Talk:John Money

Invention of Terms?

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)

@Columbo2014: The best way to prove that Money did not coin all these terms, is to do some research and find out who did coin them. Write up some citations for the sources where you found the info, add the citations to the respective articles about gender role, sexual orientation, gender identity, and paraphilia, and then remove the assertions that Money coined these terms from this article. (You don't have to source the removal, since removal of a faulty assertion need only be justified, not sourced.) However, I believe you'll find that your research supports these assertions. Please let me know how it comes out. Mathglot (talk) 21:55, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

@Zenomonoz added a reference regarding the currently vexed question of coining ("inventing") "gender identity". Quick note: there's a more recent reference suggesting that Money was among a number of people to use the term earlier than Stoller: [1]https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-023-02650-2

The fair thing to say is that both Money and Stoller, among many others, used equivalent terms such as "sex identity", which during 1962-1965 both Stoller and Money replaced by "(core) gender identity". IndianaStyles (talk) 09:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2023

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)

@Zenomonoz: could you maybe adress this since you were the one who changed it: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Money&diff=prev&oldid=1158981903 --FMSky (talk) 07:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Okay, well it is covered in the body of the page already, because WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, so not sure about 'moving to a more appropriate section of the page'. Part of the reason it is in the opening is because of the widespread falsehood that he coined the term. We could restore it to something closer to the original form which said he 'popularised' the term from Robert Stoller. Zenomonoz (talk) 07:29, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

It is hard to evaluate "widespread falsehood" generally speaking. Restoring to the original form seems reasonable, ceterus paribus. Itsft (talk) 10:39, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Having just read the source now, it makes it clear this misattribution is widespread (in media, and even government encyclopaedia). Keeping it seems fine given the notability of the sources which keep attributing it to him. It's a very small sentence to have such an issue with. I am open minded to modification but I'd like to hear more reasoning. You seem to suggest the letter to the editor is presenting falsehoods, but it isn't: he's an MIT scholar who cited texts where this is laid out. Zenomonoz (talk) 11:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

By adding that line, you present a claim. I propose that the source provided is not authoritative and does not provide sufficient to back up the claim. I make no other point than that, please do not project

Until the claim can be supported adequately, it should be reverted to the previous state as discussed already. Itsft (talk) 16:02, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Further points regarding the usefulness of the proposed source, "letter to the editor":

1. The earliest citing of further literature is of John Money using the term himself, unattributed, in 1955.

2. The author of the letter indicates the claim that John Money coined the term is "only half right", however the rest of the article shares further sources where other promenant authors reference John Money as the coiner of the term.

3. The letter explicitly outlines John Money coined the term "Gender Role".

At worst it is clear the comment should be removed. At best it should unambiguously state, as this letter and the several sources within it explicitly state, that John Money coined the term "Gender Role" Itsft (talk) 16:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: I'm gonna close this edit request until the above discussion establishes consensus on what to do. – Recoil16 (talk) 10:19, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

wouldn't it be best to remove the edit until robust consensus is established? Itsft (talk) 14:30, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

This recent letter from David Haig also indicates 'gender identity' traces back to Robert Stoller's group. As for the "half right" comment in Byrne, he is talking about him coining gender role. The wikipedia article does not dispute Money coined gender role, so what's the issue? Zenomonoz (talk) 08:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Jacob's syndrome claims

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)

Zenomonoz That citation is in relationship to the claim that XYY causes major developmental differences, I readded the text with more citations including the primary source which John Money himself published. There more information on what John Money wrote in St. John's Law Review, Volume 44, October 1969, Number 2. Des Vallee (talk) 18:44, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Reverted, you are going to need some secondary/independent sources that actually cover this in the fashion you have written it. Where is the source that says "Money held an unsuccessful theory" of Jacob's syndrome, for example? I can see quite a few of the papers have nothing to do with Money as an author. They are follow ups. You'll need to find a text that really implicates Money as the origin of this incorrect thesis of Jacob's syndrome and how/why it was wrong. Zenomonoz (talk) 21:08, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Further, in which source does it say "some committed suicide" and in which is it discussed as a breach of medical ethics? All of that might be true, but if it is, then surely it is discussed in a book somewhere. It seems you are piecing together a bunch of studies which don't back up the claim, however. Please WP:STICKTOSOURCE. Zenomonoz (talk) 21:11, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Zenomonoz The fundamental statement in the source is relating to Jacob's syndrome as a medical condition which causes violent behaviot (it doesn't) and the study does "XYY Offender." XYY is today understood as not being a major disease and doesn't cause major developmental differences, Money held that it did and Money also claimed that chemical castration was a way to "tame" this behavior which is today known to be false, and a breach of medical standards, in the same way XXX was also heavily stigmitized.

From XYY Offender: A Modern Myth

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.

Suicide is mentioned in "Cytogenetics, hormones and behavior disability: comparison of XYY and XXY syndromes" (primary source published by Money) in which XYY males who was given Depro-Prevera attempted suicide: 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.

Des Vallee (talk) 04:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Mathglot's revert of your edit. Some things I noticed: the only source seems to be a proper secondary/independent source and that is Kostas Gavroglu. The other sources are not discussing John Money's contribution at all. You also wrote that "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.

So we have one secondary source (Kostas Gavroglu), but I think there needs to be another one to make sure this is accurate. I have read numerous books about John Money and this particular alleged controversy is news to me. Hence, I am suspect about Gavroglu's framing of it. Another source that really clarifies the case would be needed. Zenomonoz (talk) 04:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

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 counseling do 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)

You seem to be using sources inappropriately, which fail WP:VER. Example: the last sentence reads "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.

And why are you citing Blumer and Migeon (1975) here? And why are you citing Pyeritz et al. (1977)? Neither of them say that; and more importantly neither say "John Money's experiment was unethical" specifically. I accessed both sources. Notably, Biology as a Social Weapon does not even discuss John Money between page 86 and 100? It specifically attributes the "XXY myth" to Jacobs et al, another British and a Danish group.

Further, you added this sentence: "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.

SUICIDE: in remarkable contrast to what you wrote, Money 1974 does discuss the suicide attempts and successful suicide, but it clearly states 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.

So, you appear to be doing original synthesis, and not even accurately. Per WP:PRIMARY Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.

Misrepresenting sources and original synthesis is in breach of editing guidelines. I'm asking you again, politely, to adhere to the guidelines. Zenomonoz (talk) 21:47, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I am pinging Mathglot for a discussion towards wording. Second that is auto refill and it states 2008, and that source Blumer and Migeon is in relationship to Jacob's syndrome not being a major developmental disorder. It is not related to Money it is backing the statement "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 syndromes is 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)

1. You don't cite papers "unrelated to money" because you want to talk about XXY syndrome. This is an article about John Money.

2. You are still wrong on suicides, and using primary sources while doing it. Yes, you were referring to Money 1975 instead of Money 1974. However, Money 1975 clearly states Six of the 13 men in this group had a PRETREATMENT history of self-harming behavior and 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.

3. It seems secondary sources do not reliably attribute this thesis of XXY to Money, i.e. this "unsucessful theory" (your words) of Jacob's syndrome. As I already noted, a source you used specifically attributes the "XXY myth" to Jacobs et al, another British and a Danish group. The Hopkins group appear to have used depo to help Jacob's syndrome patients similar to other clinics, so why are you trying to paint this as Money's "theory", when it seems he was one clinician at Hopkins, and collectively they were following a protocol being established abroad?

Zenomonoz (talk) 22:51, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

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)

1. I have already said Gavroglu would be a fine source if the claim is attributed to him, but it probably needs another secondary source to back it up (explained in the last point). You keep wanting to use sources that are off topic, don't discuss Money, and are primary. It's far better to only use Gavroglu here and another secondary source. That is what I am trying to communicate to you.

2. You misunderstand editing guidelines. Money's paper is not self published, it is published in a journal.

3. "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.

4. You state 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)

5. Even if you feel it is "factually correct" that Money "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.

6. So, another secondary source should probably used alongside Gavroglu because of issues with WP:BALANCE. He's claiming Money caused a suicide (when the actual source shows this was while off depo) and was acting unethically because of weight gain (are all doctors unethical when they prescribe a drug with side effects?). Money's paper was actually quite cautious, saying more research is still needed: "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:

• result #18: "Impulse, aggression and sexuality in the XYY syndrome" by Money et al. (1969)
• result #40: the same article, 2012 version.
• result #60: Human behavior cytogenetics: review of psychopathology in three syndromes—47, XXY; 47, XYY; and 45, X Money (1975)
• result #75: XYY syndrome, stigmatization, social class, and aggression: study of 15 cases by Money et al. (1975)

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)

Sounds good. Zenomonoz (talk) 13:36, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

That could help with framing overall, and it's importance within the article I also think information regarding XYY syndrome as laid out here Money is cited in relationship to XYY, although those theories are today discredited. Des Vallee (talk) 19:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but I keep hearing the D-word, and I wonder why. It is the nature of the evolution of scientific research that old theories get challenged, altered, and often replaced by others, as the sum total of knowledge takes us in different directions. That means that more recent scholarship is generally more to be relied upon, as older ones get out of date, or supplanted by better studies and analysis. WP:MEDSCI says:

"Wikipedia policies on the neutral point of view and not publishing original research demand that we present prevailing medical or scientific consensus, which can be found in recent, authoritative review articles, ..." (emphasis added)

So I don't see a need to label fifty year old theories by Money (or anybody) as "discredited"; that's not generally how history of science regarding older theories is described, at least for studies using the scientific method, or we'd end up labeling nearly everything as discredited, except the most recent stuff. It even has whiffs of the debate in the philosophy of science between scientific instrumentalism and scientific realism, as "What's real or true, anyway?" All our shiny new Truths of today will wash away, if we wait long enough. The word discredited doesn't appear anywhere in the article on Aristotle's biology, for example. Nor even, perhaps surprisingly, in Lysenkoism, or Cold fusion (though it appears twice in footnotes). Bottom line: we should follow the language of the sources. Mathglot (talk) 02:41, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

That's a nice way to put it, but in articles relating to old research it should be made clear they are no longer held especially for articles relating to biology. Des Vallee (talk) 01:24, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

So where's the section for his contraveries?

I distinctly remember a whole section that was dedicated to talking about his "contraversial" works and statements but its gone now. You guys wanna bring it back? 2601:204:E700:3CE0:2C77:6148:6F7D:2790 (talk) 12:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

The page already covers his controversies. Wikipedia discourages the creation of specific "controversies" sections. Zenomonoz (talk) 05:36, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 July 2024

There is a link to regarding a book that John Money wrote with Richard Greene. The link goes to actor Richard Greene's page, but instead should link to Richard Green the sexologist's page here.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Green_(sexologist) 2601:402:4402:3FB0:35C2:98B5:7E8C:5A2F (talk) 01:14, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: I could only find one mention of a Richard Green[e] in this article (in the fourth paragraph of the "Career and views" section), and it is already appropriately linked to Richard Green (sexologist). Left guide (talk) 04:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)