“This has happened many times before in history, that small groups of people with bad ideas get into power. This is nothing new; we shouldn’t be shocked by it. This is how bad ideas gain steam, especially when people who know better stay silent, or feel compelled to do so. My inbox is filled with notes from doctors, nurses, social workers, psychologists, all saying they agree with me, but can’t say it publicly.”
Miriam Grossman, M.D. Psychiatrist and author of Lost in Trans Nation
For many parents, the realization that the new SPHE course includes radical sexual indoctrination and gender theory which rejects the norms upon which human relations have always been built, was a bit like a bomb going off under them. They didn’t see it coming. They don’t understand where it came from. Is it a new belief system to replace the old religious doctrines? Or, is it just factual, and should we all just “listen to the experts” (the ones sanctioned by the MSM that is).
Or are we being brazenly gaslit?
If you suspect that gender theory didn’t exist until recently and that human beings are a sexually dimorphic species with large overlaps in personality traits and interests between the two sexes, you are not alone. In fact, in spite of the progressive idea pathogens that have spread rapidly from elite institutions, with the help of social media and NGO’s, this is what most people still believe. This belief is not without reason or proof.
We have all of history as a verifier of this belief, as well as biology, evolution, and common sense and psychology.
So what enabled all this ubiquitous talk about gender identity and gender affirmation and where did it start? This is the intriguing story of John Money; a damaged sexologist and researcher who conducted a wicked and abusive experiment on two children which led to the ruin of their lives and the suicide of one and possibly the suicide of the other through overdose.
Money also faked his results and fooled the burgeoning liberal community of gender theorists and therapists, and the public in general, for over 30 years. Sadly though, by the time his fake findings were exposed the damage had been done. Money’s ideas have caught on and are now the basis for a program that activists want inserted into the minds of the young through the school curriculum. Like Money, these activists either don’t care or can’t see what harm this will, and can, do to the children caught up as guinea pigs in their proof of concept.
The term Gender, as it relates to human identity, was first introduced in the 1960’s by John Money who was then a psychologist of John’s Hopkins University. He was also a famous sexologist whose main area of study was intersex individuals.
The intersex condition is the very rare aberration (about 0.002% of births) where an individual has both the female and male testes. It is not an internally-felt psychological condition (though it can have psychological effects), it is a biological anomaly.
Money was interested in how these individuals would be divined as either male or female. He would have used the term “assigned”, a term that has become ubiquitous in the language of gender theorists, and the implication of it is that biology – which is determined by genetics and is fixed and observable at birth – is superceded by a more subjective form of identity. This identity – gender identity – is internal, but at the same time it is essential and must be affirmed by society and by medical and surgical intervention when necessary.
So Money theorized that we have a psychological sex which is separate from our biological sex, and that we are born gender neutral. He theorized that gender is constructed by society in the early years of a child’s life and that it has no link to biology. By this theory, girls act in a stereotypical “girl way” because they are given girls’ toys and encouraged to dress in girls’ clothes.
This theory has since developed even further, so that now it is stated that gender is innate, but also completely separate from the most innate thing that defines a person – their sex.
Money stipulated that because children are gender neutral, a boy could be successfully raised as a girl and a girl could be raised as a boy, it all depended on environment. It was that nurture versus nature argument. Babies, he theorised, were essentially blank slates that could be turned into either gender by how they were raised.
At this stage gender identity was a (bizarre) theory waiting for proof. Money soon found an opportunity to manufacture the proof of his theory.
A HORRIFIC EXPERIMENT
In 1967, eight month old twins Bruce and Brian Reimer, the sons of a Canadian couple, Janet and Ronald Reimer, were brought to Money after Bruce suffered a terrible accident in a botched circumcision. His penis had been burnt off. The damage was irreversible.
Money told the parents to raise Bruce as a girl. He instructed them to keep his true sex a secret from him and change his name to Brenda; to put him in a dress; and to raise him as a girl. At the age of twenty-two months, Bruce received an orchiectomy (castration) and rudimentary vaginoplasty
The Reimer twins were the perfect subjects for Money to test his theories, or so he likely thought. They were identical twins, so if he could establish, through a controlled experiment, that the gender of each could be formed by social construction. He would have his proof of concept.
His trials were traumatic and abusive. He would bring the brothers into his office, forbidding their parents to attend, and make them rehearse sexual acts. He had them take off their clothes, inspect one another’s genitals, and watch pornography. He would photograph the children doing these “exercises”.
His experiment is a litany of the most bizarre sadistic abuse. Bruce Reimer – who later changed his name to David – “recalls receiving anger and verbal abuse from Money if they resisted participation.”
But while Money was reporting wild success in his trials, young Bruce rejected the imposed gender completely. He acted like a boy, and rejected the encouragement to behave like a stereotypical girl. When he was 14 he found out that he was actually a boy and changed his name to David. He eventually committed suicide in 2004. His brother died of an overdose two years earlier.
Long after David had proven the trial a failure, Money was still fraudulently claiming it was a success. Even today when the true story of Bruce, who was renamed Brenda and then named himself David Reimer, is fully known, it is seized upon as proof of the gender theorists who claim that it proves that David knew himself that he was a male and was therefore acting out his “true gender identity”.
Although this gives the correct final conclusion of the state of things, it wrongly stipulates that David’s “Gender identity” is a completely separate and independent thing to his actual sex. This notion cannot be proven; it is merely a matter of arrogance, and faith in the opinions of expert theorists.
But Money also had another dark influence. He was raised on a farm in rural New Zealand to an abusive alcoholic father and he was repulsed by male sexuality and male violence. His father died when he was eight and he says he was raised in a house of women where he was repulsed by his masculinity saying that he thought it would be better for women if men were gelded. He wrote that he felt he bore “the mark of man’s vile sexuality”.
In this context it seems clear that he sought escape from his own repulsion of male sexuality and violence through gender identity. Had he seen a psychiatrist, Money would most likely have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria.
Psychiatrist and author Miriam Grossman, author of Lost in Trans Nation says Money was a fraud and a pedophile and a manipulator supreme.
In an interview with thepublicdiscourse How Gender Activists Defaced Pediatric Medicine: An Interview with Miriam Grossman, MD – Public Discourse (thepublicdiscourse.com) she lays out a highly critical assessment of Money in which she says “Well, Money was not only wrong, he was a bad person—a pedophile who promoted incest, among other things. But he succeeded because he was an egotistical tyrant with elite credentials. He strove to gain as much publicity as possible, writing articles and books not only for professional audiences, but for lay audiences. He took his ideas about gender identity and the corresponding bogus—now utterly disproven—results, lied about them, and promoted his research as being genuine when it was nothing of the sort.”
INFINITE NUMBERS OF GENDERS
The fallout of the gender ideology that was first pioneered by Money is manyfold and is constantly changing. One of the theories bandied about now is that we all fall into a gender spectrum with two extremes of male and female on either end, but with infinite points in between. Not just female and male genders, but an infinite tableau of genders that are projections of an inner knowledge of what you truly are. These gender-identities are inate and we have to validate all of these possible identities even if they are transitory and constantly changing.
If you pay close attention to the “experts” and the sock puppets that fill the role of the political class, you may be aware that they claim an infinite number of genders exist.
The gender lists proliferate, and accumulate new distinctions daily with no limiting principle. As if they’re not even trying, the ISPCC has a dismally small list of genders A List of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Terms (ispcc.ie) . However, a very helpful expert group named medicine.net lists 72 What Are the 72 Other Genders? Gender Identity List & Child Awareness (medicinenet.com). The medicine.net “experts” explain how to help children understand their gender identity from the age of 2 and proceed to list symptoms which to the untrained inexpert eye seem to be nothing more than stereotypes of male and female behaviour.
At the start of this article we asked where did it all come from. Well if John Money’s theories on gender and affirming gender all sounds like a dogmatic belief involving a transcendent transformation which comes of faith and revelation, perhaps that is because it is exactly what its adherents manifest and espouse.
Expert commentator on woke ideology, James Lindsay, believes it has a religious belief structure similar to Gnosticism; a belief which predates modern scientism by two millennia but which says that the spirit (or the intellect) is good while the physical world is evil.
The Ancient Gnostics believed that man must reject the boundaries of the physical, which is of a fallen world, and strive for the true essence of the spirit. Gender theory rejects the boundaries of biology and creates a new physical gender expression based on something esoteric; something internally known and manifested through the intellect and surgery. Some would see surgery as a blood offering, and a rebirth into a new holy state through the transformation of gnosis.
In truth, most parents are extremely confused by the terms and the beliefs of gender ideology. They can’t rationally talk through it, because it is not rational. What they can see from the case of David Reimer, and of many other young people who have realized their mistake and are de-transitioning, is that it is a a cruel and unnecessary butchery of children.
What many parents may currently be wondering is whether those pushing gender ideology on children have the same outlook as John Money.