Fuckology: Critical Essays on John Money's Diagnostic Concepts
By Lisa Downing, Iain Morland and Nikki Sullivan
()
About this ebook
In Fuckology, the authors contextualize and interrogate Money's writings and practices. The book focuses on his three key diagnostic concepts, “hermaphroditism,” “transsexualism,” and “paraphilia,” but also addresses his lesser-known work on topics ranging from animal behavior to the philosophy of science. The result is a comprehensive collection of new insights for researchers and students within cultural, historical, and gender studies, as well as for practitioners and activists in sexology, psychology, and patient rights.
Related to Fuckology
Related ebooks
Last Words of the Executed Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Origins of Schizophrenia Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Nurses in Nazi Germany: Moral Choice in History Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsRevolution in Mind: The Creation of Psychoanalysis Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Prison Dilemma: To incarcerate or rehabilitate? - A controversial argument Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsLife and Death Matters: Seeking the Truth About Capital Punishment Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsCritical Neuroscience: A Handbook of the Social and Cultural Contexts of Neuroscience Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsGruesome Spectacles: Botched Executions and America's Death Penalty Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Mortal Remains: Death in Early America Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Eradicating deafness?: Genetics, pathology, and diversity in twentieth-century America Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Paradox of Hope: Journeys through a Clinical Borderland Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsRelative Justice: Cultural Diversity, Free Will, and Moral Responsibility Rating: 2 out of 5 stars2/5Darwin Day in America: How Our Politics and Culture Have Been Dehumanized in the Name of Science Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5In Your Face: 9 Sexual Studies Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsPolitics and Expertise: How to Use Science in a Democratic Society Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsMoral Laboratories: Family Peril and the Struggle for a Good Life Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsLife in Crisis: The Ethical Journey of Doctors Without Borders Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Age of Immunology: Conceiving a Future in an Alienating World Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsOther, Please Specify: Queer Methods in Sociology Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsA Global History of Sexual Science, 1880–1960 Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsReproduction by Design: Sex, Robots, Trees, and Test-Tube Babies in Interwar Britain Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Sciences and the Humanities: Conflict and Reconciliation Rating: 2 out of 5 stars2/5Race Unmasked: Biology and Race in the Twentieth Century Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsNetworks in Tropical Medicine: Internationalism, Colonialism, and the Rise of a Medical Specialty, 1890–1930 Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsContempt and Pity: Social Policy and the Image of the Damaged Black Psyche, 1880-1996 Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Ethics in an Age of Terror and Genocide: Identity and Moral Choice Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsCommunity, Cosmopolitanism and the Problem of Human Commonality Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsDifficult Folk?: A Political History of Social Anthropology Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsTwins Talk: What Twins Tell Us about Person, Self, and Society Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsVisions of Culture: An Introduction to Anthropological Theories and Theorists Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5
Medical For You
The Lost Book of Simple Herbal Remedies: Discover over 100 herbal Medicine for all kinds of Ailment Inspired By Barbara O'Neill Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe 40 Day Dopamine Fast Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Holistic Herbal: A Safe and Practical Guide to Making and Using Herbal Remedies Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Vagina Bible: The Vulva and the Vagina: Separating the Myth from the Medicine Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Rewire Your Brain: Think Your Way to a Better Life Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Hormone Reset Diet: Heal Your Metabolism to Lose Up to 15 Pounds in 21 Days Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Tight Hip Twisted Core: The Key To Unresolved Pain Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Adult ADHD: How to Succeed as a Hunter in a Farmer's World Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Mediterranean Diet Meal Prep Cookbook: Easy And Healthy Recipes You Can Meal Prep For The Week Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5ATOMIC HABITS:: How to Disagree With Your Brain so You Can Break Bad Habits and End Negative Thinking Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5What Happened to You?: Conversations on Trauma, Resilience, and Healing Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Diabetes Code: Prevent and Reverse Type 2 Diabetes Naturally Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Healthy Gut, Healthy You: The Personalized Plan to Transform Your Health from the Inside Out Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Woman: An Intimate Geography Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Period Power: Harness Your Hormones and Get Your Cycle Working For You Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Amazing Liver and Gallbladder Flush Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Gut: The Inside Story of Our Body's Most Underrated Organ (Revised Edition) Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Women With Attention Deficit Disorder: Embrace Your Differences and Transform Your Life Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5The Art of Dying Well: A Practical Guide to a Good End of Life Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Working Stiff: Two Years, 262 Bodies, and the Making of a Medical Examiner Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Summary of Dr. Gundry's Diet Evolution: Turn off the Genes That Are Killing You and Your Waistline Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5Herbal Healing for Women Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Song of the Cell: An Exploration of Medicine and the New Human Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Butchering Art: Joseph Lister's Quest to Transform the Grisly World of Victorian Medicine Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5
Reviews for Fuckology
0 ratings0 reviews
Book preview
Fuckology - Lisa Downing
LISA DOWNING is professor of French discourses of sexuality at the University of Birmingham, United Kingdom. IAIN MORLAND works in music technology as an audio editor, sound designer, and programmer. NIKKI SULLIVAN is an honorary researcher in the Department of Media, Music, Communication, and Cultural Studies and teaches in the School of Communication, International Studies, and Languages at the University of South Australia.
The University of Chicago Press, Chicago 60637
The University of Chicago Press, Ltd., London
© 2015 by The University of Chicago
All rights reserved. Published 2015.
Printed in the United States of America
24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 1 2 3 4 5
ISBN-13: 978-0-226-18658-0 (cloth)
ISBN-13: 978-0-226-18661-0 (paper)
ISBN-13: 978-0-226-18675-7 (e-book)
DOI: 10.7208/chicago/9780226186757.001.0001
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Fuckology : critical essays on John Money’s diagnostic concepts / Lisa Downing, Iain Morland, and Nikki Sullivan. — 1 Edition.
pages cm
Includes index.
ISBN 978-0-226-18658-0 (cloth : alkaline paper) — ISBN 978-0-226-18661-0 (paperback : alkaline paper) — ISBN 978-0-226-18675-7 (e-book)
1. Money, John, 1921–2006. 2. Sexology. 3. Gender identity. I. Downing, Lisa, author. II. Morland, Iain, 1978– author. III. Sullivan, Nikki, 1962– author.
HQ60.F83 2015
306.7—dc23
2014010241
This paper meets the requirements of ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992 (Permanence of Paper).
Fuckology
CRITICAL ESSAYS ON JOHN MONEY’S DIAGNOSTIC CONCEPTS
Lisa Downing, Iain Morland, and Nikki Sullivan
The University of Chicago Press
CHICAGO & LONDON
CONTENTS
Acknowledgments
Introduction: On the Duke of Dysfunction
PART 1. Mapping
1. The Matter of Gender
Nikki Sullivan
2. A Disavowed Inheritance: Nineteenth-Century Perversion Theory and John Money’s Paraphilia
Lisa Downing
3. Gender, Genitals, and the Meaning of Being Human
Iain Morland
PART 2. Vandalizing
4. Cybernetic Sexology
Iain Morland
5. Reorienting Transsexualism: From Brain Organization Theory to Phenomenology
Nikki Sullivan
6. Citizen-Paraphiliac
: Normophilia and Biophilia in John Money’s Sexology
Lisa Downing
Conclusion: Off the Map
Notes
Index
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Lisa thanks the Leverhulme Trust for the award of a 2009 Philip Leverhulme Prize, which provided two years of research leave from the University of Exeter, and the Wellcome Trust for a Research Expenses grant that funded a trip to the Kinsey Institute, University of Indiana, in 2011 to carry out archival research in the John Money Collection. Thanks are due to the staff of the Kinsey Institute, especially Shawn C. Wilson and Liana Zhou, for their help in the course of this visit. Lisa is individually indebted to the following colleagues for providing—variously—information, ideas, feedback, references, and platforms for the dissemination of this research: Peter Cryle, Robby Davidson, Tim Dean, Robbie Duschinsky, John Forrester, Gert Hekma, Jennifer Burns Levin, Charles Moser, Dany Nobus, Eliza Steinbock, and Elizabeth Stephens.
For invaluable discussions and information, Iain thanks Neil Badmington, Diane Black, Jake Buckley, Helen D’Artillac-Brill, Milton Diamond, Alice Dreger, Katie Gramich, Laura Gregory, Katrina Karkazis, Emma Ralph, Keith Sigmundson, and Richard Symes. For feedback on earlier versions of chapter 3, Iain thanks Robert Eaglestone, Mandy Merck, Margrit Shildrick, and Joanna Zylinska. Chapter 3 originates in research that was supported by the UK Arts and Humanities Research Council, and includes material previously published as Plastic Man: Intersex, Humanism and the Reimer Case,
Subject Matters 3, no. 2/4, no. 1 (2007): 81–98, which is reproduced here with permission of London Metropolitan University, and with thanks to Paul Cobley.
Nikki is grateful to all those who have helped her to think through the material covered in chapters 1 and 5, in particular, Kellie Greene, Susan Stryker, Samantha Murray, Jessica Cadwallader, Elizabeth Stephens, Dennis Bruining, Rosalyn Diprose, Sara Ahmed, and, of course, Iain and Lisa. She would also like to thank the Special Collections staff at the University of Otago Library, Dunedin, for help navigating the collection of John Money’s manuscripts and papers.
All three authors would like to thank the team at the University of Chicago Press, especially Douglas Mitchell and Tim McGovern, and the expert readers, Ivan Crozier and Susan Stryker, for their constructive feedback on this manuscript.
INTRODUCTION
On the Duke of Dysfunction
Lisa Downing, Iain Morland, and Nikki Sullivan
Dr. John Money is the Duke of Dysfunction, a man who writes about unspeakable
human sexual problems with such dignity and care that his case histories make me feel almost normal.
JOHN WATERS, jacket endorsement for John Money, Gendermaps: Social Constructionism, Feminism, and Sexosophical History
The New Zealand-born, US-based psychologist John Money (1921–2006) has had a singular influence on the diagnosis and treatment of (to use Money’s terms) hermaphroditism,
transsexualism,
and paraphilia.
¹ The reception of his more than five hundred articles and over forty books, as well as hundreds of neologisms including gender
itself, has been both exceptionally significant and strikingly uneven.² Whereas gender
is now a ubiquitous, everyday term in the English-speaking world, and lovemap
has entered the lexicon of popular psychology, some of his more outlandish coinages, concepts, and recommendations have entered neither popular nor medical currency.
Money’s widespread yet disparate uptake is explained partly by the fact that his stylistically bizarre texts were aimed at multiple audiences, most often physicians, psychiatrists, and sexologists, but sometimes anthropologists, historians, psychoanalysts, and lay readers. Money’s career was also beset by ethical controversy, exemplified by the internationally publicized case of David Reimer. Following sex reassignment in infancy under Money’s guidance, in response to a circumcision accident, Reimer’s story was held variously to show Money as humane and barbaric, naive and deceitful, a social constructionist and an anatomical determinist. Just as Money’s ideas have been characterized as either pathologizing or liberating, so too has Money’s flamboyant persona been beatified or damned. These tendencies to polarize Money and his work are both productive and symptomatic of a failure to interrogate the complexities, contradictions, and tensions in Money’s œuvre. Therefore, a careful cross-disciplinary, multiauthored engagement with Money’s work and its deployment is overdue.
For example, sufficiently close attention has not hitherto been paid to Money’s fears (which were probably understandable given the historicopolitical context of his work during the 1950s) that sexology could be dismissed as a prurient, if not altogether perverse
practice, much as its forerunners in the nineteenth century had been demonized by many doctors and clerics. It is in this light that we understand Money’s constant demand that his field, for which his predecessors could not find a name,
should be considered both a legitimate science and the natural home of taboo-busting sex research.
³ The conception of a unique (nameless) scientific field—which Money argues complements other sciences such as urology, gynecology, endocrinology, and so on, and for which he suggested the name fuckology
—functions hand in hand with Money’s fascination with a Linnaean
taxonomic approach to human experience.⁴ A passion for creating taxonomies is evident in his coining of a plethora of diagnostic and technical terms, including Adam Principle,
exigency theory,
gynemimesis,
mindbrain,
neurocognitional,
normophilia,
phylism,
troopbondance,
and a whole range of paraphilias, such as apotemnophilia,
autassassinophilia,
and autonepiophilia,
to give only a sample of those at the beginning of the alphabet. It is, then, somewhat ironic that Money claimed inspiration from Willa Cather and Ernest Hemingway for their economy of words and uncluttered style.
⁵
Connecting Money’s aspiration to scientificity and his tendency to taxonomic invention is his view of both gender
and the lovemap
as kinds of native language.
⁶ In one paper from 1982, Money wrote: For sexological research the development of . . . an analytic vocabulary is not simply an ideal, but an absolute necessity, for without it erotosexual practice cannot be properly subdivided and reduced to identifiable units for investigation in research.
⁷ And, in the same paper, he could not resist adding, after a mention of every behavioral unit,
a parenthetical nascent term for this concept: (behavioron).
⁸ For Money then, as we will explore in this book, the acquisition of a language about sex was an object of study, a scientific method, and a master metaphor, all at once.
The title of this book, Fuckology, is a reappropriation of a neologism that Money proposed for introduction into scholarly, clinical, and lay discourse. He wrote in 1988 of the need for a word like fuckology, used in everyday, vernacular English to signify the science of what it is that people actually do under the cover of polite expressions like making love or having sex.
⁹ Although this book’s critical remit is wider than Money’s contribution to the study of sexual orientations and practices, and while the book certainly does not seek to further Money’s agenda by using fuckology
as a candid descriptor in the way that he suggests is possible, the term fuckology,
used against the grain, strikes us as extraordinarily appropriate shorthand to describe a method of queering—or fucking with—sexology, and with the logic of scientificity in which it is invested. In particular, we are aware of, and seek precisely to exploit, the readerly discomfort and uncertainty potentially engendered by the use of this nonacademic vocabulary (the sort of vocabulary that Money himself might have called the terminology of the barnyard
).¹⁰ Money often used sexualized rather than clinical terms for sexual activities, such as the verbs to quim
and to swive,
which he derived from vernacular seventeenth-century terms for genitalia, and which were intended by Money to describe the active-assertive practice of the female and the male, respectively, in penovaginal copulation.
¹¹ He seems to have understood such linguistic misdemeanors as acts of daring resistance to an imagined censorious sex police,
albeit in a gesture that risked undermining his claims made elsewhere for the scientific seriousness of this work; Money was aware as early as 1955 that neologisms could be regarded as perverse technical jargon.
¹² Putting aside our various reservations about Money’s intentions in introducing neologisms such as these, we find the term fuckology
productive insofar as it suggests resistance to a unified theory of Money. Further, fuckology
disrupts the domestication of Money’s peculiar œuvre as a transient moment along a path to ever more scientific and humane knowledge of hermaphroditism,
transsexualism,
and paraphilia.
BEING DR. MONEY
As alluded to above, much of the available commentary on John Money casts him as either a god or a monster. While this book eschews a psychologizing man and his works
approach to Money’s contribution, in favor of an interrogation of his influences and contexts in producing and transforming the diagnostic concepts with which he worked, it will be necessary to examine the associations that accrue to the name John Money
in the course of his career, and in the posthumous reception of his work. Moreover, while our book seeks to reach conclusions about Money’s contributions to sexology without adhering to the personal loyalties and enmities that led to his deification/demonization, it would be erroneous to ignore the ethically and politically charged circumstances and environment that produced such work. To this end, we offer the following short biographical sketch.
John Money was born on July 8, 1921, in Morrinsville, New Zealand, to an Australian father and an English mother. He completed high school early and went on to study at Victoria University, Wellington. In 1944, he graduated with a teacher’s certificate and a double master’s degree in education and philosophy/psychology. He took up an appointment as a junior lecturer in the psychology department at the University of Otago in Dunedin, where he worked for three years. Because, at that time, it was not possible to read for a doctorate in psychology in New Zealand, Money emigrated to the United States in 1947, working as a psychology resident in a Pittsburgh hospital before being accepted into a PhD program at Harvard University in the Department of Social Relations. He graduated in 1952 having produced a dissertation titled Hermaphroditism: An Inquiry into the Nature of a Human Paradox.
¹³ Money did not train as a medical doctor, surgeon, or psychiatrist, as has sometimes been assumed.¹⁴
His clinical work with intersex individuals began before he had even completed his doctorate, initially at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, and subsequently at the Johns Hopkins Harriet Lane Home for Invalid Children. Money moved to Johns Hopkins University in 1951 with his mentor, the psychologist and physician Joan Hampson. Shortly afterward, he met Lawson Wilkins, MD, influential head of the Clinic for Pediatric Endocrinology at Johns Hopkins. Wilkins allowed Money to interview patients at the clinic for his doctoral research, and once the research was completed, Money continued to work under Wilkins, in close collaboration with Joan Hampson and her husband John (also a psychologist and physician).¹⁵ Together they composed what Money would later call the Psychohormonal Research Unit,
affiliated with both the Departments of Pediatrics and Psychiatry.¹⁶ The import of the work by Money and the Hampsons in shaping protocols for intersex treatment cannot be overstated. Yet, despite their pioneering collaboration, Money and John Hampson were no longer on speaking terms
by 1957.¹⁷ The definitive reason for this rift is not given in any published literature on Money that we have been able to find.
By the mid-1960s, Money’s interest had turned to transsexualism and the possibility of surgical treatment: between 1964 and 1967 he was part of a research team led by Harry Benjamin (and including Ruth Rae Doorbar, Richard Green, Henry Guze, Herbert Kupperman, Wardell Pomeroy, and Leo Wollman), whose study of transsexualism was funded by the Erickson Educational Foundation. The latter had been established in 1964 by the wealthy trans man and patient of Benjamin’s, Reed Erickson. Research undertaken by the group was integral to the official establishment of the Johns Hopkins Gender Identity Clinic (in July 1966) as well as to the formation of the Harry Benjamin Foundation (in 1967). Moreover, according to Benjamin, Money was probably more responsible than any other individual for the decision that such an august institution as Johns Hopkins Hospital would . . . endorse sex-altering surgery in suitable subjects,
a practice for which, at the time, there was little support among medical professionals.¹⁸ Money also served on the advisory board of the Harry Benjamin Foundation, which regularly referred patients to Hopkins, ensuring a client base for the treatments he was developing.¹⁹ However, Money later expressed disappointment that the Gender Identity Clinic, whose name he professed to have inspired, did not become a center for manifold syndromes related to gender identity,
and remained focused on transsexualism until its closure in 1979.²⁰
In the 1980s and 1990s, John Money wrote widely about the paraphilia diagnosis and his advocacy for the use of antiandrogen medication in the treatment of both sex offenders and, controversially, other paraphiles
with nonoffending behavior. In a 1987 paper, Money claimed that he had been studying the use of the drug Depo-Provera (medroxyprogesterone acetate) with sex offenders at Johns Hopkins since as early as 1966,²¹ at which time the drug had not been approved for that usage.²² The uptake of his combination of drug therapy and talking therapy
throughout the United States and Europe was intermittent, but not insignificant.²³ Additionally, Money’s interventions in debates about pedophilia, arguing that there is a clinical distinction to be drawn between affectional pedophilia
and sadistic pedophilia,
and appearing ambivalently supportive of elements of the propedophilia movement,²⁴ led controversy to dog his reputation, a taint on his name that would become indelible once the outcome of the Reimer case was a matter of public knowledge. David Reimer (pseudonymously at first) spoke publicly in 1997 about his surgery and sexological treatment with Money; John Colapinto published his critical book on the case in 2000; and Reimer ended his own life in 2004. Money remained at Johns Hopkins for the duration of his career, supported by numerous grants from organizations including the Josiah Macy Jr. Foundation and the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.²⁵ In his final years, a somewhat discredited Money suffered from progressive dementia.²⁶ He died in 2006, of causes related to his Parkinson’s disease, one day before his eighty-fifth birthday.²⁷
The bare facts of his life and work aside, what can be learned of John Money’s biography is partial and inevitably biased. The range of sources that, for different purposes, describe his personality and career, are heavily colored by the tastes and political affiliations of the given author. For example, few biographical sources make mention of Money’s marriage in the 1950s unless to lead us to infer from its failure something about his character. Thus, in his critical journalistic account of the Reimer case, Colapinto writes: As an adult, Money would forever avoid the role of ‘man of the household.’ After one brief marriage ended in divorce in the early 1950s, he never remarried and has never had children.
²⁸ It would be easier to feel indignation on Money’s behalf for this implicit accusation that he was not a mature
responsible
man, based on a normative notion of the functional, (re)productive citizen, were Money himself not responsible for producing similar charges about patients, especially paraphiliacs, as will be explored in some of the chapters that follow.
Indeed, it is striking that the accusations of perversion
leveled at Money by his detractors, for his ambivalence to pedophilia and his own unconventional sexual behaviors, are not dissimilar to some of Money’s more scathing observations regarding what he deemed inappropriate sexual behaviors (while writing approvingly of those activities he is known to have enjoyed, including nudism and group sex, practiced in the libertarian environment of the Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality’s [SSSS] gatherings).²⁹ Thus it is unhelpful to see Money entirely as either a misunderstood defender of sexuality in all its forms or as the victim of deliberate misinformation. He advocated both the study of human sexuality in its recreational as compared with its purely procreational function,
in which the SSSS led the way, Money claimed,³⁰ and the teaching of children that sex differences are primarily defined by the reproductive capacity of the sex organs.
³¹ Money never synthesized such views. Consequently, the uneven reception of his work reflects a certain truth about its character as an ideological octopus
(as one of us has written elsewhere), appealing in different ways to conservative and progressive commentators alike.³² We argue that Money’s work is not so much interactional,
contrary to what he frequently asserted, but tentacular.³³
Accordingly, angry responses to Money in the wake of Colapinto’s revelations about the Reimer case issued from both those apparently vindicated champions of biological explanations of gender, who perceived Money’s constructionist experiment to do violence to the unassailable nature of man
and woman,
and from liberal social constructionists alarmed at the ethics of Money’s practice. So, in a letter to the Washington Times, Carey Roberts (described as a writer and media analyst
) wrote that Colapinto’s biography of Reimer revealed the psychologist to be a charlatan, tireless self-promoter and intellectual fraud.
He added that the feminist dogma that gender is socially constructed remains widespread in our society. Boys receive constant messages they should act more like girls. David Reimer’s sad story should cause us to reconsider our mass experiment in gender re-education.
³⁴ In politically contrasting terms, but revealing equal vilification for Money, Mark Cochrane wrote in the Vancouver Sun that "neo-Darwinist explanations for gender identity reinforce a rigidity of roles and expectations, and they can be used to justify anything, from rape to an array of social and domestic inequities. . . . For these reasons, and despite the existence of monsters such as Dr. Money, the ‘nature’ side of the debate continues to produce a more dangerous rhetoric. Unfortunately, Colapinto’s book may play into that.³⁵ The proconstructionist writer refers to Money using an othering, teratological label in order to exculpate the
nurture
side" of the debate from being tainted by association. And, to neatly complete this discursive circle, following the announcement of Reimer’s death, David Jones would write in the British Daily Mail, espousing the view of gender that one would most readily associate with that newspaper, Arrogant to the last, Dr Money still refuses to acknowledge that the cruel human experiment he devised to confirm his flawed ideology has been a monstrous failure.
³⁶ While disagreeing with Cochrane about the value of the ideology
in question, he repeats the familiar vocabulary of monstrosity to apply, albeit indirectly in this syntactic construction, to John Money.
To Money’s defenders and friends, however, all such criticisms are liable to be interpreted as misrepresentations of Money’s noble project, or attempts to scapegoat a brave pioneer whose ideas could be simply too intellectually demanding to pursue.
³⁷ Anke Ehrhardt, whose doctoral research took place at Money’s Psychohormonal Research Unit,³⁸ writes in her obituary of Money that it was . . . regrettable that [over the last decade] John Money’s work was often globally criticized and rejected and that he as a person was unjustly scapegoated.
She goes on:
When we talked about the attacks [on his reputation, etc.], I tried to reassure him that he would share the fate of many truly pioneering giants in science, namely, that we were experiencing a swinging of a pendulum that ultimately would swing back and that his work would find the proper place in history. Indeed, the pendulum has already started to swing back to give John Money the proper credit for his extraordinary contribution to the field of psychoendocrinology and sex research.³⁹
And Richard Green writes in his obituary of Money that John’s last years were doubly tragic.
In addition to Money’s progressive dementia, "detractors had it appear that he set about amputating a boy’s penis so he could test his theory. He was denounced as a Dr. Mengele on Australian TV’s ‘60 Minutes.’ Newspapers that should know better, such as the New York Times, failed to provide balanced reporting."⁴⁰ While the Mengele
analogy is obviously exaggerated and emotive, it is unfortunate that Green should focus on Money’s ruined reputation as the most regrettable aspect of what happened to Reimer.
In a celebratory piece written to mark Money’s seventieth birthday, For the Sake of Money,
Paul R. Abramson describes Money as arguably the most prominent (and prolific) sex researcher of our day.
He goes on: For nearly forty years, John has produced an extraordinarily impressive scholarly record, on topics ranging from gender identity and gender role to sexual orientation and the freedom of sexual expression. Perhaps even more important, however, have been his theoretical contributions, which utilize an inter disciplinary perspective in conceptualizing the development and expression of human sexual behavior.
⁴¹ Abramson’s claim that interdisciplinarity is central to Money’s method is an important one, and one deserving of interrogation. Money was obviously fascinated by, and to some extent versed in, numerous and diverse scholarly and medical fields. However, his style can appear to disavow the very character of interdisciplinary work: the potential for interdisciplinarity to relativize the truth content of a given disciplinary stance by offering insights from another body of thought or method is never fulfilled in Money’s work. He is a relentlessly dogmatic writer. Although, as we shall explore, Money occupies starkly different positions with regard to, for example, the import of nature and nurture, neural and social factors, at different stages in his career and sometimes within individual publications, Money seeks at every point in his œuvre to argue for the rigor and definitional nature of his statements as they stand at that moment. This is especially apparent in the following claims about the influence of hormones on gender and sexuality.
In 1961, Money asserted that the sex hormones, it appears, have no direct effect on the direction or content of erotic inclination [which, for Money, was an aspect of gender] in the human species. These are assumed to be experientially determined.
⁴² Four years afterward, the biologist Milton Diamond published a critical review of work by Money and the Hampsons, which included a counterclaim that when we consider prenatal as well as postnatal existence, hormones may be regarded as directional as well as activational; and at birth the individual may be considered to have been neurally pre disposed by genetic and hormonal means toward [identification as] one sex.
⁴³ In 1971, Money called Diamond’s paper a rather ill-considered critique
by an inexperienced student of biology.
⁴⁴ Yet, two years later, in a paper that did not cite Diamond, Money claimed that research from as far back as the late 1950s showed that fetal gonadal hormones . . . have an influence on neural pathways in the brain.
He added, If I had said that even as recently as 10 years ago, people would be wanting to put me away. To imagine that fetal gonadal hormones could have anything to do with brain pathways!
⁴⁵ Notwithstanding this apparent convergence with Diamond’s position, Money continued in subsequent decades to refer to the former’s 1965 paper as a lengthy polemic.
⁴⁶ To admit of the potential of being wrong, or to settle for the productive tension of ambiguity, is not a feature of Money’s rhetorical