[2Wycked]

David Reimer's Life



Dave Reimer was born a boy named Bruce in 1965. He had a twin brother named Brian. Due to urinary issues, doctors recommended circumcision in order to alleviate urinary concerns. The doctor used a controversial method of cauterization which resulted in the complete burning of his penis.



Bruce’s parents were justifiably worried about his future & his happiness with no penis. They took him to Dr. John Money, a quickly emerging psychologist who was a strong proponent of blank slate theory. Dr. John Money was firmly convinced gender was a performance and could be learned away through appropriate psychological & behavioral intervention.

Let’s step through the ideas pioneered by Money. He believed in sex differences & gender differences. His perception of sex differences was small (but larger than feminists consider); he noted sexual dimorphism, that women are vulnerable while rearing children, so that explains why men were the hunters & wanders. However, he coined the term “gender role,” replacing the traditional term “sex role.” He thought most behavior exhibited by men & women was socially constructed. “Gender roles” are the publicly displayed traits; “Gender identity” was how one conceived of their sexual identity.

He was one of the leading scientific forces that helped second-wave feminist smash gender roles & traditional society. Armed with the information that gender & sexuality were social built, they radically altered society. As for Money himself, he transformed the medical & scientific community and turned the professions towards social constructionism. We see the vestiges of this in the supreme reticence of academia to admit biological sex differences. Since feminism & social construction are fused at the hip, they know the disavowal of social constructionism would seriously call into question feminist approaches.

As for Bruce, he began to go to therapy with Money as an infant. Under Money’s recommendation, Bruce’s testicles were removed shortly before two years, but no artificial vagina was created, just left young Bruce with a urinary hole. Bruce was renamed Brenda. Brenda was a patient of Money’s for about a decade, with his brother Brian. Money noted this was perfect for deconstructing gender – as he had the perfect control in Brian.

The therapy was bizarre, making Brenda lie on the ground while Brian made thrusting motions, mimicking penetration. Money believed sexual identity around gender was formed during childhood sexual play. Money claimed that Brenda was a stereotypical girl & Brian the stereotypical boy – concluding gender is completely constructed.

Brenda, however, was not as he portrayed. Brenda refused to wear dresses at an early age and engaged in roughhousing with Brian. Brenda refused to sexualize boys and, for a time, identified as a lesbian. Bullied and abused at school, Brenda developed suicidal tendencies and refused to ever see Money again. She got estrogen treatments and underwent female puberty, growing breasts, developing a feminine voice and the whole bit. For his part, Brian developed a serious case of schizophrenia because of Money’s incredibly reckless and ignorant “therapy.”

Brenda, in high school, dropped the female act and assumed the identity of man – named David. Notice the lack of taking his original name - he was trying to assert autonomy over his life & identity. He eventually had a double mastectomy and had phalloplasty. This was years after he married a woman and became a step-father to a few children.

Brian, unable to cope with mental illness, overdosed on his anti-depressants in 2002. Just two short years later, David’s wife informed him she wanted a divorce. Unable to cope with his life, his brother’s death & his impending divorce, he went to the local grocery store and put a sawed-off shotgun into his mouth and pulled the trigger. He was 38.

Judith Butler: The Profile Of A Delusional Blank Slatist



Let’s talk about a prominent feminist & ardent social constructionist named Judith Butler. Butler is a gay Jewish radical feminist. Like any prominent feminist, she was gifted class & educational privilege. In the so-called hallowed halls of American academia, she came to her fame for her dogged insistence that gender is little more than a performance. Her seminal work is “Gender Trouble," released in 1990 to the cheering applause of feminist & liberal academics.

A brief breakdown is needed. It is considered one of the essential readings of queer theorists & post-structural feminists & liberals. She is generally credited with coining the term “gender perfomativity.” A key point she belabors is the fact that both sex & gender are socially constructed – meaning humans have no inborn traits relating their sexual organs. She argues that is because there is no identity for women behind their gender performance. She further makes a Freudian argument that boys identifying as masculine are repressing homosexual desires for their father – same for feminine women. She calls for radical subversion of gender, such as drag shows. She claims our humanity “admits no genealogy” and we are born into this world completely free & clear to be anybody we want – our inappropriate socialization limits our autonomy.

Instead of directly refuting all of her points, let’s break down Butler, her narcissism & lesbianism. Butler is a classic homosexual narcissist – unable to understand that the vast, vast majority of people don’t have the issues they have relating to masculinity & femininity; they demand the rest of the world change so they don’t have to reconcile the fact they will never have true social approval for their deviance based on lack of adherence to expected male/female behavior.

Her dogged insistence of blank-slatism is little more than her own issue with the fact she is an androgynous female biologically. When we see such resolute devotion to social constructionism, it usually has either a biological or psychological root. Here, Butler was probably exposed to masculinizing hormones in the womb, but – as expected – she hit puberty and has estrogen coursing through her veins. Her inability to come to terms with that is the fuel that fires her pseudo-intellectualism. As for psychological issues, it could be many things – unable to deal with hypergamy, sexual abuse as a child, etc.

Let’s talk about the narcissism. What Butler is doing is pretending everybody is just like her. They aren’t. When heterosexual females take to this rhetoric, there are two reasons. First, is the desire to reform the world so they will be queens of the SMP and slake their hypergamic thirst. Second, is narcissism.

Many heterosexual women aren’t interested in actually slaking that thirst - just in theory. Many clinical narcissists never have intercourse. Their sexual inadequacies will bubble to the surface and threaten their narcissistic armor, so they ditch sex once they are assured a partner’s codependent devotion. Butler, here, most likely never has sex. She doesn’t understand it & fears it.

Let’s also talk about academic rhetoric as narcissistic. Butler’s work is needlessly verbose and relies heavily on mindless feminist jargon to make simple points. See the class issue here? She makes her work ridiculously complicated so that it makes people come into her frame and debate her on her terms. This is the pathetic nature of academia – the need to pad their ego’s via pointlessly complicated literature. I would love to be a professor – particularly one of the law – but I doubt I ever will be because of this sort of behavior – your intelligence should show through the quality of your writing, analysis & perception, not a bunch of self-serving nonsense of discourse. Also, note one of the reasons is the fact they are covering up their own logical & rhetoric failures.

Gender Politics As Narcissism & A Lament



Let’s consider yet another brilliant post by The Last Psychiatrist: Couple Reveals Their Child's Gender Five Years Too Late

Let’s break this down.

Quote:

What drove her to using her child as a you-go-first skydiving partner is the desire to be something coupled with the terror of doing anything-- which results in ambivalence and inertia camouflaged in a consumerist lifestyle full of meaningless choices. This leaves a lot of unused emotional energy left over for me me me. She's had 46 years to obsess over her identity, and this is what she came up with, a hail mary pass in the second half of a mid-life crisis.

Gender politics is the porting of personal terror of betraying social expectations and demanding that other people change so they don't have to. The obsession over changing socialization, media representations of gender, etc. is little more than the inability to change themselves.

If challenging of gender roles was a desire of the first order, a woman would flaunt her hairy legs, her refusal to wear dresses, etc. Notice how Jessica Valenti has hairy armpits - a classic narcissistic move as she can hide it if she wants to via clothing - but then show it off in photos. OMG! Look at me smash the patriarchy!

It isn't a desire of the first order, the foremost desire is conformity, which is represented in the desire for society to give them new scripts so they can avoid the existential terror of truly becoming self-actualized. Notice the constant rhetoric of oppression of true personhood by society - what they are signaling is they want new ways of socializing people to be enacted because they are too afraid of becoming the people they think they want to be.

Quote:

Her life has been marked by nothing eventful, nothing challenging, nothing unusual, nothing difficult, so she will have created drama out of ordinary events in order to self-identify. "Oh, God," she'd say as she parks her Subaru at the Gymboree. "These mums are all so desperately conformist. Marry the father of my child? How utterly bourgeois. Did I mention my child is a court jester?

Check out Tuthmosis' post of this woman's online dating profile. This women is the sort of woman TLP is talking about - just another white, entitled female who has had nothing exceptional - good or bad - happen to her. She is most likely not dumb, but not smart. Not incompetent but not excellent. She needs to create alternate realities where the dialogue is about her - about her exceptionalism.

Quote:

It isn't for the kid, it is for her. If it wasn't for her, you wouldn't have heard about it. Wasn't the whole point not to call attention to the gender? Oh, I had it backwards, the whole point was entirely to focus on the gender. Sigh. The main character in this story is herself. The kid is supporting cast. He is not a person, he is a blog topic."

This what gender politics is about - the person talking about gender politics. They don't give a damn about the people they purport to help - they just want the worship from like-minded people that they are pioneers transforming the world for the better. The people they target - the kid here - is little more than a pawn in a greater scheme of worship from their preferred authorities.

As we saw with Judith Butler, she doesn't understand that other people have vastly different relationships with femininity than she does. She understands the blank-slatist approach academia takes & that encourages the retrenchment of her narcissism. As for the gender-neutral parents talked about above - all it is is their inability to smash gender roles like they claim to want to. They need proxies - children - who will supposedly prove their theories right. That is why feminists insist so strongly on taking over schools, universities & transforming the family - they need vulnerable children to become the people they never could be.



David Reimer was little more than a pawn in the greater game of gender politics. Born into an ideologically churning world, he was little more than a notch-count for ignorant feminists who think the world revolves around their delusional ideas of reality.

His suicide should have been the shot heard round the world for the death blank-slatism. Was it? No. Most explanations revolve around financial issues, his brother's suicide, the clinical depression his family has that apparently has genetic roots. That article even alludes to inappropriate social standards that make men feel less masculine because of sexual inadequacies. His wife leaving him? Nah, he was already leaving because of all that.

The most obvious reason is he was denied his biological identity as male. The fact that article was called "The Real Reasons" was because anybody with a brain & a heart knew it was because he was denied his biological birthright. See the narcissism? Confronted with one of the saddest events to occur in life - suicide - they still go out of their way to assuage themselves that gender is still a social construct. Blame the free market - he can't find a job! Blame his depression - she left him because he was too angry!

David Reimer was a just a boy that never had a chance. His mother became clinically depressed, his father an alcoholic. His brother was a schizophrenic. He was just a person born into this world who had to become his own man long before he had the tools to do so. He tried so hard to do right - he lived 38 horrid years before he took his own life.

Some might say he was weak - no, he was strong. He fought so valiantly against the world around him - from infancy! - that he did the best he could. Even the strongest of men can crack. He did. His suicide should have ushered in a serious gut-check for America about gender. Did it? No.

He died alone in a grocery store parking lot. He went to a place where communities come together, where families shop. He went alone. That is how he felt - on the outside, looking in. Losing his family was the final nail in coffin. Fuck that Rolling Stone writer - he wasn't leaving, his family left him.

Which was the story of his life. His country failed him, the medical profession failed him, even his family failed him. He had no reason to believe in any bullshit anybody shot his way. A victim of blank-slate narcissism, he was little more than a pawn in their ideological battle. You think they attended his funeral? Nah, they just continued to whine about how gender was little more than a performance.

He came into this world as he left it - alone. Alone. Completely, utterly & entirely alone.

[Beyond Borders]

(06-18-2013 04:01 AM)2Wycked Wrote:  

He came into this world as he left it - alone. Alone. Completely, utterly & entirely alone.

Awesome post, Man! When are you going to get a blog going? I would have shared this on Facebook in a heartbeat.

[aphelion]

I started reading the article without checking who wrote it. A few paragraphs in, I thought, 'ah, this must be a 2Wycked article'. I checked it. It was.

2Wycked, this is a sublime and horrifying article all at once. Respect.

[JimNortonFan]

Book recommendation. Pinker demolishes the blank slate.

[A War You Cannot Win]

This post made me want to take a few shots. A depressingly hilarious disaster, David's life was.

[Goldin Boy]

Quote:

Butler is a gay Jewish radical feminist.

^^^^That is a tautology.

Jk but this is alot of stuff I thought for year articulated into an essay. You should collect these essay and publish them into an anthology.

[Bad Hussar]

This is one case were a lot of people would have understood if he went out of this life not alone but in a hail of bullets after shooting his parents, this disgusting Dr Money person and various other assorted academic Sociology losers like the awful Butler womyn.

I second im Norton Fan's book recommendation, Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate. Pinker is a very smart guy with interesting things to say. AS JNF says, his book has demolished Blank Slateism. While it doesn't seem like it, after considering modern feminism and so on, in the logical non-political world Blank Slateism is finished.

[Duke Castile]

Nature>nurture

Poor kid. Feminism is evil. Pure evil.

[Edmund Dantes]

Mother fucker! You made my eyes water up. Why is this essay not being spread around the manosphere? A lot of people in my contacts are going to receive this. BRAVO WYCKED!

[2Wycked]

Thanks for the feedback ya'll.

As for a blog, I will probably go silent sometime this week or next on the forum, returning at some point in August or so.

I am mulling doing a blog, but still on the fence. Doing RoK is enough for me right now.

[Dr.Benway]

excellent article. really well written and I especially like the approach of putting the cultural theorists on the psychiatry couch for a change. Their defunct personalities are huge parts of the equation for why they spread what they do.

interestingly enough the story of David Reimer was actually the exact moment when my belief in blank slate ideology and nature vs nurture was completely crushed when i first read it several years ago. to me it was clear after that that the debate was utterly over. so sickening to think of this "doctor" Money asshole jumping at the chance to experiment on a child and use him as his guineau pig for his bunk and unproven theories.

its beyond criminal.

[Samseau]

Great article, but only one problem: Citing Butler for the cause of the "gender construction" theory cannot be true. David Reimer was born in 1965, and given gender identity transformation classes in the 1970's, while Butler published her shitty book in the 1990's.

I would change the title of this essay to,

A Circumcision Gone Wrong: The Forced Transsexuality Of David Reimer And The Falsification Of Gender Construction Theories


Otherwise, good work as usual man, you've clearly got a penchant for reading lots of shit to have found Butler's garbage book. Truly it represents why our education system is fucked when books like "Gender Trouble" get all the attention.

[ColSpanker]

I'm familiar with the case. I hold Dr. Gender Bender (Money) directly responsible for destroying this man's life.

[kbell]

He should of used a moyle instead. Less mistakes there.

So Money did not suffer at all from this? Two patients dying from his care! He is not a heart or brain surgeon where you would expect a lot of accidental deaths.

[Teutatis]

What a horrific story.

[2Wycked]

@Samseau: I know the distinction is needlessly academic, but Butler is famous not just for being a social constructionist, but treating gender as a performance.

Her idea is Freudian & based on the idea of that since society severely frowns on pedophilia, the child hyper-identifies with the same-sex parent they, deep down, wish to pursue sexually. Thus, masculine men & feminine women are repressed homosexuals who engage in the behavior they do in order to not confront their depression over not being able to openly sexualize their mother or father.

Remember, Butler is a homosexual. A common theme in homosexuality is a desire for the same-sex parent. Gay men have relayed stories attraction to their fathers, lesbians identify strongly with their mothers. Much of what fuels lesbian feminism is the idea that a man (her father) can never satisfy a woman (her mother) sexually or romantically - only another woman can do it.

For one thing, Butler is relying on outdated theories by Freud. Recall Cultural Marxists went HARD on Freud and still do, after many of his ideas have been proven wrong. One of the reasons feminists have such issues with modern psychology - such as narcissistic analysis - is such ideas were not around in Freud's time.

Money is regarded as one the first psychological pioneers of social constructionism, Butler is just a woman who refined the approach into a narcissistic & homosexual approach.

As for Money later in life, he stopped writing about the success of Brenda - an admission that the transition wasn't effective. Do note he was only married briefly and had no kids. He wrote a lot about homosexuality - maybe he was a closeted gay dude? Anyway, he was professor at John Hopkins until his death - he died in a home he owned in New Zealand.

He continued to get praise for his work, even receiving an award for his gender research in 2002 - the same year Brian OD'd! He chalked up the opposition to his research to right-wingers & "antifeminists." He seemed to imply if you believe in biological differences between men & women are you are an antifeminist.

[Bad Hussar]

(06-18-2013 09:03 PM)2Wycked Wrote:  

...

As for Money later in life, he stopped writing about the success of Brenda - an admission that the transition wasn't effective. Do note he was only married briefly and had no kids. He wrote a lot about homosexuality - maybe he was a closeted gay dude? Anyway, he was professor at John Hopkins until his death - he died in a home he owned in New Zealand.

...

Oh, I don't think there's any doubt he was homosexual. Just paying out his repressed feelings on David Reimer. See the "sex games" he arranged supposedly to socialise David as female.

He was a truly vile and disgusting man.

[kbell]

Is this the only case of this type sexual therapy gone wrong cases? Money must have done this to others, and there is bound to be other Money like "doctors".

[2Wycked]

@kbell: On advice from Money, many other doctors forced transsexual surgeries.

A quick Google search presents five girls who had their enlarged clitorises removed. I didn't find any more information other than many doctor's performed many surgeries based on Money's theories.

The phrase was "You can make a hole, but you can't build a pole." So all the surgeries resulted in the creation of a vagina & forced socialization as a female.

[Duke Castile]

There are more of these cases. With the same horrifying results.

[Vicious]

Raimer is the kind of guy I'd love to introduce to a ball hammer in a room covered with plastics.

[kbell]

I think it would be a good idea to add info on those cases if this was for a blog or ROK article.

[Duke Castile]

(06-20-2013 05:49 PM)Vicious Wrote:  

Raimer is the kind of guy I'd love to introduce to a ball hammer in a room covered with plastics.

Vicious, you're a big nurture guy, does this affect your views?

[Ocelot]

Hey, this is my first post on the forum, but I've been lurking for some time. I've been reading your posts for a while now and, as expected, I love the way you break down this topic. You actually got me thinking about how a lot of feminists react viscerally against evolutionary psychology as a science.

I watched a lecture from a skeptics' conference a few months back, where a feminist gave an hour long talk on why evo psych should not be treated as a credible subject (for the uninitiated, 'skeptic' has basically become synonymous with 'social justice warrior' as of late). Predictably, the main thrust of her argument was basically "if it's not treated as pseudoscience, it could be used to argue that rape is evolutionarily selected for", i.e. if x is true, it might hurt my fee fees. In reality, ignoring the fact that whether a theory's claims make you comfortable has nothing to do with its veracity, evolutionary psychology goes a long way to explaining why rape has been a severely punished crime in pretty much every human culture throughout history. Not only that; for her to be motivated enough to deliver an hour long tirade against it as a science, one would expect her to have at least a passing familiarity with what she's talking about.

I think the real source of her emotional reaction against it (and what a surprise, it is an emotional reaction, not one of reason or an interest in ascertaining what's actually true) is that evolutionary psychology absolutely demolishes social constructivism, which is the cornerstone of feminist theory. If men and women are actually different, it would make sense to treat them differently, and that men and women are physically and psychologically different is as inherently obvious as that those difference arise biologically, not as a result of social conditioning. Gender is not a performance. Hell, the very fact that most of us use the word 'gender' now, when 'sex' is the correct term for what we're describing, shows just how institutionalised the feminist world view has become.

As an aside, I find it interesting how many 'skeptics' are radical feminists. It seems like the very term 'skeptic' is a way of congratulating yourself for questioning beliefs that contradict your own, as if that's not something everybody else already does. Except with the added side effect of being even more convinced that your belief system is the one true way to look at the world, because you're a skeptic, so you arrived at all your conclusions rationally... right?

Sorry if this is a bit off topic - it's just the train of thought reading your post set me along!

[2Wycked]

@Ocelot: You are correct in your assessment that feminist reactions to evo psych are just emotional reactions.

Most have absolutely no understanding about the science & research about it - yes, the same people who insist that if people just educated themselves on feminism then they would agree with their view.

What most probably upsets feminist is that evo psych suggests that women are not morally superior to men. Feminists pride themselves on considering themselves the moral superiors to men. Evo psych paints a fairly depraved picture of female sexuality & that male sexuality is far more equitable than women. Recall that study that had straight women & gay men rate the physical attractiveness of men. They were at odds because a gay man was far more likely to rate a man as psychically desirable than the women.

That is upsetting to women who think the world of their sexuality. It proves their sexuality isn't equitable but inherently exclusionary. That doesn't rub any hamster the right way.

For all their blather about inclusion women are the most exclusionary group of people in the world.