Talk:David Reimer

Requirement of explicit mention of Reimer being born as a male

@Sirfurboy: Since sex reassignment surgery was performed in Reimer's case, his sex was changed from male to female, and then again, from female to male.

Without the explicit statement of what an individual's sex is, their sex can be male or female or intersex, which makes the possibilities more ambiguous, especially in cases of sex change. Therefore, it is necessary to specify that Reimer was born male. — CrafterNova ^{[ TALK ] [ CONT ]} 07:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

The lead says "... was a Canadian man raised as a girl following false medical advice and intervention after his penis was severely injured..." Nothing there needs further clarification that he was born male. It is neither confusing nor unclear. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:19, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Just because an individual has a penis does not mean that they are male.

Just because an individual has a vagina does not mean that they are female.

Besides genitals (external sex organs), sex is defined by presence of many anatomical structures such as gonads (internal sex organs e.g. testes, ovaries), accessory reproductive organs (uterus, fallopian tubes, cervix, prostate, etc.), sex hormones, secondary sex characteristics, etc.

I know anatomy has nothing to do with the article.

But differences between sex and gender must be stated.

Male ≠ man

Female ≠ woman

Intersex ≠ non-binary

Sex and gender are different things.

It is possible for people to be born without any gender, and they are called agender people.

But it is impossible for people to be born without a sex.

Reimer was always a boy who was born male, and was born cisgender, not transgender.

This statement needs to be stated in order to make it clear that Reimer was not transgender; many people make such assumptions when cisgender people are misled into transitioning, thinking that they "are trans" when they are cis, or are forced to transition because of discriminatory societal norms based on sex. — CrafterNova ^{[ TALK ] [ CONT ]} 08:14, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

The current first sentence is quite clear, in line with MOS:LEAD. "Man, born male" would be uselessly repetitive in the context. The point you appear to be trying to make is fully covered in the second paragraph of the lead. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:50, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy: In April 2021, did you have a problem with the lead sentence being "...a Canadian man born male but raised as a girl following medical advice and intervention..." in this revision by FMSky?

That's not relevant, but MOS:LEAD itself does not differentiate between sex and gender; that's because this policy considers "man born male but..." and "woman born female but..." as "uselessly repetitive" when it's a useful distinction according to the sex-gender distinction article. — CrafterNova ^{[ TALK ] [ CONT ]} 15:02, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Suicide terminology

Sideswipe9th, the article was changed in this edit a few months ago, despite having been stable for a long time before that. If you want to keep it changed, I think you should obtain a consensus here (or a broader one). The RFC at MOS:SUICIDE is pretty clear that people don't want to ban "commit". Unless there's some good reason to change it (and there isn't), it shouldn't have been changed in the first place. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 06:14, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

See also this previous discussion, which the edit I undid seems to go against. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 06:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I have just reverted a change to "died by" back to "committed" per the existing consensus that the IP has noted here. However I note that Frank did point to a twitter post that seems to be referring to a style guide that recommends avoiding "committed". That being the case, it may be time to revisit the issue. However a new consensus is still needed to over-ride an existing one. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:46, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Basically agreed, however, our style guide is MOS:, not Twitter. Mathglot (talk) 11:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

True, but MOS:SUICIDE does state that while "committed suicide" is not banned, it is discouraged by many of the external style guides the MOS derives from. There's some pretty convincing arguments in those style guides for why we shouldn't use that terminology. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:12, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I think "that's the way we've always done it" is a poor reason to avoid a more enlightened (though I don't love that word) terminology. I fully understand there isn't a consensus to ban the use of "committed". Equally important, though, I don't think there's a good reason to avoid a move to a more modern wording that acknowledges the subject is complex. I don't think it's controversial to make the following statment: Died by is factual, while committed is far more likely to imply things that aren't intended or necessarily factual.  Frank  |  talk  22:49, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

died by suicide seems best to me. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Personally I dislike the passive "died by suicide". The style guides suggest "killed himself" would be fine. Avoids "committed" but remains active. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:33, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. Zenomonoz (talk) 00:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Seconded. —Of the universe (say hello) 13:44, 29 February 2024 (UTC)