evolutionnewsandviews--2020-12-03--A Physician Describes How Behe, and Intelligent Design, Changed His Mind

There ’ s no better tribute to the power of ideas than a changed mind .
Erik Strandness is a physician in Spokane , WA , practicing neonatal medicine .
He watched a new exchange between biochemist Michael Behe and computational biologist Joshua Swamidass on the excellent and always thoughtful series Unbelievable ?
with Justin Brierley .
He writes to differ with Swamidass and to describe his own change of ideas , from theistic evolution to intelligent design .
The timing and circumstances of his intellectual evolution aren ’ t totally clear from the article .
It preceded the Behe/Swawmidass @ @ @ @ @ @ @ valuable read nevertheless .
As Dr. Strandness points out , Professor Swamidass doesn ’ t call himself a theistic evolutionist , but “ he seems to share its favorable stance towards evolution and its opposition to intelligent design.
” Strandness reflects on his Lutheran upbringing .
He “ always had a place for God in my life , but that was exactly my problem : I had a place for God in my life….Part of the reason I compartmentalized my faith was because I was a science guy and science told me I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ compartmentalization , characteristic of theistic evolution , was unsatisfying to him .
“ While Swamidass ’ goal is admirably to harmonize Christianity and science , I feel like all he has really done is say it ’ s OK to live with the tension.
” The theme of disappointment with a theistic evolutionary approach runs throughout his essay : Interestingly , many theistic evolutionists don ’ t find God under the microscope but do in the courtroom .
It appears they are more convinced of God ’ s existence by the moral argument @ @ @ @ @ @ @ m glad that they find assurance for their faith in this minimalist approach , but it leaves a huge chasm between an awe-inspiring Big Bang and the appearance of morality and consciousness in human beings .
A gap which they fill with a rather bland series of naturally selected mutations .
They give God credit for the big-ticket items , but don ’ t want to bother Him with the mundane task of speciation .
Sadly , they reduce the book of nature to a Rorschach ink blot that offers us a vague @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rather than fine biological literature that reveals the sharpness of His mind .
On the other hand , Strandness , as a physician , finds common ground with Professor Behe and his arguments for the irreducible complexity of certain biological structures .
Swamidass in the discussion on Brierley ’ s show says he believes “ God was involved in the rise of humans but I don ’ t actually see any biochemical evidence of God ’ s design there.
” Dr. Strandness does see that evidence , however .
I have to respectfully @ @ @ @ @ @ @ patients based on an irreducibly complex physiological template that I didn ’ t create , but which I dismiss at my own peril .
I ’ m able to successfully practice medicine because my patients are fearfully and wonderfully made , not because they were naturally selected to survive .
Interestingly , a whole field of science called biomimetics has emerged that takes the superior design of irreducibly complex biological machines and tries to replicate them at the macro level .
It appears that rather than dismissing design , science is beginning to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ divine flattery .
Swamidass made the case that biological machines are not machines in the traditional sense .
However , I think he would get some push back from the biomimeticists who know that nature has given them a template for a better mousetrap , which , if successfully replicated , will inspire the world to beat a path to their door .
As I said here yesterday , it ’ s hard to dispute the experience of practicing physicians who , unlike evolutionary biologists , are tasked every day with keeping a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going strong .
Swamidass , I should note , is himself medical doctor as well as , like Michael Behe , a research scientist .
Dr. Behe ’ s new book , A Mousetrap for Darwin , collects his detailed responses to critics over the years , including Dr. Swamidass .

Photo: Clockwise from top left, Justin Brierley, Joshua Swamidass, and Michael Behe (screenshot).
There’s no better tribute to the power of ideas than a changed mind. Erik Strandness is a physician in Spokane, WA, practicing neonatal medicine. He watched a new exchange between biochemist Michael Behe and computational biologist Joshua Swamidass on the excellent and always thoughtful series Unbelievable? with Justin Brierley. He writes to differ with Swamidass and to describe his own change of ideas, from theistic evolution to intelligent design.
The timing and circumstances of his intellectual evolution aren’t totally clear from the article. It preceded the Behe/Swamidass discussion. But his account is a valuable read nevertheless. As Dr. Strandness points out, Professor Swamidass doesn’t call himself a theistic evolutionist, but “he seems to share its favorable stance towards evolution and its opposition to intelligent design.”
God in a Box
Strandness reflects on his Lutheran upbringing. He “always had a place for God in my life, but that was exactly my problem: I had a place for God in my life….Part of the reason I compartmentalized my faith was because I was a science guy and science told me I was just an evolved chemical.” The compartmentalization, characteristic of theistic evolution, was unsatisfying to him. “While Swamidass’ goal is admirably to harmonize Christianity and science, I feel like all he has really done is say it’s OK to live with the tension.”
The theme of disappointment with a theistic evolutionary approach runs throughout his essay:
Interestingly, many theistic evolutionists don’t find God under the microscope but do in the courtroom. It appears they are more convinced of God’s existence by the moral argument than the scientific argument. I’m glad that they find assurance for their faith in this minimalist approach, but it leaves a huge chasm between an awe-inspiring Big Bang and the appearance of morality and consciousness in human beings. A gap which they fill with a rather bland series of naturally selected mutations. They give God credit for the big-ticket items, but don’t want to bother Him with the mundane task of speciation. Sadly, they reduce the book of nature to a Rorschach ink blot that offers us a vague psychological rendering of God’s subconscious rather than fine biological literature that reveals the sharpness of His mind.
Common Ground with Intelligent Design
On the other hand, Strandness, as a physician, finds common ground with Professor Behe and his arguments for the irreducible complexity of certain biological structures. Swamidass in the discussion on Brierley’s show says he believes “God was involved in the rise of humans but I don’t actually see any biochemical evidence of God’s design there.” Dr. Strandness does see that evidence, however.
I have to respectfully disagree with him because I treat my patients based on an irreducibly complex physiological template that I didn’t create, but which I dismiss at my own peril. I’m able to successfully practice medicine because my patients are fearfully and wonderfully made, not because they were naturally selected to survive. Interestingly, a whole field of science called biomimetics has emerged that takes the superior design of irreducibly complex biological machines and tries to replicate them at the macro level. It appears that rather than dismissing design, science is beginning to imitate it as the sincerest form of divine flattery. Swamidass made the case that biological machines are not machines in the traditional sense. However, I think he would get some push back from the biomimeticists who know that nature has given them a template for a better mousetrap, which, if successfully replicated, will inspire the world to beat a path to their door.
“An Intellectually Fulfilled Christian”
Strandness concludes:
Richard Dawkins famously said that Charles Darwin made it possible for him to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist, but I found that [intelligent design] made it possible for me to be an intellectually fulfilled Christian.
As I said here yesterday, it’s hard to dispute the experience of practicing physicians who, unlike evolutionary biologists, are tasked every day with keeping a designed object — the human body — going strong. Swamidass, I should note, is himself medical doctor as well as, like Michael Behe, a research scientist. Dr. Behe’s new book, A Mousetrap for Darwin, collects his detailed responses to critics over the years, including Dr. Swamidass.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-12-03--Behe: The Case for Intelligent Design Grows with Science

On a new episode of ID the Future , Michael Behe continues discussing A Mousetrap for Darwin , his newest @ @ @ @ @ cell has grown “ by leaps and bounds ” since the 1990s , when Behe @ @ @ @ @ .
Fresh discoveries have revealed ever more complex structures inside the cell .
Download the @ @ @ @ @ here .
As Behe explains , it isn ’ t just the bacterial flagellum that @ @ @ @ @ the “ hook ” region inside the flagellum is , too .
Evolution ’ s @ @ @ @ @ moved from gross anatomy and population genetics to biochemistry .
In his conversation with host @ @ @ @ @ that intelligent design theory ’ s predictions are coming true over time , while for @ @ @ @ @ , it gets “ worse and worse ” for the theory of evolution by undirected @ @ @ @ @ latest book here .

On a new episode of ID the Future, Michael Behe continues discussing A Mousetrap for Darwin, his newest book. Understanding of the cell has grown “by leaps and bounds” since the 1990s, when Behe’s first book appeared. Fresh discoveries have revealed ever more complex structures inside the cell. Download the podcast or listen to it here.
As Behe explains, it isn’t just the bacterial flagellum that’s irreducibly complex; the “hook” region inside the flagellum is, too. Evolution’s proper place of study has moved from gross anatomy and population genetics to biochemistry. In his conversation with host Eric Anderson, Behe says that intelligent design theory’s predictions are coming true over time, while for every step of increasing knowledge, it gets “worse and worse” for the theory of evolution by undirected unintelligent processes. Purchase his latest book here.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-12-03--Excerpt: Darwinism and Design

Excerpt: Darwinism and Design

Editor ’ s note : We are delighted to celebrate the publication of the new book A Mousetrap for Darwin : Michael J. Behe Answers His Critics .
What follows is an excerpt .
“ Darwinism and Design ” was published originally as a letter to the editor in Trends in Ecology and Evolution 12 , No .
6 ( June 1997 ) : 229 .
Author ’ s note : One of the earliest reviews of my book Darwin ’ s Black Box was by Oxford evolutionary biologist Tom Cavalier-Smith .
I had discussed some of his musings rather @ @ @ @ @ @ @ returned the favor in the review .
In his review of my book Darwin ’ s Black Box , which is critical of Darwinian theory , Tom Cavalier-Smith alternates between calling me ignorant and calling me deceitful , but finally seems to conclude that I am intentionally dishonest because of my religious views .
I do not wish to descend into acrimony , so let me state plainly that my religious convictions can easily accommodate a Darwinian explanation for life , and I said so in my book .
I have no motive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dishonest .
I wrote the book ( which I knew would be controversial ) out of a straightforward , professional conviction that many complex biochemical systems are beyond Darwinian explanation .
Well , I am not dishonest , but am I ignorant ?
Perhaps so .
No one can be completely in command of the literature , and I would be very happy to be shown citations to published work explaining in detail how complex biochemical systems evolved by natural selection .
However , Professor Cavalier-Smith says there is no such work : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Behe is there yet a comprehensive and detailed explanation of the probable steps in the evolution of the observed complexity .
The problems have indeed been sorely neglected.
” Yet he thinks that , even if detailed explanations are unavailable , general explanations are in hand .
He cites ten references in his review .
Of the ten , half refer to his own work , only four are published in this decade , and only two are reports of original research .
From my point of view , in all of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the form “ System X developed because it would help the cell to do Y , ” without noticing the difficulties of making X by a blind process .
It ’ s like saying , “ Air conditioners developed to enable more people to work indoors in the summertime.
” Much of the difficulty arises in the differing standards that different disciplines have for what constitutes an “ explanation.
” Biochemists require molecular detail .
Cavalier-Smith , however , does not .
( Indeed , he even castigates Trends in Biochemical Sciences for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) Darwinian evolution , though , would necessarily have to take place at the nut-and-bolt molecular level , the domain of biochemistry .
A Darwinian evolutionary explanation , therefore , has to be a detailed biochemical explanation .
None currently exist .
By itself this fact doesn ’ t justify the conclusion of intelligent design that I reach .
( I also advance other arguments for design in my book . )
But by itself the absence of detailed Darwinian explanations should provoke more thoughtfulness than was shown in Cavalier-Smith ’ s review @

Image source: Discovery Institute.
Editor’s note: We are delighted to celebrate the publication of the new book A Mousetrap for Darwin: Michael J. Behe Answers His Critics. What follows is an excerpt. “Darwinism and Design” was published originally as a letter to the editor in Trends in Ecology and Evolution 12, No. 6 (June 1997): 229.
Author’s note: One of the earliest reviews of my book Darwin’s Black Box was by Oxford evolutionary biologist Tom Cavalier-Smith. I had discussed some of his musings rather unfavorably in the book, and he returned the favor in the review.
In his review of my book Darwin’s Black Box, which is critical of Darwinian theory, Tom Cavalier-Smith alternates between calling me ignorant and calling me deceitful, but finally seems to conclude that I am intentionally dishonest because of my religious views. I do not wish to descend into acrimony, so let me state plainly that my religious convictions can easily accommodate a Darwinian explanation for life, and I said so in my book. I have no motive, religious or otherwise, to be dishonest. I wrote the book (which I knew would be controversial) out of a straightforward, professional conviction that many complex biochemical systems are beyond Darwinian explanation.
Well, I am not dishonest, but am I ignorant? Perhaps so. No one can be completely in command of the literature, and I would be very happy to be shown citations to published work explaining in detail how complex biochemical systems evolved by natural selection. However, Professor Cavalier-Smith says there is no such work: “For none of the cases mentioned by Behe is there yet a comprehensive and detailed explanation of the probable steps in the evolution of the observed complexity. The problems have indeed been sorely neglected.” Yet he thinks that, even if detailed explanations are unavailable, general explanations are in hand. He cites ten references in his review. Of the ten, half refer to his own work, only four are published in this decade, and only two are reports of original research. From my point of view, in all of the cited papers the evolutionary explanation takes the form “System X developed because it would help the cell to do Y,” without noticing the difficulties of making X by a blind process. It’s like saying, “Air conditioners developed to enable more people to work indoors in the summertime.”
Much of the difficulty arises in the differing standards that different disciplines have for what constitutes an “explanation.” Biochemists require molecular detail. Cavalier-Smith, however, does not. (Indeed, he even castigates Trends in Biochemical Sciences for noticing engineering design in biochemical systems.) Darwinian evolution, though, would necessarily have to take place at the nut-and-bolt molecular level, the domain of biochemistry. A Darwinian evolutionary explanation, therefore, has to be a detailed biochemical explanation. None currently exist. By itself this fact doesn’t justify the conclusion of intelligent design that I reach. (I also advance other arguments for design in my book.) But by itself the absence of detailed Darwinian explanations should provoke more thoughtfulness than was shown in Cavalier-Smith’s review.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-12-04--Biologist Raymond Bohlin on Behe’s Mousetrap: “This Collection Is a Treasure”

Michael Behe ’ s new book , A Mousetrap for Darwin , gets high praise from biologist Raymond G. Bohlin @ @ @ @ @ Limits to Biological Change : Ever since the release of Darwin ’ s Black Box @ @ @ @ @ been impressed with Mike Behe ’ s ability to respond to his critics quickly , @ @ @ @ @ and patience .
This collection of many of those responses over a 24-year period is @ @ @ @ @ promote intelligent design , and indeed to anyone passionately interested in the science of biological @ @ @ @ @ over Darwinism and design .
Both critics and champions of intelligent design will find much @ @ @ @ @ repeatedly meets his critics head on and with no apologies .
This collection is a @ @ @ @ @ of A Mousetrap for Darwin : Michael J. Behe Answers His Critics now !

Photo: Michael Behe, via Discovery Institute.
Michael Behe’s new book, A Mousetrap for Darwin, gets high praise from biologist Raymond G. Bohlin, co-author of The Natural Limits to Biological Change:
Ever since the release of Darwin’s Black Box in 1996, I have been impressed with Mike Behe’s ability to respond to his critics quickly, respectfully, and with clarity and patience. This collection of many of those responses over a 24-year period is a gift to all who promote intelligent design, and indeed to anyone passionately interested in the science of biological origins and the contemporary debate over Darwinism and design. Both critics and champions of intelligent design will find much to ponder here. Behe repeatedly meets his critics head on and with no apologies. This collection is a treasure.
Get your copy of A Mousetrap for Darwin: Michael J. Behe Answers His Critics now!


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-12-04--Is It a Boy or a Girl?

Is It a Boy or a Girl?

Author ’ s note : This is Part One of a seven-part series about transgenderism .
Nothing in the series is intended to disparage any transgender person , any gender non-conforming person , or any person attracted to members of the same sex .
I write as a developmental biologist ( Berkeley PhD ) , and I focus on evidence pertaining to transgender treatments for children .
WARNING : Parts of this series contain explicit language .
Reader discretion is advised .
Parents with a new baby are almost always asked , “ Is it a boy or a girl @ @ @ @ @ @ @ always one or the other .
About 99.98 percent of babies are clearly boys or girls .
Only about one baby out of every 4,500 has ambiguous genitals .
The cause is a disorder of sexual development ( DSD ) .
The term DSD is now often replaced by “ intersex.
” In 2000 , biologist Anne Fausto-Sterling argued that intersex births occur about 1.7 percent of the time instead of 0.02 percent .
But physician Leonard Sax objected that Fausto-Sterling defined “ intersex ” too broadly .
On the contrary , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % binary .
Humans normally have 46 chromosomes .
Two of these are the sex chromosomes , X and Y .
Almost all babies with 46 chromosomes and two X chromosomes ( designated 46 , XX ) are clearly girls .
And almost all babies with 46 chromosomes and a Y as well as an X ( designated 46 , XY ) are clearly boys .
But ( as with many things in biology ) there are exceptions .
About one in 20,000 boys is born with 46 , XX chromosomes .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Y chromosome has become attached to an X chromosome .
Fewer than one in 20,000 girls is born with 46 , XY chromosomes .
Probably , mutations have blocked male development .
Some people have argued that the brains of male and females are different .
Others disagree and argue that there is no such thing as a “ male brain ” or a “ female brain.
” So far , neuroscience has not settled the disagreement .
Some people have argued that sex is binary because of the gametes ( the sperm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , feminist author Simone de Beauvoir wrote ( p. 47 ) that male and female are “ basically defined by the gametes they produce.
” In 2018 , biologist Jerry Coyne echoed this : “ If you adhere to the gamete-based definition used by most biologists , sex is effectively binary.
” Furthermore , Coyne argued , “ it should be , since evolution produced ( in most animals ) two sexes that must mate to produce offspring .
If you ’ re neither , or an intermediate , you don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leave your genes.
” In 2020 , biologists Colin Wright and Emma Hilton wrote in “ The Dangerous Denial of Sex ” that sex is sometimes ambiguous .
But “ intersex individuals are extremely rare , and they are neither a third sex nor proof that sex is a ‘ spectrum ’ or a ‘ social construct ’ ” : This does not mean that the behavior of males and females is strictly binary .
Men and women exhibit a range of masculine or feminine behaviors .
And sexual attraction is not binary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attracted to members of the other sex .
Some are exclusively attracted to members of the same sex .
And some are in between .
So human behavior , unlike biological sex , is bimodal rather than binary .
That is , it has two overlapping humps instead of two separated sharp peaks .
A graph of biological sex would look like the upper part of a football goal post .
The goal post is a raised horizontal bar topped by two vertical posts 8 feet apart and 20 feet high .
One @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other represents girls .
Because some people are intersex , the top surface of the horizontal bar would not be exactly flat .
Instead , it would be the thickness of a credit card higher at either end than in the center .
But this would be unnoticeable to someone standing just a few yards away .
Note that the football goal post metaphor is descriptive , not prescriptive .
It does not mean that intersex people must conform to one of the uprights .
Should Intersex People Be Forced to Change ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ they should make their children more “ normal.
” Yet there is rarely a medical need for such intervention .
Some intersex babies suffer from life-threatening conditions that require immediate hormonal or surgical treatment .
But apart from such special cases , babies born with ambiguous genitals can grow up without medical intervention to live relatively normal lives .
As philosopher Ellen Feder and historian Alice Dreger wrote in 2016 : In 2017 , three former U.S. surgeons general published a report titled “ Re-Thinking Genital Surgeries on Intersex Infants.
” They noted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ twentieth century , most children born with genitalia that did not fit the male-female binary norm were not subjected to surgery.
” Beginning in the 1950s , however , “ the standard treatment protocol shifted ” to favor surgery .
Fifty years later , medical opinion is shifting back , for three reasons .
First , evidence is lacking that such surgeries make intersex people happier .
Second , “ evidence does show that the surgery itself can cause severe and irreversible physical harm and emotional distress.
” Third , when such surgeries @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an individual ’ s right to personal autonomy over their own future.
” Why did the standard protocol shift to favor surgery in the 1950s ?
One person stands out : John Money .
Money ’ s ideas — and their tragic results — are the focus of Parts Two and Three of this series .

Photo credit: Christian Bowen via Unsplash.
Author’s note: This is Part One of a seven-part series about transgenderism. Nothing in the series is intended to disparage any transgender person, any gender non-conforming person, or any person attracted to members of the same sex. I write as a developmental biologist (Berkeley PhD), and I focus on evidence pertaining to transgender treatments for children.
WARNING: Parts of this series contain explicit language. Reader discretion is advised.
Parents with a new baby are almost always asked, “Is it a boy or a girl?” And the answer is almost always one or the other.
About 99.98 percent of babies are clearly boys or girls. Only about one baby out of every 4,500 has ambiguous genitals. The cause is a disorder of sexual development (DSD). The term DSD is now often replaced by “intersex.”
In 2000, biologist Anne Fausto-Sterling argued that intersex births occur about 1.7 percent of the time instead of 0.02 percent. But physician Leonard Sax objected that Fausto-Sterling defined “intersex” too broadly. On the contrary, he maintains, human sex is about 99.98% binary.
Chromosomal Sex
Humans normally have 46 chromosomes. Two of these are the sex chromosomes, X and Y. Almost all babies with 46 chromosomes and two X chromosomes (designated 46,XX) are clearly girls. And almost all babies with 46 chromosomes and a Y as well as an X (designated 46,XY) are clearly boys. But (as with many things in biology) there are exceptions.
About one in 20,000 boys is born with 46,XX chromosomes. In most, the male-determining section of the Y chromosome has become attached to an X chromosome. Fewer than one in 20,000 girls is born with 46,XY chromosomes. Probably, mutations have blocked male development.
Some people have argued that the brains of male and females are different. Others disagree and argue that there is no such thing as a “male brain” or a “female brain.” So far, neuroscience has not settled the disagreement.
Gametic Sex
Some people have argued that sex is binary because of the gametes (the sperm and the egg). In 1949, feminist author Simone de Beauvoir wrote (p. 47) that male and female are “basically defined by the gametes they produce.” In 2018, biologist Jerry Coyne echoed this: “If you adhere to the gamete-based definition used by most biologists, sex is effectively binary.” Furthermore, Coyne argued, “it should be, since evolution produced (in most animals) two sexes that must mate to produce offspring. If you’re neither, or an intermediate, you don’t leave offspring and you don’t leave your genes.”
In 2020, biologists Colin Wright and Emma Hilton wrote in “The Dangerous Denial of Sex” that sex is sometimes ambiguous. But “intersex individuals are extremely rare, and they are neither a third sex nor proof that sex is a ‘spectrum’ or a ‘social construct’”:
In humans, reproductive anatomy is unambiguously male or female at birth more than 99.98% of the time. The evolutionary function of these two anatomies is to aid in reproduction via the fusion of sperm and ova [eggs]. No third type of sex cell exists in humans, and therefore there is no sex ‘spectrum’ or additional sexes beyond male and female. Sex is binary.
Behavior v. Biological Sex
This does not mean that the behavior of males and females is strictly binary. Men and women exhibit a range of masculine or feminine behaviors. And sexual attraction is not binary. Most men and women are exclusively attracted to members of the other sex. Some are exclusively attracted to members of the same sex. And some are in between. So human behavior, unlike biological sex, is bimodal rather than binary. That is, it has two overlapping humps instead of two separated sharp peaks.
A graph of biological sex would look like the upper part of a football goal post. The goal post is a raised horizontal bar topped by two vertical posts 8 feet apart and 20 feet high. One vertical post represents boys, and the other represents girls.
Because some people are intersex, the top surface of the horizontal bar would not be exactly flat. Instead, it would be the thickness of a credit card higher at either end than in the center. But this would be unnoticeable to someone standing just a few yards away.
Note that the football goal post metaphor is descriptive, not prescriptive. It does not mean that intersex people must conform to one of the uprights.
Should Intersex People Be Forced to Change?
Parents of newborn intersex babies may feel they should make their children more “normal.” Yet there is rarely a medical need for such intervention. Some intersex babies suffer from life-threatening conditions that require immediate hormonal or surgical treatment. But apart from such special cases, babies born with ambiguous genitals can grow up without medical intervention to live relatively normal lives.
As philosopher Ellen Feder and historian Alice Dreger wrote in 2016:
Children with DSD can be raised as boys and as girls without being subjected to elective surgeries that lack evidence for necessity, safety, and efficacy, and more importantly that violate their rights… [There is a] difference between atypical and unhealthy.
In 2017, three former U.S. surgeons general published a report titled “Re-Thinking Genital Surgeries on Intersex Infants.” They noted that “before the middle of the twentieth century, most children born with genitalia that did not fit the male-female binary norm were not subjected to surgery.” Beginning in the 1950s, however, “the standard treatment protocol shifted” to favor surgery.
Fifty years later, medical opinion is shifting back, for three reasons. First, evidence is lacking that such surgeries make intersex people happier. Second, “evidence does show that the surgery itself can cause severe and irreversible physical harm and emotional distress.” Third, when such surgeries are performed on children they “violate an individual’s right to personal autonomy over their own future.”
Why did the standard protocol shift to favor surgery in the 1950s? One person stands out: John Money. Money’s ideas — and their tragic results — are the focus of Parts Two and Three of this series.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-12-04--Preview: James Tour Asks Brian Miller About Ice, Entropy, and the Origin of Life

We ’ re looking forward to an online dialogue TODAY between Rice University chemist James Tour and Discovery Institute physicist @ @ @ @ @ a link are below .
In a preview , they discuss ice , entropy , @ @ @ @ @ .
Professor Tour asks : But systems do move from high to low entropy states @ @ @ @ @ Can you explain to the average listener the difference between what happens with ice and @ @ @ @ @ how all that relates to pre-biology , life ’ s building blocks , and the @ @ @ @ @ first place where abiogenesis is before biology takes over .
This is the origin of @ @ @ @ @ first living system form ?
A peek at Dr. Miller ’ s answer is here @ @ @ @ @ right here today — 5 pm Pacific time/8 pm Eastern .
Of course , it @ @ @ @ @ to Professor Tour ’ s Science & Faith podcast for sponsoring the discussion on “ @ @ @ @ @ Life .
”

Photo credit: Jan Antonin Kolar via Unsplash.
We’re looking forward to an online dialogue TODAY between Rice University chemist James Tour and Discovery Institute physicist Brian Miller. Times and a link are below. In a preview, they discuss ice, entropy, and the origin of life. Professor Tour asks:
But systems do move from high to low entropy states, for example ice. Can you explain to the average listener the difference between what happens with ice and the requirement for life and how all that relates to pre-biology, life’s building blocks, and the requirement for life in the first place where abiogenesis is before biology takes over. This is the origin of life. How did that first living system form?
A peek at Dr. Miller’s answer is here:
Watch the online conversation right here today — 5 pm Pacific time/8 pm Eastern. Of course, it’s free:
Thanks to Professor Tour’s Science & Faith podcast for sponsoring the discussion on “Thermodynamics & the Origin of Life.”


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-12-05--Listen: Darwinism, Bioethics, and Human Rights

On a classic ID the Future episode , Wesley J. Smith concludes a discussion of his book and documentary The @ @ @ @ @ this final segment , Smith discusses the impact of Darwinism on bioethics and human rights @ @ @ @ @ to take the threat of the anti-humanism movement seriously .
Download the podcast or listen @ @ @ @

Photo: Charles Darwin, in a scene from The War on Humans (screenshot).
On a classic ID the Future episode, Wesley J. Smith concludes a discussion of his book and documentary The War on Humans. In this final segment, Smith discusses the impact of Darwinism on bioethics and human rights, and why we need to take the threat of the anti-humanism movement seriously. Download the podcast or listen to it here.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-12-07--Excerpt: Letter to the Journal of Chemical Education

Editor ’ s note : We are delighted to celebrate the publication of the new book A Mousetrap for Darwin : Michael J. Behe Answers His Critics .
What follows is an excerpt : a letter to the editor , unpublished , Journal of Chemical Education ( 2004 ) .
Author ’ s note : Unlike many philosophy journals — or high school student newspapers for that matter — many science journals are remarkably unwilling to publish responses by people whose work has been attacked in their pages .
You ’ d think a bit of controversy would be good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but I guess not .
The following literary effort never saw the light of day .
As an active proponent of the argument for intelligent design I enjoyed reading “ Evidence from Biochemical Pathways in Favor of Unfinished Evolution rather than Intelligent Design.
” However , educators who plan to use it for classroom discussions should be sure to alert students to the regrettable errors in the article ’ s reasoning .
The most serious mistake is its repeated use of the invalid argument from ignorance .
The authors imply that since no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ DNA should be synthesized discontinuously on the lagging strand , then no good reason in fact exists .
Yet not long ago the same sort of fallacious argument from ignorance was made concerning “ junk DNA.
” In that case the reasoning went something like the following : no function was known for much genomic DNA ; therefore none existed ; no self-respecting designer would have made genomes containing long stretches of apparently purposeless sequences ; therefore Darwinism is true .
“ Apparently , ” however , should never be confused with “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ science has laid bare the mistaken assumption about “ functionless ” DNA , as the Scientific American article “ The Unseen Genome : Gems Among the Junk ” recounts .
Similarly , it is entirely possible that good reasons exist for most or all of the systems cited by Behrman et al .
of which they are unaware .
Personally , I would bet on it .
Rather than merely opining that cells are not built to their taste ( “ We would have designed a system using two polymerase activities ” ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to skeptics of Darwinian claims such as myself if the authors could demonstrate experimentally that random mutation and natural selection could indeed produce the astonishingly complex molecular machinery found in the cell .

Photo: Michael Behe.
Editor’s note: We are delighted to celebrate the publication of the new book A Mousetrap for Darwin: Michael J. Behe Answers His Critics. What follows is an excerpt: a letter to the editor, unpublished, Journal of Chemical Education (2004).
Author’s note: Unlike many philosophy journals — or high school student newspapers for that matter — many science journals are remarkably unwilling to publish responses by people whose work has been attacked in their pages. You’d think a bit of controversy would be good for the ol’ journal circulation, but I guess not. The following literary effort never saw the light of day.
As an active proponent of the argument for intelligent design I enjoyed reading “Evidence from Biochemical Pathways in Favor of Unfinished Evolution rather than Intelligent Design.” However, educators who plan to use it for classroom discussions should be sure to alert students to the regrettable errors in the article’s reasoning.
The most serious mistake is its repeated use of the invalid argument from ignorance. The authors imply that since no reason is known why, say, DNA should be synthesized discontinuously on the lagging strand, then no good reason in fact exists. Yet not long ago the same sort of fallacious argument from ignorance was made concerning “junk DNA.” In that case the reasoning went something like the following: no function was known for much genomic DNA; therefore none existed; no self-respecting designer would have made genomes containing long stretches of apparently purposeless sequences; therefore Darwinism is true.
“Apparently,” however, should never be confused with “actually,” and the progress of science has laid bare the mistaken assumption about “functionless” DNA, as the Scientific American article “The Unseen Genome: Gems Among the Junk” recounts. Similarly, it is entirely possible that good reasons exist for most or all of the systems cited by Behrman et al. of which they are unaware. Personally, I would bet on it.
Rather than merely opining that cells are not built to their taste (“We would have designed a system using two polymerase activities”), it would be much more persuasive to skeptics of Darwinian claims such as myself if the authors could demonstrate experimentally that random mutation and natural selection could indeed produce the astonishingly complex molecular machinery found in the cell.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-12-07--Determinism: A “Bizarre Position” Held by Scientists “with Great Confidence”

On a new episode of ID the Future , biophysicist Cornelius Hunter continues discussing determinism , which he describes as @ @ @ @ @ held “ with great confidence ” by scientists such as the German physicist Sabine Hossenfelder @ @ @ @ @ , says Hunter , because if it ’ s true , then the universe ’ @ @ @ @ @ laws of nature produced the particular works of Beethoven and Shakespeare willy nilly .
If @ @ @ @ @ then all one says or thinks — right or wrong , true or false — @ @ @ @ @ years ago .
But if that ’ s the case , then there are no @ @ @ @ @ one ’ s belief in determinism is true .
And like David Hume ’ s @ @ @ @ @ makes a false dichotomy between natural law and free will .
The take-home lesson , @ @ @ @ @ cautious in listening to “ experts ” speaking outside their fields .
Hunter is joined @ @ @ @ @ science Michael Newton Keas .
Download the podcast or listen to it here .

Photo credit: Nonsap Visuals via Unsplash.
On a new episode of ID the Future, biophysicist Cornelius Hunter continues discussing determinism, which he describes as a “bizarre position” held “with great confidence” by scientists such as the German physicist Sabine Hossenfelder. It’s bizarre, says Hunter, because if it’s true, then the universe’s initial conditions and the laws of nature produced the particular works of Beethoven and Shakespeare willy nilly. If it’s true, then all one says or thinks — right or wrong, true or false — was determined some 13.8 billion years ago. But if that’s the case, then there are no reasonable grounds for concluding that one’s belief in determinism is true. And like David Hume’s argument against miracles, determinism makes a false dichotomy between natural law and free will.
The take-home lesson, according to Hunter: be cautious in listening to “experts” speaking outside their fields. Hunter is joined by host and historian of science Michael Newton Keas. Download the podcast or listen to it here.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-12-07--Where Will Cancel Culture End? Meet Dorian Abbot

It seems in no danger of ending anytime soon .
In the past 15 or 20 years , the drift toward controlling opinion and expression in academia has intensified greatly .
Punishing Darwin skeptics and proponents of intelligent design in the sciences was just the start .
Of course , that goes on still today .
For the evolution doubter on campus , as we could tell you from the testimony of many known to the Center for Science & Culture , fear and secrecy are the rule .
It didn ’ t stop there .
Political correctness deeply infected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fields like the study of the law were on the menu .
Then came the hard sciences .
Some comforted themselves that the culture of intimidation would be limited to more left-leaning campuses , like our own Evergreen State College here in Washington .
It wouldn ’ t make its way to less flaky environs — places steeped in ancient traditions like , oh , Yale .
But then it did .
Christian colleges , perhaps especially those in red states , were thought to be havens .
Then they fell , too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said , there was always the University of Chicago , which , with its “ Chicago Principles , ” had staked much of its “ brand ” explicitly on academic freedom .
For Chicago to turn its back on free speech would be like a Christian college turning its back on Christianity .
It couldn ’ t happen .
Right ?
Oh , you are so naive .
Meet Dorian Abbot , a tenured Geophysical Sciences professor at the University of Chicago .
Dr. Abbot was worried about how his university was taking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ inclusion ” so far that in hiring and in other ways , it was discriminating against males , Asians , Christians , and other politically disfavored groups .
He released a series of four videos on YouTube documenting his concerns .
One slide said : Let me tell you a story about a student .
He is a Christian and from a conservative family in the panhandle of Florida .
He is a very promising young scientist , but he feels like he has no place in our University .
He is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cherished beliefs are mocked and dismissed regularly .
I really feel for him , and I want to make sure that he feels welcome and like he has a future in science if that ’ s what he wants to pursue .
I want to be part of a university that makes including everyone a priority .
Here Comes the Mob You can see this one coming from a mile away .
A mob of grad students , postdoctoral students , undergrads , and others descended on Abbot , calling for his censure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that began by decrying Dr. Abbot as “ unsafe ” and “ aggressive ” : To the Department of the Geophysical Sciences Faculty : We , the undersigned members of the Department of Geophysical Sciences Community at the University of Chicago , have come together to address the videos released by Professor Dorian Abbot on his public YouTube channel from Friday , November 13th , 2020 through Sunday , November 15th , 2020 .
The first of these videos was distributed to members of the department during the weekly virtual lunchtime seminar ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these videos were removed from Professor Abbot ’ s YouTube channel on November 16th , their impact on the Department of Geophysical Sciences community can not be ignored .
The contents of Professor Dorian Abbot ’ s videos threaten the safety and belonging of all underrepresented groups within the department and serve to undermine Equity , Diversity , and Inclusion initiatives driven by the Equity , Diversity , and Inclusion Coordination Team ( EDICT ) .
In these videos , he uses anecdotal evidence and poor statistics not supported by peer-reviewed literature about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be unique within the department , his videos are a deliberate rejection of opportunities to participate in conversations within the Department of Geophysical Sciences and University of Chicago as a whole , and represent an aggressive act towards the research and teaching communities of which Professor Abbot is a member .
They called on the university , among other things , to : Take steps to protect students and postdocs currently working with Professor Abbot , in either Research Assistant and Teaching Assistant positions , including but not limited to enabling students to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his classes without loss of department funding and to remove Professor Abbot from their academic committees without repercussions .
For students who can not continue working with Professor Abbot , we ask that the 50 % UChicago faculty rule for committee membership be waived to allow outside advisors so that all students are accommodated .
The department will commit to working with impacted students to avoid any repercussions on the advancement of their degrees at UChicago .
The purpose was to make him a pariah on his own campus .
Abbot took down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worked on his own biases .
He was not defending his or anyone else ’ s “ white privilege.
” He was all for diversity and inclusion , for expanding pools of applicants for academic positions widely , to bring in as many members of underrepresented groups as possible .
At the end of the day , however , in line with the University of Chicago ’ s own core principles , he wanted the best candidate for the job to be hired .
William A. Jacobson , a Cornell law professor who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the website Legal Insurrection that in cases like this , it ’ s typically the graduate students are who “ the most aggressive , mean-spirited , and angry ” members of the mob .
That rings true from our experience in the context of evolutionary censorship .
Jacobson summarizes : Prof. Abbot ’ s big thought crime was expressing disagreement with some aspects of “ Diversity , Equity , and Inclusion ” he considers counterproductive ( and which may be unlawful ) .
Prof. Abbot didn ’ t express disagreement with diversity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to minority hiring prospects to expand the pool , or actions to make sure the hiring process was free from explicit or implicit bias .
He supports all those things .
Rather , after all that diversity initiative had been accomplished and a hiring decision had to be made , Prof. Abbot expressed the view that the most qualified remaining candidate should be chosen , which is consistent with U. Chicago policy .
Some prominent scholars elsewhere came out in support of Abbot .
The president of the University of Chicago , Robert @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be punished .
He said : That ’ s fine .
But as Jacobson points out , the spell of fear had already been well cast on the campus .
Zimmer ’ s statement aside , Abbot had already been “ punished ” : Academics are on notice not to publicly question increasingly rigid orthodoxies .
It began with evolution , but it ’ s come a long way since .
Will the immediately coming years see the stranglehold on free speech loosened ?
If you think so , you ’ re really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be those same grad students who are in charge of academic departments , and the universities .
First they came from the Darwin skeptics and the ID proponents .
Hardly a voice was raised in protest for our freedom .
And now here we are .
Where will it end ?

Photo: University of Chicago campus, by Leefon at en.wikipedia [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons.
It seems in no danger of ending anytime soon. In the past 15 or 20 years, the drift toward controlling opinion and expression in academia has intensified greatly. Punishing Darwin skeptics and proponents of intelligent design in the sciences was just the start. Of course, that goes on still today. For the evolution doubter on campus, as we could tell you from the testimony of many known to the Center for Science & Culture, fear and secrecy are the rule.
It didn’t stop there. Political correctness deeply infected the humanities and social sciences. Professional fields like the study of the law were on the menu. Then came the hard sciences. Some comforted themselves that the culture of intimidation would be limited to more left-leaning campuses, like our own Evergreen State College here in Washington. It wouldn’t make its way to less flaky environs — places steeped in ancient traditions like, oh, Yale. But then it did. Christian colleges, perhaps especially those in red states, were thought to be havens. Then they fell, too.
We’ll Always Have Chicago
At least, you might have said, there was always the University of Chicago, which, with its “Chicago Principles,” had staked much of its “brand” explicitly on academic freedom. For Chicago to turn its back on free speech would be like a Christian college turning its back on Christianity. It couldn’t happen. Right?
Oh, you are so naive. Meet Dorian Abbot, a tenured Geophysical Sciences professor at the University of Chicago. Dr. Abbot was worried about how his university was taking the drive for “diversity” and “inclusion” so far that in hiring and in other ways, it was discriminating against males, Asians, Christians, and other politically disfavored groups. He released a series of four videos on YouTube documenting his concerns. One slide said:
Let me tell you a story about a student. He is a Christian and from a conservative family in the panhandle of Florida. He is a very promising young scientist, but he feels like he has no place in our University. He is always being excluded and his opinions and cherished beliefs are mocked and dismissed regularly. I really feel for him, and I want to make sure that he feels welcome and like he has a future in science if that’s what he wants to pursue. I want to be part of a university that makes including everyone a priority.
Here Comes the Mob
You can see this one coming from a mile away. A mob of grad students, postdoctoral students, undergrads, and others descended on Abbot, calling for his censure and punishment. They released a statement that began by decrying Dr. Abbot as “unsafe” and “aggressive”:
To the Department of the Geophysical Sciences Faculty: We, the undersigned members of the Department of Geophysical Sciences Community at the University of Chicago, have come together to address the videos released by Professor Dorian Abbot on his public YouTube channel from Friday, November 13th, 2020 through Sunday, November 15th, 2020. The first of these videos was distributed to members of the department during the weekly virtual lunchtime seminar (“Noon Balloon”). Although these videos were removed from Professor Abbot’s YouTube channel on November 16th, their impact on the Department of Geophysical Sciences community cannot be ignored. The contents of Professor Dorian Abbot’s videos threaten the safety and belonging of all underrepresented groups within the department and serve to undermine Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion initiatives driven by the Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Coordination Team (EDICT). In these videos, he uses anecdotal evidence and poor statistics not supported by peer-reviewed literature about diversity. Although his views may not be unique within the department, his videos are a deliberate rejection of opportunities to participate in conversations within the Department of Geophysical Sciences and University of Chicago as a whole, and represent an aggressive act towards the research and teaching communities of which Professor Abbot is a member.
They called on the university, among other things, to:
Take steps to protect students and postdocs currently working with Professor Abbot, in either Research Assistant and Teaching Assistant positions, including but not limited to enabling students to opt out of Teaching Assistant positions in his classes without loss of department funding and to remove Professor Abbot from their academic committees without repercussions. For students who cannot continue working with Professor Abbot, we ask that the 50% UChicago faculty rule for committee membership be waived to allow outside advisors so that all students are accommodated. The department will commit to working with impacted students to avoid any repercussions on the advancement of their degrees at UChicago.
The purpose was to make him a pariah on his own campus. Abbot took down his videos. He said he had worked on his own biases. He was not defending his or anyone else’s “white privilege.” He was all for diversity and inclusion, for expanding pools of applicants for academic positions widely, to bring in as many members of underrepresented groups as possible. At the end of the day, however, in line with the University of Chicago’s own core principles, he wanted the best candidate for the job to be hired.
Grad Students Are the Worst
William A. Jacobson, a Cornell law professor who underwent the same treatment himself, comments at the website Legal Insurrection that in cases like this, it’s typically the graduate students are who “the most aggressive, mean-spirited, and angry” members of the mob. That rings true from our experience in the context of evolutionary censorship. Jacobson summarizes:
Prof. Abbot’s big thought crime was expressing disagreement with some aspects of “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” he considers counterproductive (and which may be unlawful). Prof. Abbot didn’t express disagreement with diversity as a goal, or extraordinary outreach to minority hiring prospects to expand the pool, or actions to make sure the hiring process was free from explicit or implicit bias. He supports all those things. Rather, after all that diversity initiative had been accomplished and a hiring decision had to be made, Prof. Abbot expressed the view that the most qualified remaining candidate should be chosen, which is consistent with U. Chicago policy.
Some prominent scholars elsewhere came out in support of Abbot. The president of the University of Chicago, Robert Zimmer, indicated that Abbot would not be punished. He said:
We believe universities have an important role as places where novel and even controversial ideas can be proposed, tested and debated. For this reason, the University does not limit the comments of faculty members, mandate apologies, or impose other disciplinary consequences for such comments.
“The Process Is the Punishment”
That’s fine. But as Jacobson points out, the spell of fear had already been well cast on the campus. Zimmer’s statement aside, Abbot had already been “punished”:
The process is the punishment. Having to stand up to the mob and attempts at cancellation is draining. Knowing that the people you work with have it out for you is depressing and makes for an infinitely hostile work environment. Even without adverse employment action being taken, the cancel culture bell cannot be unrung. The damage also is done to the University. Those faculty without tenure learn to stay silent. Graduate students who disagree will not want to subject themselves to attack. Private expressions of support, while better than nothing, reflect a toxic public atmosphere in which dissent is punished and staying quiet will be the option for most people.
Academics are on notice not to publicly question increasingly rigid orthodoxies. It began with evolution, but it’s come a long way since. Will the immediately coming years see the stranglehold on free speech loosened? If you think so, you’re really naive. Before long, it will be those same grad students who are in charge of academic departments, and the universities. First they came from the Darwin skeptics and the ID proponents. Hardly a voice was raised in protest for our freedom. And now here we are. Where will it end?


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-12-07--Money, Sex, and Gender

Money, Sex, and Gender

Author ’ s note : This is Part Two of a seven-part series about transgenderism .
Nothing in the series is intended to disparage any transgender person , any gender non-conforming person , or any person attracted to members of the same sex .
I write as a developmental biologist ( Berkeley PhD ) , and I focus on evidence pertaining to transgender treatments for children .
WARNING : Parts of this series contain explicit language .
Reader discretion is advised .
John William Money was born in 1921 in New Zealand .
At the age of 26 he moved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did graduate research at Harvard University on babies born with ambiguous genitals .
In 1952 he published his PhD dissertation , Hermaphroditism : An Inquiry into the Nature of a Human Paradox .
Money was not a surgeon .
But he championed the practice of surgically modifying babies born with ambiguous genitals .
The goal was to make them look more like normal boys or girls .
Sometimes this involved making the genitals look like those of the other sex .
Money emphasized in 1955 that sex assignment should occur before the establishment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” [ Gender role is ] all those things that a person says or does to disclose himself or herself as having the status of boy or man , girl or woman , respectively .
In includes , but is not restricted to sexuality in the sense of eroticism .
A gender role is not established at birth , but is built up cumulatively through experiences… .
Gender role is so well established in most children by the age of two and one-half years that it is then too late to make a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many other articles by John Money have been collected in his 1986 book , Venuses Penuses .
In 1964 , psychiatrist John Stoller defined “ gender identity ” as the inner sense of oneself that underlies one ’ s outer gender role .
Money adopted that term as well .
In February 1967 , Money talked about his views on a Canadian TV program .
A young couple in Winnipeg saw the program and contacted him immediately afterwards .
On August 22 , 1965 , Janet Reimer had given birth in Winnipeg to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and her husband , Ron , named them Bruce and Brian .
A few months later the boys developed phimosis .
This is a common condition in which the foreskin on the penis constricts and makes urinating difficult .
So on April 27 , 1966 , the boys were taken back to the local hospital for circumcision .
They were eight months old .
Bruce went first .
Ordinarily , a pediatrician skilled in circumcision would have done the job .
But no pediatrician was available that day .
So an unskilled general @ @ @ @ @ @ @ needle made hot by an electric current .
But the needle got too hot .
As a result , Bruce ’ s entire penis was burned off .
( Brian was spared circumcision , and his condition later resolved itself without surgery . )
Specialists were unable to offer the distraught parents any hope .
Then , in February 1967 , they went to see John Money in Baltimore .
He advised them to have Bruce fully castrated and raise him as a girl .
Money assured them that the child ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consistently treated him as a girl , “ she ” would grow up to be happy in that role .
The Reimers returned home , stopped cutting Bruce ’ s hair , and renamed him “ Brenda.
” A few months later they returned with the child to Johns Hopkins , where Bruce ’ s testicles were surgically removed on July 3 .
The surgeon then refashioned the skin of his scrotum to resemble the labia of an infant girl .
The child was 22 months old .
Soon after returning to Winnipeg @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a dress , but the child tried to rip it off .
Janet thereafter attempted to raise “ Brenda ” as a girl , but she never really succeeded .
( I use quotation marks around “ Brenda ” because Bruce never considered himself a girl . )
Years later , Brian told Colapinto ( As Nature Made Him , p. 57 ) : In Janet ’ s letters to Money she emphasized the rare moments when “ Brenda ’ s ” behavior could be construed as feminine .
She wanted Money to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ follow his advice .
But she also informed Money about the child ’ s masculine inclinations .
Money assured her that this was just tomboyish behavior , like that of many young girls .
At the time of Bruce ’ s castration in 1967 , Money had stipulated that the twins be brought to him every year for follow-up sessions .
The first of these occurred when the twins were four .
The twins found the trips bewildering and unsettling .
They told Colapinto years later that in some sessions — when their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ show them pictures of naked boys and girls and adults having sexual intercourse .
He would intimidate the twins into taking their clothes off .
Then he would have them explore each other ’ s private parts .
According to both twins , he even had them perform simulated intercourse , with “ Brenda ” playing the female role .
When the twins started kindergarten , other children laughed at “ Brenda.
” The teacher recalled more than twenty years later ( as she told Colapinto , p. 61 ) , “ A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up to me and she asked , ‘ How come Brenda stands up when she goes to the bathroom ?
’ ” Janet had tried to train her sex-reassigned child to sit when urinating .
But “ Brenda ” habitually stood , causing problems at home and at school .
The child did so badly at school that Winnipeg officials said “ she ” would have to repeat kindergarten .
In 1971 , Janet wrote to Money about the problem .
Money wrote to the school officials , convincing them to promote “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the child continued to perform badly , and in 1972 “ she ” was denied promotion to second grade .
By the time the twins were seven , Money was trying to convince “ Brenda ” to have surgery to construct an artificial vagina .
But “ Brenda ” strongly resisted .
The Reimer story continues in Part Three of this series .

Photo credit: Mike Mozart, via Flickr (cropped).
Author’s note: This is Part Two of a seven-part series about transgenderism. Nothing in the series is intended to disparage any transgender person, any gender non-conforming person, or any person attracted to members of the same sex. I write as a developmental biologist (Berkeley PhD), and I focus on evidence pertaining to transgender treatments for children.
WARNING: Parts of this series contain explicit language. Reader discretion is advised.
John William Money was born in 1921 in New Zealand. At the age of 26 he moved to the United States, where he did graduate research at Harvard University on babies born with ambiguous genitals. In 1952 he published his PhD dissertation, Hermaphroditism: An Inquiry into the Nature of a Human Paradox.
Money was not a surgeon. But he championed the practice of surgically modifying babies born with ambiguous genitals. The goal was to make them look more like normal boys or girls. Sometimes this involved making the genitals look like those of the other sex.
Sex and Gender
Money emphasized in 1955 that sex assignment should occur before the establishment of what he called “gender role.”
[Gender role is] all those things that a person says or does to disclose himself or herself as having the status of boy or man, girl or woman, respectively. In includes, but is not restricted to sexuality in the sense of eroticism. A gender role is not established at birth, but is built up cumulatively through experiences…. Gender role is so well established in most children by the age of two and one-half years that it is then too late to make a change of sex with impunity.+
This and many other articles by John Money have been collected in his 1986 book, Venuses Penuses.
In 1964, psychiatrist John Stoller defined “gender identity” as the inner sense of oneself that underlies one’s outer gender role. Money adopted that term as well.
In February 1967, Money talked about his views on a Canadian TV program. A young couple in Winnipeg saw the program and contacted him immediately afterwards.
Bruce Reimer
On August 22, 1965, Janet Reimer had given birth in Winnipeg to two healthy identical twin boys. She and her husband, Ron, named them Bruce and Brian. A few months later the boys developed phimosis. This is a common condition in which the foreskin on the penis constricts and makes urinating difficult. So on April 27, 1966, the boys were taken back to the local hospital for circumcision. They were eight months old.
Bruce went first. Ordinarily, a pediatrician skilled in circumcision would have done the job. But no pediatrician was available that day. So an unskilled general practitioner performed the surgery with a cautery needle made hot by an electric current. But the needle got too hot. As a result, Bruce’s entire penis was burned off. (Brian was spared circumcision, and his condition later resolved itself without surgery.)
Specialists were unable to offer the distraught parents any hope. Then, in February 1967, they went to see John Money in Baltimore. He advised them to have Bruce fully castrated and raise him as a girl. Money assured them that the child’s gender was still unformed. If they consistently treated him as a girl, “she” would grow up to be happy in that role.
The Reimers returned home, stopped cutting Bruce’s hair, and renamed him “Brenda.” A few months later they returned with the child to Johns Hopkins, where Bruce’s testicles were surgically removed on July 3. The surgeon then refashioned the skin of his scrotum to resemble the labia of an infant girl. The child was 22 months old.
(This material is based on John Colapinto’s well-researched biography, As Nature Made Him: The Boy Who Was Raised as a Girl.)
“Brenda” Reimer
Soon after returning to Winnipeg, Janet put “Brenda” in a dress, but the child tried to rip it off. Janet thereafter attempted to raise “Brenda” as a girl, but she never really succeeded. (I use quotation marks around “Brenda” because Bruce never considered himself a girl.) Years later, Brian told Colapinto (As Nature Made Him, p. 57):
I recognized Brenda as my sister, but she never, ever, acted the part… When I say there was nothing feminine about Brenda, I mean there was nothing feminine. She walked like a guy. Sat with her legs apart. She talked about guy things, didn’t give a cr*p about cleaning house, getting married, wearing makeup. We both wanted to play with guys, build forts and have snowball fights and play army… She played with my toys: Tinkertoys, dump trucks.
In Janet’s letters to Money she emphasized the rare moments when “Brenda’s” behavior could be construed as feminine. She wanted Money to know she was doing her best to follow his advice. But she also informed Money about the child’s masculine inclinations. Money assured her that this was just tomboyish behavior, like that of many young girls.
At the time of Bruce’s castration in 1967, Money had stipulated that the twins be brought to him every year for follow-up sessions. The first of these occurred when the twins were four. The twins found the trips bewildering and unsettling. They told Colapinto years later that in some sessions — when their parents were not present — Money would show them pictures of naked boys and girls and adults having sexual intercourse. He would intimidate the twins into taking their clothes off. Then he would have them explore each other’s private parts. According to both twins, he even had them perform simulated intercourse, with “Brenda” playing the female role.
When the twins started kindergarten, other children laughed at “Brenda.” The teacher recalled more than twenty years later (as she told Colapinto, p. 61), “A female classmate of Brenda’s came up to me and she asked, ‘How come Brenda stands up when she goes to the bathroom?’” Janet had tried to train her sex-reassigned child to sit when urinating. But “Brenda” habitually stood, causing problems at home and at school.
The child did so badly at school that Winnipeg officials said “she” would have to repeat kindergarten. In 1971, Janet wrote to Money about the problem. Money wrote to the school officials, convincing them to promote “Brenda” to first grade. But the child continued to perform badly, and in 1972 “she” was denied promotion to second grade.
By the time the twins were seven, Money was trying to convince “Brenda” to have surgery to construct an artificial vagina. But “Brenda” strongly resisted.
The Reimer story continues in Part Three of this series.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-12-08--“Compelling,” “Thorough”: Biochemist Russell Carlson on Behe’s Mousetrap

University of Georgia biochemist Russell W. Carlson welcomes the new book from Discovery Institute Press , A Mousetrap for Darwin @ @ @ @ @ His Critics .
Michael Behe ’ s Darwin ’ s Black Box , The Edge @ @ @ @ @ Devolves clearly describe the problems and limits of Darwinism as well as what the mechanism @ @ @ @ @ selection actually does .
Over the years Behe has received a mountain of criticism , @ @ @ @ @ answered in detail by him in letters to the editors of various journals , newspapers @ @ @ @ @ , in A Mousetrap for Darwin , Behe treats his readers to his compelling and @ @ @ @ @ .
Anyone reading this book will become better informed of the powerful arguments for design @ @ @ @ @ regarding the Design v. Darwin debate .
I greatly enjoyed Mousetrap and highly recommend it @ @ @ @ @ Professor of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology at the Complex Carbohydrate Research Center .
Get your @ @ @ @ @ Darwin now !

University of Georgia biochemist Russell W. Carlson welcomes the new book from Discovery Institute Press, A Mousetrap for Darwin: Michael J. Behe Answers His Critics.
Michael Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box, The Edge of Evolution, and Darwin Devolves clearly describe the problems and limits of Darwinism as well as what the mechanism of random mutation and natural selection actually does. Over the years Behe has received a mountain of criticism, all of which has been answered in detail by him in letters to the editors of various journals, newspapers, and blogs. Now, in A Mousetrap for Darwin, Behe treats his readers to his compelling and thorough responses to his critics. Anyone reading this book will become better informed of the powerful arguments for design in biology and better educated regarding the Design v. Darwin debate. I greatly enjoyed Mousetrap and highly recommend it.
Dr. Carlson is Emeritus Professor of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology at the Complex Carbohydrate Research Center. Get your copy of A Mousetrap for Darwin now!


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-12-08--From Physicist Jeremy England, a Deeply Insightful Book on the Origin of Life

Physicist Jeremy England , with whom I ’ ve exchanged views in the past about the origin of life , has a new book out , Every Life Is on Fire : How Thermodynamics Explains the Origin of Living Things .
I just finished reading the book , and I must compliment England on writing one of the most insightful works on the subject that I have ever encountered .
He explains in accessible terms the thermodynamic challenges to life ’ s genesis , and he offers profound insights into how cells continuously maintain their integrity against the constant onslaught @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I believe his book should be required reading for anyone wishing to gain a deeper understanding of the physical principles constraining life ’ s origin .
England begins by describing how his book interweaves the discussion of the science of life with his Orthodox Jewish faith .
Each chapter begins with a passage from either the book of Genesis or Exodus that he connects to the chapter ’ s main theme .
He then introduces the field of thermodynamics , which comprises the bedrock for his theory of life .
Next , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ • Its comprising different parts interlocking in coordinated relationships .
• Its ability to harvest and consume matter and energy from its surroundings to serve as fuel for its activities .
• Its skill at self-repairing to maintain a coherent structure with a defined pattern .
• Its capacity to sense , predict , and react deliberately to the world around it .
The Need for Engines England then focuses on the thermodynamic principles that form the core of his argument .
His discussion closely parallels my own writings on the topic ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by describing how natural processes drive systems toward states of higher entropy ( higher probability if all states were equally probable ) , lower energy , or both .
He then explains how entropy ( S ) and energy ( E ) in a system at a given temperature ( T ) are often combined into the free energy measure ( F ) : F = E – TS .
Natural processes , without external assistance , always tend toward lower free energy .
In contrast , life represents a state of very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ i.e.
, high free energy ) .
England then illustrates how the only way for a system ( e.g.
, a chemical mixture ) to overcome the thermodynamic forces is for an external source of energy to perform work on it .
More specifically , energy must flow into the system in such a way as to act as an “ escalator ” that raises the receiving system to a state of higher free energy .
Yet , not just any source of energy will achieve this goal .
The source must be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my writing , I have referred to such escalators as engines or energy converters ( here , here ) .
The Need for Information England goes on to explain how the escalators that life employs are proteins that consist of chains of highly specific sequences of amino acids that cause the chains to fold into the correct three-dimensional shapes .
These proteins ( e.g.
, enzymes ) can then access chemical energy from energy-currency molecules , such as ATP , and direct it toward target reactions or other processes .
He does not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ complex molecular machines , but these machines are also composed of information-rich molecules .
England details how an organism is continuously bombarded by thermal fluctuations disrupting its structure , so it constantly needs to use chemical energy and information-rich molecules to maintain its operations and to repair damage .
He astutely describes such processes in plants : Like all living things , plants are structures that absorb energy from specific sources in ways that lead to internal motions that correct or undo each incremental bit of falling to pieces that happens at every @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only when a wound heals , but also much more instantaneously every time sunlight is used to regenerate a molecule of chemical fuel that was just burned up , or every time a molecular chaperone burns up some chemical fuel in order to help a protein that has become misfolded to get back into the correct , functional shape .
The fuel-consuming , heat-dissipating activities of proofreading , quality control , and self-maintenance lie at the core of what living things are doing all the time to remain alive , and every one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cyclical motion , whereby work absorbed from the environment perpetually drags things back up the mountain as each little downward slip and slide occurs .
Without these maintenance and repair mechanisms , a cell would irreversibly degrade into an amorphous collection of lower-free-energy molecules .
Up to this point , England and I are in complete agreement .
Tomorrow I will indicated where our views diverge .

Image: Jeremy England lectures in Stockholm, via YouTube.
Physicist Jeremy England, with whom I’ve exchanged views in the past about the origin of life, has a new book out, Every Life Is on Fire: How Thermodynamics Explains the Origin of Living Things. I just finished reading the book, and I must compliment England on writing one of the most insightful works on the subject that I have ever encountered. He explains in accessible terms the thermodynamic challenges to life’s genesis, and he offers profound insights into how cells continuously maintain their integrity against the constant onslaught of thermal fluctuations degrading their structure. I believe his book should be required reading for anyone wishing to gain a deeper understanding of the physical principles constraining life’s origin.
Defining Life
England begins by describing how his book interweaves the discussion of the science of life with his Orthodox Jewish faith. Each chapter begins with a passage from either the book of Genesis or Exodus that he connects to the chapter’s main theme. He then introduces the field of thermodynamics, which comprises the bedrock for his theory of life. Next, he identifies several key characteristics defining life:
Its comprising different parts interlocking in coordinated relationships.
Its ability to harvest and consume matter and energy from its surroundings to serve as fuel for its activities.
Its skill at self-repairing to maintain a coherent structure with a defined pattern.
Its capacity to sense, predict, and react deliberately to the world around it.
Its power to reproduce.
The Need for Engines
England then focuses on the thermodynamic principles that form the core of his argument. His discussion closely parallels my own writings on the topic (here, here). He begins by describing how natural processes drive systems toward states of higher entropy (higher probability if all states were equally probable), lower energy, or both. He then explains how entropy (S) and energy (E) in a system at a given temperature (T) are often combined into the free energy measure (F): F = E – TS. Natural processes, without external assistance, always tend toward lower free energy. In contrast, life represents a state of very low entropy and very high energy (i.e., high free energy).
England then illustrates how the only way for a system (e.g., a chemical mixture) to overcome the thermodynamic forces is for an external source of energy to perform work on it. More specifically, energy must flow into the system in such a way as to act as an “escalator” that raises the receiving system to a state of higher free energy. Yet, not just any source of energy will achieve this goal. The source must be properly matched to the receiver. In my writing, I have referred to such escalators as engines or energy converters (here, here).
The Need for Information
England goes on to explain how the escalators that life employs are proteins that consist of chains of highly specific sequences of amino acids that cause the chains to fold into the correct three-dimensional shapes. These proteins (e.g., enzymes) can then access chemical energy from energy-currency molecules, such as ATP, and direct it toward target reactions or other processes. He does not mention how energy-currency molecules are generated by complex molecular machines, but these machines are also composed of information-rich molecules.
England details how an organism is continuously bombarded by thermal fluctuations disrupting its structure, so it constantly needs to use chemical energy and information-rich molecules to maintain its operations and to repair damage. He astutely describes such processes in plants:
Like all living things, plants are structures that absorb energy from specific sources in ways that lead to internal motions that correct or undo each incremental bit of falling to pieces that happens at every moment. This process goes on not only when a wound heals, but also much more instantaneously every time sunlight is used to regenerate a molecule of chemical fuel that was just burned up, or every time a molecular chaperone burns up some chemical fuel in order to help a protein that has become misfolded to get back into the correct, functional shape. The fuel-consuming, heat-dissipating activities of proofreading, quality control, and self-maintenance lie at the core of what living things are doing all the time to remain alive, and every one of these activities involves some kind of cyclical motion, whereby work absorbed from the environment perpetually drags things back up the mountain as each little downward slip and slide occurs.
Without these maintenance and repair mechanisms, a cell would irreversibly degrade into an amorphous collection of lower-free-energy molecules.
Up to this point, England and I are in complete agreement. Tomorrow I will indicated where our views diverge.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-12-08--The Boy Who Was Raised as a Girl

The Boy Who Was Raised as a Girl

Author ’ s note : This is Part Three of a seven-part series about transgenderism .
Nothing in the series is intended to disparage any transgender person , any gender non-conforming person , or any person attracted to members of the same sex .
I write as a developmental biologist ( Berkeley PhD ) , and I focus on evidence pertaining to transgender treatments for children .
WARNING : Parts of this series contain explicit language .
Reader discretion is advised .
This is a continuation of the Bruce Reimer story that began in Part Two .
Much of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s well-researched book , As Nature Made Him : The Boy Who Was Raised as a Girl .
Bruce and his identical twin brother Brian were born in Winnipeg , Canada , on August 22 , 1965 .
Seven months later , Bruce ’ s penis was burned off in a botched circumcision .
Famed sexologist John Money advised the parents to have Bruce castrated completely and to raise him as a girl .
He assured them that their sex-reassigned child would grow up happy .
They followed his advice and renamed their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that “ Brenda ” was not a happy child .
“ She ” behaved more like a boy than a girl .
Yet Money insisted publicly that his experiment was a resounding success .
In 1972 he wrote about the sex reassignment of biologically normal babies in Man & Woman , Boy & Girl ( p. 162 ) .
He concluded ( p. 208 ) that a baby boy given “ feminizing surgery ” can grow “ normally , physically and psychologically , as a girl.
” In Sexual Signatures ( 1975 ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) that the ( unnamed ) sex-reassigned twin was “ a tomboyish girl , but nonetheless a girl.
” Money concluded that “ her record to date offers convincing evidence that the gender identity gate is open at birth for a normal child.
” In 1977 , Money convinced Ron to start “ Brenda ” ( who was almost 12 ) on the female hormone , estrogen .
Ron told the child that it was “ to make you wear a bra.
” But “ Brenda ” said , “ I don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” and threw a fit .
( Colapinto , p. 129 ) At first , “ she ” secretly flushed the pills down the toilet .
Then Ron and Janet started standing over “ her ” to make sure the pills were swallowed .
Soon “ Brenda ” started sprouting breasts .
But “ she ” also started overeating and gaining weight to hide them .
In May 1978 , the Reimers once again took the twins to see Money .
He tried to coerce “ Brenda ” into undergoing surgery to create @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” ran out of his office .
Back at the hotel room with Ron and Janet , “ Brenda ” said that if ever forced to see Money again “ she ” would kill herself .
They never went back .
In January 1979 “ Brenda ” was referred to Winnipeg psychiatrist Mary McKenty .
McKenty soon realized that the child ’ s sex reassignment had been a mistake .
She eventually convinced Ron and Janet it was time to tell “ Brenda ” the truth .
On March 14 , 1980 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happened .
Years later , the son told Colapinto ( p. 180 ) about the conversation .
The 14-year-old had never seen his father cry before .
The child felt many emotions , but one overrode all others .
“ I was relieved .
Suddenly it all made sense why I felt the way I did .
I wasn ’ t some sort of weirdo .
I wasn ’ t crazy.
” The boy who had been raised as a girl never knew himself as Bruce .
He didn ’ t even like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ call himself David , after the Old Testament king who slew Goliath .
That August , one week after his 15th birthday , David presented himself as a boy at a large gathering of his extended family .
He used tape to flatten his breasts , and he wore a dark gray suit just like his brother ’ s .
Soon afterwards he began receiving testosterone injections .
On October 22 , 1980 , he underwent a double mastectomy .
The procedure left him in such pain that he decided to wait until @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surgery .
David eventually had several more surgeries to construct artificial male genitals .
With some matchmaking help from his twin brother ’ s wife , David met Jane Fontane .
Jane was two years older than David and had three children , but the two fell in love .
David worried how he would tell Jane about his life as a girl .
When he finally started to tell her , she stopped him and said Brian ’ s wife had already explained everything .
On September 22 , 1990 , David @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , psychiatrists Milton Diamond and Keith Sigmundson published a scientific journal article about David .
Based on their findings , they criticized Money ’ s theory of infant gender neutrality .
They also criticized Money ’ s view that baby boys with abnormally small or missing penises should routinely undergo sex reassignment .
In 2000 , David and his mother Janet appeared on the Oprah Winfrey Show .
Janet was suffering from remorse , but David forgave her .
He explained ( at 1:02 ) that she had acted “ out of compassion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for that .
He told Oprah that he never liked playing the role of a girl .
But he said ( at 3:30 ) , with his voice cracking , “ I wanted so desperately to fit in because I was so lonely.
” David ’ s tragic case has been the subject of other online videos .
But the tragedy got worse .
In 2002 Brian committed suicide .
In 2004 David and Jane separated , and David committed suicide as well .
He was 38 years old .
Despite the failure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continued to misrepresent it .
As a result , countless babies all over the world may have had their sex reassigned .
No doubt there are many other tragic stories like David Reimer ’ s .

Image: David and Goliath, by Titian, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.
Author’s note: This is Part Three of a seven-part series about transgenderism. Nothing in the series is intended to disparage any transgender person, any gender non-conforming person, or any person attracted to members of the same sex. I write as a developmental biologist (Berkeley PhD), and I focus on evidence pertaining to transgender treatments for children.
WARNING: Parts of this series contain explicit language. Reader discretion is advised.
This is a continuation of the Bruce Reimer story that began in Part Two. Much of the material is drawn from John Colapinto’s well-researched book, As Nature Made Him: The Boy Who Was Raised as a Girl.
Bruce and his identical twin brother Brian were born in Winnipeg, Canada, on August 22, 1965. Seven months later, Bruce’s penis was burned off in a botched circumcision. Famed sexologist John Money advised the parents to have Bruce castrated completely and to raise him as a girl. He assured them that their sex-reassigned child would grow up happy. They followed his advice and renamed their child “Brenda.”
Money’s Misrepresentation
Money soon learned that “Brenda” was not a happy child. “She” behaved more like a boy than a girl. Yet Money insisted publicly that his experiment was a resounding success. In 1972 he wrote about the sex reassignment of biologically normal babies in Man & Woman, Boy & Girl (p. 162).
Since planned experiments are ethically unthinkable, one can only take advantage of unplanned opportunities, such as when a normal baby boy loses his penis in a circumcision accident… [The unnamed baby] is now of school age, and her behavior as a little girl is in remarkable contrast to the little-boy behavior of her identical twin brother.
He concluded (p. 208) that a baby boy given “feminizing surgery” can grow “normally, physically and psychologically, as a girl.” In Sexual Signatures (1975), Money wrote (pp. 97-98) that the (unnamed) sex-reassigned twin was “a tomboyish girl, but nonetheless a girl.” Money concluded that “her record to date offers convincing evidence that the gender identity gate is open at birth for a normal child.”
In 1977, Money convinced Ron to start “Brenda” (who was almost 12) on the female hormone, estrogen. Ron told the child that it was “to make you wear a bra.” But “Brenda” said, “I don’t wanna wear a bra,” and threw a fit. (Colapinto, p. 129) At first, “she” secretly flushed the pills down the toilet. Then Ron and Janet started standing over “her” to make sure the pills were swallowed. Soon “Brenda” started sprouting breasts. But “she” also started overeating and gaining weight to hide them.
In May 1978, the Reimers once again took the twins to see Money. He tried to coerce “Brenda” into undergoing surgery to create an artificial vagina. But “Brenda” ran out of his office. Back at the hotel room with Ron and Janet, “Brenda” said that if ever forced to see Money again “she” would kill herself. They never went back.
Finally Learning the Truth
In January 1979 “Brenda” was referred to Winnipeg psychiatrist Mary McKenty. McKenty soon realized that the child’s sex reassignment had been a mistake. She eventually convinced Ron and Janet it was time to tell “Brenda” the truth. On March 14, 1980, Ron explained to his son what had happened.
Years later, the son told Colapinto (p. 180) about the conversation.
He told me that I was born a boy, and about the accident when they were trying to circumcise me, and how they saw all kinds of specialists, and they took the best advice they had at the time, which was to try to change me over. My dad got very upset.
The 14-year-old had never seen his father cry before. The child felt many emotions, but one overrode all others. “I was relieved. Suddenly it all made sense why I felt the way I did. I wasn’t some sort of weirdo. I wasn’t crazy.”
The boy who had been raised as a girl never knew himself as Bruce. He didn’t even like the name. So he chose to call himself David, after the Old Testament king who slew Goliath.
David Reimer
That August, one week after his 15th birthday, David presented himself as a boy at a large gathering of his extended family. He used tape to flatten his breasts, and he wore a dark gray suit just like his brother’s. Soon afterwards he began receiving testosterone injections. On October 22, 1980, he underwent a double mastectomy. The procedure left him in such pain that he decided to wait until the following year before having any more surgery.
David eventually had several more surgeries to construct artificial male genitals. With some matchmaking help from his twin brother’s wife, David met Jane Fontane. Jane was two years older than David and had three children, but the two fell in love. David worried how he would tell Jane about his life as a girl. When he finally started to tell her, she stopped him and said Brian’s wife had already explained everything.
On September 22, 1990, David and Jane were married.
In 1997, psychiatrists Milton Diamond and Keith Sigmundson published a scientific journal article about David. Based on their findings, they criticized Money’s theory of infant gender neutrality. They also criticized Money’s view that baby boys with abnormally small or missing penises should routinely undergo sex reassignment.
In 2000, David and his mother Janet appeared on the Oprah Winfrey Show. Janet was suffering from remorse, but David forgave her. He explained (at 1:02) that she had acted “out of compassion” and he could not hate her for that. He told Oprah that he never liked playing the role of a girl. But he said (at 3:30), with his voice cracking, “I wanted so desperately to fit in because I was so lonely.”
Conclusion
David’s tragic case has been the subject of other online videos. But the tragedy got worse. In 2002 Brian committed suicide. In 2004 David and Jane separated, and David committed suicide as well. He was 38 years old.
Despite the failure of Money’s experiment, he continued to misrepresent it. As a result, countless babies all over the world may have had their sex reassigned. No doubt there are many other tragic stories like David Reimer’s.