Dr. Money and the Boy with No Penis
Jenny R.
Psych 201
October 16, 2013
Dr. Money and the Boy with No Penis Dr. Money did not prove his theory of gender neutrality because “Brenda” grew up feeling like a boy regardless of the fact that she was raised as a girl. Initially, judging from one of the first interviews between Dr. Money and the children, she was adjusting to her role. However, as she grew up, she lived in a constant battle with herself because she simply did not feel like she fit the role that was given to her. Regardless of the fact that she was castrated and there were no more male hormones produced, Brenda always had a masculine inclination. Her overall attitude was that of a man’s. Brenda was very quick to adjust and embrace her role as a male when she found out the truth. I think that is the greatest proof to disprove his theory of gender neutrality. Assuming that a man/woman could efficiently have been nurtured as the opposite sex, there should have been more reluctance to believe and adjust to their true identity.
I think Dr. Money made severe ethical violations with both children, especially with Brenda. From the interviews and her recounts, it seems that he constantly tried to steer her to answer questions and behave how he wanted her to behave. He essentially wanted to rig the outcome of this experiment. His publication of the experiment itself without further observation seems to further prove his unrelenting belief of his theory of gender neutrality. His publication was released when Brenda was only 7 years old and there is proof that even he noticed contradictions to his theory. Yet, he decided to publish a false publication in which he assured the validity of his theory. No one truly knows whether he took those alleged pictures of the twins but if he did that certainly would have been an ethical violation. It’s also troubling that the parents were nowhere near and absolutely uninvolved during the process of these interviews. I can see how their presence could have
Psych 201
October 16, 2013
Dr. Money and the Boy with No Penis Dr. Money did not prove his theory of gender neutrality because “Brenda” grew up feeling like a boy regardless of the fact that she was raised as a girl. Initially, judging from one of the first interviews between Dr. Money and the children, she was adjusting to her role. However, as she grew up, she lived in a constant battle with herself because she simply did not feel like she fit the role that was given to her. Regardless of the fact that she was castrated and there were no more male hormones produced, Brenda always had a masculine inclination. Her overall attitude was that of a man’s. Brenda was very quick to adjust and embrace her role as a male when she found out the truth. I think that is the greatest proof to disprove his theory of gender neutrality. Assuming that a man/woman could efficiently have been nurtured as the opposite sex, there should have been more reluctance to believe and adjust to their true identity.
I think Dr. Money made severe ethical violations with both children, especially with Brenda. From the interviews and her recounts, it seems that he constantly tried to steer her to answer questions and behave how he wanted her to behave. He essentially wanted to rig the outcome of this experiment. His publication of the experiment itself without further observation seems to further prove his unrelenting belief of his theory of gender neutrality. His publication was released when Brenda was only 7 years old and there is proof that even he noticed contradictions to his theory. Yet, he decided to publish a false publication in which he assured the validity of his theory. No one truly knows whether he took those alleged pictures of the twins but if he did that certainly would have been an ethical violation. It’s also troubling that the parents were nowhere near and absolutely uninvolved during the process of these interviews. I can see how their presence could have