By Selwyn Duke
Perhaps you’ve heard the tragic
story of David
Reimer. Born in Winnipeg, Manitoba,
Canada in 1966, David was the victim of a botched circumcision that left his
penis charred beyond surgical repair.
His parents Ron and Janet, no doubt beside themselves, were confused
about the best way to proceed. Then, one
day, they saw a man named Dr. John Money on television.
Money was talking about his
theory of “gender neutrality,” which states that “gender identity” is learned
rather than innate. The idea was that
the sexes were the same except for the superficial physical differences; this
implies that if a child were altered so as to superficially resemble the
opposite sex and was raised as one of its members, he would be happy with that
sexual identity. Hearing this, the
Reimers hoped they had found their salvation.
They took their boy to Money,
who told them that their son’s penis could not be restored and that he stood a
much better chance of living a happy life if “sex-reassignment surgery” (in
reality, reassigning sex is about as possible as reassigning species) were
performed and he was raised as a girl.
The Reimers agreed, and the surgery was performed when the boy, who
would be named “Brenda,” was 22 months old.
In reality, the kindest way to
describe Money’s theory is fanciful. His
idea of “gender neutrality” was still in vogue when I was a youth, and “vogue,”
in the most frivolous sense, is the correct term. It was always more style than science; it was
something that I, even as a teen, knew was bunk. Yet who would listen to people such as
me? We were old-fashioned, behind the
times. And it didn’t matter that Money
was Alfred Kinsey redux and believed pedophilia was lovely if it was for
“love.” It didn’t matter that David and his twin brother, Brian, said that
Money sexually abused them during photo shoots. He was a “doctor,” a Ph.D. on the cutting edge
of a brave new world.
Only, David (“Brenda” at the
time) wanted nothing to do with that world.
Although he was never told he was a boy, had been surgically altered,
was dressed and raised as a girl and was regularly seeing Money for therapy, he
resisted his “gender assignment” from the outset. He acted like a boy, played with boys’ toys
and objected to seeing Money from the age of seven. It wasn’t going well — and it wouldn’t end
well.
At the age of 14, in a rare
commendable act of teen rebellion, David threatened suicide if he were forced
to continue with Money’s prescriptions.
This prompted his parents to finally tell him the truth about his
condition. With his eyes opened, he then
replaced his estrogen treatments with male hormone therapy, took the name
“David,” started living as a boy, underwent reconstructive genital surgery and
later married a woman who already had children.
Yet the damage had been done. His
tormented life which began in such a tragic way came to a tragic end: he did commit
suicide, at the age of 38.
Dr. Money, too, is now
dead. Yet he died with his ideological
boots on; not only did he fail to repent, he fraudulently portrayed David’s case
— the one for which he was most famous — as a success for years after its failure
was obvious. This, and his refusal to
ever own up to the failure, only increased the chances that other children
would be thus scarred.
As a testimonial to how quickly
fashions pass away, Money’s theory has joined him in the grave. The stake through its heart came in the
1990s, with brain research and an improved understanding of intrauterine
development proving conclusively that the sexes are different even within the
womb and the skull. These new findings
expressing old wisdom were related as revelation, reflecting the idea that
nothing is truly valid until vindicated by “science.” So there was no collective mea culpa from the psychological
establishment for clouding reality and misleading generations of naïve parents. They just continued without missing a beat,
as if it were a matter no more significant than recommending the wrong size
shoes for the kids. Worse still, they
have now moved on to their next mistake.
We have heard about the curious
case of Caster Semenya, the 18-year-old South African runner who has been
competing as a woman. Semenya has become
the focus of suspicion (I’ll use masculine pronouns, as I’m convinced this
individual is a boy who experienced abnormal intrauterine development) because
of his masculine physique, deep voice, development of facial hair, male
mannerisms and the fact that he has been winning races by wide margins. As a result, a battery of medical exams to
determine his true sex has been conducted, although the results have not been
officially released. Yet the real story
here is not what investigation may tell us about Semenya. It is what our reaction to Semenya tells us
about ourselves.
This is reflected in comments
found throughout the Internet. For
instance, consider “JimBob” posting under this
Daily Mail piece, who said,
“Why is everyone talking about
genetics? What about Caster's own mind – if she believes within herself that
she's female, then she is.”
Echoing this sentiment here, “Green Is Good” wrote,
“SHE identifies HERself as a
female. Done.”
Then, back to the Mail, “Livio” opined,
“This is a clear case of gender
identity discrimination. What if she is a man who identifies himself as a
woman?”
That’s interesting. What if you’re a lunkhead who identifies
himself as intelligent?
Yet it isn’t sufficient to just
dismiss this with sarcasm, as this isn’t the rambling of only a few twisted minds.
What these posters are
expressing is the handiwork of today’s Dr. Moneys, “transgender” theory. This is the idea that your “gender” can be
whatever you want it to be — male,
female, both male and female or neither, etc. — that it isn’t limited by
biology. If you have a problem with
this, bravo, but then you should have a problem with the word “gender” itself. Why?
Because its current usage (it used to apply only to words) was originated
by people such as Money for the purposes
of facilitating the relation of their theories. Understand that while many people use “gender”
as a synonym for “sex,” that is not
its social sciences definition, which dictates that it refers to social rather than biological
differences. Yet people love to use this
and other elements of the lexicon of the left.
It’s a fascinating phenomenon. If
you replace a simple, one-syllable word such as “poor” or “sex” with impressive
sounding terms such as “underprivileged” or “gender” for ideological reasons,
people, oblivious to the underlying agenda and wishing to sound sophisticated,
will glom onto them. You see, simpletons,
who are relatively rare, prefer simple words.
And the only other group that does is rarer still: true
intellectuals. But I digress.
So, returning to Semenya, many
people express the shocking idea that his actual sex should have no bearing on
whether he should be allowed to compete with women. It’s that modern phenomenon — image is everything,
reality is negotiable.
This notion has so taken hold
that we’ve recently heard of two stories out of Britain wherein young boys, ages
12 and
9, showed up in school earlier this month as “girls,” sporting girls’
clothing and ponytails and bearing feminine names. And the schools are kowtowing to them,
telling other pupils that they’ll be punished if they don’t handle the “sex
change” “sensitively.” Yet sensitivity
is not for the other children, who are upset and confused. In just the way that David Reimer’s body was
mutilated in deference to yesterday’s latest theory, their minds must be
mutilated in deference to today’s.
Now, even if someone subscribes
to “transgender” theory, it is striking that he would allow a child who is too
young to decide to have sex decide what sex he should be. How did we get to this point?
These parents, like Ron and
Janet Reimer before them, are listening to the respected social scientists of
their day. These “experts” tell them
that there is something called “gender dysphoria,” which is the persistent feeling
that one is a member of one sex trapped in the body of the other. It’s enough to convince many parents, such as
those of German Tim
Petras, who received female hormone “treatments” at age 12 and now goes by
the name of Kim. Yet on what basis is
this diagnosis really made?
Feelings.
It is truly reflective of this
age, where relativism has obviated reason.
That is to say, if there are no absolutes, no Truth to use as a
yardstick for judging among feelings, the feelings themselves become the
ultimate arbiter. Then, of course, if it
walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a Fig Newton if it feels like
one.
But one of the problems with
emotion is that it is by its very nature irrational. And if anyone would defend an emotion-based
diagnosis such as “gender dysphoria,” note that it’s brought to us by the same
psycho-babblers who have given us something dubbed “body dysmorphia.” This is this persistent feeling that a
certain body part, such as an arm or leg (or multiple body parts), doesn’t
belong on one’s body. And if you think
it isn’t taken seriously, know that doctors have amputated healthy limbs on this
basis.
Be shocked — that is, unless
you accept “gender dysphoria” as legitimate.
Then you’d better be introspective.
For what is the difference? Why
would you accept the emotion-based diagnosis of gender dysphoria but not the
emotion-based one of body dysmorphia? Why
are the feelings of those who suffer from the latter invalid but the feelings
of those who suffer from the former a credible arbiter? Both groups have persistent feelings that
their bodies aren’t as they should be.
Both groups cannot bear to live in their bodies as they are. Both groups want to have their bodies
altered. And both groups have found “experts”
willing to put them under the knife.
Sure, it strikes us as the most horrid malpractice when a doctor
amputates healthy body parts, such as a pair of legs. But, then, should we view it any less dimly simply
because those healthy body parts are between the legs?
Lamentably, today the answer is
often yes, and this speaks volumes about our society. That is, we’ve all heard that old stereotype
of a lunatic, the guy in an asylum who thinks he is Napoleon. Now the asylums have largely been emptied,
and I think I know why: we’ve turned the outside world into an asylum. What was once only acceptable to a small group
within the scariest of walls — detachment from reality — has now been
mainstreamed. You can be a man who
thinks he is a woman, yet no straitjacket is slapped on you. It is slapped on the mouths of those who dare
say self-image isn’t reality.
And that is the point: there is
something called reality. When feelings
tell one he is, or should be, something he is not or shouldn’t be — a girl, a
legless man or Napoleon — the sane conclusion is that you’re confronted with a
psychological problem, not a physical one.
It may be intractable, and it is certainly easier to mutilate the body
than cure the mind. But you cannot mutilate
reality, only obscure it. If a man loses
his genitalia in an accident, does he cease to be male? Or, if “gender” is a continuum as today’s
Moneys say, is he less male? Did David
Reimer cease to be a boy because he was mutilated and given estrogen against
his will? Of course, the “experts” would
say the answer is no, since he never saw himself as a girl. Again, though, feelings cannot be the arbiters of reality.
After all, I may have hypertrichosis like Jo-Jo the Dog-Faced Boy,
undergo operations to create a snout, paws and a tail, howl under the moonlight
and change my name to Spot. Yet am I
sane if I call myself a different species?
So what are we to conclude
about “gender” science? Decades ago its “experts”
said society could turn your boy into a girl if it felt like it; now they say
he can turn himself into a girl if he feels like it. Is it just a coincidence that Dr. Money’s
“gender neutrality” theory accorded with his day’s feminist claim that sex
roles should be discarded because the sexes are essentially the same? Is it just a coincidence that the current “transgender”
theory accords with our day’s homosexual claim that sex roles should be
discarded because everyone and his values are essentially different? It is at all possible that these theories
have less to do with sound science than the spirit of the age?
We
have gone from the proposition that “gender” can be whatever society says it is
to the proposition that it can be whatever the individual says it is without
ever stopping to wonder if the second idea is just a crank like the first. But most won’t wonder because today we place
more faith in doctors than doctrine, and today’s doctors say that eternal
common sense and yesterday’s doctors’ nonsense are wrong. Yet the most significant thing that
distinguishes them from Dr. John Money is that they are still alive — and their
theory is not yet dead.
© 2009 Selwyn Duke — All Rights Reserved
selwynduke.com 
Let us know what you think, dear reader. We value your input!