John Money and Transgenderism - Daily Mail article

[SallyLockheart]

Haven’t seen a thread on this - daily mail have written about John Money and his experiment on the Reimer twins - why he did it and the tragic outcomes plus what motivated him to do it. Details the abuse he made those children suffer and his “special interests”. Many on this board know about John Money but it’s good to see it out there on a popular site - DM continues its campaigning!

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12232885/The-spiritual-father-trans-movement-Dr-John-Money-twisted-experiment.html

He was trying to turn a boy with no genitals into a person who presents with feminine gender stereotypes.

He wasn't trying to turn a male into a female.

He was using reinforcement to change behaviour.

People on the thread are only critiquing the fact that the theory was not properly tested

That's not happening at all. But great derail of what would have been a really interesting thread.

Thank you for this recommendation

"I don't understand why anyone thinks (some) feminist support of this was surprising?" Because, as I said, the idea that a girl child is really just a castrated boy child is all sorts of Freudian mysogyny. (There are lots of feminist ideas I find surprisingly wrong-headed, the term covers a huge variety of schools of thought).

"This allowed him to attempt an experiment with the premise of creating a 'girl' presentation through reinforcement."
Which makes NO sense from a GC perspective. 'Girl' presentation is any presentation done by a young female.

David Reimer was male.

"People on the thread are only critiquing the fact that the theory was not properly tested."
The GC theory that males are not female, and vice versa?

I don't care who supported it.

Well maybe you should.

Because maybe thinking through why they did would be an important reflective exercise on where we are now and how we got here.

Dismissing Money as a one off evil paedophile and ignoring all the mainstream support he got is a nice comfortable framing but it misses so much of what went on in this story.

I'm not derailing it I'm discussing the topic.

There are academics and people who call themselves feminists who support queer theory, gender ideology, believe TWAW and are full on supportive of the current experimentation on children, so it's unsurprising there were some who supported Money.

However, all Money was doing was a hideous experiment worthy of Mengele on a child. He was doing it for his own perverted desires and trying to cover his true motives by claiming it was research/academic and useful idiots as per bought into it.

I don't get why you're bringing up methodology and that is all that is being questioned?

There is no methodology that could make this a proper experiment.

You'd have to take a newborn baby boy and alter their biology entirely to mimic that of a female in every way.

And then see whether or not they grew up with a 'gender identity' that made them still think they were a boy, or had been socialised right out of it, and therefore supported the gender critical viewpoint. (albeit one so extreme, that I don't recognise it).

Which is not possible, from the get go.

It's true we now have mainstream academics supporting queer theory.

It's also true mainstream academics supported Money.

Thinking about why many people will support what in hindsight is obviously child abuse is pretty important and relevant.

It's usually because it fits a theory they support. And children can be sacrificed to prove the theory.

"He was trying to turn a boy with no genitals into a person who presents with feminine gender stereotypes."

That's why he's being called the "spiritual father of transgenderism."

The important word there being stereotypes, feminists who are critical of gender are critical of those sexist stereotypes. Transgenderism is firmly rooted in sexist stereotypes.

Well yes. If anything, this ideology has shown that some academics (and doctors) will do almost any batshit, bonkers, harmful thing thing in the pursuit of what they perceive as progression or science.

If you were trying to create stereotyped behaviour how much biology would you need to change?

We're still discussing, albeit unachievable, methodology.

He wasn't trying to create a girl he was trying to create someone who acted like girls are taught to.

It's not just about baddie individuals it's about the theories that justify their actions.

Which is meaningless because girls and boys sometimes act exactly the same, and sometimes act totally differently.

As Barracker once pointed out, if a girl is displaying a male characteristic, or stereotype, then it's not a male characteristic or stereotype.

Yes, absolutely.
There are some limitations on all of us, one way or the other. And there are some things only one sex can do: pregnancy and childbirth.
After that, everything is in reach - with appropriate adaptations for us tiny humans
(4 feet 10 here)

I think what it says is that the basis of some gendered behaviour is biological. This is the "excuse" (as I see it) for having the pink and blue personality boxes.

But we also know that behaviour is plastic and the average differences between men and women are not great enough to justify rigid distinctions and divisions. Unlike with sex, in circumstances when it matters.

I think it's fair to say that even given all the choices, women do gravitate towards certain professions or jobs, men to others. Perhaps they always will. Women are on average more empathetic, men more aggressive. Men take more risks than women. Women take on the majority of childcare because child-bearing segues naturally into child-rearing. But none of that behaviour is inevitable. Fathers can be SAHDs and mothers can be the main breadwinner. Men can enjoy being carers and cleaners and women can dream of becoming astronauts. Fathers often learn to be more selfless and patient because of their children. Women gain self-esteem and confidence through participation in sport. Recognising what people usually do is perfectly compatible with not putting unjustified barriers in the way of people who want to do something different or who are naturally different. It's also very helpful to society to have both sexes involved in as many areas as possible to ensure that progress benefits us all, female and male.

Additionally, being a SAHM, or a teacher or nurse does not entail being meek or submissive or anything else. Girly girls play football and butch girls do dance or fashion. We can bring all our children up to be assertive, or kind, or ambitious, or confident or anything else. It may not take equally well in all individuals but that is because we all start off with different personalities.

Dismissing Money as a one off evil paedophile and ignoring all the mainstream support he got is a nice comfortable framing but it misses so much of what went on in this story.

Can I ask which feminists were supporting Money’s work and can you point me in the direction of something I can read about what they were saying at the time. Are you saying that feminists knew about this boy being castrated and raised “as a girl” and were supportive of such experimentation? If not what aspect of his work was it that they were supportive of? I’d love to read more about the attitudes of the time in relation to this but not sure where to look.

As Barracker once pointed out, if a girl is displaying a male characteristic, or stereotype, then it's not a male characteristic or stereotype

Well that doesn't make sense.

If someone who doesn't fit the stereotype displays a behaviour it doesn't mean a stereotype doesn't exist.

I thought we'd all agree that some behaviours are stereotypes which are socially reinforced?

I thought we'd just disagree on whether all gender is just socially reinforced as Money believed.

Malaga, you are misrepresenting the gender critical view and you are misrepresenting the nature/nurture debate.

It's true that psychologists and feminists have long been interested in how much of human behaviour is innate and how much is environmental, but it is widely considered to be a mixture of both factors. You are also mistaken if you think this 'experiment' was widely regarded as meaningful. I'm in my late forties now but I remember my lecturers talking about this case back in my teens and even then it was regarded as entirely unethical and extremely problematic.

I'm shocked that you are trying to draw conclusions to support your argument from the abuse of this child. You say: "Also the fact that we know it wasn't successful and that David always felt wrong despite not knowing his sex, would that not suggest there is something that could be described as a gender identity?"

It sounds very much like you are grasping at straws.

All the 'experiment' suggests is that experimenting on children's bodies and lying to them is completely immoral.

I've linked to a podcast I recently listened to where Money was discussed which may be a good starting point.

I recall this experiment being cited in psychology textbooks when I was an undergrad. Obviously not all of psychologists are to blame for his evil actions but there was certainly a strong support for his theories, behavourist reinforcement was heavily influential at that time, which this experiment would support & which allowed this experiment to not be scrutinised.

I suspect from the references I've heard academic feminism was in a similar position.

I think it's worth scrutinising why this was.

Current psychologisrs are supporting Trans ideology, even though most psychologists aren't actually doing the experiments and I think psychology is going to have to reflect on why once this is over.

Perhaps another way to put it is to say characteristics/behaviour/interests may be typically or stereotypically masculine (or feminine) but only sex characteristics can properly be described as male or female, IMO. All character traits, tendencies and instincts can appear in males or females, but to varying extents. Gendered behaviour really is a spectrum.

Anyway, on the actual subject of the thread, I'm very glad and actually quite surprised to see this in the DM.

Isn't discussing Money and his theories the topic of the thread?

I think what you mean is: let's get back to discussing it in the way we all agree with and like.

Ok then.

I've linked to a podcast I recently listened to where Money was discussed which may be a good starting point.

Thanks I’ll listen to the podcast.

I suspect from the references I've heard academic feminism was in a similar position.

But you previously said that “Money's work was celebrated and cited by GC feminists, as it proved their theory”.

I’m just wondering where this comes from? Must be more than a suspicion.