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

I've heard it referred to on a podcast.

It maked sense to me given what GC feminists believe about gender and what Money believed.

I've seen how this plays out in psychology.

So I suspect it's similar in feminist academia.
I don't have citations.

I think it's interesting and worth reflecting on.

If no one else does and is 100% certain no reflection is required I'll leave the thread.

I've got no interest, nor extensive enough knowledge to engage in a one woman battle to 'prove' something to a group who have no interest in even considering this.

His work was widely cited by feminists for decades as a successful example of gender stereotypes being just social conditioning. Until the truth was revealed

But who? Which feminists? You can't just make assertions like this based on suspicion or one Jordan Peterson podcast.

Well I remember this discussion from the 90's. It contributed to the broader discussion that was prevalent at the time. That there are different behaviour patterns between the male sex class and the female sex class . How much of this is due to nurture (eg socialisation) and how much due to nature(eg innate to the specific sex class). There was a whole men are from mars, women from Venus debate.

Also at the same time was a debate about the ethics of some of the well known psychological experiments of which Mooney was one. It was becoming considered to be unethical even before the truth of the falsification and outright abuse.

The only academic I recall referring to this experiment was Butler, who. I'm not sure identified as a feminist at that point. Of course when the truth came out Butler did a massive u-turn - "how could this child know he was male when everyone around lied to him" and thus the concept of gender identity was born.

Interestingly, at the time I went back and reread some of Butler's work. It was so obfuscatory that it could be read to support the concept of gender identity despite having been written to support the idea that a male child could be raised to believe he was female.

I remember the horror of clinicians who had operated on children with DSDs due to this work because it was genuinely believed that it was best to raise a male without a penis as female. These kids were the ones who coined the phrase assigned male/female at birth to describe the horror of what has been done to them. Which now been appropriated by others.

BTW GC feminists didn't exist then. I do wonder when feminists stopped being critical of the concept of gender (eg the application of stereotypical expectations based on your sex) so much so that they need to be named GC.

Also I don't remember any feminists supporting lying to a child about their origins. It may occasionally been referenced occasionally to support a socialisation argument but remember feminists generally argued that socialisation of the sex classes was a bad thing. It's why they opposed the concept of gender.

Mooney was mostly quoted with regards to the ethics of experiments/consent and the treatment of children with DSDs.

I don't think its possible to discern from this case whether David had a gender identity, a sex identity or how anything influenced him. He was subjected to unnecessary surgery from babyhood, placed on hormones and medication he didn't need, lied to repeatedly, sexually abused and treated like an experiment.
The simple takeaway is that we must let gender nonconforming children grow up without any medical interference intended to 'fix' them for not fitting stereotypes.
We should be suspicious AF of those who do and take safeguarding a lot more seriously.
.

It maked sense to me given what GC feminists believe about gender and what Money believed.
No. It does not make sense. I have never seen a single GC feminist propose medicalising gender nonconforming children.
If that's what you think GC feminism is, then you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the arguments.

You're right, and as soon as I pressed send, I realised it.

I meant they're not an exclusively male characteristic. And yes, stereotypes evolve from that.

The point was that unless you can socialise all girls into a certain behaviour, and all boys, they are not exclusively sex specific.

to be fair it was said in the context of gender identity.

I have followed feminist writings for a very long time, since the early 1990s and at that time I read all the older books I could get hold of. I can't remember a single academic feminist who would have argued this, so if they existed they were very rare, at least among those writing in the languages I can read.

The debate, as I recall it, has always been about the relative proportions of nature and nurture on sex differences in cognition, behaviour, personality, roles, interests, and competencies, but even more than that, on whether observed differences are somehow immutable.

Now that debate is further complicated by the possibility that what used to be called 'nurture' (environmental effects of various types) might also be able to affect what used to be called 'nature' (by turning certain genes off or on), so this might have to be taken into account in the overall debates (which continue, probably forever).

The whole topic is quite complicated.

On this particular example, I doubt a child who is an identical twin could ever be made to believe that he is not of the same sex as his twin. All the relatives of this family would know the facts, all the neighbours would, and so on. I can't think of anything (that wouldn't be awful) that was actually tested there.

Building on what Datun just pointed out about stereotypes, I'd argue that the traits and behaviours that get most strongly emphasized in sex stereotypes are ones which are not exclusive or even close to exclusive to one sex, because those are the ones which need enforcing to maintain gendered inequalities.

Past laws and rules and regulations can shed quite a bit light on this, i.e., the kinds of things which women were banned from. Initially things such as higher education, certain professions and so on. Today religious leadership roles in some major religions.

I think you’ve misunderstood Heathspeedwell’s and PTSD’s points, which were about transwomen.

The twins experiment was vile. It should never have been done. It would not have been acceptable even if it had been ‘correctly’ set up and carried out. But it was also crap research, badly done.

@MalagaNights
But one thing I find interesting in relation to feminism is that he shared the belief that gender is entirely socially constructed and that boys only act like boys because we condition them to.

@DemiColon
The gender critical position says that gendered differences (like maybe different interests in toys, but also lots of other things like interest in children) are completely socially created and have no other basis, and they are created to enforce patriarchal power, and could be extinguished if we dismantled those ideas and structures.

I've quoted both these posts because you both seem to be saying the same thing, that the feminist/gender critical view is that differences in behaviour between the sexes is entirely socially constructed.

I'm not an academic feminist, and I would describe myself as a gender critical feminist, but this is not my view at all. 'Gender critical', as others have mentioned, means a rejection of the notion that certain stereotypical behaviours should be followed, depending on one's sex. It doesn't take any view on whether these behaviours are due to nature or nurture, although my opinion is that it is a mixture of both.

Are there really feminists who believe that all behaviours are due to nurture alone? Can you name some of the feminists who have said this? I think that opinions like this might have taken off to some extent 50 or so years ago, but I don't think that is the predominant view today. I have no problem with being proved wrong if you can back this up with some references.

I've got no interest, nor extensive enough knowledge to engage in a one woman battle to 'prove' something to a group who have no interest in even considering this.

MalagaNights, thanks for your contributions to this thread.

I had the same thoughts on the Money experiment and how it does seem to suggest there may be such a thing as innate 'gender identity' when I first visited this board many years ago. I got the same kind of responses that you've had as well as lots recipe suggestions. I thought then that maybe I just wasn't clever enough to follow the high brow arguements against my view but having carefully read this thread I'm still finding the counter arguements as illogical and obtusive as I did back then.

Are there really feminists who believe that all behaviours are due to nurture alone?

The ones that say gender stereotypes are social constructs?

Personally I don't see how anything that happened to David Reiner could be considered an exercise in establishing that someone has an inner gender identity.

His genitalia was not that of a female. It was the subject of ultra focused yearly examinations and abuse. He was lied to by a few, select adults, including a pedophile he hated and who was the last person he trusted.

He, unsurprisingly, developed gender dysphoria! Because his genitals were deformed (he urinated from a hole in his abdomen).

If one wanted to establish if people have an inner gender identity, one would have to alter the person's biology so successfully that it was never questioned. Not make their genitalia to be the most significant thing about them, their defining feature. And then subject them to abuse because of it!

*Reimer

The ones who say that all differences in behaviour between the sexes are entirely due to socialisation.

As I've already said, I'm not an academic feminist, and I'll admit to not being well-read when it comes to feminist literature, so I'm prepared to be put firmly in my place if there is a large body of feminist literature which says this.

Thanks @Thingybob I was interested in thinking through the rationale for the support of the experiment, it wasn't just a lone evil man, he had widespread academic interest and support. Why?

Surely that's an important question? What are the situations or rationales which occur where harm to children is supported or overlooked?

I've been thinking about it more and Money's initial position was: there is sex but your social role or 'gender identity' is just socially constructed stereotypes. This is the position GC feminists still currently take. He believed gender was a social construct, which allowed for the theory at least that all gendered behaviour and roles can be socially shaped through reinforcement.

That theory was the rationale for this experiment. Girl gendered behaviour or stereotypes could in theory be socially reinforced on a boy who didn't know he was a boy.

So they tried it.
Many people hoping and wanting it to be successful.

If it had worked and David had been successfully shaped into stereotypical girl behaviour I wonder whether GC feminists would be citing it as evidence for the theory? (Whilst of course noting the now agreed horrifically unethical nature of the experiment).

I think the fact it didn't work allowed it to be used to create Gender Ideology instead suggesting an innate gender identity which is usually in line with your sex, like David and cis people, but can be out of line, which is what Trans people are.

This isn't what Money was intending to prove, he was trying to prove gender is a social construct. The failure however allowed gender ideology to take hold.

Either way whatever rationale or outcome everyone now agrees this was an abusive man and a hideous experiment, but I do think who supported it, who wanted it to work and who has utilised the fact it failed is worth reflecting on.

I'm surprised anyone interested in where we currently are with children being used & harmed to prove an ideology isn't interested in some analysis of this, and I find the outright rejection & indignation at such questions a sad indication of people more interested in protecting their ideology than scrutiny.

He wasn't trying to prove an inner gender identity he was trying to prove gender is a social construct.

Either way, I agree this one deeply flawed experiment proves nothing.

But people who wanted to prove gender is a social construct really wanted it to, which is how he got away with it.

I was interested in thinking through the rationale for the support of the experiment, it wasn't just a lone evil man, he had widespread academic interest and support. Why?

Surely that's an important question? What are the situations or rationales which occur where harm to children is supported or overlooked?

It occurred to me that the fact that the two boys were identical twins was relevant here. I'm sure I've read of identical twins who are separated at birth but met as adults turning out to have very similar interests etc, despite having different upbringing. If this is true, then since the two boys were identical twins it is more likely that they would naturally behave in more similar ways than might be the case with fraternal twins (the 'nature' part).

In searching for the twins studies I vaguely recollected, I came across this study of identical twins from the same period as when Money was abusing these children:
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220817-the-twins-who-were-split-up-at-birth

It seems there were a lot of unethical studies going on involving children at around that time.

@MalagaNights
I've been thinking about it more and Money's initial position was: there is sex but your social role or 'gender identity' is just socially constructed stereotypes. This is the position GC feminists still currently take. He believed gender was a social construct, which allowed for the theory at least that all gendered behaviour and roles can be socially shaped through reinforcement.

Which 'GC feminists' are you referring to here? Can you provide a name or two?

Also, I'm a bit confused by this bit: 'your social role or 'gender identity' is just socially constructed stereotypes.' Are you saying that 'gender identity' is the same as social role? My understanding is that social role is imposed on you by society, but 'gender identity' is normally described as coming from within.

I agree that a gendered 'social role' comes from stereotypes, but as a non-believer in genderism, I would dispute the existence of an inner gender identity. I think this is a position held by most of the feminists on here. Who are the GC feminists who believe in an inner gender identity?

There certainly were rather a few VERY unethical studies involving children in that time.
Løvås did his ABA studies on autistic children in this period (in California) and it was abusive and degrading to the poor children.

Behavioural therapies struggle with the backlash to the atrocious start, though in many cases they are miles away from what Løvås did.

I enjoyed reading your posts Malaga, and I agree with you in that for these ‘studies’ to take place at a University you do need a large cohort of people backing it up.

I have to admit my respect in general for academics and professors (mainly in the Humanities) plummeted to the depths of the Mariana Trench quite a few years ago.
NAAALT. Of course.
But I stopped assuming ability for intelligent and critical thinking from everyone with a Masters or PhD.

Indeed, Saying that people know what sex they are (genes, hormones) is very different from saying that people should behave in a particular way, or have a certain personality type, because of that sex.

Part of Money's crime was trying to force his victims into behaviors they did not choose or want. His invention of a thing called 'gender' to justify this makes the rottenness of what that grew from that thing unsurprising.

I agree the fact they were identical twins was no doubt a flaw in the study.

And yes many unethical studies involving children have been done and justified and continue to be done and justified.

Which is why we should always be scrutinising what are the factors are that allowed people to support harming children. Usually it was in the interest of using children to support an ideology.

And if your own ideology in the past has been used as justification for harming a child it's important, I would have thought, to clearly acknowledge that any ideology even your own can warp what people justify and be constantly vigilant to that.

As I said I think the indignation here & the insistence that GC theory does not require that type of scrutiny, even when there is this horrific example, is an example of the potential dangers of any ideology and where they go wrong and how children get used.

Don't you think it's more to do with the fact that he probably wasn't telling all the feminists that he was sexually abusing these children at the time? And that David's genitalia looked nothing like that of a female?

The spin he would have put on what he was doing would have been extensive.