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

You seem to be using 'gender identity' in a way I've never seen that phrase used before. When you say "what feminists on here state all the time: that gender identity really just means stereotypes", do you mean that "feminists say that what people who believe in gender identity mean by 'gender identity' is just stereotypes"?

People who believe in genderism claim to have a 'gender identity'. Feminists say that what they are claiming to be a 'gender identity' is just a description of how much they comply with certain stereotypical gendered behaviours. Isn't the 'gender identity' the same thing? You seem to be implying it's something different.

The only other meaning of 'gender identity' that I've come across is in some older literature about child development, where it is used in the context of a child knowing what sex they are.

Yes I can see it's important.

Maybe be more specific?

It feels to me as though you're trying to draw a correlation between what gender critical feminism is doing today, and the 'feminist' support of a horrific experiment in the past?

That we need to be careful we don't make the mistake that they made? Because both groups believe in socially constructed gender roles?

It might be clearer, if you can tell me how you think we might be making that same mistake.

What do you think women are doing that could be at all problematic in that respect?

Money used gender identity to mean gender social stereotypes he thought it was socially constructed & reinforced.

Genderists now use gender identity to mean an innate feeling.

Feminsts frequently state that these gender identity feelings are just gender stereotypes, thereby agreeing with Money.

Where current feminsts don't agree with Money is that they don't use the term at all because of what it's come to mean, but their dismissal of it uses the definition of Money: Gender identity is just socially constructed stereotypes.

Of course it was abuse. I don't think you'll find anyone here arguing it wasn't.

But over the years there have been many nature/nurture studies which focus on all areas of behaviour, not just sex/gender. Many of these are also unethical. The other study I linked to about identical twins being separated shortly after birth was also abusive.

The nature/nurture debate will probably never be settled. Observations of children being brought up in different environments can be ethical, but any study which requires the children to be deliberately treated in a certain way in order to see if this changes their behaviour is full of ethical problems.

Or MalagaNights is it that you have an issue with viewing social roles as artificially constructed, in the first place?

That there are inherent behaviours that are sex-specific and you can run into trouble if you try to socialise people out of them?

I don't think it's related to what feminists are doing today.

I think it's related to the theory GC feminists use today.

When your theory was used in the past to justify bad actions, and many people who support your theory went along with it, it's worth noting that and saying:

Fuck, it's always important to remember that even our position can be corrupted and that's happened in the past.

That is safeguarding.

Saying oh that could never happen now because we're all about safeguarding is a huge failure in safeguarding.

It's an important lesson to reflect on because it shows that this current GI ideology above children has happened before, and can happen in any ideology. Even yours.

It's a lesson, that if you ignore and believe you are above it is dangerous.

It doesn't mean anyone right now is responsible, or at risk of harming a child, or doing something wrong, but it is dangerous when any group ignores the lessons of the past related to their theories, rejects any reflection about how it went wrong, and believes they're above needing to do this.

If you'd said in the beginning, that you believe the experiment was wrong, and any feminists that agreed with it were putting ideology ahead of safeguarding, I would've understood immediately

Indeed, I think most women are surprised that any feminists did agree with it. I know I am.

Have we established that feminists at the time were in agreement with this type of experimentation. It would be great to actually have some references or evidence of these claims. It’s hard to take a dim view of what someone in the past has advocated for when you don’t know exactly what they were saying.

The podcast that Malaga linked is really interesting but the way that JP and the Dr (can’t remember her name) describe how Money viewed gender is not GC feminism today views gender. This is the difficulty with the word gender where it means different things to different people. It’s become almost useless as a word unless you very clearly define what you mean each time you use it.

I don't think all gendered roles and behaviours are socially constructed so I don't label myself as gender critical but that's not my point here.

My point was when Money was raised on FWR that this experiment was widely supported because people wanted gender is just a social construct to be proved.

And I think acknowledging that is important. Because it's an example about how people can support bad things thinking it's good, if it justifies your ideology.
Even your side, albeit in the past which makes it a safeguarding lesson.

I think I'm just repeating myself now tbh, and if I haven't explained it by now I'm not going to.

Okay, yes I agree. I'm not sure I'm as worried as you, though.

Largely because I don't view seeing gender as socially constructed as a theory. Because I've seen it proven, time after time.

Sexism is a direct result of gender stereotyping. It's not theoretical. Certainly at that level.

Women being viewed as second class is clearly not a theory.

Have we established that feminists at the time were in agreement with this type of experimentation. It would be great to actually have some references or evidence of these claims. It’s hard to take a dim view of what someone in the past has advocated for when you don’t know exactly what they were saying

I can’t recall a single feminist who agreed with the experiment.

The derail of this thread is totally meaningless.

I don't think all gendered roles and behaviours are socially constructed so I don't label myself as gender critical but that's not my point here.

Is thinking that “all gendered roles and behaviours are socially constructed the “Gender Critical” position though? I certainly don’t believe that. I’m sure I’ve seen the likes of Maya Forstater being critical of this position also.

My point was when Money was raised on FWR that this experiment was widely supported because people wanted gender is just a social construct to be proved.

Really? I find that very difficult to believe. That the women on FWR will support the mutilation of a child in order to prove their viewpoint?

We've had quite a few TRAs show up here claiming that Money proved their
viewpoint.

And then had a discussion and then had a discussion about it. Discussing the outcome of Monday's experiment is really not the same thing as agreeing with him that he should've done itabout it.

Discussing the outcome of Money's experiment is really not the same thing as agreeing with him that he should've done it.

I recently read the book “as nature made him” about the experiment, it was horrific - it’s not often a book makes me cry, or makes me so angry.

I don't believe the fundamental differences between the sexs are socially construsted.

Cows are different from bulls, dogs are different from bitches. But even within those difference, and in animals, personality differences between individuals count for much more. That is even more true in humans, where we have huge choice in how we behave and interact, and our sex is just one element of our personality.

I am short sighted, I like to read, I go to church, I like flowers and nature and dogs and cats, I enjoy food, I hate competitiveness, I'm interested in the past, I'm left wing, I'm intelligent, I'm lazy. Female is just one part of the mix, and I'm more likely to be friends with people who I share some of that stuff with that with a random fellow female.

I do recall this discussion of this experiment in the days before the awful truth came out. Money publicised it as a success. A boy who had lost his penis in a botched circumcision was now living very happily as a girl was the outcome according to him. As previous posters have pointed out this seems to have informed the treatment of children with DSDs so Moneys work was highly regarded.
Why it was so highly regarded is well worth asking but the striking parallel for me is the current treatment of gender dysphoria with surgery and hormones as used at the Tavistock and criticised as lacking proper medical trials in the Cass report.

Scientific ethics seem to have been very lax back then, as well as the use of individual studies over statistical data. The tale of Nim Chimpsky the chimp is heartbreaking and certainly wouldn't be allowed today - brought up as a human, even given marijuana(!), and discarded to an animal facility when the study was over.

Sigh, I meant widely supported at the time and thinking now about why.

Yes I've said many times on this thread that the failure of Money's experiment justifies the TRA position.

Look, I've tried in good faith, to raise some reflections.

I haven't researched a thesis on this, I've just listened to some stuff and had some thoughts.

I'm once again a lone voice seemingly battling to make a point that most view as irrelevant.

Which isn't a good use of my time or yours.

I'm once again a lone voice seemingly battling to make a point that most view as irrelevant

But you’re not backing up your assertions with any evidence. I would genuinely love to read about feminists cheering on John Money if it happened. I am genuinely interested in this topic and willing to learn. I’ve tried googling and can find nothing. There must be some basis for your opinion.

I don't know about cheering on but overlap of theory and citation to support definitely happened by some feminists which I found from a quick Google.

If you really want to research it you'll have to do it yourself. There is stuff out there.

she goes to another school

I can't seem to keep up with this thread, so it's probably moved on by now, but I can't agree with this:

And it wasn't done in the name of gender Ideology it was done in the name of gender critical theory (as they are now defined).

If it was done as 'gender critical', bringing him up as a girl would have involved nothing more than telling him he was a girl and allowing him to develop his own personality, interests and choice of clothing and hairstyles.

People who are gender critical don't tend to rigidly enforce gendered stereotypes.

Yes I've said many times on this thread that the failure of Money's experiment justifies the TRA position.

Well, they think it does!

Women have dissected Money on here quite a few times before iirc. And obviously it doesn't prove anything.

Personally, even if they did find that there are significant differences in female and male brains, which accounted for different stereotypical roles, it doesn't mean you'd get a person with the wrong one.

TRAs use any old shit.

Page 1: "his work was widely cited by cited by feminists for decades"

<bafflement>
<many attempts to understand>
<requests for the citations>

Page 6: "If you really want to research it you'll have to do it yourself. There is stuff out there."

This is a fair point.
It would be more accurate to have said: it was done to demonstrate gender roles are social constructs.

I'd agree with what @MalagaNights says up to a point. Yes feminists/commentators sometimes say that all association of talents, proclivities and interests with sex is socialised. Yes some feminists almost certainly* did say that Money's experiment proved this to be the case.

*almost certainly because I don't have the quotes, though I am certain I read comments like this.

On this, feminist Dale Spender wrote that socialisation is so overwhelmingly strong that we simply don't know what is natural to women and to men, not that feminism means there is no association of innate behaviour with sex.

(That was in the 70s in the US media when there was a media/business-supported belief that if we could get rid of nasty old Protestant inhibitions and buy more kaftans, women and would all be delightfully free. Along with the counterculture belief that if women raised children together in communes (and kaftans), Paradise would ensue. Thats in the final chapter of The Female Eunuch, after all - the one that doesn't get quoted so much.)

I don't think you can have children without socialising them, and I don't think a society without gender roles exists. What we can do is try to point out that socialisation shouldn't involve allowing venal perverts like John Money anywhere near children or near public policy, and that trying to mix commercial medicine and gender roles is disastrous. There are just as many women genuinely empowered by feminism to say that, as there are feminists who wrote enthusiastically about his work.