Main Menu
Resources
Projects
© Intersex Initiative
Unless otherwise indicated, you may copy, reprint, distribute, and even modify contents of this web site under the Creative Commons license.
In the latest (August 2003) issue of Journal of Sex Research, Vern Bullough of the State University of New York profiles the life and work of John Money, calling him "one of the great pioneers of American sexology in the last part of the 20th century" who should "be included in the pantheon of pioneer researchers."
In his glowing praise of Money's contribution to sexology, Bullough blames the masculine gender identity development in the famous "John/Joan" case (in which Money made parents change their son's gender to female after a circumcision accident) on parents' non-compliance with the treatment, and also on the doctor who performed botched circumcision in the first place ("He undoubtedly suffered from the attempts to change him, but the real suffering was caused by the physician who botched the circumcision, not by Money who was later sought out by the parents").
Furhter, Bullough responds to intersex activists' criticism of the surgery-centered protocol of intersex medical treatment as follows:
The issue of intersex children has been further complicated by the fact that the whole question of treatment has been politicized. [...] In short, [ISNA] changed the playing field, and though the Society brought hemaphroditism out of the closet, it also at its extreme became rather shrill. The ISNA tends to ignore the fact that the gender in which an intersex child is brought up will undoubtedly influence the child's ultimate decision, since in our world it is always impossible to be a neuter. The real need in my mind is in helping parents decide what to do with their infants, since society has not yet accepted the fact that there are males, females, and others, and both the medical community and the parents need some guidelines. Undoubtedly, major reconstructive surgery should be postponed until puberty if possible, but chromosomal sex alone cannot be a guide. [...] The problem is to communicate the options to the parents more effectively without influencing them and then to support them in their decision. Quite frankly, some parents of intersex children seem to be almost incapable of dealing with an intersexed child unless a gender is assigned and some surgery done.
This is an oversimplification of ISNA's position regarding the treatment of intersex children. As far as intersex activists are concerned, it is not just whether to perform surgery or to delay it; we believe in replacing medically unnecessary cosmetic surgeries with social and psychological support (counseling, peer support, etc.) and information, which will address parents' understandable anxiety about raising the child with an atypical genitalia without all the damages surgeries would incur. Surgery coerces silence on both parents and the intersex child, which breeds shame and isolation. We could end up being "wrong" about the gender of rearing with or without surgeries, but under ISNA's protocol we preserve the widest range of options when the child is old enough to decide for herself or himself.
There is no denying that John Money made some important contribution to the field of sexology, such as his adoption of the word "gender" to refer to socially constructed masculine or feminine characteristics apart from the biological "sex." But in his eagerness to praise Money's achievements, Bullough made the same mistake he attributes to some of his critics, that is, he oversimplified the opponent's position in order to make the alternative seem more reasonable.
Source:
Bullough VL (2003). "The contributions of John Money: A personal view." Journal of Sex Research. 40(3):230-236.
Posted by Emi on Oct 10, 2003