User talk:M.hin.ck/Dr. Money

Dr. Money and the Boy with No Penis

Please post a 250-word assessment of the sources used in the film "Dr. Money and the Boy with No Penis" below, discussing how the sources affected the tone and message of the film, for better and for worse. Due 4/10.

In the video, the sources being utilized are contradicting on Dr.Money and the techniques for experimentation on his theory that sex is basically nonpartisan during the initial two years after birth and sustain are progressively significant in deciding sexual orientation personality. On one side of the story, interviews from David, his mom, Brian, Jane, and his companion Harold all things considered make a feeling of helplessness and incites empathizing from the watchers. Numerous parts of the direct records of this story told by close individuals of David will in general showcase a censuring tone against Dr. Money. The reproduced scenes from unique transcripts and records told by the twin's layer another negative light on Dr. Money, depicting him as a debased specialist just keen on demonstrating his theory right. On the opposite side, the film included meetings from Dr. Richard Green, who was one of Dr. Money's understudies. In giving a point of view as a kindred doctor, he emphatically guarded Dr. Money's work guaranteed that if he somehow managed to be in that accurate circumstance at that point, he would by and by settle on indistinguishable decisions from Dr. Money. While a ton of the sources utilized right now are possibly one-sided, the general tone of this narrative is thoughtful to the Reimers and maligning Dr. Money. This adequately stresses the message of the film on how researchers ought not to take cover behind the name of science and neglect to respect the human costs engaged with these investigations. Owen Murphy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omurphy5 (talk • contribs) 02:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

The movie used a variety of interviews and reconstructions of interviews to give a more personal, intimate tone to the story where the viewer can understand and sympathize with the tragic pain that David and his family had to go through. By interviewing those directly related to the case, we get a firsthand account of what really happened. The reenactments offer a dramatized retelling of the story but also convey the power dynamic between Dr. Money and the children, and show how he is able to subtly manipulate them. These undertones would not have been evident simply from the interview transcriptions, so I think the movie does a good job of bringing them to life. Overall, the movie focuses more on David’s side of the story, which portrays Dr. Money as a cold, unethical doctor who cared more about testing his “beautiful theory” than the psychological wellbeing of the children. It does, however, include another perspective through Dr. Money and Professor Green to contrast the emotional testimonies of David and his families with a more dispassionate one as they justify the studies in the name of science. This only emphasizes the film's message of the need for more humanity in science and the dangers of being blind to facts that inconveniently interfere with one's own ideas. Angela432 (talk) 23:10, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

The sources used in this documentary serve as a sense of reality in a quite unbelievable story. These sources, in the form of interviews and reenactments, make the message clearer and shift the tone to be more serious, personal, and harsh. In seeing these interviews and reenactments, it becomes reality and pulls at a viewer’s heart. The source that stuck out to me the most was the transsexual coming to talk to then Brenda. She was clearly just doing her job in the office, but by following the child out it showed that this was not a completely staged situation, and that real emotions were involved. It also makes me think, if someone else knew what was going on, why wasn’t Dr. Money’s sick act outed earlier? This allows for the belief that Dr. Money’s act was not as sick as it seems. Though the accounts by the Riemer family were plentiful and emotional, the accounts by Professor Green are simple, staged in one setting, and simply there to serve as a statement by a seemingly cold man. There is no emotion to his accounts, and therefore the tone surrounding him is very negative, leading the viewer to believe that he is just blindly believing in the ethics of someone who he looked up to. I was sucked in by the dramatics, as I believe any viewer would be, but I feel I didn’t get the full story. I would appreciate more facts over dramatic reenactments to make for a more neutral documentary. BiancaSkelton (talk) 01:32, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I think the sources used in this film affected the tone and message in two main ways. Firstly, the film had several instances of reenactments of non-transcribed interviews that took place between Brenda, sometimes Brenda and Brian, and Dr. Money. These instances, because it is unclear if they were perfectly true, tend to vilify Dr. Money. For example, these situations, such as when Dr. Money supposedly had the twins undress to discuss anatomical genitals and took photographs of them, these situations were narrated by David Reimer, in interviews before his death. His narration, his account, creates a foreboding tone, a sense of fear and anxiety that David, or Brenda, most likely felt during this time. These accounts, however, were juxtaposed, even competed against, by the first hand interviews with Dr. Richard Green, one of Money's prior students, who defends Money's work every time he speaks on screen. He claims that it s extremely important for children to understand the difference in genitalia to identify if they are a boy or a girl, defending Money's work and research at the time. These contradictory sources help to create a conflict in the intended message to the audience: was Dr. Money really in the wrong, were the Reimer parents in the wrong for potentially making a poor parental decision to rase their son as a daughter, are the accounts from David Reimer true? Using sources such as mother Janet Reimer, David's wife Jane, and his friend Harold help to make viewers sympathize with David's life, but just the addition of Richard Green creates this contrasting tone, one that highlights the work of Dr. Money instead of the tragedy of the Reimer twins' lives. Mtesta4 (talk) 14:43, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

The sources used in the documentary greatly affect its tone and message. The biggest impact the sources add to the film is that they create a tone of tragedy and provoke sympathy in the viewers. Using David’s mother and wife accomplishes this. Another effect of having David’s mother (Janet Reimer) as a source is that we can hear firsthand what was going on through her mind when she decided to put David through the procedure with Dr. Money to make him a girl. This presents one of the messages of the documentary, which is that sometimes despair and lack of education (or understanding) can cause people to make poor decisions that they later regret. Janet had no idea what to do after David’s surgery failed, and seeing Dr. Money was a confident man, went along with what he said. Another message of the documentary is that a doctor must not put an experiment above a patient. Dr. Money got too carried away in what he wanted to be a successful experiment and in turn, he ruined the lives of an entire family. In terms of sources, hearing about Dr. Money from several people but having no testimony from him vilifies him further. This adds in a villain dynamic to the documentary since essentially all the people interviewed except one speak badly about Dr. Money and he does not get a chance to defend or explain himself. 02:44, 6 April 2020 (UTC)Mauricio — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macullau (talk • contribs)

In this film, the use of reenactments for transcribed interviews attempted to show the dynamic between David, Brian, and Dr. Money. However, much can be misconstrued through the actors’ performance, and it is unclear whether the script comes directly from the source material. Reenactments constructed without a transcription are even more ambiguous, as they are taken from David and Brian’s memory. These scenes are often with David’s narration, as to show his side of the story. Interviews with Dr. Richard Green, a student of Dr. Money, often interject David’s accounts and directly or indirectly defend his mentor’s views. However, his input doesn’t nearly measure up to the weight of the emotional damage inflicted upon the Reimer family. Time after time, the film shows the twins as young vulnerable children, and their parents, distraught having incurred such pain from the conflict, and ultimately mourning the tragic deaths of their children. Dr. Green, however, proposes that Dr. Money’s methods were a sort of medical standard of the time and that children’s memories can often be somewhat exaggerated, especially if those memories are sexual. His cold, sterile, way of speaking about incredibly traumatic experiences the twins experienced seem wildly inappropriate (and frankly, belittling) when contrasted with the family’s grief and despair. Because of this juxtaposition, Dr. Money is seen as the villain of this story; a mad scientist who took advantage of a surgical accident to further his egotistical studies at the sacrifice of a vulnerable child, and his family.Paigevinch (talk) 18:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)Paige Vinch

The sources used in this film create two opposing views on Dr. Money and the methods of experimentation on his hypothesis that gender is essentially neutral during the first two years after birth and nurture are more important in determining gender identity. On one side of the story, interviews from David (Brenda), his mother Janet, his brother Brian, his wife Jane, and his friend Harold collectively create a sense of vulnerability and provokes commiseration from the viewers. Multiple components of the first-hand accounts of this story told by close people of David tend to display a condemning tone against Dr. Money. The reconstructed scenes from original transcripts and accounts told by the twins layer another negative light on Dr. Money, portraying him as a perverted doctor only interested in proving his hypothesis correct. On the other side, the film included interviews from Dr. Richard Green, who was one of Dr. Money’s students. In providing a perspective as a fellow physician, he strongly defended Dr. Money’s work and claimed that if he were to be in that exact situation at the time, he would personally make the same choices as Dr. Money. While a lot of the sources used in this film are potentially biased, the overall tone of this documentary is sympathetic to the Reimers and villainizing Dr. Money. This effectively emphasizes the message of the film on how scientists should not hide behind the name of science and fail to regard the human costs involved in these studies. Hsim2 (talk) 13:55, 7 April 2020 (UTC)Hajin Sim

Multiple sources are used throughout this documentary in an attempt to paint a clear picture of the story of the Reimer family and Dr. Money. Primarily, the documentary relies on reenactments of the various stages in the lives of the twins and their relation with Dr. Money. Complementary to this, the documentary uses existing transcripts so as to keep the story as realistic as possible. However, the documentary made it clear that not all of the information portrayed in the film was based on these existing transcriptions. More specifically, using the twins as sources, the documentary highlighted drastic measures taken by Dr. Money when he demanded the twins to take off their clothes and position themselves in a way for him to photograph their physical differences. Such a recollection no doubt evokes a tone of condemnation and a sense of vulnerability and sympathy for the young twins, who likely felt powerless without their parents there to protect them. Ultimately, the voice recordings of the interviews with the twins and Dr. Money provide the surface level context, yet only when combined with the interviews of David himself do the viewers see the whole picture. On the other hand, the documentary also utilizes interviews of Dr. Green--one of Dr. Money’s students--in order to get a more current medical perspective on the methods used by Dr. Money. Dr. Green came to the conclusion that, if he were in the exact shoes as Dr. Money at the time, he would have made the same exact decisions. This I felt was counterintuitive to the goal of the documentary; instead they should have interviewed another doctor who did not have a personal relationship with Dr. Money so as to provide a neutral perspective. Tuphoff1 (talk) 00:27, 8 April 2020 (UTC)Trystan Uphoff

The documentary “Dr. Money and the Boy with No Penis” had utilized sources that had affected the tone and message of the film. One of these impacts that the sources added to the film is that addition of a feeling of sadness and tragedy towards David. What really adds to this feeling of sadness is the use of David’s mother and wife’s statements. Not only that, but the documentary also tends to use reenactments of different scenes during the twins’ lives and their relation to Dr. Money. These reenactments, especially the one where Dr. Money makes the twins undress and he takes pictures to capture their physical differences, forces the audience to feel sorry for the twins and sympathize with how vulnerable they are. This scene also serves to picture Dr. Money in a different aspect as more of a villain in the story rather than a doctor. However, the documentary does well in trying not to stick to one side of the story. This is seen when Dr. Green is interviewed and each time, he defends his old teacher in a way that makes us as viewers, question internally if Dr. Money really is as bad as we may have thought or perhaps someone else is to blame. Overall, the documentary uses different sources with different viewpoints on this twisted story that greatly affect the tone and message of the film, causing it to not be so clear that there is only one person to blame for the unfortunate events that occurred. Joseph Oldam (talk) 01:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

In the documentary, the sources had an integral impact on the tone and message of the film. To me, they had made the documentary more grave, because the sources were often first-hand quotes, which the watcher was constantly reminded of by the narrator. The use of mostly direct transcripts translated into reenactments shows that these situations were real, and makes you take them a lot more seriously. It makes the documentary portray the message that this research was unethical, and somehow bringing in Dr. Money's supporters as a source played against Dr. Money, because one consistent source, Prof Richard Green, was used (apart from a few exceptions). This source had brought up good points, but seemed to have a more condescending tone which could cause the watcher to be more guarded against what Green says. Plus, the downplay of David's recollection of his experience with Dr. Money by Prof Green could be heavily taken as cold, scientific, and lacking empathy. Going off of the recollection scenes, because of the nature and seriousness in a suggestion of sexual harassment, the documentary was made more impactful by bringing in the twins' emotional interviews and their backstory, especially as Brian had committed suicide soon after. Especially with the graphics, effects, and music in the documentary, Dr. Money was portrayed more as the antagonist to the family, really only working to prove his theory without care for his subjects. From this, it can be shown that the bias of the documentary is geared more towards David's family, and the use of a more emotional and "human" side for the Reimer family tends to make the watcher sympathize more with them.Backbrush (talk) 15:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

The film makes its message abundantly clear in its opening sequence by informing the audience, “this is a cautionary tale about how science, in a bit to prove a beautiful theory, can ignore the ugly facts.” Accordingly, the sources selected reflect this purpose. Used most extensively is personal testimony, specifically that of David Reimer and his family. The effect of this is two-fold. It connects us personally to the story, and it separates the story from the science behind it. The film is not about the experiment so much as it is about the people, and the broader ideas behind them. It draws clear lines between good and evil, identifying the Reimers as the victims, and Dr. Money and his science as the villians. The film relies heavily on the pathos of the plight of the Reimer family. When we see David’s mother grieve, we feel her sorrow, when we see David’s anger, we feel our own blood rise. To keep its distance from the objective, intentionally colorless tone of academia, the film uses scientific evidence, in the form of transcripts and publications, only to contextualize the human story. The transcripts highlighted are the most dramatic, uncomfortable, or otherwise deploring moments of Dr. Money’s time with the twins. The publications are only used to show the difference between Dr. Money’s account and the family’s experiences. Each source used in the film is carefully selected and curated so as to tell “the cautionary tale” of science gone wrong. Ewhiteh6 (talk) 21:34, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

In the film, “Dr. Money and the Boy with No Penis,” various sources are utilized to depict the tone and message of the film. Overall, it seemed as if the film wanted to give off a proper representation of the story, highlighting the importance of the events and aiming to represent the story in its entirety. This was successfully done with the use of live interviews as it portrayed the perspectives of the people involved without any modification. For instance, the interviews with David Riemer were incredibly useful in portraying his pain and the seriousness of the situation. The film provided various sides of the story, highlighting their intention to disseminate information to the public. They included interviews of Professor Richard Green, a student of Dr. Money who vouched for his credibility and work in an effort to balance out the overall information provided. The film also incorporated reconstructions of events that occurred. This established the film’s dramatization of the situation, which helps to captivate audiences and “relive” the moments. This was a good way to help the audience visualize the events, but at times it may be misleading, as the scene depicting Dr. Money taking photos of the naked twins wasn’t proven to be factual. Included in the film was also old recordings of Dr. Money, which helped establish his character and gave credibility to the reconstructed version of him as well. Overall, the sources utilized were able to effectively capture the dramatic tone and intensity behind their comprehensive look at the case with Dr. Money and the Riemers. Joseph0618 (talk) 01:01, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

The message of the film Dr. Money and the Boy with No Penis was influenced heavily by the sources that were included in it. By reconstructing the interviews between Dr. Money and both the children as well as those between Dr. Money and just David Reimer, the audience was able to see the “distress” experienced by the children. Though there is no evidence of the photographs available, talking to children about genitalia and attempting to persuade a child into having a reconstruction surgery is emotionally disturbing. In addition, using footage of David Riemer as an adult helped explain how his feelings about everything as well as his negativity towards Dr. Money after what he had put David and his brother through. On the flip side, the discussions/statements from Professor Richard Green, one of Dr. Money’s students, showed the views of Dr. Money’s supporters. He expressed his thoughts that Dr. Money didn’t do anything wrong as discussing these topics with the children rather common at the time. He describes Dr. Money as “brilliant” and describes a possible alternative explanation for the memories the Reimer brothers hold about their sessions with him: false memory syndrome in which events from one’s childhood can get misremembered or elaborated. Between the words of Professor Green and those of David Reiner as an adult and in the reconstructed interviews, the audience is given two contradicting views of what happened in this story. In one, the Professor is defending Dr. Money while in the other, David Reiner and the interviews are putting his methods and his work down. Adevire1 (talk) 03:56, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

In the Dr. Money film, I noticed two main sources used: dramatic reconstructions and interviews. These two styles of sources contributed to a very solemn and sympathetic tone that truly expressed the tragedy that the film documented. First, I felt the dramatic reconstructions did an excellent job allowing the viewer to visualize what actually happened between Dr. Money and the twins. Having access to most of the actual transcripts of the conversations between them made the case and the film much more realistic. Additionally, being able to see the actors speak to each other and almost put faces to the names evoked a lot of empathy and helped me realize the injustices the children went through. The interviews also were impactful in a similar way to the reenactments, but were even more powerful. I felt they contributed the most to the sympathetic tone of the film. For example, hearing from David’s parents provided the viewer with somber explanations of the background of the case and really grounded it in reality. The interviews with David’s friend and his wife brought some light-hearted anecdotes, as they spoke about the turning point in his life where he was happy. There was another type of interview present in the film, however, that involved testimonies from supporters of Dr. Money. Because these were very few in number, I thought that they provided a very weak contrast and were unconvincing in their attempt to justify Dr. Money’s inappropriate and exploitative actions. Overall, the film drew strong sympathy from the viewer for David and the struggles in his life that ultimately contributed to his suicide. --A.Hausker (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

The filming of "Dr. Money and The Boy with No Penis" utilizes the interviews of parties with two different perspectives deliberating on whether or not the experiment conducted by Dr. Money was justified. Whereas David Reimer's family describe his story as one of great tragedy and injustice, Dr. Money's student, Richard Green, claims that the methods used by Dr. Money were normal for the time and that he probably would have done the same in his position. However, between the emotional anecdotes and the childhood reenactments, I was ultimately persuaded to believe (probably like most viewers of this program) that Dr. Money's study was both terrifying and shameful. Not only did he publish claims based on cherry-picked evidence that he knew was not necessarily true to the scientific community and thereby impact who-knows-how-many psychologists, he also caused a lifelong cascade of trauma for David that resulted in death. The use of the sources, which were all quite pertinent to those that were involved in the experiment, is good in that it presents to the readers multiple interpretations of what happened. If there were only the interviews from the family, then the audience would see this case as cut and dried. However, as is in most studies violating some form of human morality, those conducting the experiment and other parties as well did not believe that they were doing wrong. It is therefore important that educational programs (despite still being in part for entertainment) address the greyness of the past in order to shine some light onto how we should proceed in the future. All in all, I believe that the film could have selected more diverse sources, especially in respect to those who supported Dr. Money or neutral professionals that could give their opinions, but I nonetheless appreciate BBC's attempted objectivity, as one might call it. Jsun72 (talk) 20:24, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

The film “Dr. Money and The Boy with No Penis” uses two kinds of sources: interviews, and reconstructions of scenes. The reconstructions were dramatic, and allows viewers to visualize and get a sense of what it would feel like to be in the position of David Reimer or his parents. The interviews allow the viewer to feel the impact of the surgery and other events. I felt that the interviews with his mother were especially impactful, as they showed her emotions as well as the fact that her and David’s father were in a spot where they didn’t know the best way forward. The interviews, along with the reconstructed scenes, create sympathy for the Reimers. I think the interviews show the perspectives of people involved in this story as they really are. The reconstructed scenes, however, might not be so accurate. They definitely make the viewer sympathetic towards David, but they also have the possibility of exaggerating David’s perspective. In order to provide the other side of the story, there are interviews with Dr. Richard Green, a student of Dr. Money. This was a good thing to include, because any recollection of such events should have both sides of the story being represented, so as to not heavily influence viewers one way or another. To this end, I think the use of dramatized reconstructions is not good, because they may portray events in ways they did not actually occur.Rbachan1 (talk) 21:29, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

To tell the story of Dr. Money and the Reimer family, BBC Horizon primarily used interviews and dramatic reconstructions. The use of these types of sources emphasized the tragedy behind Bruce’s story, which increased feelings of sympathy and sadness for the Reimer family as well as feelings of anger towards Dr. Money. Specifically, I thought the interviews had a powerful role in humanizing the Reimer family and opened opportunities for the audience to resonate with the heavy emotions felt by the Reimer family after events like Bruce’s suicide. For example, when Janet was describing her shock after receiving news of the malpractice on Bruce, I personally felt some of that shock as well from her dreary expressions and somber voice. On the other hand, I thought the reenactments also did a great job to elicit emotions, but they also served to continue Bruce’s story in an engaging way. Through the reenactments, I was able to visualize what happened between Dr. Money and the Reimer family, and was thus able to better connect with the family. The increased connection with the family from the dramatic reenactments attributed to a more engaging documentary, which I assume would be BBC’s main goal. Overall, I thought BBC’s use of interviews and dramatic reconstructions served its message well of revealing Bruce’s story in a factual yet emotional manner. (Jordan Jiao) Jordanj140 (talk) 00:18, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

In the film, Dr. Money and the Boy with no penis, two main viewpoints are presented: one from the view of the scientists and Dr. Money, and the family’s perspective. The testimonies presented from the family, particularly the mother really outlined the tragic outcomes and underlying blind hope that lead to the eventual suicide of David Reimer. The film itself gives the opposition, Dr. Money and Richard Green, a voice; however, their testimony and quotes are used to juxtapose their very obsessive, scientific, objective outlook on the theory of gender neutrality with the tragic narrative presented by David Reimer and his mother’s testimony. Due to this juxtaposition by presenting these two sides, the film really emphasizes this cautionary tone towards pursuing scientific endeavors. I say this because Money and Green appeared very impersonal towards the negative outcomes of the experiment; they tried to justify all of their actions by assuming what was “best” for David/Brenda. In particular, Green’s ending quote justifying a female sex change as “it would have prevented David’s suicide” really emphasized this underlying nonchalant lack of “morality” (in a sense). Again, the fact that this testimony is all retrospective brings this lingering sense of regret from the family that is implied to be absent from Green and Money’s perspective as it pertains to carrying out this experiment. In some aspects, the film does suffer from a loss in tension and serious tones when using David’s testimony as he undermined and downplayed some of these stressful events. Dlu16 (talk) 00:29, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Throughout the film, appearances by various individuals pertaining to the story contributed to the message, as they presented different sides of the account. However, with the story and sources framed from the Reimer’s perspective, the film makes viewers empathize with David’s story. The part of the account given by the twins without the same transcripts to back up the claims as in the other areas portrays the contrasting ways the sources are used to the advantage of the film’s message. Though Dr. Money had declined to appear in the documentary, his former student, Dr. Green, did and provided the sole defense for his mentor’s actions. As for the twins’ account of the horrific, abusive events that unfolded in Dr. Money’s office, Dr. Green merely dismissed it as “false memory syndrome,” a blatant disregard for even the possibility that such events had indeed taken place, which enraged viewers and further drew them to empathize with the Reimers. Additionally, the juxtaposition of the Reimer’s home life experience throughout the ordeal with Dr. Money’s research taking off in the medical world further reinforces the overly ambitious and selfishness of the psychologist. As it is a documentary, the film could have incorporated more sources from Dr. Money’s perspective and the narration should have been more neutral, as it continuously described the story as “beautiful,” rather than simply stating it as an experiment by the psychologist.Ewu19 (talk) 01:31, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

The film Dr. Money and the Boy With No Penis provides an interesting story about a pair of twins and a psychologist named Dr. Money. It essentially encapsulates the life story of one of the twins, named David Reimer and his psychologist's influence on it. The morally questionable nature of Dr. Money's experiment was one of the highlights of the film and put on display the consequences of science forsaking humanity for the sake of progress. In this case, it was Dr. Money proving the plausibility of the nature vs. nurture theory, arguably leading to the deaths of both twins. The film was shot in recreated scenes of David and Dr. Money's interactions using the actual transcripts and through anecdotal interviews with David, David's mother, and on occasion, David's twin brother. The audience can be sure of the accuracy of the dramatic recreations, as actual transcripts were used to record the scenes. The uncertainty comes from the accounts of David and the other psychologist present in the film. Basing segments of a documentary on word of mouth as opposed to hard facts provided by the transcripts casts a shadow of a doubt on anything the interviewed say. Additionally, the film creates a sense of tension and stress the farther the viewer is into it, most specifically the scene where Dr. Money begins to take "drastic measures." Sebawmm24 (talk) 02:37, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

The story presented in the film "Dr. Money and the Boy with No Penis” is expressed mainly through two perspectives: the view of the Reimer family and the view of Dr. Money as told by one of his students. The use of these two sources positively affected the overall portrayal of the film in some ways and negatively in others. Focusing on the positive impacts first, I would say that both sides of the story were represented. Viewers got to hear the thought processes of both the parents and Dr. Money in making the decisions they did. Although I wouldn’t say this was done in a neutral manner – Dr. Money was definitely pinned as the villain. Regardless, the producers had solid reasoning in choosing to tell the story mainly through these two perspectives. Particularly, the family’s perspective gives a very raw, intimate view of their feelings that I don’t think could have been portrayed as accurately by any other source. Conversely, the negative impact of using mainly these two sources is that the perspective of others who were involved in or observed the story weren’t properly represented. Naturally, both parties were very defensive of their thoughts, so a few other perspectives would have been clarifying in exposing any exaggerations or dramatizations of the story as portrayed by the family or Dr. Money. However, since these interactions were initially kept very private, I can understand why the producers drew heavily on the perspectives of those most immediately involved. SadieAbboud (talk) 03:11, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

“Dr. Money and the Boy with No Penis” illustrates the consequences experienced by people as a result of expanding scientific knowledge. In an effort to illustrate the story of David Reimer and Dr. John Money’s work, this film relied on multiple sources. This included using dramatic reconstruction of different events based on transcripts and having primary sources interview with the Horizon cast,consisting of Reimer’s family and friends. The combination of reconstruction and interviews allowed viewers to watch this film with a more nuanced understanding of Reimer’s emotions amidst Dr. Money’s research. Not only were viewers able to empathize and “walk in Reimer’s shoes” when watching the reconstructed scenes, they could observe the lengths scientists went through to create progress in complex topics such as gender identity. These sources allowed viewers to establish a connection with Reimer through both primary interviews and reenactments of his experiences, while Dr.Green aggressively defended Dr. Money's work. The contradictory views on Dr. Money's work contributed to Reimer’s tone of resentment and disappointment in every conversation related to Dr. Money and his experiment. One could argue that focusing on this controversial experiment through Reimer’s experiences is heavily biased and takes away from Dr. Money’s overall research goals. Although the combination of reconstruction and interviews were crucial to establish an emotional connection, I think including multiple academic experts and their opinions would provide a more holistic view of this event. Overall, the presented interviews and reenactments cause viewers to be left horrified by the questionable decisions of Dr.Money. Fatehazannath (talk) 03:28, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

In the film “Dr. Money and the Boy with No Penis”, sources arguing for both sides of the story were used, however the main focus was on one. Since it’s obvious that the purpose of this film was to expose the horrible experiment that Dr. Money performed which lacked all regard for moral implications, the sources chosen were appropriate and used for the better. The personal accounts of David Reimer were quite moving and were very apparently there to sway the viewer towards the opinion that what Dr. Money did was wrong and unethical. It was particularly saddening to me at the very end of the film when David asked if it would take for him to kill himself to get his point across, which he ultimately did. The chosen interview clips that depicted Dr. Money as almost a sexual predator, and a man who only cared about proving his theory right, only reinforced those negative depictions of him. From the re-enactments of the childhood interviews, to what was said by David’s mother, the tone of the film is very somber and indeed trying to garner sympathy for the Reiner family. Then, having Dr. Green juxtapose all the negative opinions about Dr. Money and provide some reasoning behind his actions, gives the audience the sort of ‘opposing side’ view that is needed it persuasive arguments. However, the more Dr. Green tried to defend Dr. Money’s actions, the more I felt I leaned away from the logical side and towards the emotional side. Reneeliiu (talk) 03:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

In the documentary, Dr. Money and the Boy with No Penis, a combination of personal interviews and event reenactments are used to tell the story of David Reimer and Dr. Money’s study of gender neutrality. Both types of sources create a somber tone for the story but contribute differently to our perception of the involved parties. The interviews with David and Brian Reimer, their parents, and David’s partner made viewers empathize and understand that an individual’s struggle with their identity has both personal and social implications. Particularly, David’s recount of Dr. Money’s interviews, commands to undress and view intimate photographs of women giving birth, leaves viewers uncomfortable at the thought of the abuse 7-year old Brenda Reimer experienced. Interviews with Janet Reimer evoke a similar feeling of sorrow and sympathy. Viewers can grieve for a mother who wanted to help her child but unknowingly inflicts her child with a gender identity crisis. Equally as powerful as the interviews were the reenactments of Dr. Money’s interviews with David. These reenactments create a somber tone to represent the psychotic actions of Dr. Money. While some of the reenactments were based on the original transcripts, others were only based upon David’s memory. However, these sexual events may have been elaborated in David’s memory according to Professor Green. Thus, the sorrowful tone of the video is opposed to the supportive tone of Professor Green and Fausto-Sterling who not only supported Dr. Money’s research but argue that they would have done the same in his position. 2601:89:C501:CB00:E53E:A283:DB09:EC7F (talk) 04:17, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

The film “Dr. Money and the Boy with No Penis” included interviews with David, his mom and dad, Jane, and Harold. These interviews were really helpful in conveying the trauma and feelings of helplessness and pain that David and his family faced from Dr. Money’s experiment. Most of what is recorded from this experiment is from Dr. Money’s recordings, notes, and papers. The interviews present the behind-the-scenes of the experiment and gives the chance for the David and his family’s unfiltered-perspective to be heard. The film also used primary sources of Dr. Money’s notes and tapes of his interactions with David and his brother to reenact the scenes that might have took place. The reenactment displayed Dr. Money as controlling, mean, and unethical and displayed David as a vulnerable victim of abuse. The film included brief inserts of the interview with Dr. Richard Green who defends Dr. Money, arguing that if he was in the same circumstances he would not have done otherwise. I personally think Dr. Green’s interview was not effective in telling Dr. Money’s perspective of the experiment. I wished Dr. Green would have elaborated more on why he thinks Dr. Money’s experiment is justifiable. I think the film would have been more balanced if it included more of Dr. Money’s perspective. Overall, the use of the sources in the film conveys the unethical practices of Dr. Money’s experiment that led to the tragedy of the Riemer twins. Lyang82 (talk) 04:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)Leya Yang

The film "Dr. Money and the Boy with No Penis" utilized a mix between primary source transcripts and observation from the meetings between Dr. Money and the twins, along with first hand interviews with the family and other psychologists. I feel the most important aspect of the documentary was having the interviews with the family because it gave insight into the trauma many of the members faced on daily basis. Comparing the sources that served to back Dr. Money and the interviews from the family created a contradicting feel to the documentary. When interviewing the colleagues of Dr. Money and his specific notes, it was meant to show him in good light and not discredit him or his techniques when treating the twins. One of the interviewed colleagues even went as far as saying that Dr. Money was right in his treatment at the time for Brenda. However, the opposite is true when the twins were interviewed and shared their thoughts regarding Dr. Money. Both went in depth about the trauma they faced when they had to go in for meetings. David, especially provided insight into some abusive ways Dr. Money had gone about his treatment methods. Ultimately, the allegations underwent a back and forth between the two sides. Overall, using the variety of sources from both sides provided a rift in how the twins were treated during their time with Dr. Money. However, using the different sources did provide insight for the viewers into each side of the story. Cpantelis1 (talk) 15:28, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

The documentary “Dr. Money and the Boy with no Penis” relies heavily on anecdotal interview. The film’s strong reliance on testimony from David and his family, along with dramatic reenactments, make it seems like the goal is for one to sympathize with David and be disgusted by Dr. Money. However, the narrator’s point of view seems to come into conflict with that of David’s story, evidenced by when the narrator called Dr. Money’s gender theory “brilliant.” Conflicting viewpoints on the case and biases often make it difficult to tell what the overall message/goal of the documentary was. One source which was lacking was that of Dr. Money. While the outcome of this story is no doubt tragic and some alleged actions Dr. Money took are criminal by today’s standards, Dr. Money was unable to defend any of his actions, which brings into question this entire story. Rather than interviewing a doctor who clearly admired Dr. Money, I would be interested in hearing Dr. Money’s defense so that equal coverage can be given to all members involved. I was intrigued by the psychologist who talked about the false memory paradigm. According to him, it is entirely possible that David and his brother warped Dr. Money in their mind to fit with the childhood trauma they undoubtedly experienced. Overall, the film presents a tragic story concerning gender theory, but its occasional over-dramatization, confusing perspectives, and inequitable coverage make it difficult for me to embrace the intended goal of this film. Zeeshaan Chunawala (talk) 15:58, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

The film describing tDr. Money and the effects of his gender identity experimentation on two twins presents both sides of the story. These two sides have great contrast, with disagreements between “what a psychologist should have done” and “what was unethical and immoral treatment of human subjects”. David’s story of Dr. Money’s experiments, combined with the transcripts that were accessible, shows a corrupt malpractice and unwarranted treatment methods that abused the two children. This creates a harsh and infuriated tone directed at Dr. Money, and would eventually have an effect on his reputation as a scientist. A counterargument from professors, including one who worked with Dr. Money, is also included in the film. This side of the argument is lesser than its opposition, but is able to add to the message of the film. One of the main points the film tries to convey is the differing opinions of what the scientists thought was the right thing to do, and the mental effect it had on the family involved. Using a variety of sources helped diminish possible bias, but also somewhat neutralized the tone. Whenever the tone was mainly critical of Dr. Money, a professor would defend his actions or make his choices seem less controversial. The professor who worked with Dr. Money even claimed that David’s memories could have been exaggerated. This creating a questioning and somewhat skeptical tone in the film. Despite this, ending the film with the emotional and serious tone created by David’s response to the issue once again makes the viewer question whose side they should take on this issue. MKichar1 (talk) 16:22, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Dr. Money and the Boy with No Penis shapes its tone and message through transcription-based dramatic reconstructions, real interviews from multiple people and times, and connecting narration. The dramatic reconstructions offer a visualization of transcribed sessions between David, Brian, and Dr. Money to give the feeling the viewer is seeing it in person: the sexually-traumatic discussions and behaviors, the discomfort and distress David faced, and the contrasting sterile attitude of Dr. Money. These reconstructions are interspersed with interviews from many people, including emotional recollections from Janet, straightforward reflections from David, and frank defense from Dr. Money’s colleague, Dr. Green. David’s reflections offer a confirmation of the complex negative emotions he felt from his sessions with Dr. Money, reenacted right before or after his interview. Coupled with the emotional responses from his mother, Dr. Green’s support of Dr. Money’s actions for following “science at the time” appears cold and uncaring. Because he stood behind Dr. Money’s actions, Dr. Green’s attitude becomes associated with that of Dr. Money’s, further reinforced by the dramatic reconstructions of Dr. Money’s attitude during his sessions with David. Because the transcriptions are only written, timing and tone of the participants are unclear. Dr. Green’s joint claims with Dr. Money that David misremembered sexual experiences more dramatically become a bit discredited with the narration stating immediately afterward that regardless, “Brenda” grew up troubled. I personally believe the results of Dr. Money’s experiment should be judged by the responses of the people involved, David, his twin brother, his mother, etc. Regardless of the accuracy of David’s recollections, it is the impact of what was done that matters most, and it is undeniable that David went through great suffering. CellFay (talk) 17:41, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Dr. Money and the Boy with No Penis used various sources that made it effective in communicating the tragic event that had happened with the Reimer family, including first-person accounts, manuscripts, and interviews. Most prominently, I believe that the interviews drove the film forward and reminded us time to time that this is a real event that had happened, not just a story. There were different types of interviews in the film, mainly: interviews of the people affected themselves (David and Brian Reimer), interviews of the other family members and related friend and wife, and interviews of the psychologist's side (Dr. Money's student). The interviews of David and Brian brought a foreboding, tragic tone to the film, especially knowing or realizing later than both brothers would end their own lives. While the interview of Dr. Money's student attempted to bring about logic and the mentality of science in the good for everyone, it failed to instill that tone due to the effects of the other interviews on the viewers of the film. It made the psychologist's side seem cold, brutal, and aggressive, part of which may be true, but the interviews definitely made it more so. The recreations of the scenes from Dr. Money's office, although some not based on actual scripts, seemed realistic, thanks to the narration that had built the story up to that moment. The film successfully built Dr. Money's persona like a typical villainous character whose good intentions turned horrible. While I'm not saying that what Dr. Money did should be justified, I do believe the various sources used by the film had an effect on making it seem black and white, good vs bad. Gkim70 (talk) 18:13, 10 April 2020 (UTC)Gkim70

A harrowing tale of gender identity and the lengths a doctor will go to gain notoriety, the film Dr. Money and the Boy with No Penis draws its sources from Dr. Money's records, interviews with David, Brian, the parents, and Dr. Money's student Dr. Green. The interweaving of the source's differing perspectives created an ambivalent tone disrespectful to the harm caused to David, making the viewer uneasy and anxious in considering Dr. Money's actions anything other than manipulative and power seeking, eliciting a message of warning. Throughout most the film, the conflicting ideas bounce the audience back and forth: Dr. Money's, the brilliant psychologist paving the way for theories of gender identity, vs. David, his failed experiment, and the destructive repercussions to David's family. Dr. Green defends Dr. Money as doing his best in terms of the science of the day and proving a groundbreaking theory, while David and his family describe his manipulative, molesting, and attempts at forcing his ideology upon David and Brian. This conflicting tone perpetuates most the film creating a confusing and vague message, yet it is saved by the final revelations of Brian then David's suicide, their disturbed mental status derived from their troubled childhood, and Doctor Money's steadfast support of his theories - representing his experiment on David as a success. Both these revelations are truly disturbing, not even Dr. Green's final lobbying able to save Dr. Money in the eyes of the audience, leaving them with a plethora of warnings against doctor's seeking notoriety, experimenting on the psyche of children, the list goes on. Conradsay (talk) 18:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

The sources used in the film "Dr. Money and the Boy with No Penis," affected the tone and message of the film by shedding more personal light on the experiments conducted by Dr. Money on David and Brian Reimer. The movie incorporates personal interviews with the parents of the twins, accounts from David, and reenactments to signify the personal complications faced by David, who was raised as Brenda. I think these sources serve to highlight the emotional and physical tragedies faced by both David and his family as a result of his blurred gender identity growing up and the difficulty faced by his parents in deciding to raise their child the opposite sex. These sources also characterize Dr. Money as traumatizing David and Brian, especially through the use of transcribed audio and reenactments, offering insight into the stress faced by David and Brian in scenes such as when they were subject to stripping off their clothes and having their genitalia photographed. Despite these sources contributing to the overwhelming sense of sympathy for David and his family and the dramatization of events, Professor Richard Green, one of Dr. Money’s students, offers a stark account of Money’s treatment towards the twins and validates Money’s credibility and nature of the experiment. Green mostly states factual claims about Money’s work and contends that the twins suffer from false memory syndrome, causing them to think of Money negatively. These different sources allow viewers to witness the stark contrast in the explanation of Dr. Money’s research study but are able to feel the emotion and pain caused to the Reimer family. Pnovello (talk) 20:18, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

The documentary “Dr. Money and the Boy with No Penis” utilizes a few different sources to tell the story of David Reimer and Dr. John Money, including accounts from David as told by his parents, information from Dr. Money’s works, and in-person recollections from individuals close to both the Reimer family and Dr. Money. However, the documentary ultimately focuses on the primary sources, the firsthand accounts from these individuals, to create a narrative that is largely empathetic towards David Reimer family and conversely condemns Dr. Money for his practices. Throughout the film, Reimer’s mother is heavily relied on to convey the trauma and depression David and his family endured, as a result of the decision Dr. Money made. The sorrow from this personal recollection sways the audience to take the Reimer family’s side in this story. The documentary also uses these accounts to reenact certain portions of David Reimer and Dr. Money’s interactions and to give more detail on the theory behind Dr. Money’s practices, once again trying to paint the picture of a doctor who was less concerned with the wellbeing of his patient and simply trying to promote his views on gender identity by experimenting on Reimer. Even the source close to Dr. Money, his former student, when interviewed, defended Dr. Money’s practices only, and did not necessarily speak about the greater ethical concern that the documentary attempts to address. Together, these primary sources create a documentary that is set on ultimately villainizing Dr. Money and judging by the comments on the documentary by other viewers, this message was achieved in full. Nhooloo1 (talk) 23:04, 10 April 2020 (EST)Nhooloo1