This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
John Money article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1,
2Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
![]() |
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Could we get some different sources on Money's invention of the terms "gender role," "sexual orientation," "gender identity," and "paraphilia"? He wasn't the only person studying gender and sexuality from the 1950s to the 1990s, so I'm somewhat incredulous that he came up with all of these terms (though of course it is possible). Ideally we would have citations for the original works where these terms first appeared. (Currently the sources for this are an obituary, which can sometimes give more credit to the dead than they are due, and a book that's behind a paywall.) Columbo2014 ( talk) 18:15, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
remove "Despite widespread popular belief, Money did not coin 'gender identity'."
The source for the claim is a "Letter to the Editor" however the phrasing of this line implies that the source is authoritative on the point. The edit for the line also proposes that this line should not realistically exist here but is included due to "controversy" - I would propose this edit is misleading and does not reduce the "controversy" and should at minimum be rephrased to emphasize the ambiguity of the source as well as the claim and moved to a more appropriate section of the page. Itsft ( talk) 15:47, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Des Vallee you added this edit which claims:
Money held a series of unsuccessful theories relating to Jacob's Syndrome. Jacob's syndrome is a chromosomal condition in which an individual is born with XYY sex chromosomes. Jacob's syndrome is today considered to have the most mild effects of other Aneuploidy causing no major developmental differences. Despite this the condition was heavily stigmatized due to a lack of understanding towards its effects, and was incorrectly thought to cause severe developmental problems. John Money unsuccessfully attempted to treat XYY boys and men (ages 15 to 37) with a history of behavior/educational problems by chemical castration using high-dose Depo-Provera. The study failed with many participants suffering weight gain and some committing suicide, the case is often seen as a breach of scientific ethics.
This failed WP:VER, as the source you cited does not state this at all. I have removed it. Please cite any claims with verifiable independent sources. Especially important if you are making claims about suicide and scientific ethics. Zenomonoz ( talk) 00:59, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Dr. John Money of Johns Hopkins University has set out a composite image of there may be up to four distinct clinical manifestations of this syndrome only one of which includes overgrowth, mental deficiency and criminal history
There were, however, four ways in which the XYY male differed importantly from the controls. First, even though the patients in the two groups had criminal records of comparable length, the XYY patients displayed, in their criminal behaviour, less violence against persons than did control patients.
In that five XYY patients made suicide attempts, including one eventual success, in contrast to one XXY suicide attempt. Even the one successful XYY suicide was impulsive.This is best described within this pdf, "An Episode from the History of History and Philosophy of Science: The Phenomenal Publishing Success of Kuhn’s Structure" by Kostas Gavroglu which is a paper dealing with scientific ethics and scientific history
In 1974, psychologist John Money at Johns Hopkins Hospital experimented on thirteen XYY boys and men (ages 15 to 37) in an unsuccessful attempt to treat their history of behavioral problems with chemical castration using highdose Depo-Provera. The side-effects were weight gain (avg. 26 lbs.) and suicide. This was not a case of science “going wrong.” This was a line of research where people were actively involved in attempts to create a paradigm shift: an attempt to find “the seat” of violent behavior in biological entities.
"some committed suicide"on the Wiki page, yet according to what you've written here, only one died by suicide. Problematically, Gavroglu appears to simply frame this is as a John Money initiative, when it involved a number of Money's colleagues in the endocrinology department.
Hormone and hormonal agents in the treatment of aggression,
47,XYY and 46,XY males with antisocial and/or sex-offending behavior: antiandrogen therapy plus counselingdo mention Money as they are primary sources written by Money himself, the one successful suicide attempt was written by in this primary source:
In that five XYY patients made suicide attempts, including one eventual success, in contrast to one XXY suicide attempt.. Five participants of the XXY 13 boys/men attempted suicide, one succeeded. John Money led the research team on XYY individuals and he is credited as such on the paper. The theories John Money held towards XYY syndrome are in fact not obscure, and are well published and his theories and research he conducted led to further stigmatization of the condition and it's "treatment" using sterilization. Des Vallee ( talk) 15:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
"The case is often seen as a breach of scientific ethics". The only source that appears to claim something close to that is Gavroglu, so what he said needs attribution to him.
"Despite this the condition was heavily stigmatized due to a lack of understanding towards its effects, and was incorrectly thought to cause severe developmental problems. John Money unsuccessfully attempted to treat thirteen XYY boys and men (ages 15 to 37) with a history of behavioral/educational problems by chemical castration using high-dosage Depo-Provera"which cites Money 1974 (which you incorrectly label 2008) but the source doesn't even confirm what is written here.
The data abstracted from the patients’ histories pertains to their untreated status... long-term followup, including treatment effects, will be the subject matter of future research., meaning the suicide attempts and one suicide occurred before treatment with depo-provera. You are incorrectly framing Money for something he isn't responsible for.
Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.
"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."the citation relates to that as previously stated but you are refusing to get the point.
Cytogenetics, hormones and behavior disability: comparison of XYY and XXY syndromesis not the citation for suicide attempts stated, that is just a citation listing John Money's incorrect theories relating to Jacob's syndrome. As I previously stated that's in
47,XYY and 46,XY males with antisocial and/or sex-offending behavior: antiandrogen therapy plus counseling, which details suicide attempts from Depro-Provera. Des Vallee ( talk) 22:27, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Six of the 13 men in this group had a PRETREATMENT history of self-harming behaviorand goes on to discuss the suicidality and one completed suicide PRIOR to treatment, which he already highlighted in Money 1974. One suicide occurred 9 months after he finished taking a 3 year round of Depo-Provera, not during Depo-Provera treatment. It clearly goes on to state
Two of the six self-harming people manifested an improvement while on treatment. Only one of these two, the one who 8 yr ago courted death on the railroad tracks, has completed his course of treatment and has had no recurrence of self-harming. The follow-up for all patients off treatment includes two deaths and no known remissions of self-harming moods or episodes. So the men improved on depo, and worsened without it. But you frame this primary source selectively and carry out your own selective analysis to suggest Money was "experimenting" on patients and ruining their lives.
Firstly the information relating to XYY syndrome is in fact important and is related, secondly the source given is a WP:PRIMARY source written by Money himself, if anything in this article it counts as a self published. The citation in fact states individuals who threatened suicide while on Depro-Pravera and committed suicide while on it, moreover all suffered weight gain. This is why the text by Kostas Gavroglu an actual secondary source on topic describes it as a failure. John Money was in fact was prone to misrepresentation of data, with say David Remier something which is directly stated in this article. Finally no where in the text is stated that John Money created the theory of XYY relating to aggressiveness because he didn't, he did however believe and write about these theories. Hence "held incorrect theories relating to Jacob's syndrome" is factually correct. Des Vallee ( talk) 23:12, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
"Money was in fact was prone to misrepresentation of data, with say David Remier something which is directly stated in this article"seems off-topic, but if Money was "misrepresenting" things, then why are you citing him? And why is he writing honestly about the weight gain? All drugs have side effects.
The citation in fact states individuals who threatened suicide while on Depro-Pravera and committed suicide while on it, moreover all suffered weight gain– I ready Money et al. 1975. Some XYY Patients were suicidal prior to treatment, saw improvement on treatment, and then one died by suicide after ceasing depo (p. 172)
"held incorrect theories relating to Jacob's syndrome", no secondary source frames it like this. You don't put that in WP:WIKIVOICE. Mathglot has already reverted you for using this kind of language.
"It is not yet known whether all patients on antiandrogen plus counseling treatment can expect a psychic realignment" (p. 176). There are plenty of books that discuss his use of Depo-Provera. One that is more clear about the results would be useful, instead of sweeping claims of failure and suicide. Zenomonoz ( talk) 23:54, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Can I just ask why we are even considering this material in *this* article? Assuming we get the sourcing questions squared away, wouldn't it be better to place this content in some other article, namely,
XYY syndrome? Regarding the question of relevance and
WP:DUEWEIGHT, I did an experiment searching Google scholar for the top 100 results for
"XYY syndrome" OR "Jacob's syndrome"
and checked the snippets (search result abstracts) for all of them, and tallied the number of times "John Money" was mentioned. His name came up in four articles in which he was sole or co-author:
As a control, checked those same 100 results for "J. Nielsen", who is coauthor in results #23, 33, 42, 48, 52, 62, 67, 69, 70, 72, 73, 74, 80, 90, and 91. It might be more interesting, to check how often other authors cite Money's XYY contributions, compared to how often they cite other authors, and I think it's possible to construct a query like that. I may try that tomorrow, and I'll also start over with the initial experiment tomorrow using Google books instead. Mathglot ( talk) 08:01, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
John Money article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1,
2Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
![]() |
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Could we get some different sources on Money's invention of the terms "gender role," "sexual orientation," "gender identity," and "paraphilia"? He wasn't the only person studying gender and sexuality from the 1950s to the 1990s, so I'm somewhat incredulous that he came up with all of these terms (though of course it is possible). Ideally we would have citations for the original works where these terms first appeared. (Currently the sources for this are an obituary, which can sometimes give more credit to the dead than they are due, and a book that's behind a paywall.) Columbo2014 ( talk) 18:15, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
remove "Despite widespread popular belief, Money did not coin 'gender identity'."
The source for the claim is a "Letter to the Editor" however the phrasing of this line implies that the source is authoritative on the point. The edit for the line also proposes that this line should not realistically exist here but is included due to "controversy" - I would propose this edit is misleading and does not reduce the "controversy" and should at minimum be rephrased to emphasize the ambiguity of the source as well as the claim and moved to a more appropriate section of the page. Itsft ( talk) 15:47, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Des Vallee you added this edit which claims:
Money held a series of unsuccessful theories relating to Jacob's Syndrome. Jacob's syndrome is a chromosomal condition in which an individual is born with XYY sex chromosomes. Jacob's syndrome is today considered to have the most mild effects of other Aneuploidy causing no major developmental differences. Despite this the condition was heavily stigmatized due to a lack of understanding towards its effects, and was incorrectly thought to cause severe developmental problems. John Money unsuccessfully attempted to treat XYY boys and men (ages 15 to 37) with a history of behavior/educational problems by chemical castration using high-dose Depo-Provera. The study failed with many participants suffering weight gain and some committing suicide, the case is often seen as a breach of scientific ethics.
This failed WP:VER, as the source you cited does not state this at all. I have removed it. Please cite any claims with verifiable independent sources. Especially important if you are making claims about suicide and scientific ethics. Zenomonoz ( talk) 00:59, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Dr. John Money of Johns Hopkins University has set out a composite image of there may be up to four distinct clinical manifestations of this syndrome only one of which includes overgrowth, mental deficiency and criminal history
There were, however, four ways in which the XYY male differed importantly from the controls. First, even though the patients in the two groups had criminal records of comparable length, the XYY patients displayed, in their criminal behaviour, less violence against persons than did control patients.
In that five XYY patients made suicide attempts, including one eventual success, in contrast to one XXY suicide attempt. Even the one successful XYY suicide was impulsive.This is best described within this pdf, "An Episode from the History of History and Philosophy of Science: The Phenomenal Publishing Success of Kuhn’s Structure" by Kostas Gavroglu which is a paper dealing with scientific ethics and scientific history
In 1974, psychologist John Money at Johns Hopkins Hospital experimented on thirteen XYY boys and men (ages 15 to 37) in an unsuccessful attempt to treat their history of behavioral problems with chemical castration using highdose Depo-Provera. The side-effects were weight gain (avg. 26 lbs.) and suicide. This was not a case of science “going wrong.” This was a line of research where people were actively involved in attempts to create a paradigm shift: an attempt to find “the seat” of violent behavior in biological entities.
"some committed suicide"on the Wiki page, yet according to what you've written here, only one died by suicide. Problematically, Gavroglu appears to simply frame this is as a John Money initiative, when it involved a number of Money's colleagues in the endocrinology department.
Hormone and hormonal agents in the treatment of aggression,
47,XYY and 46,XY males with antisocial and/or sex-offending behavior: antiandrogen therapy plus counselingdo mention Money as they are primary sources written by Money himself, the one successful suicide attempt was written by in this primary source:
In that five XYY patients made suicide attempts, including one eventual success, in contrast to one XXY suicide attempt.. Five participants of the XXY 13 boys/men attempted suicide, one succeeded. John Money led the research team on XYY individuals and he is credited as such on the paper. The theories John Money held towards XYY syndrome are in fact not obscure, and are well published and his theories and research he conducted led to further stigmatization of the condition and it's "treatment" using sterilization. Des Vallee ( talk) 15:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
"The case is often seen as a breach of scientific ethics". The only source that appears to claim something close to that is Gavroglu, so what he said needs attribution to him.
"Despite this the condition was heavily stigmatized due to a lack of understanding towards its effects, and was incorrectly thought to cause severe developmental problems. John Money unsuccessfully attempted to treat thirteen XYY boys and men (ages 15 to 37) with a history of behavioral/educational problems by chemical castration using high-dosage Depo-Provera"which cites Money 1974 (which you incorrectly label 2008) but the source doesn't even confirm what is written here.
The data abstracted from the patients’ histories pertains to their untreated status... long-term followup, including treatment effects, will be the subject matter of future research., meaning the suicide attempts and one suicide occurred before treatment with depo-provera. You are incorrectly framing Money for something he isn't responsible for.
Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.
"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."the citation relates to that as previously stated but you are refusing to get the point.
Cytogenetics, hormones and behavior disability: comparison of XYY and XXY syndromesis not the citation for suicide attempts stated, that is just a citation listing John Money's incorrect theories relating to Jacob's syndrome. As I previously stated that's in
47,XYY and 46,XY males with antisocial and/or sex-offending behavior: antiandrogen therapy plus counseling, which details suicide attempts from Depro-Provera. Des Vallee ( talk) 22:27, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Six of the 13 men in this group had a PRETREATMENT history of self-harming behaviorand goes on to discuss the suicidality and one completed suicide PRIOR to treatment, which he already highlighted in Money 1974. One suicide occurred 9 months after he finished taking a 3 year round of Depo-Provera, not during Depo-Provera treatment. It clearly goes on to state
Two of the six self-harming people manifested an improvement while on treatment. Only one of these two, the one who 8 yr ago courted death on the railroad tracks, has completed his course of treatment and has had no recurrence of self-harming. The follow-up for all patients off treatment includes two deaths and no known remissions of self-harming moods or episodes. So the men improved on depo, and worsened without it. But you frame this primary source selectively and carry out your own selective analysis to suggest Money was "experimenting" on patients and ruining their lives.
Firstly the information relating to XYY syndrome is in fact important and is related, secondly the source given is a WP:PRIMARY source written by Money himself, if anything in this article it counts as a self published. The citation in fact states individuals who threatened suicide while on Depro-Pravera and committed suicide while on it, moreover all suffered weight gain. This is why the text by Kostas Gavroglu an actual secondary source on topic describes it as a failure. John Money was in fact was prone to misrepresentation of data, with say David Remier something which is directly stated in this article. Finally no where in the text is stated that John Money created the theory of XYY relating to aggressiveness because he didn't, he did however believe and write about these theories. Hence "held incorrect theories relating to Jacob's syndrome" is factually correct. Des Vallee ( talk) 23:12, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
"Money was in fact was prone to misrepresentation of data, with say David Remier something which is directly stated in this article"seems off-topic, but if Money was "misrepresenting" things, then why are you citing him? And why is he writing honestly about the weight gain? All drugs have side effects.
The citation in fact states individuals who threatened suicide while on Depro-Pravera and committed suicide while on it, moreover all suffered weight gain– I ready Money et al. 1975. Some XYY Patients were suicidal prior to treatment, saw improvement on treatment, and then one died by suicide after ceasing depo (p. 172)
"held incorrect theories relating to Jacob's syndrome", no secondary source frames it like this. You don't put that in WP:WIKIVOICE. Mathglot has already reverted you for using this kind of language.
"It is not yet known whether all patients on antiandrogen plus counseling treatment can expect a psychic realignment" (p. 176). There are plenty of books that discuss his use of Depo-Provera. One that is more clear about the results would be useful, instead of sweeping claims of failure and suicide. Zenomonoz ( talk) 23:54, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Can I just ask why we are even considering this material in *this* article? Assuming we get the sourcing questions squared away, wouldn't it be better to place this content in some other article, namely,
XYY syndrome? Regarding the question of relevance and
WP:DUEWEIGHT, I did an experiment searching Google scholar for the top 100 results for
"XYY syndrome" OR "Jacob's syndrome"
and checked the snippets (search result abstracts) for all of them, and tallied the number of times "John Money" was mentioned. His name came up in four articles in which he was sole or co-author:
As a control, checked those same 100 results for "J. Nielsen", who is coauthor in results #23, 33, 42, 48, 52, 62, 67, 69, 70, 72, 73, 74, 80, 90, and 91. It might be more interesting, to check how often other authors cite Money's XYY contributions, compared to how often they cite other authors, and I think it's possible to construct a query like that. I may try that tomorrow, and I'll also start over with the initial experiment tomorrow using Google books instead. Mathglot ( talk) 08:01, 9 November 2023 (UTC)