Modern discussions of gender often include statements like, “Sex and gender are different.” or “Gender is something you identify as.” But where did these ideas originate? While many attribute it to feminists, the first person to use “gender” in such a way was John Money in 1955. He is often referred to as “the father of gender identity,” since he is the one who invented the term. While John Money is mostly famous for his work on transgenderism and the infamous David Reimer case, he actually has an extensive history of sexological research that is controversial, to say the least. Scarily enough, his ideas are currently being replicated in the current conversation about sex and gender.
John Money’s work on the sexual citizenship of children has earned him the title of “Pedophile Advocate” – rightfully so. His work on “chronophilia” described an erotic attraction to people of different age groups. These age groups included minors, not surprisingly. And he tried to normalize this for years, despite there not being scientific evidence that this exists whatsoever. In 1994, he opposed the classification of pedophilia as an abnormal fetish, even though that is what the overwhelming amount of research has proven (1994, p. 41). Clearly he had an ulterior motive and thought that it was appropriate to include his personal goals of “sexual liberation for children” in his work and label it as science. The same year, he said that he wanted to look at pedophilia “in the broader, cultural purview of sexuality’s timetables” and his reasoning was that pedophilia was historically legal and that society is stigmatizing “attraction to juveniles” in order to fulfill an anti-liberation agenda. His work includes advocating for a reconsideration of sex offender laws (1992) to further normalize child abuse in the law.
Just because something is considered legal in some places does not mean that it is good or should be accepted by society, but John Money begged to differ.
Not only did he seek the normalization of child abuse – he glorified it. In 1983, he claimed that these relationships should be considered a blend of “devotion, affection and limerence…a comradeship with a touch of hero-worship” and that society’s”rule of age-avoidancy” is negotiable (Money & Weinrich, 1983, pp. 42-43, 46, 53). He proposed the concept of “Lovemaps” and “sexuoerotic age” that include an age range of attraction which may differ from one’s actual age (Money & Clopper, 1974, p. 174). Once again, there was no solid scientific evidence that such a concept exists, but he decided to claim that it did, anyway. The fact that his ideas are reemerging in the current cultural climate and being labeled as “science” is worrisome, inaccurate, and should not be tolerated in any form. Frankly, we think they should be ashamed of themselves.
John Money’s work in the mid-1980s included a resurrection of “psychosexual age” (Money, 1986) a term from the 1950s that Money rebranded as “sexuoerotic age” (Hammer, 1954). That same year, he advocated for “erotic age roleplay,” suggesting that some people have an inner-child, making them attracted to minors and that this is something that should be accepted and encouraged…even though he did not have scientific proof to back him up. “Chronophilia” (Money, 1986), a palatable rebranding of his ideas about “age-discrepancy paraphilias” (Money, 1981) can be seen in modern-day concepts like “trans-age.” Queer Theory activists are claiming that people have an inner-child whose age does not match up with one’s “biological age.” It is a concept that they claim is similar to gender incongruence but is classified in terms of age – sometimes referred to as “age dysphoria.” Similar ideas can be seen in Money’s work. He claimed that “the paraphile’s age is discordant with his/her actual chronological age and is concordant with the age of their partner” (1986). He also applied these concepts to include “apotemnophilia” which is a term that describes people with an erotic fixation on amputees and castration fetishes in his work on skoptic syndrome. In 1985, Money claimed that “age matching” is normal and works the same way as a male being attracted to females. Money also advocated for “reciprocal sexuoerotic rehearsal play,” which is just a pseudo-intellectual way of saying “sexual activity for children” (Money, 1989). He was known for making up complicated jargon for pedophilic acts in order to purposely confuse his detractors into accepting his ideas as scientific advancement.
To quote an official “trans-age” Twitter page, “Transage is simply the identity we use to explain our experience because it is the most accurate way to describe persistently identifying as an age other than one's chrono age & typically feeling an intense desire to transition in full or part to living as one's identified age."
The vocabulary that these groomers use is strikingly similar to Money’s ideas about chronophilia and “Lovemap Age.” The similarities cannot be ignored. Groomer activists will claim that “This isn’t happening,” but we think they’re out of their minds.
John Money advocated for the sexual liberation of children, using pornography and kink.
He thought that “unrestricted enjoyment of erotica and sex in childhood” would encourage healthy sexual development in adulthood. In his book “Sexual Signatures: On Being a Man Or a Woman” (Money, 1976), he stated that pornographic images for children should be included in sex education. Specifically, he stated that "The best time to introduce such pictures is before a child's biological clock has signaled the start of puberty. Prepubertal children are intellectually capable of understanding sex, and their curiosity about life runs high." They will no doubt find these pictures erotically stimulating, but as the novelty wears off they will soon settle down and accept the information in the matter-of-fact way they accept information about other facets of adult life. If their first exposure to pictures of sexual relations between men and women comes after hormonal puberty has begun, the education will still be helpful but their erotic response will be harder for them to manage and they will need more exposure before the pictures cease to arouse it. In short, it takes older children longer to grow bored with such pictures." (Money & Tucker, 1976). He labeled his retractors as “victimologists” and said that people who oppose his ideas are just moralists who want to stifle the healthy development of children. He even criticized anti-pornograhy lesbian feminists, implying that they were just prudish and did not understand the importance of pornography and kink in psychosexual development. John Money thought that the desexualization of gender was in accord with the Zeitgeist of contemporary sexual politics together with victimology and an expanding criminalization of sex.
This is eerily similar to current-day trans activists who claim that pornographic content in schools is a good thing, and those who disagree are just overreacting and trying to harm the psychological development of “transgender children.”
Upon learning about the work of John Money, anyone with common sense can see that his ideas are being replicated in schools and child transgenderism. The resurgence of his ideas are concerning, to say the least. His made-up, anti-scientific concepts should be viewed with scorn and be abolished from our culture and public education system before it gets out of hand – it already has. The gay and lesbian members of our coalition believe that the work of John Money will forever be seen as a stain on the moral framework of society. We want his proposed sexual framework GONE. It’s disgusting. Get rid of it.