Often I have heard older students say that while they used to believe gender differences in personality and behavior were learned, and raised their children exactly alike, "he is still a 'typical' boy and she a 'typical' girl." This usually generates vigorous, affirmative nods. What, my students ask, possesses scholars to argue that gender differences are largely learned when it is obvious that they are inborn?
In fact there is evidence aplenty for the role of social context and interactions in shaping gender identities and roles, but the "ace up the sleeve" for social constructionists was a virtually perfect "experiment of nature." Identical twin boys were undergoing a routine circumcision when the penis of one was accidentally cauterized. The parents and a specialist decided on a sex reassignment. It was the ultimate test: two genetically identical children, one raised as a boy, the other as a girl. Success would confirm that gender identity and role are learned. For 13 years, the supervising specialist reported the reassignment a stunning success.
Social scientists know better than to build entire theories on a single case study, but this one was compelling. It confirmed evidence from numerous less well-controlled studies and led to the conclusion that gender identity is entirely learned. There was only one problem: The reassignment was not ultimately successful. At the age of 14, "Joan" insisted on reversing the procedure, and lives today as a man, married to a woman, father to three adopted children. What had happened?
An investigative report of the case by the BBC, and the publication of an article in the Archives of Sexual Behavior in 1982, revealed that not only had "Joan" reverted to "John" at age 14, she had never fully adopted a female gender identity and role. She spent her childhood in confusion, rebellion, and misery until the revelation of her reassignment led almost immediately to her decision to become a man.
While this news should have shaken the scientific community, there was surprisingly little response to the revelation. References to the John/Joan case were quietly dropped. Apart from the article's author, few argued that the outcome of the case suggested an interpretation opposite to the original—that gender identity is largely inborn, rather than socially constructed.
John Colapinto, a freelance writer and reporter, was fascinated by this case. He wondered why doctors had made the original decision to convert "John" into a girl; why the gender reassignment was falsely presented as successful; and why the ultimate revelation of its failure interested the popular media but not the academic community. Most of all, he wondered what the experience had been like for "John/Joan" and his family. Colapinto's dogged pursuit of answers to these questions led to the publication of As Nature Made Him. It is a story of medical hubris and academic rivalry, but most of all it is the story of a person, David Reimer—"John"—who lays bare the most intimate and personal details of his life, in the hope that what happened to him, and others like him, will never happen again.
Drawing on extensive interviews and a thorough examination of relevant research and records, Colapinto weaves together themes that lift the book from the ranks of "tell-all" exposes to offer an incisive challenge to the medical establishment. He enables us to hear David's voice, as well as the love, compassion, and anguish of his parents and the local medical professionals charged with helping David become a woman.
One omission is striking: Colapinto makes virtually no reference to David's twin brother Brian until the very last chapter. Readers will also get the impression that David and his family were isolated, despite the steady stream of doctors involved in the case. In part this isolation was a real consequence of the Reimers' struggles with David and the need to keep his sex reassignment a secret. Still, Colapinto does not address the roles that family, community, and faith might have played in supporting this troubled family.





