Consider both John Money’s optimal sex policy and the case story of David Reimer. Are the assumptions of John Money’s policy consistent or inconsistent with David Reimer’s experience? What do each imply about the role of nature and nurture in determining individuals’ gender identity? Provide an example of how John Money’s might recommend parents respond to the birth of an intersex child. Lastly, indicate whether or not David Reimer’s story might suggest recommendations different from John Money’s optimal sex policy.

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

John Money assumed that nurture is stronger than nature in determining individuals gender identity. He claimed that a child born with visually atypical genitals could be raised successfully as either female or male, contingent upon strong and consistent socialization pressure from parents and the surrounding environment. David Reimer was a genetic boy raised as a girl following a botched circumcision that accidentally removed most of his penis. However, David never felt like a girl growing up and later adopted a male gender identity. David’s experience suggests that nature can sometimes override nurture in determining gender identity, thus it is inconsistent with John Money’s optimal sex policy. John Money would recommend parents of intersex children to decide either to raise their child as a male or female from birth. David’s experience suggests that determining gender identity is more complex than socialization alone can explain, and that it may be best to wait until the child is old enough to contribute to decisions about their sex assignment.