the circulation causing gangrene (as strange as it sounds it has happened).

And obviously to you the major point of the whole story is that none of the other problems would have occurred if someone had not tried to circumcise him. It's a true tragedy that can serve two separate cautionary tales. Maybe we ought to have two different articles. You can leave mine alone as it was and you can rewrite a David Peter Reimer article to revolve entirely around the circumcision story. Our viewpoints, tones, and writing styles are so different that I'm not sure we can tell both stories in the same article without half of it seeming irrelevant to the main "message" and the whole seemed terribly disjointed and inconsistent.

Lest you think I am entirely unsympathetic, I happen to think that circumcision is an unnecessary and somewhat transiently heartless thing to do to baby boys (and I omit the personal details that would prove that I practice what I preach), and I have several times suggested to parents who seemed set on it that it would be ok NOT to do it. I don't do primary care, so these are usually infants with other problems. However I can't recall that I ever successfully persuaded someone not to except when the boy had a micropenis or malformation. I also suspect that if I had made an impassioned plea or even worse, accused them or the doctors of bizarre and sinister or sadistic or pecuniary motives, I would have lost all credibility. Most pediatricians I know tell parents to leave the foreskin alone and not to worry about it, but the circumcision rate in the eastern US is probably 95%. It's the parents who want it. Most pediatricians and the American Academy of Pediatrics don't recommend it, they just don't come out strongly enough against it (they weasled back from a half-hearted recommedation against it back in the early 1980s, I think. It seems to most of us a usually harmless cultural practice that most of us survived just fine. When you accuse doctors of trying to "trick parents into sexually mutilating" their babies, you insult both doctors and parents, and you come across as a fringe lunatic. When you phrase things like that you may be enjoying your own self-righteousness, but you won't persuade most people that an intelligent, rational adult (as I and the rest of your "average readers" fancy ourselves) might hold these opinions. Which is more important to you? Alteripse 03:10, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"First, I think your phrasing for the Diamond quote is fine."

I did not write the words. I wish that I should remember who did.  ;-)
Actually, his needless mutilation is the beginning of the story. yor take is the middle. his suicide is the end. The story you see is also important to intactivists:
Intactivists oppose mutilating genitals for no good reason.
Ŭalabio 05:00, 2004 Jul 28 (UTC)

Birthday

It is the birthday of David Peter and Brian Reimer. This must be a terrible day for Ron and Janet Reimer. This is so tragic. I and all other Intactivist mourn his death.

It sickens me that Max Cham, Jean Huot, and John Moey will never be punished for their crimes.

Ŭalabio 00:11, 2004 Aug 22 (UTC)

I removed the word medically from the phrase "medically unnecisary circumsicion-accident". It made the sentance read ackwardly and is redundant anyway. That issue is discussed more fully in the Social Impact section. --Starx 20:45, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

NPOV

I've adjusted the introduction (to remove the judgemental word "unnecessary"), and the overview (to remove the speculative statement about the 'true cause' and to try to restore neutrality. Ŭalabio, I have asked you before to cease the personal attacks. You are doing so in edit summaries. Please cease. - Jakew 15:04, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Gairdner determined in Whither the foreskin that the præpuce is suppose to be both fused to the glans and have to too narrow opening for retraction in infancy. Therefore, phimosis is an inappropriate diagnosis in infancy. It is obvious what this is:
The doctors must have deliberately ordered the parents to forcefully retract and clean under the præpuce. Bruce and Brian developed iatrogenic balanitis which the doctors deliberately miss diagnosed as phimosis. The doctors then recommended an emergency circumcision. ¿Why do I make these claims? ¡Because North American doctors have pulled this trick tens of millions of times in the twentieth century!
As for my claims that you wish to hide the truth, you wish nontherapeutically to circumcise medically unnecessarily all poor defenseless babies. I shall not get into why you want to do this. The truth that what happened to Bruce could have been prevented by not circumcising hurts what little case you have. ¿Why do you insist on the medically impossible diagnosis of phimosis when we have tens of millions of examples of deliberate iatrogenic balanitis from deliberate forced retraction deliberately misdiagnoses as phimosis leading to the treatment by nontherapeutic medically unnecessary circumcision? Your actions seem to indicate that you wish to hide these facts. I have no intention of letting Max Cham and Jean-Marie Huot escape culpability. If you cannot admit that Bruce would be better off if the doctors would have left him alone, then I see no point in interacting with you.
Ŭalabio 16:04, 2004 Oct 23 (UTC)

Ŭalabio, the diagnosis was made at 8 months of age. Gairdner's The fate of the foreskin [1] (which I assume you mean, since Gaidner didn't write 'Whither') showed that 4% of newborns had a retractible foreskin, rising to more than twice this during the first year of life. As you may be aware, true phimosis is distinct from a non-retractable foreskin, and this may well have been what was diagnosed - remember that he was having trouble urinating. True phimosis is not medically impossible at 8 months, though it is, I'm sure, rare.

It is pure speculation to assume that doctors 'ordered' retraction, and there is no basis in fact for this. Nor is there any reason to suppose that qualified professionals would confuse phimosis with balanitis. Your conspiracy theories are not adequate for Wikipedia articles.

I have no interest in hiding the truth, but I do not intend to allow the article to become a vehicle for your POV. It must remain grounded in reality.

2004-10-21T16:21 GMT, Jakew:

Ŭalabio, the diagnosis was made at 8 months of age. Gairdner's The fate of the foreskin [2] (which I assume you mean, since Gaidner didn't write 'Whither') showed that 4% of newborns had a retractible foreskin, rising to more than twice this during the first year of life. As you may be aware, true phimosis is distinct from a non-retractable foreskin, and this may well have been what was diagnosed - remember that he was having trouble urinating. True phimosis is not medically impossible at 8 months, though it is, I'm sure, rare.

You may gloat. I eat crow. I get Preston and Gairdner confused because of their colorful titles for papers. Infants do not develop phimosis. I have my doubts that anything was wrong (it could have been nothing more than ballooning). I knew that certain people would fight the possibility of nothing wrong and it could not be phimosis, so I found a plausible condition (iatrogenic balanitis).

It is pure speculation to assume that doctors 'ordered' retraction, and there is no basis in fact for this. Nor is there any reason to suppose that qualified professionals would confuse phimosis with balanitis. Your conspiracy theories are not adequate for Wikipedia articles.

It was standard practice during the 1960s to order parents who refuse to allow circumcision forcefully to retract and then clean under the præpuce in the hope that baby will develop some sort of problem so that the doctor might get the circumcision-fee after all. My own personal theory is that only benign ballooning occurred, but I knew that circumcisiologists would reject that possibility, so I found a plausible theory It could not be phimosis because nonretractability does not become a problem until puberty, when nonretractability can interfere with sex). Doctors of that era circumcised babies reacting to ammonia from the breakdown of urea:

H2O+H4N2CO=>CO2+2(NH3) plus energy for bacteria

These doctors use the rash as an excuse to circumcise. They know perfectly well that meatal ulcer will almost certainly result. The fact is that doctors do stuff like this all of the time.

I have no interest in hiding the truth, but I do not intend to allow the article to become a vehicle for your POV. It must remain grounded in reality.

I have no intention of letting you escape responsibility for your actions. I have gone out of my way by letting you list a plausible medical condition. One thing it could not be is phimosis. After the circumcision of Bruce went terribly wrong, the doctors decided to postpone the circumcision of Brian. Brian recovered and never needed a circumcision.

If it were not for people pushing circumcision, none of what happened would have happened. Rather than the family being extremely disfunctional (after what happened, ¿how could it not?), and Brenda and Brian suffering at the hands of John Money as he performs bizarre experiments on them, all of this eventually leading to alcoholism for Ron, attempted suicide for Joan, and completed suicide for Brian and David Peter, the family would have fared better.

Imagine how much better everything would have been if the pædiatrician would have been a foreskin-friendly doctor opposing circumcision. ¿Would not things have turned out much better?

I intend to make certain that the article clearly states that the circumcision was unnecessary by citing the recovery of Brian. You will not escape responsibility for your circumcision-pushing.

Ŭalabio 12:03, 2004 Oct 24 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't the place for theories, no matter how plausable they may be. Only facts should be presented, and as I understand it there is no agreement in the medical community on whether the circumcision was necessary so neither side can claim fact. --Starx 15:05, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

¿Do you know what? You are right. I never should have tried to placate certain people by finding something that will satisfy them, because those people complain at the thought that, perhaps absolutely nothing was wrong with a præpuce hurts their world-view. Without placation (hopefully, certain people will not get to mad with the removal of comforting pathology) reads more like this:

The parents Reimer worried about how Brian and Bruce urinated. The pædiatrician gave an impossible diagnosis of phimosis (phimosis is a tight nonretractable præpuce, but infants have a tight nonretractable præpuce anyway). 1966-04-27, the doctors Jean-Marie Huot and Max Cham tried to use a Bovie Cautery Machine for circumcising Bruce, which is not for use on extremities and genitals. Max Cham and Jean-Marie burned the penis of Bruce off. The hospital canceled the circumcision of Brian. Brian developed normally, meaning that the circumcision of Bruce was totally medically unnecessary and nontherapeutic.

It throws no bones to certain people, but I like it better. I say we include it.

Ŭalabio 19:49, 2004 Oct 24 (UTC)

It's still too judgmental, Walabio. The last sentence should be ditched totally, and the remainder changed considerably. - Jakew 21:07, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Some argue over facts. I listed the facts:

  1. The Parents Reimer reported that something happened when Bruce and Brian urinated
  2. An unknown pædoprician (¿Does anyone know who this is?) diagnosed Bruce and Brian as developing phimosis (an inappropriate diagnosis in infancy because the glance and præpuce of infants are suppose to be fused)
  3. No evidence exists that anyone tried a less radical treatment before circumcising
  4. Max Cham and Jean-Marie Huot decided to use a Bovie Cautery Machine
  5. One should not use a Bovie Cautery Machine on extremities and genitals
  6. Jean-Marie Huot and Max Cham burned off the penis of Bruce Reimer
  7. After the accident of Bruce Reimer, one cancelled the circumcision of Brian Reimer
  8. Brian Reimer continued to develop normally as an intact boy and man, thus proving that the circumcision of Bruce Reimer was totally medically unnecessary and nontherapeutic.

I integrated the facts into the paragraph:

"The parents Reimer worried about how Brian and Bruce urinated. The pædiatrician gave an impossible diagnosis of phimosis (phimosis is a tight nonretractable præpuce, but infants have a tight nonretractable præpuce anyway). Non tried a less radical procedure before attempting circumcision. 1966-04-27, the doctors Jean-Marie Huot and Max Cham tried to use a Bovie Cautery Machine for circumcising Bruce Reimer, which is not for use on extremities and genitals. Max Cham and Jean-Marie Huot burned the penis of Bruce off. After the accident of Bruce Reimer, the hospital canceled the circumcision of Brian Reimer. Brian Reimer continued to develop normally as an intact boy and man, thus proving that the circumcision of Bruce Reimer was totally medically unnecessary and nontherapeutic."

The last sentence contains a valuable fact.

Ŭalabio 02:36, 2004 Oct 25 (UTC)

The true facts:

  • Bruce (and Brian?) were having trouble urinating. Do we know what trouble, and/or who reported it?
  • They were diagnosed with phimosis (a rare but not impossible condition - see above discussion)
  • His penis was destroyed.
  • Brian's circumcision was cancelled (postponed indefinitely?)
  • Brian recovered. This does not prove anything, as he and Bruce were distinct individuals.

- Jakew 10:43, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

How about this?

After concern was raised about Bruce and Brian having difficulty urinating, both boys were diagnosed with phimosis (a rare and overdiagnosed condition in infants). They were referred for circumcision. On April the 27th, 1966, the surgeons Jean-Marie Huot and Max Cham performed the circumcision with the aid of a Bovie Cautery Machine (which is not intended for use on extremities). Bruce's penis was destroyed. After this, Brian's circumcision was cancelled, and he made a full recovery from his condition without further treatment. Some suggest that this indicates that Bruce's circumcision may not have been necessary.

- Jakew 11:07, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Let us play U. S. Congress. We have a bill. The Senate has one version and the House of Representatives another. Let us try to work out the differences:

Firstly, my facts are true. Let us review your facts:

  • Bruce (and Brian?) were having trouble urinating. Do we know what trouble, and/or who reported it?
    • Definitely Brian too had the same condition. The parents reported the condition. The condition may have been nothing more than benign ballooning.
  • They were diagnosed with phimosis (a rare but not impossible condition - see above discussion)
    • Phimosis is only a problem for the sexually active because it interferes with sex, and therefore only a pathology after puberty because phimosis interferes with sex. Phimosis would not have been a pathology for over a decade.
  • The doctors never tried a less radical procedure than circumcision. One can treat almost all præputial conditions nonsurgically.
  • His penis was destroyed.
    • Because Max Cham and Jean-Marie Huot had to play with their new shiny toy. ¡They make me sick! It is too bad, that we cannot include this -- safety is no accident.
  • Brian's circumcision was cancelled (postponed indefinitely?)
    • True.
  • Brian recovered. This does not prove anything, as he and Bruce were distinct individuals.
    • With the same diagnosis.

"After concern was raised about how Bruce and Brian urinated, both boys were diagnosed with phimosis (a rare and overdiagnosed condition which is an inappropriate diagnosis in infancy). They were referred for circumcision without ever trying less radical therapy. On April the 27th, 1966, the Surgeon Jean-Marie Huot and Anæsthesiologist Max Cham performed the circumcision with the aid of a Bovie Cautery Machine (which is not intended for use on extremities and genitals). Bruce's penis was destroyed. After this, Brian's circumcision was cancelled, and he made a full recovery from his condition without further treatment. Some suggest that this indicates that Bruce's circumcision may not have been necessary."

Since we only know that the parents Reimer believed that Brian and Bruce had trouble urinating (ballooning can be misinterpreted as trouble urinating) I changed the first sentence to how Bruce and Brian urinated. I find no evidence that nonretractability is a problem before puberty. I added that none even attempted more conservative treatment (nothing like having ones leg amputated for curing an ingrown toenail). I corrected the specialty of Max Cham to Anæsthesiologist. I added "and genitals" to the things on which one should not use a Bovie Cautery Machine.

¿What is your opinion of the counter proposal? I do believe that we can work this out before the weekend.

Ŭalabio 06:45, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)

Ŭalabio, strictly speaking it's redundant to say "and genitals", since the (male) genitals are extremities, but I don't feel too strongly about it, so - ok, I agree to that one. The term Phimosis has a variety of interpretations, of which non-retractable foreskin is but one. I agree that a non-retractable foreskin is normal in an infant, but we cannot know what the real problem was. There are certain cases where a diagnosis of phimosis is appropriate in an infant, so we should delete "...which is an inappropriate diagnosis...". Alternatively, we could remove the parenthetical comment and add a brief discussion in a following paragraph. What would you prefer? - Jakew 20:28, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

We are getting close. I know that genitals are extremities, but some readers might think about extremities as limbs. As for phimosis in infancy, I try currently to get doctors to look into this (it is hard to find a doctor with the time to help). You are certainly free to try to find a doctor. If we cannot find a doctor between us, a brief discussion in the following paragraph would be nice. I propose that we set a goal for compromise of 2004-11-01T00:00:00 GMT/UTC. I am confident that we can meet the goal with time to spare.

I see now that I did not need to call for help for working with you. Working with you is much more pleasant and productive than working with a certain other user.

Ŭalabio 06:22, 2004 Oct 27 (UTC)

I found a Doctor

I sent out some emails and I got a response from Perinatologist David C. Jones M. D. (a member of Doctors Opposing Circumcision) This is the message:


        From:   davidcjones@mac.com
        Subject:        Re:     David Peter Reimer
        Date:   October 30, 2004 00:23:15 GMT
        To:     Walabio@MacOSX.COM

        


        I will look this over this weekend. I have been up (in Labor & Delivery)
since about yesterday morning at 8:00 and just got home an hour ago!

Ŭalabio 01:50, 2004 Oct 30 (UTC)


Sadly you don't get it do you. In this particular case there is absolutely no point in trying to introduce the opinion of one from DoC (Doctors Opposing Circumcision) and suggest that you are contributing to NPOV here. This desperate POV pushing is getting tiresome. - Robert the Bruce 02:04, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

¿Then why do you not get an opinion from Thomas (when I see a foreskin, I see 125 dollars) Wiswell? Ŭalabio 02:25, 2004 Oct 30 (UTC)
  • Sadly you don't seem to understand that neither's opinon should be sought in this matter. You obviously have yet to grasp the concept of NPOV as you seem desperate to push your anti-circumcision POV come what may. - Robert the Bruce 02:32, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Members of Doctors Opposing Circumcision uphold all six principles of medical ethics:

From Medical Ethics:

Six of the principles commonly included are:

  • Beneficence - a practitioner should act in the best interest of the patient. (Salus aegroti suprema lex.)
  • Non-maleficence - never do harm (primum non nocere), from the Hippocratic Oath.
  • Autonomy - the patient has the right to refuse or choose their treatment. (Voluntas aegroti suprema lex.)
  • Justice - concerns the distribution of scarce health resources, and the decision of who gets what treatment.
  • Dignity - the patient (and the person treating the patient) have the right to dignity.
  • Truthfulness - the patient should not be lied to, and deserves to know the whole truth about their illness and treatment.

Thomas (when I see a foreskin, I see 125 dollars) Wiswell upholds no ethics.

Well anyway, I and Jakew are very close to a compromise. Please do not ruin it. You, just like Jakew are free to try to find a doctor.

Ŭalabio 03:38, 2004 Oct 30 (UTC)

It is always good to test these self professed "ethical" doctors by asking them to comment on the quality and integrity of Van Howe's meta analysis. One will very quickly establish whether or not there is any integrity in this person. Once that is done we can ask him to comment on Hammond's findings as to the mental health and substance abuse of and among foreskin restorers. I can't wait. Let him come. - Robert the Bruce 05:40, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Unfortunately, meta-analysis is all we can afford, because we are not a 300mega$ (200$*1.5megababies=300mega$) industry. You point to a weak study, but we have punched holes in studies with confounding variables so conspicuous that it is hard miss:

Noting that in East Africa the intact Animists have an higher rate of HIV than circumcised Muslims. They neither noticed that circumcising South Africa has an high rate as does circumcising United States of America. Do a study about UTIs in Army-hospitals without realizing that one finds the right way, the wrong way, and the Army-way, which in this case meant that one circumcises all babies except premature, underweight, with hypospadias, or sick and forcefully retract all intact boys. Compare rates of cervical cancer in Catholics speaking Spanish in the third world which basically does nothing more than compare the rate of cervical cancer on the isolated islands of the Philippines with the Americas.

As for the mental well-being of restorers, the study is of men who know their sexual mutilation. The fact that most circumcised men do not know their sexual mutilation. These men are like the people in the Country of the Blind. ¿Do these men respond differently than amputees?

Ŭalabio, I agree that Doctors Opposing Circumcision claim to uphold those principles, though I'd argue that they fall short of upholding the principle of Truthfulness. Regardless of this, what you don't seem to understand is that we cannot get the opinion of every single qualified doctor on earth. I don't know what your doctor friend will say, but given that we know that at least one doctor considers it an appropriate diagnosis (since he/she diagnosed David), this seems a pointless endeavour. - Jakew 10:37, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • You are absolutely correct Jake. There is no point in Wally introducing a member of DoC into the discussion. In any event any such self respecting doctor would recuse himself from such input on the basis of a conflict of interest, no? - Robert the Bruce 03:06, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
A diagnosis of phimosis in infancy is an oxymoron. I met a Texan pædiatrician who did not learn that the præpuce is not retractable in infancy until after she began practice. I recounted the story [[3] here. ]] As far as truthfulness, are better than circumcisers because they do not try to sell an unnecessary procedure. Ŭalabio 21:14, 2004 Oct 31 (UTC)

        From:   davidcjones@mac.com
        Subject:        Re: David Peter Reimer
        Date:   October 31, 2004 03:21:57 GMT
        To:     Walabio@MacOSX.COM

        


        Well, looking over what is written, merely that the child had "phimosis,"
there is little to go on. Clearly, it is not abnormal to have a non-retractable
foreskin at that age. What is not clear is whether the non-retractable nature of
the foreskin was causing (or believed to be becausing, more likely) some
problem. If there was no "problem" other than non-retraction, then my medical
opinion was that nothing was wrong and nothing needed to be done. If there was
some other problem, then whatever those facts are would come to bear on the
appropriateness of the surgery. If, for instance, there was some problem for
which circumcision was believed to be the most appropriate treatment at that
time back in the 1960s (even if we know better now), such surgery might
potentially have been appropriate then but not now, depending on exactly what
the evidence was that circ was the best treatment.

        In short, from the limited information present, it would appear that there
was no pathology present and nothing needed to be done, but we might not have
all the data.

        DJ

I propose that use this paragraph:

"After concern was raised about how Bruce and Brian urinated, both boys were diagnosed with phimosis. They were referred for circumcision without ever trying less radical therapy. On April the 27th, 1966, the Surgeon Jean-Marie Huot and Anæsthesiologist Max Cham performed the circumcision with the aid of a Bovie Cautery Machine (which is not intended for use on extremities and genitals). Bruce's penis was destroyed. After this, Brian's circumcision was cancelled, and he made a full recovery from his condition without further treatment. Some suggest that this indicates that Bruce's circumcision may not have been necessary."

Followed by one paragraph each of analysis of the necessity of the procedure. I offer to let the other side decide whether to have thew first or second paragraph.

¿Do we agree that it is time to unlock the article and precede? If so, either I or Jakew or Robert the Bruce can leave a message on the talkpage of Theresa Knott asking her to remove her block, and the rest of us can sign ( ~ ~ ~ ~ ) it.

Ŭalabio 21:14, 2004 Oct 31 (UTC)

The above paragraph shouldn't imply that circumcision is radical, that's POV that not everyone will agree with. What if you change it to:

...both boys were diagnosed with phimosis and referred for circumcision. On April the 27th...

And leave everything else the same. It just states the facts without any POV about the appropriatness of circumcision. Also the other paragraphs you suggested about the necessity of the procedure are bound to be fought over and should be ironed out before the block is lifted, so I don't think the article should be unprotected just yet. --Starx 22:30, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It is important to mention that none attempted less radical treatment. I ask a rhetorical question:

¿Who is a better dentist?:

  1. ¿The toothpuller using toothextraction as a first resort?
  2. ¿The toothrepairer using toothextraction as a last resort?

This all has to do with standard of care.

As for unlocking the article, If you believe we need more time, then fine, but what I had in mind was that they write their paragraph and the intactivists leave it alone and the intactivists write our paragraph and they leave it alone (of course this is Encyclopædia WikiPedia.Org so others might edit the paragraphs, but we shall both assume that these are third parties editing the paragraphs in good faith and try to integrate in changes).

This would be just these two paragraphs since a paragraph exists about what David Peter Reimer means to intactivists. The other side, can certainly write a paragraph in the same section about what David Peter Reimer means to them.

I am willing to go forward with unprotection or wait and I believe that it is important to note that none tried less radical treatment.

Ŭalabio 23:36, 2004 Oct 31 (UTC)

Your toothpuller is a strawman. If you know the tooth needs to be pulled then there's no reason to try anything else first. I don't know if he needed the circumcision, neither do you. I'm sure you have your beliefs but this is an encyclopedia and is only concerned with verifiable fact. Your own doctor said that he didn't have enough information to know for sure. Also, in keeping with this being an encyclopedia we shouldn't have a paragraph of each sides analysis, there shouldn't be any analysis. Just verifiable facts. The readers should be allowed to make their own analysis. --Starx 23:53, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The toothpuller is not a strawman. Before amputation, one should try less radical treatments. If you want only verifiable facts, we should remove references to phimosis because this is unverified and just plain unlikely for an infant. Ŭalabio 00:25, 2004 Nov 1 (UTC)

Ŭalabio, it is unverifiable that David had phimosis, but it is a verifiable fact that he was diagnosed with it. I'm quite happy with describing this as rare (and overdiagnosed), but we shouldn't pass judgement. For the purposes of an encyclopaedia article, we shouldn't be concerned with 'better' or 'worse' toothpullers - we should just report the facts.

Incidentally, I'm not happy about the idea of 'dividing up' Wiki into 'territories'. We should work together on building an NPOV encyclopaedia, not a mixed handful of POV paragraphs. I have no objection to a paragraph stating explicitly what DPR means to anti-circers, however, but it ought to be neutrally reported and factual. I'm happy to work with you to achieve this. - Jakew 19:19, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

2004-11-01T19:19 (UTC), Jakew:

Ŭalabio, it is unverifiable that David had phimosis, but it is a verifiable fact that he was diagnosed with it. I'm quite happy with describing this as rare (and overdiagnosed), but we shouldn't pass judgement. For the purposes of an encyclopaedia article, we shouldn't be concerned with 'better' or 'worse' toothpullers - we should just report the facts.

I want the facts, but the fact is that Max Cham and Jean-Marie Huot violated the standard of care one would find in more enlightened countries like the European Union. At least Jean-Marie Huot and Max Cham did not try bloodletting.

Incidentally, I'm not happy about the idea of 'dividing up' Wiki into 'territories'. We should work together on building an NPOV encyclopaedia, not a mixed handful of POV paragraphs. I have no objection to a paragraph stating explicitly what DPR means to anti-circers, however, but it ought to be neutrally reported and factual. I'm happy to work with you to achieve this. - Jakew 19:19, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The trouble is that we are incompatible:

Intactivists believe that one should not perform nontherapeutic procedures on minors, while your camp believes that parents should do anything they want to the genitals of their children. By the way, I shall say this one more time, we do not care what you do with consenting adults, but we do care what you do to children. If you would just leave children alone, we would leave you alone.

I have no objection to you helping our paragraph achieve NPOV, but please do put words in our mouth. I can summarize what David Peter Reimer means to intactivists:

David Peter Reimer is important to intactivists because he symbolizes everything wrong with modifying genitals of minors. He suffered what was almost certainly a nontherapeutic circumcision which went terribly wrong. Then John Money tried to make him into a girl. The results were disastrous; Ron became an alcoholic, Joan tried suicide, and Brian and David Peter committed suicide. We also see what happened as a needless tragedy. Intactivists mourned the death of David Peter Reimer.

¿Did anyone from your camp shed a tear for David Peter Reimer? As you might have noticed, we have much emotional investment in David Peter Reimer. We are very protective of his memory. Any of of us, including you, could have shared his fate, and some people did.

If you try not to change the facts, I welcome your help. Please do not make me regret this.

I reread the study of Michael Glass about your camp. I understand now that many of you just like a naked glans. ¿Is Gymnoglansphile the proper term? If all you want is a naked glans, ¿have you ever thought about just permanently retracting your præpuce instead of cutting off pieces of your body?

Ŭalabio 02:19, 2004 Nov 2 (UTC)

Ŭalabio, you say: I want the facts, but the fact is that Max Cham and Jean-Marie Huot violated the standard of care one would find in more enlightened countries like the European Union.

We don't know that, so let's not say it.

You say: Intactivists believe that one should not perform nontherapeutic procedures on minors, while your camp believes that parents should do anything they want to the genitals of their children.

I don't particularly like being told what I believe. Anyway, what either of us believes is irrelevant to what the article should say. Wikipedia, being an NPOV encyclopaedia, should neither endorse nor reject any belief. Let's try to work on the paragraph. Here's a suggested revision. As you can see, I haven't tried to delete anything, but have just altered the wording:

David Peter Reimer is particularly important to Intactivists, because he symbolizes everything that they believe is wrong with modifying genitals of minors. He suffered, they say, what was almost certainly a nontherapeutic circumcision which went terribly wrong. Then John Money tried to make him into a girl. Ron became an alcoholic, Joan tried suicide, and both Brian and David Peter eventually committed suicide. Many Intactivists say that these were all consequences of David's circumcision. Many mourned the death of David Peter Reimer, citing what happened as a needless tragedy.

You also say: I reread the study of Michael Glass about your camp. I understand now that many of you just like a naked glans.

I'm afraid I'm not a sheep, I'm an individual. If Michael Glass has written about my 'camp', then I'm afraid I haven't had the pleasure of reading it yet. - Jakew 20:29, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Jakew, 2004-11-02T20:29:

I'm afraid I'm not a sheep, I'm an individual. If Michael Glass has written about my 'camp', then I'm afraid I haven't had the pleasure of reading it yet. - Jakew 20:29, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am tired. It seems that Walden W. O'Dell did as he promised, and fixed the election. Walden W. O'Dell has much to learn about fixing an election:

Walden W. O'Dell could have given Dubya Shrub a clear victory in both the popular vote and in the electoral college by flipping less than half as many votes fliped from the Warhero to the Chickenhawk, this time, if he would have focused on states where the election is close. This dumping of votes all over the place nearly backfired and is obvious. Well luckily for Walden W. O'Dell and Dubya Shrub, it worked, and since no papertrail exists, the only evidence is the statistical discrepancy between the exitpolls and the results (if Walden W. O'Dell would have cooked the books right, the statistical discrepancy would be much smaller). This just proves that Joseph Stalin said:

"It is not who votes, but who counts the vote." -- Joseph Stalin

We need a voterverifiable papertrail.

This is the article by Michael Glass:

Circumcisers: What drives their knives?

After you finish the first chapter, just go to glass1, glass2, et cetera. Basically, it states that Gymnoglansphiles like the exposed glans because it makes the penis look erect, which sexually arouses Gymnoglansphiles.

Ŭalabio 08:34, 2004 Nov 3 (UTC)

I know you're partial to creating your own words in pseudo-latin, but if you're considering adding "gymnoglansphile" to an article, please don't. Rhobite 01:43, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
No. Jakew felt that the popular term circumfetishist was insulting. I tried to create more proper terms such as circumcisiophile and circumcisiosexual. He still did not like that. I hit the books and determined that circumcision is just a means to an end and again tried to create the hopefully nonoffensive term of gymnoglansphile.
I currently compose a response to Jakew and plan to offer some suggestions from Hugh Young as well.
Ŭalabio 02:48, 2004 Nov 4 (UTC)

Ŭalabio, it's the concept that is insulting, not the word chosen. Suggesting that I'm sexually aroused by circumcision is as inappropriate and offensive as suggesting that your only interest in the subject is a fetish for foreskins. It's called an ad hominem attack. Like your comments on the US election, it's also far off-topic. I look forward to your response regarding D.P.R. - Jakew 12:03, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

¡I am Sorry! I figured that you are like the people on [nntp:alt.sex alt.sex]. I have only ever encountered procircumcisionpeople who have a either fiduciary or prurient or sadistic interest. From what I encountered from [nntp:alt.sex alt.sex], I always figured that all people advocating genital mutilation are circumcisiophiles. After reading your objections and rereading Michael Glass, I figured that although most people advocating sexual mutilation on [nntp:alt.sex alt.sex] are circumcisiophiles, most are mere gymnoglansphiles. If you are not a gymnoglansphile, ¿do you have a fiduciary interest in genital mutilation? If none of this applies to you, then ¿why do you advocate sexual mutilation?

You are right that the stuff about the election being off topic. It started out as an explanation about why I did not reply, but became a lament about the death of democracy in the United States of America. As much as I hate Walden W. O'Dell, I hate the stupid people who bought the closed-source paperless voting systems. Understandably, if someone would take advantage of an offer like this, it would not be someone like John McCain, but Dubya Shrub. If Walden W. O'Dell would be a democratic ideologue, we would probably have Ted (I left a woman to die) Kennedy as President. I do not choose John McCain at random because Karl Rove stole the the Republican Nomination from John McCain in 2000 using lies which make Warheroes look like traitors (I see a recurring pattern in the election of 2004). Ike (a man with experience fighting Fascists) tried to warn us about the risk of Fascistic takeover on 1961-01-18T01:30:00 GMT/UTC, but we did not listen. We have exactly the kind of government we deserve.

2004-11-02T20:29 (UTC), Jakew:

Ŭalabio, you say: I want the facts, but the fact is that Max Cham and Jean-Marie Huot violated the standard of care one would find in more enlightened countries like the European Union. We don't know that, so let's not say it.

In a country like Finland, the circumcision rate is so low that one cannot be certain what they are. If we place the rate of circumcision by age 100 as <1% (which is definitely higher than the true rate), then the rate per year is <.01%. The rate of circumcision of <.01% in the first year, the standard of care for ballooning, ammoniadermatitis, et cetera is not the opthamological equivalent of eyectomy for conjunctivitis.

You say: Intactivists believe that one should not perform nontherapeutic procedures on minors, while your camp believes that parents should do anything they want to the genitals of their children. I don't particularly like being told what I believe. Anyway, what either of us believes is irrelevant to what the article should say. Wikipedia, being an NPOV encyclopaedia, should neither endorse nor reject any belief. Let's try to work on the paragraph. Here's a suggested revision. As you can see, I haven't tried to delete anything, but have just altered the wording:

¿Then why do you advocate nontherapeutic medically unnecessary sexual mutilation of minors?

David Peter Reimer is particularly important to Intactivists, because he symbolizes everything that they believe is wrong with modifying genitals of minors. He suffered, they say, what was almost certainly a nontherapeutic circumcision which went terribly wrong. Then John Money tried to make him into a girl. Ron became an alcoholic, Joan tried suicide, and both Brian and David Peter eventually committed suicide. Many Intactivists say that these were all consequences of David's circumcision. Many mourned the death of David Peter Reimer, citing what happened as a needless tragedy.

It is okay, but "they say" has to go. I doubt that doctors in the European Union would have circumcised.

This is what Hugh Young wrote to me:

What is wrong with it is not so much what is in it, as what is left out -- notably all reference to his twin brother, who had the same "symptoms", was not circumcised, and suffered no physical ill-effects. "Intactivists often cite David Peter Reimer because he underwent both [infant] circumcision and [involuntary] sex reassignment, both of which Intactivists oppose. Intactivists [actively try to prevent -- change to, campaign against] children [delete: from] undergoing such procedures. They treat the story of David Peter Reimer as a cautionary-tale about why one should not needlessly modify the genitals of unconsenting minors. They also mourn the death of David Peter Reimer, believing it to be a senseless tragedy that was [ultimately] caused by his surgeries." These last two sentences are pecularily distancing. They throw the focus on to Intactivists, as peculiar people. For once, the passive voice would be more appropriate, "about why the genitals of unconsenting minors should not be needlessly modified" since the circumcisors are so numerous, certainly not "one".

He makes some interesting points.

You also say: I reread the study of Michael Glass about your camp. I understand now that many of you just like a naked glans. I'm afraid I'm not a sheep, I'm an individual. If Michael Glass has written about my 'camp', then I'm afraid I haven't had the pleasure of reading it yet. - Jakew 20:29, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This is the article by Michael Glass:

Circumcisers: What drives their knives?

After you finish the first chapter, just go to glass1, glass2, et cetera. Basically, it states that Gymnoglansphiles like the exposed glans because it makes the penis look erect, which sexually arouses Gymnoglansphiles.

I believe we can compromise. You are much harder to understand than a certain other user. I know exactly what motivates the other user. You, on the other hand are an enigma.

Ŭalabio 06:06, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC)

Ŭalabio, you ask: "If you are not a gymnoglansphile, ¿do you have a fiduciary interest in genital mutilation? If none of this applies to you, then ¿why do you advocate sexual mutilation?". If you really want to discuss this, I'm happy to do so, but I suggest that a more appropriate place is my user talk page. I'm also (as a British man) truly sorry about the US election, but this really isn't the place to discuss it.

It is true that in some countries, circumcision is very uncommon, but the fact remains that the rates are non-zero. That means that the possibility remains that even if David lived in Finland, there is a chance (however slight) that he would have been circumcised.

You say: "It is okay, but "they say" has to go. I doubt that doctors in the European Union would have circumcised." "they say" should say, since otherwise the article is endorsing that view (which isn't NPOV). How about something stronger, like "they maintain"? I live in the European Union. About one fifth to one sixth of young men are circumcised in my country. It seems entirely possible that doctors would have circumcised him here.

Regarding Hugh Young's comments, his first concerns DPR's brother. I think we've already agreed on mentioning that in the introduction, haven't we?

The second comment suggesting passive voice is ok with me.

-- Jakew 11:33, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

2004-11-08T11:33 (UTC), Jakew

Ŭalabio, you ask: "If you are not a gymnoglansphile, ¿do you have a fiduciary interest in genital mutilation? If none of this applies to you, then ¿why do you advocate sexual mutilation?". If you really want to discuss this, I'm happy to do so, but I suggest that a more appropriate place is my user talk page.

Okay.

I'm also (as a British man) truly sorry about the US election, but this really isn't the place to discuss it.

¡WOW! ¡Ike was in Britannia! ¡All of the clocks in mine house give time in UTC, just like Britannia!

It is true that in some countries, circumcision is very uncommon, but the fact remains that the rates are non-zero. That means that the possibility remains that even if David lived in Finland, there is a chance (however slight) that he would have been circumcised.

A baby with conjunctivitis might require an eyectomy, but this is unusual. If a doctor removed eyes just for conjunctivitis, the doctor would be a quack.

You say: "It is okay, but "they say" has to go. I doubt that doctors in the European Union would have circumcised." "they say" should say, since otherwise the article is endorsing that view (which isn't NPOV). How about something stronger, like "they maintain"? I live in the European Union. About one fifth to one sixth of young men are circumcised in my country. It seems entirely possible that doctors would have circumcised him here.

Men born between 1981-1984 have a rate of 11.7% [4] . The rate continues to fall. Besides, it is not POV to write that Bruce Reimer, did not need a circumcision.

Regarding Hugh Young's comments, his first concerns DPR's brother. I think we've already agreed on mentioning that in the introduction, haven't we?

Agree.

The second comment suggesting passive voice is ok with me.

It is not quite okay with me. I always felt that only lazy people should use the lazy people should use the passive voice. I believe that we should find intransitive verbs. In Esperanto, one can just suffix "iĝ". Greek has a middle voice. I feel that we can find intransitive verbs. One of the problems is that we do not consider the same text:

I demonstrated the intactivistic view by writing out our view, in a nutshell, here. You started to edit it. Hugh Young referred to the version in the article. Propose that we merge the paragraphs and then edit them:

"Intactivists often cite David Peter Reimer because he underwent both [infant] circumcision and [involuntary] sex reassignment, both of which Intactivists oppose. Intactivists [actively try to prevent -- change to, campaign against] children [delete: from] undergoing such procedures. They treat the story of David Peter Reimer as a cautionary-tale about why one should not needlessly modify the genitals of unconsenting minors. They also mourn the death of David Peter Reimer, believing it to be a senseless tragedy that was [ultimately] caused by his surgeries. Intactivists often cite David Peter Reimer because he underwent both circumcision and sex reassignment, both of which Intactivists oppose. Intactivists actively try to prevent children from undergoing such procedures. They treat the story of David Peter Reimer as a cautionary-tale about why one should not needlessly modify the genitals of unconsenting minors. They also mourn the death of David Peter Reimer, believing it to be a senseless tragedy that was caused by his surgeries."

Now that we are on the same page, we can work out these things.

-- Jakew 11:33, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ŭalabio 02:15, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)

Put that about what we agree in the article

Just like with the paragraph about what David Peter Reimer means to intactivists, we forgot that the article itself exists. I took our paragraph and the first paragraph from the section Overview and merged them. We still have other issues to resolve, but I hope that we can resolve them here, on the talk-page.

-- Ŭalabio 21:08, 2004 Dec 4 (UTC)

Who is the "we" you speak of? - Robert the Bruce 04:06, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The we are Ŭalabio and Jakew. -- Ŭalabio 04:43, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)

It is good that you two have agreed. Now I suggest that you seek to sell this version to the broader community. You will get some help with the process from here on here. [5] - Robert the Bruce 07:11, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)