Talk:John Money

message: Of the universe, I changed the sentence you added to the lead in which you claimed that the gender identity clinic carried out "surgeries on infants". This is false, nor was it stated in the source. As per WP:VERIFY it should never been put in the article and unfortunately stayed up for almost one year. Please do not put content on Wikipedia which is not in the citation. Going forward, I hope you can become a more accurate editor. 
For interested readers, the clinic at Johns Hopkins under Money was quite strict, only allowing adults and requiring they live two years as the opposite gender before being allowed any medical intervention. John Money did support surgeries for infants with intersex conditions (ambiguous genitalia) to give them a more binary male or female appearance, a practice still fought by intersex activists. However, these are not carried out in gender identity clinics, they are carried out in the urology departments and always have been. From this, he later derived a theory for gender in general, which lead to his experiment on David Reimer. Unfortunately this article has been modified significantly in the past year (for the worse) to make it seem like Money held beliefs he didn't (probably because of mythology peddled by a variety of conservative talking heads who are misguided, even if well meaning). While Money did support allowing carefully screened transgender people access to transition, he was quite old school in his beliefs. He did not quite believe in 'gender identity' as many people think of it today.
His experiment on David Reimer was a reflection of his strong belief in 'nurture'. Given this, he certainly didn't support the transitioning of young dysphoric children with normal genitalia, because he believed they could be reared out of gender dysphoria into a role conducive with their biological sex. This is made clear in his collaborations with the controversial psychoanalyst Robert Stoller, who aimed to prevent young children with gender dysphoria from transitioning through rather cruel methods. His student Richard Green and his student Kenneth Zucker both had similar ideas in their work. All four of them have faced significant criticism from prominent transgender individuals.
There are a number of misleading claims on this article which are not supported by their citations which I am beginning to work through. I will also tag Mathglot to make them aware of potential issues with the article as it seems they have some presence here. Others can feel free to weigh in. Zenomonoz (talk) 10:10, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed a second long-standing unverified claim: "Money held the view that affectional paedophilia is caused by a surplus of parental love that became erotic, and is not a behavioural disorder. Rather, he took the position that heterosexuality is another example of a societal and therefore superficial, ideological concept". If anybody can find any of his papers stating that, they are welcome to add it back, but it sounds suspect from everything I have read. Zenomonoz (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 10:21, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  , good job with the removals, and thanks for the ping. It sounds to me like you’re on the right track. There have always been people at this article who have extrapolated from Money’s controversial positions either on pedophilia or in the Reimer case and decided to condemn everything he did without any source-based justification. It is fine to remove anything that is unsourced, and I encourage you to do so. I’m away with spotty wifi so can’t help much now, but please continue with what you are doing, and ping me if you need occasional feedback, and definitely ping me in a month when I’ll be able to take a better look and help out as needed. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 11:24, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

text: Oops, thanks for catching.  I must have misread. Of the universe (talk) 06:06, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  False claims 

message: Change "it's" to "its" in the following line:
"Despite this the condition was heavily stigmatized due to a lack of understanding towards it's effects, and was incorrectly thought to cause severe developmental problems" Nabarlek (talk) 09:24, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 10:08, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2023