Some websites only present one side of the story. That's where we help out...

John Money

From the horribly biased blog at http://daleoleary.wordpress.com/2013/06/11/gender-theory-alienated-from-reality/#more-359

The redefinition of gender  was engineered in the 1950’s by John Money, who was on the staff of the prestigious Johns Hopkins in Baltimore, MarylandMoney was not an objective scientist, but an ‘agent provocateur of the sexual revolution”, who delighted in shocking people by his use of vulgarity and obscene photographs. He offered support to the movement to normalize sexual relationships between adult men and boys. He despised religion.[3] He promoted the idea that sexual identity could be broken down into its constituent parts — DNA, hormones, internal and external sexual organs, secondary sexual characteristics, and gender identity – the sex with which a person identifies.

Money focused his attention on babies born with disorders of sexual development, sometimes referred to as hermaphrodites or intersex. Rarely a baby is born with a congenital or hereditary condition, which makes it difficult to identify the baby’s true sex or with deformed sexual organs. This is an area which poses real problems for doctors. Money forwarded the theory that a child’s gender identity was formed not by biology, but by socialization, and that genetic boys with deformed penises could be surgically altered to resemble girls and raised as female. He insisted that the boy would accept that he was a girl and as an adult be able to engage in sexual relations as a female (a high priority for Money). This protocol was widely accepted.

In 1967 the perfect case to prove Money’s theory that gender identity was created by socialization presented itself to him. A baby boy’s penis was accidentally destroyed during a botched circumcision. His parents saw Money interviewed on television, talking about children with disorders of sexual development, and appealed to him for help. He was optimistic. He proposed that the boy be castrated and raised as a girl. Money assured the parents that the boy would fully accept this transition if the parents were consistent in their treatment of him as a girl. Since the boy had an identical twin brother, who would serve as a control, the case would be conclusive proof of Money’s theory that gender identity was socially constructed. Money spoke about and published reports of the case and assured everyone that the experiment was a total success.

Radical Marxist-influenced Feminists took up Money’s theory. It is important to remember that Radical Marxist-influenced Feminists are very different from women who simply want to defend women against unjust discrimination. Ideologically driven Radical Marxist-influenced Feminists want a sex-class revolution.

Radical Marxist-influenced Feminists promoted Money’s theory as proof that the differences between men and women were not natural, but socially constructed by an oppressive, patriarchal culture. It seemed very convincing. I myself remember reading about Money’s twin case and puzzling over it. As the mother of three boys and one girl, I was skeptical, I had seen how without any encouragement sex differences emerge. But Money’s case appeared to offer incontrovertible evidence that socialization could override biology.

As the years went by those who were interested in the case wondered how things had turned out. Had this boy raised as a girl matured normally? Money was evasive and said that, although the child had totally adjusted to being a girl, he had lost touch with the family. Dr. Milton Diamond, who had studied the effect of prenatal hormones on the brain in animals, was not satisfied. After a number of years he tracked down the family and found that Money had totally distorted the results of his experiment. The boy had never accepted that he was a girl. He just didn’t know what was wrong with him. He and his brother were forced to make yearly visits to Dr. Money, during which they were subjected to what must be viewed as psychological child abuse. Money insisted that the boy undergo surgery to create a vagina, but the boy refused and threatened suicide if taken back to see Money. Finally, a local therapist, working with the now 14-year-old, encouraged the family to tell the boy the truth. The minute he heard he was born a boy, he wanted to live according to his real identity. Money had not lost contact with the family; he knew his experiment had failed, but did not admit it.

In 2006 a book by John Colapinto, As Nature Made Him, exposed Money as a fraud.

In addition, many of the children with disorders of sexual development, who were surgically altered according to Money’s protocols now grown to adults, have protested against what was done to them. A number reverted to their birth sex. They have demanded that such operations be stopped and children with such problems be allowed to discover their own sexual identity.

 III Mainstreaming the Gender Perspective

Before Money’s theories had been publicly discredited, Radical Marxist-influenced Feminists combined his concept of gender identity as socially constructed with the Marxist idea that all history is the history of class struggle. According to their gender theory, the first class struggle was between men and women and women were the first oppressed class and all social differences between men and women were not natural, but made up by men to oppress women. According to this gender theory, the way to eliminate the oppression of women was to eliminate all social differences between men and women. This would be achieved by mainstreaming a gender perspective under which every societal recognition of the differences between men and women would be labeled a stereotype and eradicated. Quotas would be imposed so that men and women would participate in every activity in society in statistically equal numbers and receive statistically equal power and rewards. Any deviation from absolute statistical equality would be regarded as evidence of sexist discrimination.

The problem with this is that it failed to distinguish between stereotypes, which do limit women’s ability to participate as equals in society, and real differences between men and women which should be acknowledged. Equality of rights, equal treatment under the law, equal opportunity, and equal access to education are important goals; however, in some very important areas men and women are different and if allowed to freely choose which activities to participate in, they will not arrive at absolute equality. Given freedom, a percentage of women will choose to make motherhood their primary vocation, either leaving the workforce to devote themselves to their children or choosing jobs which allow them more time with their families. Thus, fewer women will participate in paid work and a percentage of those who do will work shorter hours in less demanding fields and in the aggregate receive lower wages. The Radical Marxist-influenced Feminists were well aware of this and pressured governments to institute policies which would force women out of the home and into the workforce. Behind the gender perspective are anti-motherhood policies that are fundamentally anti-woman, anti-child, and anti-family. For example, at the Beijing UN Conference on Women in the over 300 paragraphs there was not one positive reference to motherhood, marriage, or husbands, but gender as in mainstreaming the gender perspectiveappeared over 300 times.

 

Advertisements


Share your thoughts

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s