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 said pages ago I haven't got citations as it's something I'd heard that raised questions for me.

I'm having a discussion on the internet not defending my thesis in a Viva.

There's loads I don't know on this, but I haven't just personally invented the link between Money and feminists. Google it.

I don't have to respond to demands for citations.

I'm not sure why you feel the need to be shitty, or why anything I've said justifies your shittiness.

At least now I know you’re not arguing in good faith.

Does anyone believe this? I thought the current state of the nature/nurture debate was that it's a mix of biology, environment and social factors.

Does anyone believe either that we are destined to behave in a certain way simply because of the sort of body we have, or that anyone can be conditioned to behave in a certain way because of environmental or social conditions?

And stop moaning that you’re a lone voice and nobody is taking you seriously when you are not prepared to share one link to an article that backs up your position. Nobody is asking for thesis level of research.

Quite shitty to derail a thread though. This could have been a really interesting discussion. The book recommendation was about the only useful thing from this thread, after the original article.

If you're going to make links with GC feminism and someone like Money, I don't think providing some evidence is exactly a big ask.

What??

Because I haven't got citations and I'm not going to spend time getting them??

I am in good faith, I know I am, I've been transparent in the level of my knowledge, I've tried to explain my position rationally over and over, I've responded to criticism.

What's not in good faith?

I have actually really tried. I'm really actually weirdly upset at being personally attacked now.

I'm not sure why I deserve it.

Does anyone believe either that we are destined to behave in a certain way simply because of the sort of body we have, or that anyone can be conditioned to behave in a certain way because of environmental or social conditions?

I don't think anyone believes you can be completely conditioned, do they? Not just re gender, but for personality traits etc. - some are genetic, and while you might be able to suppress or enhance them, they are a part of you and aren't really going to go away. If you're an introvert you might pretend to be an extrovert but you will never be comfortable with it.

Incidentally, I have read a few things lately about bacteria being linked to our personalities(!), including an article linking entrepreneurial traits to a parasite https://hbr.org/2022/07/a-common-parasite-can-make-people-more-entrepreneurial There is still a lot that we don't understand about what makes us who we are.

Was it? Or was it just part of the nature/nurture debate? If he could have 'proved' that a castrated male could be successfully 'turned into' a girl, with all the gendered traits expected of girls, when his identical twin brother, brought up as a boy showed typical male traits, it would have been quite a victory for the 'nurture' side of the debate.

I haven't read his book, and I don't think I want to. What I have read of what Money did is enough. Did he state what his motivations were?

I haven't derailed the thread I've discussed Money and feminism.

On a thread about Money in feminism.

I just didn't discuss it in the way you wanted.

You're really smelling blood now though aren't you? And circling in your excitement that you've got me.

I'll leave you to it as this isn't good for me, and I don't think I deserve it.

Really not! But even on the first page, you leapt on PTSDBarbiegirl without really taking the quote history of what she was responding to, into account.

And if feminists really did support Money, I'd genuinely like to know who. I'd like to read it. There are a couple of people I might imagine would go that route as some of their more recent theories have gone rather odd, so maybe the clues were there in the past.

No you are conflating two opposite things.
Money believed that gender can be socially constructed. But he thought its OK if you fit opposite stereotypes, that essentially makes you that sex, so by bringing up Brenda as a girl she would happily fit that role. He was wrong but that is the theory.

He was not gender or sex critical. He just thought you can change someone's sex by changing the way they behave, just like gender ideology.

Feminists who are gender critical do not believe your behaviour determines your sex and so are critical of stereotypes because behaviour personality or gender are irrelevant. Feelings are irrelevant. Bodies only matter because it is through biology that women are oppressed.

Feminists never supported money in trying to change sex. They may use evidence to suggest gender differences are exagerrated or sometimes evidence to show male pattern behaviour such as violence.

Surely anyone who thinks all roles are socially constructed is a tra not a gc feminist? Sex not gender! Roles don't even exist for gc just sexed bodies.

Does anyone believe either that we are destined to behave in a certain way simply because of the sort of body we have, or that anyone can be conditioned to behave in a certain way because of environmental or social conditions?

I think there is a branch of feminism that argues that all behaviour is socialised and the only difference between the way men and women behave or their likes / dislikes is due to socialisation rather than biology having an influence. I don’t know enough about it though and wouldn’t like to misrepresent through ignorance.

I don't think anyone believes you can be completely conditioned, do they?

@MalagaNights said that this is what some feminists believe.

@DemiColon said that this is also the 'gender critical' position:
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

This was news to me, because I would describe myself as gender critical, and I don't believe this.

Well radical feminism Firestone, Jean Purdy etc who wanted to free women from the oppression of their bodies with ivf and external wombs?
But then Greer is also a radical feminists and does believe in bio differences but not that we are weaker.

At this stage I not only don't believe in these alleged feminists who are all over the internet but can't be cited, I also don't believe in the person who has invented them.

Once again. The gc position is that gender does not exist! That it doesn't matter. That you have a personality and a sexed body. So socialised or not who cares.
Gc were the first the bring up kids in a gender neutral way. To avoid stereotypes not reality. It's only recently tra types do it to get their kid to choose a gender.
Malaga just can't understand what gc is as they can't let go of stereotypes or behaviour being meaningful.

I did ask for some references for this earlier in the thread - perhaps just the name of one or two feminists who wrote about this, but I didn't get a reply.

Because I haven't got citations and I'm not going to spend time getting them??

You said you had googled and information was easy to find. Anyone arguing in good faith would share a single bloody link to something that backed up their argument rather than just making assertions and expecting everyone to take your word for it. If someone asked me for a link to something I had found interesting or that influenced my opinion I would be only too happy to share it.

I did ask for some references for this earlier in the thread - perhaps just the name of one or two feminists who wrote about this, but I didn't get a reply.

Me too. I would genuinely be interested to read about it. I’ve never seen such reluctance to share information before.

The gender critical postition actually says that there are no gendered differences in toys or anything else because there is no such thing as gender. It is not a thing. It is an imaginary concept invented by a few academics, notably J Butler and Money himself, in the 1960s, to sell their books and advance their careers, siezed on avidly by the advertising industry and pharma because it makes them rich.

But it is not real. It is only a social construct in the way Santa Claus or the tooth fairy are social constructs.

btw, I don't think Malaga is real either, I think we're being used to instruct a bot.

I've frequently seen this reluctance from TRAs.

I would actually hope that there are many women on here who know I'm real.

And who would know that I'm very involved in the protection of children from trans Ideology in real life. I'm a whistleblower in my profession and have been targeted by my peers and TRAs because of it.

I just don't always agree with and come from a different perspective from the consensus on here.

But I'm always in good faith.

But to suggest I'm a bot or a TRA is just fucking unjust nasty playground shit.

I haven't shared links because I haven't got time to read the stuff that comes up when I Google in detail and I know you'll just rip me to shreds if I share something and you find something which I didn't know or isn't quite what I said.

I haven't got the energy or time to keep defending myself against your unnecessarily nasty shit.

I was just trying to have a discussion.
Leave me alone, and get your kicks somewhere else.

How is 'trying to have a discussion' compatible with inventing improbable things said by unidentified feminists? That's called writing fiction.