I want to say two things first.
1. John Money was an abusive asshole. If any person did what he did to the children, they would not only be fired, but seen in court, and facing penalties ranging from pedophile or molester. Yelling may have been normal, but having them undress, breaking confidentiality with other persons in the room, ect is such a violation of the children's rights.
2. How the hell do you mess up that badly on a circumcision? How the fuck do you practically burn a baby's penis off? Did you sneeze and the laser went wild? Did the hot nurse come in? Did you have any clue? I can understand some accidents as accidents, but the way this sounded to me wasn't so much the case. You just ruined this boy's life. Good job.
Now, onto the actual other content. When I was reading this document, I was in a skype call with my boyfriend and was talking about it a little, and he said it sounded familiar to him. I gave him a tldr/quick summary, and it was exactly what he was remembered. He's never taken an LGBT course, so I wondered how he knew about it. Apparently, it was a large topic that they reviewed in his Psychology courses. He didn't spoil anything for me, but I kind of guessed how this would go. I was more or less correct. I was assuming that John would have undergone the surgery to become a female sooner (I don't know how ealy they can be done, but I assumed childhood or perhaps even at a time that she wouldn't e able to remember), and would successfully have been taught to grow up as a girl, but then realize that she was possibly a lesbian or feel late gender dysphoria, and then receive a sex change again to become John, and later the parents possibly telling him the accident.
Money's philosophy was something I believed too, but more so in the sense of "everything you do and believe that characterizes your identity is a learned behavior." Maybe if John was raised as a single child, he would have successfully followed Money's formulate. Perhaps if it was more modern day as well, it would have been more successful (since we have cool toys for chicks and we don't all sew and crap). Some parts of the story seemed a little exaggerated (that or John was just a really tantrum child) such as having a breakdown when John's father wouldn't let him "shave". Maybe explaining that girls don't grow facial hair and so they don't need to shave would have been a better route rather than "girls don't shave". Maybe even tell your kid how much of a pain in the ass it is. You'd be shaving your legs and armpits down the road anyway. I can agree to growing up feeling a different gender, but this kid was a little over the top in asserting his point. I haven't heard of any other case so dramatic before.
I didn't catch it when I was reading, but I guess John committed suicide? If he was happy with his wife and kids, why would he? He was over the worst humps in his life, as far as I could tell.
John Money's paper really only served to show that transgenders can live non "psychotic" lifestyles post surgery and that they're "normal-ish" people. I would find this to be common sense, for the most part, but I guess it was needed to be proved to the others at the time. Sure, trans people can get into crime and live failed lives, but so can anyone else in the world. Sure, trans people work prostitution, but so do normal people. It's sad that not everyone can get a job, so it was good to see an increase in their employability.
Either way, his paper was short and to a point. It could have used more subjects so that picky scientists wouldn't criticize him, but sometimes it can't be helped. Overall, I don't have an opinion about the paper; I just have the comments aimed more to the people he's showing it to.
Blanchard's paper was a painstaking read. I definitely don't recommend it at midnight hours. Anyway...
I noticed that Blancahrd cited Money in his introduction. "Finally, all investigators concur that gender identity disturbance also occurs in males who are not homosexual but only rarely, if at all, in nonhomosexual females....(Money and Gaskin, 1970-1971)." Maybe I haven't been paying attention, but I don't know of anything Money may have said pertaining to the subject. Either way, I believe that Blanchard misused, abused, or manipulated his sources a little to match his opinion, or worse, only saw through his lens and justified it as such. As far as the quote, I don't really agree. We discussed in class how he doesn't consider women to be homosexual, and even if they are, they really aren't. (What a load of BS. He was being a sexist ass for just straight women, and then there's this). This guy doesn't make sense in my opinion, at least not logically. He defines "Automonosexuals" as people who pretty much get off by the idea or image
of themselves as the opposite sex, and the term "nonhomosexual" for heterosexuals,
bisexuals, asexuals, and automonosexual gender dysphorics. I would consider nonhomosexual to be heterosexual and asexual. While automonosexuals aren't necessarily interested in transgender pursuits, and are actually more fetish based, it's strange to just refer to them as nonhomosexuals; it's in the same category as a standard person. It would only make the argument more confusing. (Now, I think I just realized this isn't actually Blanchards work, but someone writing on him?)
The discussion on female gender dysphorics makes me wonder how many individuals may confuse themselves as gender dysphoric, rather than someone who likes homosexual things. Lots of women get off on gay men, as men get off on gay women. That's what the internet is for. Some women wish they could date a gay man and be their partner. Some women wish they could have been a man. What draws the line in understanding between a fetish and an identity?
No comments:
Post a Comment