Horizon

They forgot about the boy that turned into girl year 2000. In 1965 in the Canadian town of Winnipeg, Janet Reimer gave birth to twin boys - Bruce and Brian. Six months later a bungled circumcision left Bruce without a penis. Based on a radical new theory of gender development the decision was taken to raise Bruce as a girl. In 1967 Bruce became Brenda and for the next three decades this case would be at the heart of one of the most controversial theories in the history of science.

The man behind this work was world-renowned psychologist Dr John Money. In the 1950s Dr Money developed a theory that revolutionised our understanding of gender. Money believed that what he called our 'gender identity' - what makes us think, feel and behave as boys or girls - is not fully formed by the time of birth. While we may have some innate sense of being a boy or a girl, for up to two years after birth, our brains are, in effect, malleable and we can be taught to grow up as either a boy or girl by how we are raised - by the toys we are given, the guidance we receive from adults and the clothes we are given to wear. This became known as the 'theory of gender neutrality'.

Dr Money had reached this conclusion by working with a rare group of individuals born with ambiguous genitals - people known as intersexuals or hermaphrodites. Dr Money studied groups of intersex children, and concluded that these children could be brought up as either boys or girls regardless of their genetic or physical sex. The legacy of Dr Money's work was a revolution in the treatment of 'intersex'. From the 1950s to the present day many intersex children born with a tiny penis are reassigned as female even if they are actually genetically male.

But not everyone agreed with Dr Money's theories. Since the 1950s a small group of scientists including Dr Milton Diamond have questioned John Money's work. Diamond believed that our sex is already defined in our brains before we are born. He was convinced that the power of our genes and hormones was so strong that no amount of nurturing could override them.

But John Money's theory had already become firmly accepted around the world and the most dramatic confirmation of the theory came from one particular case - the case of Bruce Reimer.

Bruce was a normal boy, not an intersex child, and yet the decision was made to turn this boy who had lost his penis, into a girl. Under the guidance of Dr Money and his team at Johns Hopkins University this baby boy was surgically changed into a girl. After surgeons at Hopkins had castrated baby Bruce, he became baby Brenda. The family were instructed how to bring up Brenda as a normal little girl. According to Dr Money's theory she would grow up believing herself to be female and would go on to live a normal happy life as a woman. It seemed the ultimate test that nurture could override nature.? But it failed Brenda become Bruce it didn't work if you don't like dresses or dollies how could it work .

Horizon is a prism... it is mostly scientific, retaining much of its earliest episodes in its latter ones (although not quite the details, especially when it concerns physics).

Its episodes concerning astronomy, in particular, are usually awe-inspiring, and although Horizon attempts to add in musical details that add to the whole picture (thus sensationalizing it, effectively) it does mostly succeed in conveying both the artistic aspect of what science could achieve and the actual details themselves, although when tackling topics that are more philosophical, like infinity, sensationalism may take over with not as many details.

Horizon also tries to explain sociological issues that verge on the scientific, like the placebo effect and autism; with the former it does succeed (in my opinion) in conveying both the hard science and psychology behind it, despite involving some random people... whereas, with autism, it fails scientifically, and seems to involve random people for no apparent reason.

Generally, as long as Horizon concentrates on the science it succeeds, but when it ends up speculating on anecdotes it doesn't so well (even with the earlier episodes, individual scientists were interviewed but they didn't necessarily talk about themselves).

Science should be at the centre of any documentaries that attempt to tackle such questions (autism clearly involves neurotransmitters e.g. and yet none were mentioned). Anecdotes should be used only in rare, specific cases like Henry Molaison's.

Overall, though, Horizon does seem to present science well...