[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Konakaga

I've heard of that before, and while it does shows that genetics is definitely a factor; however, showing genetics is a factor doesn't prove without a doubt that nurturing makes absolutely no difference in general. Evidences for something like this doesn't work that way.

Originally Posted by Haak

It's a single case study. Whilst it does lend some support to the idea of nature over nurture, it's by no means the 'slam dunk' of evidence.

The report and subsequent book about Reimer influenced several medical practices and reputations, and even current understanding of the biology of gender. The case accelerated the decline of sex reassignment and surgery for unambiguous XY male infants with micropenis, various other rare congenital malformations or penile loss in infancy.
It supported the arguments of those who feel that prenatal and early-infantile hormones have a strong influence on brain differentiation, gender identity and perhaps other sex-dimorphic behavior. The applicability of this case to appropriate sex assignment in cases of intersex conditions involving severe deficiency of testosterone or insensitivity to its effects is more uncertain. For some people, the inability to predict gender identity in this case confirmed skepticism about doctors' abilities to do so in general, or about the wisdom of using genital reconstructive surgery to commit an infant with an intersex condition or genital defect to a specific gender role before the child is old enough to claim a gender identity.
The Intersex Society of North America, which opposes involuntary sex reassignment, treats the story of David Peter Reimer as a cautionary tale about why the genitals of unconsenting minors should not be needlessly modified.[6]

the medical establishment consider it pretty good evidence.



what evidence do you have to the contrary?