Dr. John Money remains a significant, yet controversial, figure in the history of sexology and gender identity. His work in the mid-20th century profoundly influenced the understanding of gender, particularly through his theories suggesting that gender was primarily a social construct, malleable from infancy. This perspective was dramatically tested and ultimately challenged by the infamous “John/Joan” case, involving David Reimer, a case that continues to spark ethical debates and critical re-evaluation of gender reassignment practices. This article delves into the complexities of Dr. John Money’s theories, the details of the Reimer case, and the lasting impact of this deeply troubling experiment.
The Genesis of Gender Theory: Dr. John Money’s Influence
John Money’s career at Johns Hopkins Hospital positioned him as a pioneer in the emerging field of gender identity. In a time when biological determinism heavily influenced understandings of sex and gender, Money championed the idea that gender identity was not solely dictated by biology but was significantly shaped by nurture and environment. He argued that gender roles and identities were largely learned, a product of social conditioning experienced from a very young age. This concept, while groundbreaking in its challenge to rigid biological views, became the cornerstone of his approach to treating children with ambiguous genitalia or, as in David Reimer’s case, accidental genital injury. Money believed that with early intervention and consistent upbringing, a child’s gender could be successfully reassigned, regardless of their biological sex.
The Tragic Case of David Reimer: The John/Joan Experiment
The case that would become synonymous with Dr. John Money’s name began with the unfortunate accident of Bruce Reimer. Born in 1965, Bruce and his twin brother Brian were diagnosed with phimosis as infants. During a routine circumcision procedure at six months old, Bruce’s penis was severely damaged due to a surgical error involving cauterization. Faced with this devastating injury, Bruce’s parents sought guidance from Dr. John Money. Money saw this as an opportunity to validate his theories on gender plasticity. He persuaded the Reimers to raise Bruce as a girl, arguing that gender was primarily learned and that Bruce could successfully develop a female identity.
Following Money’s advice, Bruce underwent castration and reconstructive surgery to create rudimentary female genitalia. He was renamed Brenda and raised as a girl. Unbeknownst to Brenda, she was also enrolled in Money’s ongoing research project. Money meticulously documented Brenda’s development, presenting the case as a triumph of nurture over nature, a successful gender reassignment. He claimed that Brenda exhibited typical feminine behaviors and interests, seemingly confirming his theories about the social construction of gender. Brenda and her twin brother Brian were regularly brought to Money for observation and, controversially, for sessions that involved sexually suggestive interactions between the twins, purportedly to study their psychosexual development.
The Rejection of Assigned Gender and the Unraveling of Money’s Claims
Despite Money’s public pronouncements of success, Brenda’s experience was far from a smooth gender transition. From a young age, Brenda felt different and struggled to identify with the female gender assigned to her. She felt like a boy trapped in a girl’s body, a clear indication of gender dysphoria. Bullied and ostracized by peers for her masculine appearance and behaviors, Brenda endured significant emotional distress. At the age of fourteen, Brenda’s father revealed the truth about her birth and the surgeries she had undergone. This revelation was a turning point. Brenda, finally understanding the source of her lifelong unease, immediately embraced a male identity, choosing the name David.
David Reimer’s decision to revert to living as a male and his subsequent public accounts of his traumatic childhood directly contradicted Money’s claims of success and severely undermined his theories. David underwent further surgeries to remove breast tissue developed from estrogen therapy and to reconstruct a penis. He married and began to build a life as a man. However, the psychological scars of his childhood and the experimental treatment he endured were profound and lasting.
The Aftermath and Lasting Legacy of the John/Joan Case
David Reimer’s story, widely publicized in the late 1990s, ignited a firestorm of controversy surrounding Dr. John Money’s research and the ethics of gender reassignment surgery on infants. Critics, including psychologist Milton Diamond, who became an advocate for David, pointed to the devastating psychological harm inflicted upon David as evidence against Money’s theories and practices. Diamond’s follow-up study documented the abject failure of the gender reassignment and highlighted the ethical breaches in Money’s research.
The John/Joan case became a cautionary tale, prompting a significant shift in the understanding of gender identity. It challenged the purely social constructionist view of gender, emphasizing the importance of biological factors and the potential for innate gender identity to resist social conditioning. The case also raised serious ethical questions about medical experimentation on vulnerable individuals, the necessity of informed consent, and the long-term psychological consequences of gender reassignment surgery, particularly when performed in infancy.
Tragically, David Reimer’s life ended in suicide at the age of 38, years after his twin brother also died by suicide. His story, though heartbreaking, served as a powerful catalyst for change. It led to increased scrutiny of sex reassignment surgeries on intersex infants and a greater emphasis on allowing individuals, especially children, to participate in decisions about their own gender identity. Dr. John Money, while initially defending his work, faced widespread condemnation and his theories lost considerable credibility. The legacy of the John/Joan case remains a stark reminder of the complexities of gender identity and the profound ethical responsibilities of researchers and medical professionals in this sensitive field. The story of David Reimer serves as a crucial lesson in the importance of respecting individual autonomy and the limitations of attempting to impose a gender identity that is not congruent with one’s internal sense of self.
