Wednesday, June 8, 2011

John Money

I am wondering how many people hanging around the transsexual/transgender blog world actually understand who John Money really was and how much he is to blame for transsexualism being under the DSM umbrella or declared a mental disease. Money was a psychologist, a sexologist, and an author and the biggest proponent of nurture over nature or gender identity not sex identity. He believed being transsexual was acquired like learning to fish and not innate such as inborn.

John Money coined the terms gender role and Money is the man responsible for broadening the definition of gender that allowed its usage to blur the simple fact that sex and gender are not the same. John Money was a Professor at John Hopkins from 1951 until his death in 2006 and was indirectly responsible for John Hopkins dropping their early SRS program in the late 70's because he refused to stand up to the Psychiatry Chair McHugh. John Money was also a liar, a fraudulent researcher, and destroyed the lives of many transsexuals over the years. John Money was at least a supporter of the man-boy love groups and was in my opinion a pedophile and maintained a large collection of pornography that ranged from incest to necrophilia and included pedophilia. He often showed the collection to his students.

His frauds included the lies he told concerning the famous David Reimer case where Reimer's penis was destroyed by a botched circumcision and Money supervised his rearing as a girl which was a total failure. He lied about the research results and was accused of molesting both David and his brother by the Reimer children. Money was an evil and nasty man and I know this from personal experiences since I met him twice. Once in a medical environment set up by Harry Benjamin and the second time on Television in Philadelphia after my surgery in the early 70's.

The first time I met Money I was not quite 14 and the second time I was in my mid twenties. Neither experience was very pleasant. In the first meeting I was certainly not psychologically or emotionally ready to face his onslaught and was certainly not prepared for what he tried to do to me in a private meeting. The second meeting I was ready for him and a much more confidant young woman but he was both very mean but very convincing in the lies he told almost exclusively based on the David Reimer case fictitious results.

I speak from personal experience when I tell you John Money was an evil and deceitful man. Money's belief that gender and not sex identity defined transsexuals was at odds with Benjamin and others but his writings are the reason Bailey, Blanchard and their ilk are not considered charlatans which they really are.

An article on CNN-US about therapy to change a feminine or sissy boy is classic Money. 

Whether the child was gay or possibly transsexual we will never know.  All we know is he is dead at 38 by his own hands and in a sad way what they did to that child was aversion therapy on a 5 year old.

It will never end until transsexualism is removed from the DSM and made medical.


Anonymous said...

Absolutely and totally agree Liz. When I finally sought treatment I was shocked that the second doctor I saw about the issue said to mw "There is no doubt in my mind you have Gender Identity Disorder. I was shocked but remained silent not because I thought he was wrong but because having the classical education I did I understood the difference in meaning between sex and gender. My own research when very young had always revealed information about sex identity issues and not gender. My own feelings concerned my sex and not my gender. So when the term Bender Identity Disorder was used in reference to me I felt uncomfortable but went along with it because it meant getting what I wanted. I suspect I am not the only one of us who felt like that.

Over the years I have learned to hate John Money and unlike you Liz I've never met the man.


Angel said...

I remember several years ago seeing a movie about the David Reimer case, and I remember the contempt I felt for Money, for what he put David through... especially over the way he continued to characterize his failed experiment as a success.

It is unforgivable that Money's theories continue to be accepted today.

Dawn1257 said...

It's amazing what you can learn when others have direct knowledge of someone so infamous and their effects that have lasting consequences. While I was quite aware of the horror that befell David Reimer, I had no idea about "the rest of the story" that is John Money. Thanks for bringing this to light.

I guess what I find so disturbing is not just his death, but that with the eventual 'detransition' if you will, of David; how is it that Money was able to maintain credibility and stature let alone hold his position in such a prestigious institution? Wasn't he even years later still following David's life? Didn't he know that David was detransitioning? Surely he did.

Anyhow, yes, this man was a monster. His legacy apparently still haunts us. Perhaps with the 'outing' of Rekers and his failed therapies coming to light through the sad, and utterly heartbreaking situation of Kirk Murphy, perhaps this issue will not be so easily let to rest. If there are more people (apparently they are being sought) out there who have suffered like situations and (hopefully not) outcomes; this should create an overwhelming outcry within and even better outside the professional psychoanalytical professions. Then maybe this aversion/repairative crap will finally cease!

I had a conversation about the issue of Kirk Murphy last night. I had chills run through me because I am now more convinced than ever, if I had told my father about myself at a young age there's no doubt that he and my mother would have sought out the same type "cure" for me. Kirks father seemed to have identical methodologies to solving problems as mine did. For that reason, I suppose I am glad I was able to survive and wait.

Anonymous said...

Predictably most scientist fail to prove their hypothesis than confirm it. Failure doesn’t make you a bad scientist. Unfortunately for some a tragedy occurs. However, some of our greatest failures yield life saving results. Sad as the Reimer case is it produced the proof of concept.


Anonymous said...

I hope that this comment isn't rude or offensive, but HG, that's a human being you're talking about. A human being with feelings. With emotions. A human being who killed himself because of a pain he couldn't bear.

This isn't science. It's murder.

Do you honestly believe that a real scientist, one who didn't engage in psycho-babble do this to a human being? Would Feynman have inflicted pain like this? I don't think so. (he was not without his flaws, but Feynman was Feynman. Oh and he was just the hottest guy ever. Read the Feynman lectures on physics...)

Here's how a real scientist behaves,


One day when I was having lunch with Richard Feynman, I mentioned to him that I was planning to start a company to build a parallel computer with a million processors. His reaction was unequivocal, "That is positively the dopiest idea I ever heard." For Richard a crazy idea was an opportunity to either prove it wrong or prove it right. Either way, he was interested. By the end of lunch he had agreed to spend the summer working at the company....

....We were arguing about what the name of the company should be when Richard walked in, saluted, and said, "Richard Feynman reporting for duty. OK, boss, what's my assignment?" The assembled group of not-quite-graduated MIT students was astounded.

After a hurried private discussion ("I don't know, you hired him..."), we informed Richard that his assignment would be to advise on the application of parallel processing to scientific problems.

"That sounds like a bunch of baloney," he said. "Give me something real to do."

So we sent him out to buy some office supplies...

[note: he was a nobel prize winner]


This isn't science it's BS wrapped up in really nice terms. Of course, I know this because I used my magnetic ion based hypo-gravity field truth detector to figure this out.

Anna T.

P.S. - Elizabeth, I'm sorry if my emails offended you. If you want I won't email you ever again.

JAY said...

Well you wanted me to comment, here I am:

We are supposed to believe this story? That of course you knew this guy personally? How can we do that when you have such other obvious fabrications on your blog such as your "Ready For Induction" erotic fantasy.

Not to mention the picture on your blog, which there is no way it was taken in the late 1960's or early 1970's. It's certainly not of you.

You throw the word "fraud" around pretty freely. In fact, it seems to be your favorite word. Is that because it takes one to know one?

Just saying....

Anna T. said...

@Jay: [Citation Needed]

I don't know about the rest of this blog, but why exactly that photo couldn't have been taken in 1960s or 1970s? Eastman Kodak launched the Kodakchrome in 1935. If you're doubting it's quality then the iconic photograph Afghan Girl was taken using kodakchrome.

Don't you think it's slightly strange that colour photography of that calibre wasn't possible in the 1960s, even though the Apollo program had succeeded and human beings had walked on another world for the first time?

Doesn't that strike you as a bit odd that 2001: A Space Odyssey could be released in 1968? As well as all of the color romances of that era and this photo couldn't be taken?

Perhaps, you have access to some tool that can extract the photos meta-data and you can explain to me (with proper citations, of course) why exactly this photo couldn't have been taken.

I think that we're a dumb species, but we ain't that dumb.

Just saying. :D

Dawn1257 said...

@ Anonymous HG

“However, some of our greatest failures yield life saving results. Sad as the Reimer case is it produced the proof of concept.”

I have two thoughts on this which really boils down to one issue. First, experimenting with an unwilling participants life and failing at the experiment is well short of anything considered great. Second, proof of concept? Really? Not! Just because you can alter someones physical appearance from it's original design either because of damage from external origins, or a simple desire to experiment is not a proof of concept. A proof of concept implies that there is a greater good to the intended individual to function as a normal human being. David Reimer never was able to function as a normal human being. Your so called “proof of concept” IS the reason that was so. What you really have here, and what it boils down to this; it is the 'greatest failure of a proof of concept'. That is nothing to be proud of, nor should it exploited, or aggrandized.

This type of madness exacted upon people that have no say in having said procedure performed upon them, must never be allowed to occur again. If there is a lesson here, it is a lesson of what not to do.

The saddest part is, a life was utterly ruined. A life which never had a chance to find it's own happiness. A life that without any other alternative was ultimately to end as a direct result of the hands of the man who destroyed it. John Money.

Some legacy, huh?

JAY said...

I wasn't talking about the quality of the photo or that it is in color. I was talking about the style of the hair and make-up on the young lady in the picture.

Women did not wear their hair and make-up in that fashion in the late 60's and early 70's. And even professional fashion photographers did not light portraits in that fashion or technique in that day and age.

I'm a professional photographer. I have been looking at photos since I was 8-years old, and photos from the 60's and 70's just don't look like that.

It is a contemporary photo. The Afghan girl photo you were referring to was made in 1985, not the 1970's.

Combine that with the exceedingly hard to believe personal stories on this blog and it is clear that "Elizabeth" is a phony of the 1st degree. I doubt she is even a transsexual.

It's a fake. This whole blog is a fake. You are obviously someone who is easy to bamboozle.

Anna T. said...

@ Jay: Let's analyze this step by step, okay?

>>> I wasn't talking about the quality of the photo or that it is in color. I was talking about the style of the hair and make-up on the young lady in the picture. <<<

I'm sorry for making that mistake.

>>> I'm a professional photographer. I have been looking at photos since I was 8-years old <<<

Wow. Have I ever seen your work?

>>> Women did not wear their hair and make-up in that fashion in the late 60's and early 70's. And even professional fashion photographers did not light portraits in that fashion or technique in that day and age. <<<

If I understand correctly then the assumption over here is that this was a set up fashion shoot with hair, lighting and makeup. Perhaps it's simply a shot of her emerging from a pool and a friend standing there, taking a snap?

If you rationally think about it then she has never mentioned anywhere about a fashion photo shoot. Further, she isn't wearing any makeup. If you look closely her lips are nude and the photo she is emerging from the pool in a bikini and her hair is wet. Anyone with long hair emerging from water pushes it back like that and it isn't a style. It's just to prevent it from clumping all over your face.

If you pay attention to her hair then it's matted and tangled and it's highly unlikely that any fashion stylist worth his/her salt would leave hair like that.

Further, I can observe that from your professional background you're tempered to believe that this is the only eventuality. Using occam's razor it's more likely that this is an impromptu photo taken by a friend when she's emerging from the swimming pool than an elaborate swim shoot from the present day.

If you really want to be sure if it isn't plagiarised then you could always learn python, buy some time on Amazon's EC2 and figure out how to match differently annotated photos to find any trace of plagiarism.

Of course, I might be wrong, but given the global data pertaining to the scenario that is available on this blog the probability of this being a fake is low enough for it to be inconsequential. However, to be fair there still exists an universe where your assumption is true. Whether or not it's this one doesn't seem extremely likely.

>>> It is a contemporary photo. The Afghan girl photo you were referring to was made in 1985, not the 1970's. <<<

Yep. :D

>>> It's a fake. This whole blog is a fake. You are obviously someone who is easy to bamboozle. <<<

See above. :D

Take care,

Elizabeth said...



Sure jamiegotagun. What hair style are you talking about? Straight, long, and flat which is my natural look. Little makeup in either picture.

Look, I realize you hate women and you hate transsexuals and you hate yourself but bring some facts to the table little man.

You own a wig, a K-mart outfit, some k-mart makeup, and a set of breast inserts and you are a hair style and makeup expert.

Typical transvestite. Most real women do not style their hair every day and do not wear globs of pink makeup like a transvestite. I rarely wore makeup back then and I rarely wear it today and my hair is darn close in style right now but not quite as long.

Now go back to your official gay Our Gang Girl Haters Club and tell us all how everything about us is fake. Same story from the same degenerate transvestite as it always has been. You were cute and funny in your own mind when in reality you were just what your picture showed. Just another ugly man making an ugly woman in a dress.

Now back to your wig, panties, bra, pinkish makeup, and your ass bent over a chair for the boyfriend so he can use your asshole as his vagina and he can convince himself he is not gay because you pulled down a pair of panties.

Anna T. said...

Someone I deeply admire wrote this and I just think that everyone should read it. Please read it.

In case you're wondering here's a link that explains why I admire him.

Anonymous said...

@Anne T, and Dawn 1257

I feel your pain and understand the anger completely. John Money’s only skullduggery was not admitting he made a mistake and then covered it up--that is not the definition of murder. David Reimer killed himself. Sorry if you wish to use this as a political card to play.

I’m talking about the science at the time they botched the circumcision. Why don’t we blame the pediatrician that burned off David Reimer’s penis? Would the outcome be any different?

The Doctor and Hospital administration to David‘s Family, “Oops sorry we burned off your son’s penis,“ handing over a hefty check for malpractice and case closed.

Family still has to deal with their son David’s sorrow (tears streaming), “Why did you let them burn off my penis?”

But Wait, what was the science at the time? We can turn a boy into a girl fairly successfully in appearance. The child will adapt to the new ‘gender role,’ paraphrasing Freudian views, John Money’s The hospital went to the parents with this proposal and said we can turn your child into a girl, sorry for the screw up in the delivery room. Mom and Dad said “Yes.”

Why don’t we blame Mom and Dad? Blame the Hospital for that matter? What about their complicity in this?

This was the science at the time of David Reimer’s botched circumcision.

This article by Milton Diamond was in 2002 at the University of Hawaii.

“Male, Sex Reassigned due to genital trauma:”

[The patients statement ]”"Even though I was being brought up as a girl, I suspected I was a boy since the second grade. At about the age of 14 I decided I had to either live as a boy or I would kill myself."“

“This statement clearly shows an individual with the sexual identity of a male strongly expressing his move to live as one. He saw the overwhelming need for his gender identity to match his sexual identity. Once making the shift, he was accepted well in his new social role.”

Now if Dr. John Money performed the botched circumcision then we have a case of extreme cover up coupled with medical malpractice, but I don‘t believe that to be the case.

Milton Diamond’s research was influenced by the David Reimer case, clarifying Harry Benjamin, debunking Freud and Money. However as sad as this case may be the Reimer case has done a couple things, clarifying the science and proof of concept, yet regrettably putting the fear into doctors who are working with transsexual children not to make the same mistake(s) as in the Reimer case, erring on the side of caution, maybe too much caution....


JAY said...

Yes, you've probably seen my pictures. If you have ever picked-up a newspaper or magazine.

And yes, she is wearing make-up: Eyeliner, mascara, and lipstick. All of which is clear where I blew it up to 800 pixels on my blog.

But she still wants to lie.

"Of course, I might be wrong, but given the global data pertaining to the scenario that is available on this blog the probability of this being a fake is low enough for it to be inconsequential."

By that I guess you mean her made-up stories? Like "Ready For Induction?" You actually believe that?

Holy Popcorn, Batman, these people in here are even dumber than we thought!

Anna T. said...

@ HG: Yes, this is a very touchy subject for me, because my parents did and are continuing to perform their version of aversion therapy on me to make me male. So, do take all of this with an oceanful of salt.

Here's what I know about how drug trials work;

Step 1: Isolation of mechanism. Isolation of a compound that either attacks the allotropic site, or the substrate. Isolation of the mechanism of action of the compound. All of this is done in vitro.

Step 2: Trials on mice. Repeat step 1.

Step 3: Trials on pigs. Repeat step 1.

Step 4 : Phase 0 of human testing with micro doses. Repeat step 1.

Step 5 : Phase 1 of human testing with full doses on 20-100 volunteers. Repeat step 1.

Step 6 : Phase 2 of human testing 100 to 300 volunteers. Repeat step 1.

Step 7 : Phase 3 of human testing 300 to 3000 volunteers. Repeat step 1.

Step 8 : Phase 4 of human testing. After market introduction monitoring of exceptions. Repeat step 1.

Step 9 : You have a drug!!!

The problem really is the assumption that this is science. I don't wish to tread upon anyone's toes, but it's simply someone's opinion. Since would be autopsies on several such known patients from various age groups, studying the neural clusters and patterns. ( yes people knew how to do that way back then ) Identifying hormonal/structural/other abnormalities and then creating a hypothesis to explain the observations.

A hypothesis which can be experimentally verified and extrapolated to form a theory.

I'm quite sure given the data that none of this happened. The problem over here is that at it's core if it's science at all. It's bad science. The prejudices of the researcher weren't removed from the equation and the hatred and issues at hand directly played the role in destroying lives.

Maybe, he didn't pull the trigger, but he set in motion a chain of causality and enforced that course again and again by punishing a child for being himself and denying his basic human right to his own body.

It's the same thing as saying that treating homosexuality through this therapy was science. It wasn't. It was prejudice in the garb of science. The same goes for phrenology and other various things that were cooked up to enforce existing prejudices.

Science dictated that he challenge his conclusions upon seeing David's and other patients pain. Instead those children were tortured into fitting the profile the researchers wanted. If it was science then the act of manipulating data to fit their hypothesis is fraud. Exactly like cooking up stem cell lines.

Yes, there's a lot of gut feeling in science. Hell, science is all about making guesses at first and figuring out patterns. Yes, all of psychology isn't nonsense, but in this case something horrible happened and that man isn't great. I don't judge, but he sure as hell ain't a hero.

Human beings matter.

Elizabeth said...


The content you copied to your blog is copyrighted. You are more than welcome to provide a link to the relevant data but you cannot move it to your blog.

Anna T. said...

@ JAY : Yeah, well maybe I'm dumb. It's okay. Don't take it personally, but it's just that I trust my intuition and where the probability lies far more than anything I read.

I got the impression that you had retired. Why?

Elizabeth said...

This is an argument I cannot win because belief or truth is in the individual. There is actually someone living close by that was privy to most of what I wrote of the early days and in many ways knows as much if not more about what went on in those days. I would never bring her into this.

These types of arguments eventually devolve into the have you stopped kicking your dog scenario or my word against some person that has no clue who I am although there are several around and online that do.

The irony is gay jay is a man that absolutely despises women and considers women unworthy of much. He despises all transsexuals and if one reads his blog, I do not recommend it, it is filled with an obvious hatred for women of any kind.

I can only gather that he impersonates women so poorly so he can make them look foolish. Nobody can look that bad on purpose, can they?

If you do not like me or think me whatever just do not read my blog. I have been down this road a few times with others and I expect it will happen again.

Gay JAY is a man who hates women so where and how does he fit under even the transgender banner? I guess the umbrella is really big now.

JAY said...

If you want to play that way, okay. I did not remove it, but I have restructured it so that it conforms to the doctrine of "Fair Use."

You see, I know copyright law. Most photographers do.

The "fair use" exemption to (U.S.) copyright law was created to allow things such as commentary, parody, news reporting, research and education about copyrighted works without the permission of the author.

I believe my use of your material now falls under the accepted definition and format for Fair Use. Look it up.

If you disagree: Get a lawyer. I'm in the phone book - I will be interested to see what name you are actually in it as :-)

As for the photo, I don't believe it actually belongs to you, so good luck with that.

Anonymous said...

@Jay I've visited your blog, well it's not so much a blog as a vehical for you to spread your hate. You talk about fake here and so much of what you say there is is total fabrication. Especially the part where you denigrate the surgery. What is the point of that? The only answer is the wish to inflict mental pain. The fact that seems to fly past your twisted mind is the extreme anguish genuine transsexuals feel towards their biologically created organs. The surgery may not be perfect and it may not function any better than a female who has endured prolaps and hystorectomy. The resulting residual vagina is not much different to a surgically created vagina. This surgery is the only escape we have to survive and live a life. Yet you attack and denigrate that. One has to wonder at where this hate in you comes from.

You've said that you do woman and wash it off. The fact is you do drag, you do cross dress, you do gay man in a cheap frock, you don't do woman. I've seen the pictures on your blog. Incidentaly I have also read some of your comments on other blogs around the internet. Interestingly when it comes to transgender you get a lot right so credit where it is due but when discussing a genuine transsexual you clearly have no understanding of the difference. I'd say you don't want to given your hatred of biological women. Yet for some inexplicable reason you do drag.

Tgere was a gay man in my life way back when I transitioned not quite 30 years ago and a more kindly and supportive man you could not wish to meet. I loved him dearly as the good friend he was. He had no sexual interest in me whatsoever I was far to feminine even before transition. Perhaps that's why you harbour so much hate yourself the guys you like don't want you? Hardly surprising given what we've seen here of your charector and attitude.

What is most shocking about what you write Gay Jay is the unnecessary venom with which you say it and the targets you choose to attack. I don't like what transgenderism does to those of us who are transsexual and I argue for separation but I would never deny those who identify as transgender their right to pursue whatever dreams they chose. I just ask they do it for their own reasons not reasons that are borrowed from other even more vulnerable people. I don't hate TG's I do dislike what they do to transsexual image.


Anonymous said...

@Anne T.

First off in science for things to be studied that cannot be seen a model must be created. A model is a good model if it:

1. Is elegant
2. Contains few arbitrary or adjustable elements
3. Agrees with and explain all existing observations
4. Makes detailed predictions about future observations that can disprove or falsify the model if they are not borne out.

In the David Reimer matter you have a male baby boy, not a transsexual, with a male gender identity and a perfect control group; a twin brother. You couldn’t ask for a better model! Albeit a huge unethical mistake on the part of doctors involved and John Money.

I can’t think of any arbitrary or adjustable elements….

Take this same case and examine it with a Hypothesis question: Is there a separate gender identity from the physical sex of the body? Yes… This case scientifically proves that.

This agrees with and explains all of Dr. Harry Benjamin’s existing observations.

However, since gender identity cannot be observed it can only be disclosed by the patient. At the time of David Reimer circumcision the nurture model was best used to explain the behaviors of girls and boys; learned behavior, thus a biological boy could be taught to be a girl was the reasoning.

This is what makes this model so perfect. You would not normally do this to test Harry’s observations. You have exactly the perfect experiment to do that, and a perfect control group. HOWEVER SICK IT IS--this case has SAVED so many lives.

Whatever your personal feeling are about reparative therapy in this case (I agree with you reparative therapy doesn‘t work), gender identity versus the sex of the body makes reparative therapy a non-issue. The negative hypotheses proven actually explaining that gender identity exists separate from the body, making reparative therapy moot.

You’ve got to see this as a breakthrough!

“Life is just odds of certain events”

Given the number or SRS surgeries in the US versus your predictions on prevalence then we should have a lot of David Reimer like cases of extreme Type VI like gender dysphoria, Therefore we do not because the numbers of reports of “surgery-regrets” do not exist. This would suggest the prevalence is much higher. Your statistics have problems such as adverse and selection bias.

Which also suggests another experiment rendering the coveted Harry Benjamin Scale a false hypothesis in favor of a more three dimensional model as Milton Diamond suggests.

I personally don’t believe in the HB Scale. I was never diagnosed that way and have no idea what I would be on it. From time to time in my life it has changed. It automatically is questionable based on selection bias. Type I, II, III, IV, V and VI are easily equitable to school grades like A, B,C, D and F. Who would select less than an A?

It looks more like an XYZ axis to me. The sex we are X, the gender we believe ourselves to be Y and the gender people perceive us to be. When they are in line there is harmony when they are not in line there is suffering.

Just saying,


Anonymous said...


To be sure of hitting the target, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target.

You've never been guilty of slinging mud at those you don't approve of!?


Anonymous said...

You Sign with a very apt name! Congratulations!


Anonymous said...

"Given the number or SRS surgeries in the US versus your predictions on prevalence then we should have a lot of David Reimer like cases of extreme Type VI like gender dysphoria, Therefore we do not because the numbers of reports of “surgery-regrets” do not exist. This would suggest the prevalence is much higher. Your statistics have problems such as adverse and selection bias." ~HB

Lot's of big words bad they do not make ANY sense.

Anonymous said...


You're never too old to learn something stupid.

Now answer Shi's question, "You've never been guilty of slinging mud at those you don't approve of!?"

Or has your intellectual vanity given way to your hubris, fortified by your “classical education?”

Evangelina Carters

Anonymous said...

@Anonymous said...

???“TO bad they don’t make sense.”???

To. In a direction toward so as to reach

Bad. Not achieving an adequate standard; poor

Too bad - deserving regret; "regrettable remarks"; "it's regrettable that she didn't go to college";

Too bad you don’t have the letters to match your intellectual dullard to understand what I wrote.

Too bad... (((LOL)))


Anonymous said...

I suspect that JAY's old name, Jamiegottagun, is a reference to the Aerosmith song. Probably a personal reference, sadly.

What did your Daddy do, Jamie? What indeed?

Perhaps he made you dress up like Mommy when you were a little boy. Perhaps you hated your Mommy for the sounds you heard coming from their room at night, and now you take that misguided anger out on all women.

Whatever he did, you have my sympathies for it, but it's time for you to stop fantasizing about being your Mommy, pretending you're with Daddy.

Anonymous said...

Uhhuh....So you are now offering spelling and gramatical instructions? Hmmmm..."Too bad you don’t have the letters to match your intellectual dullard to understand what I wrote."

I suppose that you will next instruct me on how to suck eggs.

I must congratulate you Liz....You certainly do have a penchant attracting the least stellar of trolls.

Anonymous said...

You know every now and again you come across "The Village Idiot" I guess this time the Village Idiots have come visiting.


Anna T. said...

@ HG : I need some time to process this before I can comment. I'm sorry, but this just reopens a wound I had tried to close.

Do you know about the Nuremberg code? Here it is in detail [copied form here];

Can you please point out which points of the code he followed?

1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision.

This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonable to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.

The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.

2. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.

3. The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment.

4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.

5. No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.

6. The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.

7. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.

8. The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.

9. During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.

10. During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required of him that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.

I'll write a detailed analysis of this later, when I stop feeling so queasy. I'm sorry, but this is just cutting it too closed and I'm too biased here because I know just how inhumane this is.

Take care,

Anna T. said...

Hey JAY,

I saw your blog and I was reading through it and what struck me was how hurt you were. I'm sorry for what happened and I understand your pain. I just want to tell you that it's okay. It's okay to be angry, and I realised that even though you were angry you were trying to challenge and correct people where you thought they were wrong. In your own way you were trying to help people from what you see as a huge mistake. Even though the results didn't turn out okay, I can understand what you felt and it's really okay.

It's just that it would be really, really sweet of you if you could please remove Liz's photo from your blog and instead replace it with someone who is willing to be at the end of your criticism i.e. me. You see, I'm what Liz might call a Type 6 transsexual too and unlike her I wouldn't mind it if you criticised me.

It's just that you put her in a very, very awkward and bad position and I know that you're capable of so much more than that. You're capable of so much kindness and even though you might feel like she might not deserve it, but I know that you're a wonderful person deep down inside and you can choose differently.

So, I'm requesting to the wonderful person I see, can you please, please replace Liz with me?

You see I won't mind and you won't have to fight with anyone after you dissect my choices. I understand your pain and I know that you can rise above all of this stuff.

So, what say?

Also, I think that you will love this song called Starálfur from Sigur Rós. I hope that it gives you as much joy as it gives me.

Take care.

Anonymous said...


Don't do it. Its a fake olive branch! Liz put her picture up on the internet knowing full well the consequences of her actions.

Good luck finding out who she is--it should keep you busy for awhile.


Elizabeth said...

@Shit Head

I am not offering any olive branch but he is a damn good photographer and that nobody can deny.

The rest of it is opinion and probably pain.

Your name is quite appropriate though.

Anonymous said...


Thank you. It was my fathers favorite nick name for me, "Shit Head." My entire family disowned my when I announced I was going to do this--typical. I sent them all a letter (Grandpa and Grandma, Aunts and Uncles) when I was post-op that said from now on you can call me Shi (sounds like She) Thead.

My father and I don't speak and my mother is long past away. I was sent to aversion therapy when I was 8 years old and eventually my father had CPS called on him.

Life is good now I've got one aunt and one brother on my side. Still the holidays are pretty hard on me--I still act like a shit head around Christmas time and want to check out.

Your very lucky Elizabeth.


Anonymous said...

Jay may be able to take photographs, but he's obviously not a photo analyst.

- an old aunty

Elizabeth said...

@Shi Thead

Sweetie there is not much one can do about relatives that hurt you. I have no idea what age you transitioned but I barely survived Aversion Therapy at 17 and I cannot understand how a parent could do that to any child. I am very sorry to read about that. Blanchard still uses it in Toronto.

There will always be people that think we are what has been said over the last few days. I cannot nor can you do much about that. I ignore it since I have heard it all before and it may be true in their minds but it is not true in more minds than they would care to admit.

I was lucky and I admit it.

Elizabeth said...

@Anna T

There was nothing wrong with your emails. My mail server is not behaving kindly. I need to fix some things so it is hard to write responses to emails. I have been busy and unable to fix it. Getting lazy in my old age.


Anna T. said...

@ Liz : Thank god for that. # I just get really, really scared about the entire losing people - rejection thing.

Why don't you simply use the web version of GMail? It's drop dead handsome.

# I'm still an atheist, but I've never been able to find a sticky version for this phrase. I've tried thank feynman [yeah, I have a big thing for him. As the comic states I really do doubt it the time will ever come when science will, finally, get over its collective Feynman crush. ], thank heavens, thank bohr, thank turing, but all of them were just too clunky. Have you ever been able to figure out an alternative?

Elizabeth said...

I use outlook and it is what it is. I store all my emails locally on that computer and the gmail account is hooked in so it comes to same app.

I had an issue with the computer a while back and it is hard to write long responses so I avoid it. I rarely respond to emails on

Anonymous said...

Elizabeth said...
> These types of arguments eventually devolve into the have you
> stopped kicking your dog scenario or my word against some person
> that has no clue who I am although there are several around and
> online that do.

I'm one. An English woman with a transsexual childhood, slightly younger than Elizabeth. We have spoken many times, trans-Atlantic, and she has met a mutual friend. The pictures are genuine. The stories are genuine. If only we still had our looks from back then.

Jay, you are way off beam, and being, I'm afraid, a right prick.

On Money. Please do not forget that David's twin was the first to be driven to suicide by it all. And there may have been other indirect fatalities from Money's dishonest reporting and disasterous theory.

A chilling, and rarely noticed aside to David's suicide, by shotgun in a supermarket parking lot, is that, in a BBC documentary a little before his death, he asked what it was going to take for Money to recant, and people to stop believing what Money had claimed to to have proven by his work - that children can be raised in any gender if it starts early enough. He asked if it would take someone blowing out their brains in parking lot. Money had not recanted. But his brain had deteriorated to such an extent that he was incapable of doing so. David did not know that. The BBC redid the documentary after David's death, and played David's ominous remark during the closing credits. I have a copy.

Anonymous said...

Anna T.:
> ...why exactly that photo couldn't have been taken in 1960s or 1970s?
> Eastman Kodak launched the Kodakchrome in 1935.

It doesn't have Kodachrome's reds. Looks more like my favourite film of the 1960s and early 70s, Kodak's Ektachrome. A cold, realistic film, available up to 400ASA. My slides from then are still just as fresh.

Penny said...


Thanks for posting this on John Money. Money has been cited for support of radical feminist critical theories on the transsexed for far too long. They are particularly fond of using his misguided work on David Reimer. No surprise there as postructuralist feminist gender theorists (Butler) and critics of TS are fond of pointing out the failures of the "establishment" (Reimer) they seek to attack but never the successes (much in abundance).

For the transsexed among us it has always been about sex rather than gender. It is experienced as deeply phenomenological from the earliest time in our lives. Gender and the "gender/sex dichtomy" has become one of the biggest red herrings of our day.