Talk:John Money/Archive 1

message: I found the following links on John Money, and am including them here because it's a handy place to "park" them before making any changes to this well-researched article. I would also Iike to do some "cosmetic editing" for style rather than content, but would rather discuss with the main author of this page, as that seems right and natural.
* book review This is a review of a book that was highly critical of Money.
:This is an interesting review of an interesting book. Both the reviewer and the book author have similar points of view. The problem I see is that there would be no easy way to balance the criticism of Money with a more sympathetic view because the reviewer is taking a bank shot at Money and probably nobody wrote what was ostensibly a review of the book in order to defend Money. In order to give a balanced account to defend Money, somebody would have to go through tne entire body of his work and show how his own views have changed since that early period in his life. (He seems to me never to say that he was wrong in decades past, he just writes another book that reflects his emended understanding, and then a few years later he writes a third book. I believe that he would now characterize his early understanding of the process of gender identity formation as overly simple.The book and the review do not take account of that fact.) P0M 02:50, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll agree with that. This Psychology Today excerpt is merely a book review, and we don't know the author's credentials. It is a one-sided account of a book that is highly critical of Money. --Otto 19:31, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: I am going to add this to the article today, it seems appropriate. --Otto 19:31, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I superimposed one link on top of another, by accident. I am not sure about adding this; it seems rather tangental to me and has nothing to do with Money, and is rather circumspect (ahem). --Otto 19:44, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: After researching the nature of this website, this can hardly be construed as an NPOV source for Money's writing, and unwittingly causes more controversy on a controversial subject. I won't add these "heretical" links. --Otto 19:31, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: I can't get to this article. Please check the link. P0M 02:50, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure: are you referring to this one? The story of John/Joan It's the Rolling Stone article by John Colapinto. I feel strongly in favor of this, because Colapinto was the only person to ever interview Reimer.  --Otto 19:31, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Or the AMA article I found? I had to sign up for a one-day guest pass to access the article. While it's important because it was written by the two doctors from John Hopkins who originally criticized Money for hiding the Reimer information for so long, I was reluctant to leave a potential copyvio on any page in Wikipedia. I'll have to dig it up again if I can send it to you via email?? Just not sure how to proceed...still new at this! --Otto 19:31, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Web links to add to article

message: * Love and Love Sickness, pages 8-12, 12, 15ff, 24, 32ff, 68, 86-87, 98, 118, 129-131, 144, 146, 151, 167, 191, 192, 215. []
* Paidika vol. 2, no. 3, 1991
I placed your original reference notes here, on the talk page, if someone should wish to check the information in the article. It seems like a more appropriate place, as it conforms to other articles for format. --Otto 19:05, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes 

message: :For Money, affectional pedophilia is about love and not sex.
For money? Skinnyweed 20:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Money" is capitalised indicating it is a proper noun, obviously referring to John Money. 172.153.16.33 23:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing sentence 

message: I've just reverted some recent changes, which seemed NPOV and outside the bounds of a reasonable critique. In particular, the addition of Category:Scientific Misconduct was misplaced. While, with the benefit of hindsight, much of what Money did was probably wrong, it was cutting-edge science at the time. Einstein's relativity theory didn't make Pythagoras guilty of scientific misconduct. Perhaps Money clung to his beliefs for too long; and maybe his work did have tragic consequences... BUT ....--Limegreen 03:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reversion

message: I put in a sourced statement about his discreet bisexuality which was reverted.  The funny thing is, Money himself would have likely objected to that since he saw nothing shameful about homosexuality, bisexuality and other sexual preferences.  The source of the fact was one of Money's closest friends who wrote about his sex life in a book, which I sourced.  So, why the revert? Is the idea of a sex researcher and modern authority on sex being bisexual threatning to some editors?  Money did not keep his bisexuality a secret.  He was, however,  discreet because of his prominence in the field. Nobody is outing him since he was never in the closet Lisapollison 03:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As per my edit summary , there is no need to assume this was a political deletion. This is a topic on which people have strong feelings (as is obvious from your response). Thus, the need for reliable sources is heightened. An author paraphrasing another's beliefs about a third person published in a popular magazine republished on a website that appears to be about a contentious issue is fairly indirect evidence. Both of your subsequent sources remove several links in that chain. --Limegreen 05:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I could get you the exact quotes and page reference from WHAT WILD ECSTASY but I won't fight an edit war.  For whatever reason, you are strongly opposed to hasving this well known fact of his bisexuality in the article.  Perhaps you feel it is not a fact but a slur.  If you were to read Money's books from 1970 forward, you'd see he didn't consider the words Bisexual or Homosexual to be slurs. Clearly it's not about sources because you could simply look it up in WHAT WILD ECSTASY yourself if you cared to. I only added it because how he lived his personal life had a strong effect on his academic stances. Money was also an important figure in the sexual revolution and I'd like to see that covered in the article.  if you want to do that work yourself, feel free.  I'm done with this. Lisapollison 15:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no edit war (or difference of opinion). I challenged your source. You provided one that would generally be considered reliable. You are thus free to re-add the content. This is a total non-issue. Please assume good faith. --Limegreen 00:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Money's Bisexuality

message: I believe that John Money did quite a bit of work with transsexuals, in particular with regard to advocating GRS and coining the term Gender Role
Does anyone have any information on this? Lwollert 02:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: His work in those areas and in the more general areas of Gender Identity can be found in some of his books which were cited, most notably:
#Money, John, and Patricia Tucker. Sexual Signatures on Being a Man or a Woman. (1975) Little Brown & Co: 
#Money, John. Lovemaps: Clinical Concepts of Sexual/Erotic Health and Pathology, Paraphilia, and Gender Transposition in Childhood, Adolescence, and Maturity. New York: Irvington, 1986. 
#Money, John. Gendermaps: Social Constructionism, Feminism, and Sexosophical History. New York: Continuum, 1995. 
#Money, John. The Lovemap Guidebook: A Definitive Statement. Continuum, 1999. 
#Money, John, and Anke Ehrhardt. Man & Woman, Boy & Girl: Gender Identity from Conception to Maturity. Northvale, N.J.: Jason Aronson, 1996. Originally published: Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1972. 
I could go on, but he was so prolific. It's really beyond the scope of this article to try and summarize the evolution of his thoughts and transgender and transexuals. If you are really interested, I could try and compile you a list of academic articles written by others that address his impact in these areas.  After his death, there was a an expected amount of looking back over his career and writing about his influence on current theory. Leave me a note on my talk page if you would like that.Lisapollison 22:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transsexual Work 

message: We can talk both about how much good Money did by advancing concepts in gender studies and about how his core theory proved to be both wrong and supported by slanted reports. Maybe someone can look up Money's accounts of sex play in a certain traditional culture, the details of which I'm forgetting. Anyway, Money's account of what he learned changed over time in support of his idea that kids need to have sex play.  That's another example of Money's slippery reports. Jonathan Tweet 13:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: other aspect of Money's career

message: Reimer was rebelling against his treatment:
"rebelled against taking the hormones" (Diamond, 1997)
"Joan began to rebel at going for the consultations at the Johns Hopkins Hospital" (Diamond, 1997)
It is misleading to claim that the sentence some how implies Reimer was rebelling against his gender identity as Joie de Vivre does in the original edit summary: It's even more misleading to paint Reimer as engaged in "rebellion" rather than "becoming male as he was at birth".
It is abundantly clear in the phrase "Reimer rebelled against the care of Money and colleagues", that the rebellion is about the treatment. Diamond (1997) appears to be perhaps the most reliable source for this, so I don't believe there is scope for debate. It is neither an "outrage" or a "distortion (it is an outrage to refer to it as "rebellion". it is a distortion.). Indeed, your use of the word "outrage" and "distortion", without any attempt to reference otherwise, suggests an emotional involvement.--Limegreen 00:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Limegreen, according to the primary sources you are correct again. Money no longer was directly involved in Reimer's treatment after the last trip to Baltimore when Reimer was 13 yrs old. According to Reimer's own account, he rebelled against returning to Baltimore after that age. At 12 he was started on estrogen by his local doctors who were still attempting to carry out the plan outlined by Money years before in support of his female gender development. It was only a couple of years later at about age 14 that he rebelled against this treatment as well. It was at 15 that he completely rebelled against the female gender role and publicly "became a boy again", or reassigned himself back to male (I prefer the former phrase). I cannot think of a better word to describe his rejection of the female assignment and all the treatments involved, but it did not occur as a single event at age 9, but as series of assertions and decisions between 12 and 15 years of age. It was only with the last couple of steps at 14 and 15 that it became obvious to all the local treating doctors that the reassignment was an unequivocal failure (and quite obviously not "teenage rebellion" or whatever our outraged friend thinks you meant). Again, all info is from Reimer/Colapinto and Diamond, and if I have misread either, please offer correction. alteripse 02:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you should read the friendship article to learn more about what the word "friend" means before you use it to refer to me.  You have been many things, but friendly is not one of them.  Joie de Vivre 16:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See irony. I assumed you had gotten the fairly unanimous message from all involved in the "mediation", but you chose again to revert a fairly accurate account with the words "outrage" and "distortion" but no evidence or explanation. In fact, if it is any consolation, I just discovered a minor inaccuracy in my own note (12 rather than 9 for last contact) that you might have gotten far more mileage from than your complaints about my "tone". Try focusing on the fact details of the case rather than reacting to "tone" and spewing insupportable accusations of inaccuracy and distortion all over. It will get you more respect from the rest of us. alteripse 17:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interacting with you has given me new appreciation for editors who refrain from personal attacks when discussing content.  Thank you for the contrast.  Joie de Vivre 17:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you truly not understand what I and at least 3 other editors have been trying to tell you? It was you who attacked and insulted and refused to discuss facts, not me. alteripse 17:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The conversation speaks for itself.  Joie de Vivre 17:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At last something on which we can agree! Shall we start over? alteripse 21:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rebellion

message: Out of interest i Just saw a documentary with David Reimer and his brother in it. David quite clearly commented on "getting into sexual positions with his brother" when he was seven, and David commented that it seemed "sick" to him looking back on it - that Dr Money would do this. Would it be slanderous to print what David has said somewhere or another? I can't remember the name of the doco actually - but it recently aired in NZ. Cheers nic Nic 00:25, 12 June 2007 (NZ time)
:It's not slanderous if it is attributed properly to Reimer.  If you can find the name of the documentary please post it. Joie de Vivre 12:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just found this article randomly - it's probably "Dr Money and the Boy with No Penis" from the BBC TV series Horizon. Here's the transcript. Graham87 09:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Documentary

message: The section on pedophilia seemed very confusing ("...pedophilia, including infantophilia (occasionally referred to as nepiophilia), pedophilia and ephebophilia."), so I recast it using the blanket term chronophilia. That left the question of whether it is appropriate to change the pedophilia to chronophilia in the statement of Money's views, since I have seen nothing about what term(s) he actually used. I am thinking we probably should make that change. Also, I changed "the debate" to "debates," because I cannot imagine that there is only one debate on the topic. Peter Chastain (talk) 01:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Pedophilia

message: I have removed the "accidental (?)" in drug overdose of David's twin brother. I have read quite a number of publications and none of them has stated that it was accidental, although they do not state that it was intentional either. Therefore the statement should be left as simply "a drug overdose". --Mizst (talk) 22:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brian's "accidental" drug overdose 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on John Money. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930184656/http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/press/2002/JANUARY/020123.htm to http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/press/2002/JANUARY/020123.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Since he was born in Newsealand GMT+12 but died in Maryland GMT-4, each specific clocktime is so important, because maybe he physically was 85 years aged when he died. Who knows may tell! 149.205.40.52 (talk) 14:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  How aged died he?