Only some people use their knowledge and intelligence for the betterment of humanity. Some people use their knowledge and intelligence to destroy it
Only some people use their knowledge and intelligence for the betterment of humanity.
Some people use their knowledge and intelligence to destroy it. -Tonya GJ Prince
For generations, human beings have understood themselves through the lens of biological sex—male and female. But in the mid-20th century, a shift occurred, not driven by women fighting for their rights, not by survivors advocating for their dignity, but by a sexologist named John Money. His work took the word gender from its grammatical roots and redefined it into something that would reshape not just psychology but society itself. And yet, behind the intellectual gloss of his theories lies a disturbing history of unethical experimentation and abuse.
From Grammar to Psychology: The Shift in the Word “Gender”
The word gender comes from the Latin genus, meaning “kind” or “type.” For centuries, it was a term of language—words assigned a masculine, feminine, or neuter classification in languages like Latin and French. It had nothing to do with human identity. But in the 1950s and 1960s, John Money, a psychologist and sexologist, introduced a new way to use the term. He argued that gender should describe the social roles, behaviors, and expectations placed upon individuals based on their sex. His theories sought to separate biological sex from societal identity, coining terms like gender role and gender identity.[1]
This distinction was not inherently feminist. Early feminists, particularly those in the second wave, sought to break down rigid sex-based oppression. They focused on how women were denied rights, opportunities, and autonomy based on their sex. Money’s theories, however, came from a different place—a clinical, academic interest in shaping human behavior.
John Money and the Reimer Case: A Tragic Experiment in Gender
Money’s most infamous case was that of David Reimer, an infant boy who suffered a botched circumcision. Encouraged by Money, the Reimer family agreed to raise David as a girl, Brenda, following Money’s belief that gender identity was malleable and could be shaped through upbringing.[2] He used this case to bolster his theories, claiming it was a success.
But the truth was far from it. David never fully identified as female, struggled immensely with mental health issues, and eventually learned the truth. In adulthood, he chose to live as a man. Tragically, both he and his twin brother later died by suicide, their lives shattered by a cruel, unethical experiment.[3]
Unethical Experiments and Allegations of Abuse
Money’s methods extended far beyond academic theorizing. Reports suggest that he subjected the Reimer twins to disturbing and abusive psychological and sexualized practices under the guise of research. This included encouraging them to engage in sexual role-play as children, taking photographs of them in intimate situations, and using coercive techniques to reinforce his theories.[4]
These actions were not only unethical but deeply harmful. The Reimer case alone is a glaring example of how unchecked authority and obsession with ideology can devastate lives. And yet, Money’s theories on gender were widely accepted and integrated into psychological and medical discourse for decades.
How Feminists Entered the Conversation
Feminists, particularly in the 1970s and 1980s, took up the concept of gender but used it to highlight oppression. Scholars like Simone de Beauvoir, who famously wrote, “One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman,” sought to show how society imposes rigid expectations on women.[5] They did not seek to erase sex, but rather to expose how societal structures weaponized it against women.
Audre Lorde often called out how Black women were erased from feminist and gender discussions. She argued that when feminism ignored the realities of Black women, it failed to serve all women. In “An Open Letter to Mary Daly”, she challenged the exclusion of Black women’s perspectives in discussions of female oppression, pointing out that white feminists often assumed their experience was the universal experience.
Radical feminists, however, have long pushed back against the modern interpretation of gender that detaches it from biological sex. Many argue that Money’s influence has led to a dangerous erasure of sex-based oppression, replacing it with subjective identities that can blur the reality of women’s struggles.[6]
The Impact on Survivors
As a Survivor advocate, my concern is always this: Who benefits from these ideas, and who is harmed? The survivors I serve—women and children who have faced coercion, abuse, and exploitation—have often been silenced by those with power. John Money was a man with power. He had institutional backing, academic prestige, and the ability to shape narratives. The children he experimented on? They had none of that.
And yet, his work persists in ways we still feel today. His theories have influenced policies, medical interventions, and societal conversations on identity. But at what cost?
We cannot talk about gender without reckoning with its origins, the harm done in its name, and the people—like David Reimer—who suffered so that one man could prove a theory.
Looking to the Future
Language evolves, but we must always ask: Who is rewriting it, and why? If history teaches us anything, it’s that when terms are redefined without accountability, there are always casualties. It’s time we honor the voices that were ignored, the Survivors who were used as experiments, and the truths that were buried beneath academia’s thirst for innovation.
Both womanism and feminism have always been about fighting for the dignity and safety of women and children. That means questioning the origins of the ideas that shape our world—especially when those origins come from men who have harmed the most vulnerable among us.
Citations:
[1] Money, John (1955). “Hermaphroditism, gender, and precocity in hyperadrenocorticism: Psychologic findings”. Bulletin of the Johns Hopkins Hospital.
[2] Colapinto, John (2000). As Nature Made Him: The Boy Who Was Raised as a Girl. Harper Perennial.
[3] Diamond, Milton; Sigmundson, H. Keith (1997). “Sex Reassignment at Birth: Long-Term Review and Clinical Implications.” Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine.
[4] Colapinto, John (2000). As Nature Made Him.
[5] Beauvoir, Simone de (1949). The Second Sex. [6] Jeffreys, Sheila (2005). Gender Hurts: A Feminist Analysis of the Politics of Transgenderism. Routledge.
If you or someone you love is a Survivor of abuse, know that your voice matters. Your story matters. And there are people who will believe you.
“Refusing to recognize difference makes it impossible to see the different problems and pitfalls facing us as women.”- Audre Lorde
