Its just an interesting choice, because ultimately this doctor is a nothing, his reach is small, his crime a trajedy, only because it takes more ot make a statistic.

what about dr money? he condemned those with ambiguous genetalia to be raised automatically arbitrarily female. his crowning glory was a twin in which a dr accidentally used the wrong setting on a cauterizer to circumcize the child. they then basically tried to convince the child that he was a she and that she had a medical condition that would require hormone treatments.

money crowned this glory as a success totally ignoring the evidence in front of him. his work and such has left a lasting scar as it was used by feminist theorists to ‘prove’ that sexual orientation and such was totally nature not nuture helping to confirm the concept of tabula rasa.

here is moneys obit from the times
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/11/us/11money.html?n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/People/C/Carey,%20Benedict

Early in his career, Dr. Money coined the terms “gender identity,” to describe the internal experience of sexuality, and “gender role,” to refer to social expectations of male and female behavior. The two concepts still drive much research into sexual identity.

In 1973, Dr. Money reported that the child, who had been castrated and furnished with dresses and dolls, was doing well, and had accepted the new identity as a girl.

But in a 1997 report in The Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, a pair of researchers provided a detailed follow-up: the boy had repudiated his female identity at age 14 and had even had surgery to reconstruct his genitals.

In 2004, the man who had reclaimed his sex committed suicide. His family blamed the effort to change his sex.

here is slate on the man… (real name David Riemer)
http://www.slate.com/id/2101678/

but wait.. there is more…
how about Kinsey? ever read his work on the child as a sexual being?
Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (p. 180) he mentions orgasms of a five month old.

Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences the Red Queen and the Grand Scheme
http://www.amazon.com/Kinsey-Crimes-Consequences-Queen-Scheme/dp/0966662407

however anyone can read kinsey himself and one only needs to figure out how did he get his results to know what he did.

Kinsey’s Kids
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/crouse200311140923.asp
The most-egregious aspect of Kinsey’s methodology was his use of children as subjects. He used over 300 children, including babies, in his studies of female orgasm. Some critics legitimately accuse Kinsey of child molestation. The American Board of Pediatrics argues that his data are not the norm; that he used unnatural stimulation and, even then, did not prove his point. Using pedophiles, he charted the length and frequency of infants’ and children’s supposed “orgasms.” When questioned about how he knew whether a baby had an orgasm, he said he measured by their crying. Five of these infants and children were subjects for months or years, and it is reported that much of the “testing” occurred when they were either strapped or held down. There is no evidence that the institute followed up to see whether they were adversely affected as a result of this sexual abuse/experimentation. We do know that today many of the adult “subjects” refuse to discuss Kinsey’s research; some 50 years later, they don’t even want to talk about the horrific experience.

both these doctors though have a direct connection to the hypocracy and ideology connected to men, and both have done far more harm… and i think are better examples… one can search online and see how they are still quoted..

but you can also check out the new knowlege that margret meades work was sham too… (franz boas turned out to be a spy thanks to venona transcripts).

depending on who you read…you get a different answer… however the best research going over the notes and with interviews in a recent book cover that she knew and was complicit… those that cant get around the falseness try to pass it off as a culture misunderstanding and was all a practical joke that everyone knew was a joke but margret… though her relationship with boas who was fronting, tends to make one lean to her servicing an agenda.

Derek Freeman, in Margaret Mead and Samoa: The Making and Unmaking of an Anthropological Myth, is the detailed book.. but you can find lefitsts and useful idiots all over making apologetics and reasonableness and forgiveness only for such convincing. however the one thing they all do, is not deny that her work was a sham.
by the way… she was mostly discredited by her own notes… not just the comments of a few native girls and such.

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:epF1zm2-hCsJ:ambrosevideo.com/resources/docs/262.PDF+%22margaret+meade%22+%22betty+friedan%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us

will show you that they still have the same influence and that the lying was and is ignored. i doubt given all the other content in that teachers guide, that they are going to tell the truth about meade, and others she worked with. .
and who can forget Inevitability of Patriarchy, by Margaret Meade

given what we know now, how do we regard the influence that now has its own momentum even though there is nothing holding it up except those keeping the work of these people going to serve ideological purposes.

bet if i looked.. i could find other examples… though most of the most egregious ones, whose results rippled far away from just their patients to shape policy, and such, are in the modern past 100 years. (with so many now doing bad science, its polluting the field and lowering its effectiveness to provide real answers and solutions for the public).

The uncaring, inhumanity of science must be tempered with the soul of religion before man is reduced to nothing but a pointless collection of chemicals that needs no “rights” and whose existence is placed at the mercy of an ideology that makes of him a mere plaything.

This is a major point that advocates of atheism miss — and it’s the same issue MND columnist Denyse O’Leary made in her article, “A Tongan asks, What would atheism offer that is better than Christianity?”

In the absence of a Universal Moral Purpose, scientists can justify the dehumanization of any “subject” — even a human one.