John Money is Dead
John Money, much admired and respected by many of his peers, yet reviled by many who were treated by him, is dead. What can be said about that?
For some it will bring them little joy or satisfaction, knowing that he remained silent to his critics right until he died. So many serial killers and child abusers act the same way, refusing to give back anything of worth to their victims or families.
I am told by those who knew him that he was a lovely man, very caring, and did what he thought best for his patients. One thing is certain, that he defined much of the knowledge about intersex we take for granted today. The array of works published by him on conditions which were so little understood before his time is phenomenal. He has to be applauded for the knowledge he extended.
I hear that Adolf Eichman was a caring, senistive, man also. How odd that it is that nice people can do such harm. There are those I am sure who will mourn his passing, those who loved him; there are those who simply hated him.
I am sure that in time we will start to hear the stories that could never be told during his own lifetime. Stories told in confidence that could never be uttered out of fear of breaking that confidence or libel action.
Stories like him having a fridge stocked with the best and most extensive range of hallucinogens and other pharmeceuticals on campus. About his obsessive hatred of heterosexual men, and a desire to see as many castrated as possible. Or the one about how the role of Hannibal Lecter was loosely based upon him.
-------------------------------------------------------
What follows are comments from those who felt moved to speak to his passing:
I had the experience of emailing Dr. Money when i first discovered my XXXXX. he sent me a kind reply stating that people affected that way had drifted off and were not seen or studied for follow up of how their lives turned out. i was hoping he could put me in touch with others like myself. he was a controversial figure for certain but he did take time to email me and for that i was grateful.
------------
It was his 85th birthday yesterday...I actually sent him a birthday greeting via e-mail. I used to talk to him.
It's sad he died a day before turning 85... which I found out, was the day after he died...I feel kind of down about it....I used to call him often with many questions and complaints...although sometimes I called him at kind of later hours, and often he seemed agitated, after all I was a no-one in the field, I can't remember any time when he wouldn't talk....
a lot of people forget that in John Money's early work, he believed in
social factors only for gender identity, and that we learn it like a language.. But, later he did change his views (and in his writings also!) to state he believed in a combination nature-nurture-critical period...his work of the late 70's, 80's and 90's was interaction, and sometimes he was criticized as being too hormonal oriented!
A few of my favorite recollections of conversations with Dr. Money were when I asked him once how much of gender identity is biology and how much environmental...and he replied it is 100% biological because it occurs in the brain...whether by genes and hormones it occurs in the brain, and that if it isn't in the brain, then it certainly must be
‘spookological’...
Thus, he said the pertinent questions were
– how did it get in the brain (genes/hormones or light and sound waves which is another way of
saying environment)
- when did it get in the brain
- is it immutable
Another recollection is how I would always ask May I please speak to Dr....and he would chime in with how long have you been calling me,
and you don't know my voice by now?...I'm very busy, but I have a few minutes, so talk... speak into the mouthpiece...
I also remember telling him how I didn't understand the Corbett vs. Corbett decision (Justice Ormrod decision which invalidated April Ashley's marriage to Corbett) and I would cite passages...and Dr. Money
would keep saying I understand it, but I just don't agree with it...
But of everything he has written, I find the following to be the most significant....it was commonplace that the assignment of sex was to be determined by chromosomes or gonads (ovaries or testes) as "true sex"... however, Dr. Money suggested instead the arbitrary nature of "true sex" arguing instead for an "optimal gender policy" where despite the chromosomes or gonads, that it would be better if someone could be reared as to the sex which they could function in sexually and have a concordant gender identity in...
Dr. Money also stated ... for XY individuals with testes whose external genitals were ambiguous or feminine like, as well as for post-op m to f transsexuals... So, I see this change from "true sex" being based upon chromosomes or gonads to "optimal gender" to be a significant change in
medical thinking...now I do agree that Dr. Money's optimal gender policy had the drawback, being that unless there was something which was adequate to function or be called a penis, that a male optimal
gender was doubtful... this I find the weaknesses of his theory:
A) that an "adequate" penis equals a optimal male gender, which led to reassigning Reimer minus a penis, as a girl...
B) the still currently unknown interplay between hormones, social factors and gender identity...
------------
For anyone looking to better understand the life and times of Dr. John Money, I do not believe there is any better place to start than reading John Colapinto's book " As Nature Made Him: The Boy Who Was Raised As A Girl". Colapinto's book, which made the New York Times Bestseller list, is a very readable story of the tragic life of Dr. Money's most famous patient, David Reimer.
-----------
Sorry, but when an important scientist make a mistake of the magnitude of David Reimer's life based in a theory only, and a fake therapy, that is not a bias to say the truth. I like other works from John Money, and I liked him personally too, but we may not oversee his big mistakes, and learn with them.
I was a fighter against John Money's ideas for sex of rearing, as he applied it to David Reimer, for years. I wrote... about the sex of rearing as a fake therapy for most of the cases. Nowadays, when John Money is dead, I would like to say that he had good and bad ideas, as all of us. But when we have a bad idea regarding the gender of children and of others, we need to be conscious we are affecting lives. John Money was so exalted about his theories, that he extrapolated the limits of responsibility. That is my opinion, after some more than 10 years of discussion about these matters.
I hope we start a new point of view for gender therapy from now on, not based in theories, not based in nature versus nurture, not based on the therapist's but based in the patient's harmony.
We may try to help by following always the goal, not to say we and our theories are the correct ones, or the origin of possible problems are due to nature or nurture, but a way to help the patient to live in inner harmony, the best way possible.
I am not happy with John Money's death, obviously, but surely I would like that some of his ideas and practices would die, before him.
