My critics here to John Money, in no way are directed to the human being and the man John Money.
My criticism is related to his "sex of rearing" theory, and his "not so ethical methods of researching" and MAINLY to our attitude in the Academy, to believe more in "authorities" and "celebrities" and much less in the patients of our research.
In my opinion, a human research has only value, if the patients or subjects that were used as patients on that research, have freely the final word about their own existence, mainly if that answer is the result of that research.
If not, the research always may be used only to "confirm" our own ideas, and as Karl Popper states could not be considered as real scientifical researching.
If we do not follow strictly those ethical principles, as unfortunately John Money did in the John/Joan research, we may unconsciously confuse ourselves and the Academy, refering really to "magic" derived from "authority principles" as if it was science. No, magic is magic, and we may be illuded unconsciously by its tricks. And magic, when innocent people suffer with their lives its consequences, is black magic.
John Money`s Black Magic
I am an engineer, a philosopher, a psychotherapist, a sexologist and a writer.
But surely my heart has its Egyptian side... and I study all the time I can Egyptian hieroglyphs ( Medu Neter) and its meanings, from all points of view possible, that I could understand, with my inner limitations.
Some time ago I found the works of the couple of egyptologists, René Schwaller de Lubicz and his wife, Isha. They have a not accepted view of some aspects of the meanings of the Medu Neter (hieroglyphs), by the Academy, as also I have some propositions about gender identity formation in humans, that the Academy also ignores. But the Schwaller the Lubicz and I, in different aspects of life and Nature, surely we are sure and agree with the Old Egyptians, that Nature is very important in the formation of basic natural functions inside ourselves, humans.
The Old Egyptians astonish me with their knowledge about Nature more than 5200 or even more years ago!
But I studied also, in depth, the John/Joan case.... the books published by John Money and his collaborators in the 50`s and 60`s about their theories, also their papers in scientific journals, and I was all the time also astonished.
Astonished by the modern ignorance about the human nature, Money and his colleagues and followers openly showed and continue showing.
I knew, from papers Dr.Milton Diamond wrote, and also Dr.Willian Reiner, about the factual tragic reality lived by David, and later , through the Colapinto`s book "As Nature Made Him" I could know his name and all his tragedy.
Now, David is dead.
With 38 he ended his life.
Who Killed David Reimer?
Himself?
Fate?
Or the ignorance of our society, the prepotence of the Academy and the manipulations of not so scientifical results, and surely not so honest publications?
For some time, since I published in Portuguese my book "Meu Sexo Real" (My Real Sex), in 1998 by Vozes Editors in Brazil, I am fighting Money`s "sex of rearing" ideas, showing the gender identity is derived from brain basal circuitry.... established during gestation. Up until today that book has no English translation, and it was showed in the Frankfurt Book Fair in 1998, but no editor showed any desire to translate and publish it.
Our rearing may modulate the sex defined in the brain, but never create it. Nor in humans, nor in other primates.... surely the environment may change sex in fishes and amphibious, not only their core identities, as defined by Damasio, but also their genitals. Aves and reptiles, the after birth environment has much more difficulties to change something. Rodends may have their core gender identities changed perinatally by humans, but not by the environment....and never the genitals.
We may resume saying the most simple organisms may be diferentiated by environment in an easier manner, than more complex ones. That is a general Natural rule, the Egyptians knew more easily than our Academic experts today.
All primates, mainly humans, are so complex, that Nature provide us with that protection... core gender identity is defined during gestation... the environment could modulate and disturb, but not change it.
As human`s brains may develop, more than other primates, culture... any human culture may, as all environment, modulate, define gender roles or gender characters, but not gender identities.
The sex of the basal brain is determined by genetics and the womb environment for the human and all primate child.... and that environment have the possibility, even through the emotional mother state, to interfere in that process by some chemical influences. Another very interesting true scientific result is, the processes to masculinize genital tissues and basal cerebral tissues are absolutely different, so some disturbs may give anomalous and even discordant results.
I am trying to show those ideas for the Academy for at least 6, really 8 years.... with no results. No one, seriously intend to hear me. No one debate it with me. As it is a characteristic of the Academy, they ignore those that have the courage to go against the "authorities" ....even when those "authorities" commited obvious mistakes.
I feel all that time I am alone, talking probably only to the Stars, and to the Neters of Egypt. Surely I am in a better fellowship with them, because they have a much better perception of reality than our Academy.
As a member of HBIGDA, I talked to Tom Mazur, a friendly person but a follower of Money, the head of the Intersex Committee of HBIGDA, that I would like to participate in that committee .... because there were there only Money`s followers, and for all scientific and ethic subjects, it is good to dialectically have more than one only position. They denied my participation.
Now David is dead.... the same David Reimer one day Money published he learned to be Brenda....a girl... Money and the same today HBIGDA members of the Intersex Committee said, David learned without problems, to be a happy girl... and their "scientifical" essay was a complete success.
AND ALL ACADEMY BELIEVED!!!! and a lot STILL BELIEVE!!!
WHY?
The Academy believes always what they would like would be the reality!
Some 30 years ago it was "academically correct" to say that homosexuality was a mental disease .... and today it is "academically correct" to accept homosexuality as a question of taste...
Less than 100 years ago masturbation was a terrible disease, we needed to torture the victims of that "disease" to stop them... and today we say masturbation, most of the times is a healthy practice.
The Academy flows with the ideological wind...
Most of times, it is good and dialectically essential to flow with the wind....but sometimes it may be severely dangerous, when the Academy ignores the subjects of the research, to privilege the ideas of the "celebrities". The changing position of the Academy in the homosexual subject was good, because was based in the feelings of the homosexuals, respecting their lives... but in the "sex of rearing" all was a mistake because was not based in the patient`s feelings, but on a theoretical idea only.
Isha Schwaler the Lubicz, the wife of the great egyptologist explained me, through her writings: when a scientifical theory is based in authority and manipulation of results, it appears to be real science and knowledge, but really it is a way to inhibit knowledge, to put the ideas in chains, to induce illusion as if it was reality, as all kind of sorcery or black magic does. The power of magic is to give what people intend to receive and John Money`s sex of rearing theory was what most part of psychologists and doctors would like to consider as real truth.
In her tremendous work, HER-BAK, Isha wrote, in French (sorry, I have no English translation):
"Le magicien ne peut jamais aller contre la Nature; il peut la dévier, mais dois suivre ses lois: il ne pourra pas remplacer un membre supprimé, il ne pourra ni modifier la marche d`une étoile ni changer l`ordonnance d`aucune loi essentielle.
Mais il a le pouvoir d`arrêter ou de modifier la perception de la conscience des spectateurs, car nos sens servent a constater et non pas a vraiment connaître".
I will try to explain to you the idea, and to show how it applies to the John/Joan case and the Academy.
John Money was an authority about sex subjects in the 50`s and 60`s, mainly in USA. Other important researchers as Dr.Gunther Dörner in Oriental Germany in those times, Dr.Swaab in Holland and Dr.Imperato McGinley in USA (then a young woman researcher) had different points of view, more centered in Nature and in the brain.
But then the Academy do not wanted to hear them... Dörner worked for a communist country university, Imperato-McGinley was a young woman... and Swaab was considered a brain reductionist... on the other hand of Maât balance, the weight of a champion, John Money, the great expert in sex and gender matters! He, that showed a total nurture over nature success in John/Joan essay!
As Isha said:
The magician has the power to modify the perception of others.
The perception of the Academy was more interested in her "authorities" ideas... as she is always more interested in herself and was not interested in the patient`s feelings and realities.
So, even unconsciously, John Money, as a celebrity, magically changed the perception of the reality by the Academy...
What was only one idea, became a reality... and a reality derived from a celebrity!
With the John/Joan sorcery, Money showed and convinced others about what he would like were the results, but really not based on the honest results lived by his patients. For him and his followers, the victims and patients were not important....important were their own theories and ideas.
For all sorcerer, reality is not important.... important is what he intend to do.... and to profit with it, includding honour and Academic relevance.
He commited a basic epistemological mistake.... because his result could not be denied by reality (because he never heard David`s protests against his therapies), as we know it is absolutely necessary for good science, as states perfectly Karl Popper, because he would never heard the patients and their sufferings.The patients never could openly manifest what they were really living! If they said they were not happy and were suffering, and all was wrong, the therapists could say they could not know really about themselves! And so the therapists hided the victims, saying they intended to protect them....when really even unconsciously, they were trying to protect themselves! His sex of rearing theory was really sorcery, and never science.
There was no science in that experimentation, but only an ideological imposture as a point of principle.
Black Sorcery, in other words.
All Academy believed in Money`s "results"and in Money`s "ethics"... because they would like to believe, because at that time it would be more "politically correct to believe that way".....and to do not hear the cry of the victims, THAT ALWAYS CRY FOR REALITY AND NOT THEORIES.
Schwaller the Lubicz shows how magic works.... showing illusions as realities.... and trying to be believed creating an special atmosphere...of fantasmagories, even Academic authority fantasmagories....
The worse is, even today, the same sorcerers continue dominating the Academy, the Associations, the Committees, the Libraries, the Universities, the Clinics, Hospitals, Laws, Editors, the society....and unfortunately, the minds.
And David is dead, and we continue living among those ghost fantasmagories in the Academy. An easy place for that kind of black magic.
Wal Torres,MS.,PhD
Gendercare Gender Clinic
GID Journal editor
HBIGDA member
Some Hieroglyphs (Medu Neter) from some king`s tombs, with small part of the Book of Gates
Let`s hope the Academy find the gates for the truth about gender identity, and have the courage to transpose the gates. Not in the Duat but over the Earth... in our modern lives.
David, surely, now is in the heaven of Nut, among the stars, as all heroes have the right to be.
Another psychologist opinion
The continuous apology of John Money as a great scientist
And some continue John Money`s work against the patient`s human rights
Your comments are important for us
Place here your comments about that page, please....positive, negative or neutral ones....any comments are welcome. Thank you.
Copyright ©2004 by Gendercare Gender Clinic