The concept of 'Gender Re-Assignment' and how it all began.

[Shortshriftandlethal]

I know there is already a thread on this particular topic, though I do think it deserves far more attention than it seems to be getting, and I'd like to alert people to the current Channel 4 documentary 'The Secret of Me' which follows the cases of children born with DSD's and/or ambiguous genitalia who had surgeries that then led to their sex/gender being 're-assigned' - largely based on the work of Dr John Money. Much of this was based on outright lies, false assertions, pet theories, and sex based stereotyping.

Well worth a watch and hopefully an interesting discussion can follow.

Channel 4

I watched most of this and I hadn't realised before that it was Money who was responsible for pushing genital surgery for DSD cases.

It was interesting that other medical professionals didn't really speak up when they realised he was lying about the "success" of David Reimers treatment - they don't seem to have learnt from that at all.

I agree it was very interesting
As a side issue I was struck by how the man who was the subject of the film (forgot his name) was at pains to distance himself from any criticism of the trans gender movement- he began by saying 'this is not a transgender film' - which was true, but later he describes how painful the vaginaplasty was and how he couldn't cycle without pain, yet in the next breath he said 'its great for someone who chooses it, but I didn't.
It really was a tragic story but he seems to have made the best life he could given what he was subjected to.

No! And in fact this working idea of Money's that 'gender' was fluid and purely a social creation has embeded itself within trans ideology and his ideas are still shaping thought and practice today.

Krissi ( the subject of part 1 of the documentary) recounts how when he found out the truth of his sex, and what had been done to him as a baby, cut himself off from his family for a while and moved to San Francisco - the home of LGB/and latterly TQ+. Krissi still was known via his female 'gender identity' and was in a romantic relationship with a woman ( he says he was always attracted to women) and because of that he found acceptance and a home in the 'Queer' community he found there.

I can't quite articulate it just yet, but by being embraced within this community of sexual mis-fits and non conformists it seems that many people with DSDs have come to be associated with it...even though it is usually the case that their experiences and the subsequent revelations of their actual sex are diametrically opposed to the concept of a 'gender identity' that is detached from the inherently sexed body.

Krissi's experiences suggest that one's actual sex is the true home base and the necessity of having to perform gender cuts one off from one's true roots. Of course trans ideology suggests the opposite - that one's inner feelings ( and socialisation) of 'gender identity' trump one's sex........but this would appear to be a lie; but a lie that is still being perpetuated.

The issue of high suicide rates amongst these cohort of experimental subjects is something that also needs further reflection.

I think he came to be attached to the LGBTQ+ community because of his experiences in the 'queer community' in San Francisco - in which he found liberation and a new 'family' and learned to accept himself -and where he met other people who had DSD's - at that time still referred to as 'Intersex' or 'hermaphrodite".

Obviously, in a very human way he bonded with many of the people in the community he met there......though his story, and the stories of the others who had been subjected to the same 'experiment', would suggest quite the opposite of 'gender fluidity'.

The term 'Gender' has caused so much confusion and the blurring of boundaries. One is always the sex that one was born. Your sex cannot be 're-assigned' and whilst socialisation and personal character certainly make a certain amount of difference to one's self expression and modes of behaviour - it doesn't change one's inherent sex based blue-print.

There have been many threads about this on FWR going back some time.

But I dont this what has happened in the case illustrated by the article and the tv programme are about "gender reassignment" as this term is used now.

What happened in the past and may well continue today is partiarchal notions of what is right and wrong, and men in positions of power working in areas of health, taking decisions based on that power.

eg better a "woman" without a womb than a man without a penis (yes I know its not that simple) is about status and stereotypes in society.

Just as there is a long history of women being institutionalised for being "mad" when they are just trying to escape from patriarchal straight jacket. Some even ending up having a lobotomy.

Saved too soon:

And in fact many of the high powered surgeons who performed this type of surgery would not support the notion of any form a surgical gender reassignment where there was no health issue, but merely to conform to the thoughts and beliefs of the patient.

Involuntary, "normalizing" genital surgery on infants born with atypical genitalia (often referred to as intersex or Differences in Sex Development, DSD) has not officially ceased in the UK, as there is no specific law prohibiting it

While the practice declined in frequency during the 1990s due to changing medical views on outcomes, it continued to be standard practice for many cases, and as of 2026, it is still legal to perform these surgeries with parental consent.

Key Historical and Current Context:

• 1950s–1980s: This period saw the rise of the "optimal gender policy," which involved early, often irreversible, surgical interventions to make genitalia fit societal norms, frequently without the informed consent of the individual.
• 1990s: A shift began in the 1990s as some pediatric endocrinologists and surgeons started to reconsider the necessity of early, non-life-saving surgery, leading to a decrease in some types of intervention.
• 2000s–Present: While awareness of the harmful impact of these procedures increased, and many advocacy groups campaigned for a stop, data suggested that surgeries (such as clitoral reductions) were still being carried out on children under 14 years old as late as 2006, and potentially beyond.
• 2017–2020s: A 2017 UN Committee report called for the UK to ban such surgeries. Leaked papers in 2020 suggested NHS England was considering guidelines to pause these surgeries until a child could consent, but these have not stopped the practice entirely.

As of late 2025 and early 2026, campaigners are still working to stop these "medically unnecessary" surgeries, which remain legal and are often consented to by parents who are fearful of stigma or advised that it is necessary

And not time to find old threads with links, but only some campaigners with DSD (is this the current term?) see themselves as part of the Rainbow coalition. Many do not.

When Jim described his feelings about being encouraged to have the "neovagina" surgery, essentially its only function being for someone else to penetrate it, then going on to say how painful and debilitating it was (and the fact it had started to "fall out") I thought "yes, finally someone talking about this". For him to say for some it's life saving... In WHAT way is that life saving for anyone?!

The other thing that pissed me off in that doc was that they waited until right at the end to talk about John Money's paedophilia and sexual abuse of the twins, and at no point was the word paedophile used. They touted it as though he genuinely believed that his sick experiments were done in the name of scientific curiosity 🤢

Your sex cannot be 're-assigned' and whilst socialisation and personal character certainly make a certain amount of difference to one's self expression and modes of behaviour - it doesn't change one's inherent sex based blue-print.

I would say that this is not the whole picture for that tiny cohort (maybe <1 in 10,000) that have a mutation partially vitiating testosterone response. It's not obvious at birth what gender identity will develop, and as many as half develop a strong female gender identity during childhood, even if raised as boys and despite being karyotypically and gonadally male. (Cf individuals with complete androgen insensitivity - also karyotypically and gonadally male - in whom development of a male gender identity is virtually unknown.)

It ought to be obvious that infants' genitals as a matter of principle should not be surgically altered when they can't give consent, unless necessary to preserve health, urinary function etc. But there's also a practical reason, which is that the child must be involved in the decision later on, whether to have feminising or virilising treatment (or no treatment): they have a choice to make.The subjects of the C4 programme were examples of the wrong choice having been made on their behalf, when a wait-and-see approach should have been adopted.

And, their sex can be reassigned, in the sense that, if they are registered male, but choose feminisation, or vice versa, they can correct their birth registration with retroactive effect.

None of the above is relevant to trans people. Even if they have a sex-incongruent gender identity (about which I must remain agnostic), it's of no therapeutic relevance. They have normal genitals, which match their gonads, so they don't need any treatment for which gender identity would be a useful aid to decision-making.

I posted up thread about the medical time line of doctors taking decisions about performing surgery on children with DSD, to which they clearly couldn't give consent.

The different if parallel time line of the start of gender re-assingment surgery is different:

The first recorded modern gender reassignment surgeries (vaginoplasties) in Europe were performed in 1931 in Berlin, Germany, at Magnus Hirschfeld's Institute for Sexual Science. Dora Richter is recognized as the first known transgender woman to undergo complete male-to-female surgery, followed by artist Lili Elbe.

Key details regarding early surgeries:

• 1922: Early, foundational procedures (orchiectomy) were performed on Dora Richter at the Institute for Sexual Science.
• 1931: Dora Richter underwent penectomy and subsequent vaginoplasty.
• 1931: Lili Elbe received experimental vaginoplasty and uterus transplantation, though she died from complications shortly after.
• 1931: Toni Ebel and Charlotte Charlaque also received surgeries at the same institute.
• 1940s: The first female-to-male (FTM) phalloplasty was performed in Britain by Sir Harold Gillies on Michael Dillon.

These pioneering procedures were conducted before the Nazi regime destroyed the Institute for Sexual Science in 1933

Have at last found some of the earlier threads, as important to hear from those with DSD and what they think.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5317010-dsdintersex

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5380972-i-have-a-dsd-and-am-fed-up

I suspect he felt a lot of pressure to have to validate 'trans identities' by saying such things ( because of his adoption by the community), but the unethical and damaging nature of such surgery was plain to see. Regardless of how you feel about yourself the mutilation and subsequent damage caused is undeniable.

He also mentioned that he had osteoporosis as a result of taking oestrogen - that then needed to be rectified by taking testosterone. His body could only begin to heal when it was able to absorb the hormones it was naturally programmed to be receptive to.

John Money sounded like a bit of a monster.