From Publishers Weekly, via Amazon:
"After Bruce Thiessen, one of two identical male twins, lost his penis
during a botched circumcision, he underwent surgery that made him
anatomically female, later received estrogen injections and was raised
as a girl under Dr. John Money's supervision at the Psychohormonal Research Unit
at Johns Hopkins.
All of Money's reports of the case--which quickly appeared in textbooks as a prime example of environment trumping biology--portrayed Bruce (now Brenda) as a well-adjusted girl, although the reality was quite different. Angry, sullen and having always insisted that "she" was a boy, Brenda finally decided at age 15--after "she" finally learned of the surgery-to revert to her original sex and take the name David."
We read this for book club. [Note: a controversial, non-fiction narrative makes for great discussion.]
What I ultimately couldn't get past was the fact that so many doctors believed you could simply re-assign gender. This was in the 1970's. I know the gender lines became blurred during that time, but to believe that we were the same inside - that our sexual organs were the sole difference - seems ludicrous just 35 years later.
The nature versus nurture question is complicated on a variety of subjects, from academic test scores to homosexuality. I am almost always a nature-leaning girl.
But, when thinking about it myself, it is much harder to quantify what makes me female than what makes me heterosexual or academic. Is it because I like the color pink, or wearing lipstick? I don't believe so. I just innately know I'm female. Just as Bruce/Brenda/David knew he was male.
It's an interesting story and, as noted, makes for good discussion. It challenged not necessarily what I believed, but why I believed it.
And a challenging book, as opposed to an escapist or simply entertaining book, should always be in your stack.
