The Riddle of Gender - Deborah Rudacille [63]
A few months after the publication of that first paper in the Bulletin of the Johns Hopkins Hospital, Money published an expanded definition of gender role in “An Examination of Some Basic Sexual Concepts: The Evidence of Human Hermaphroditism,” cowritten with Joan and John Hampson. In this more fully articulated definition, gender role has expanded to include “general mannerisms, deportment and demeanor; play preferences and recreational interests; spontaneous topics of talk in unprompted conversation and casual comment; content of dreams, daydreams and fantasies; replies to oblique inquiries and projective tests; evidence of erotic practices, and finally, the person’s own reply to direct inquiry.” More significantly, in this paper Money and the Hampsons first attempt to establish which of the other six variables is most significant in establishing gender role in intersexual patients, and produce an answer that was not only to profoundly alter the medical treatment of intersexual children, but also to sever the link between biological sex (as manifested in chromosomes, gonads, and external anatomy) and the newly developed concept of gender role.
Money and the Hampsons based their findings on seventy-six inter-sexual patients treated at Johns Hopkins over a period of four years. They state early in the paper that the study’s primary purpose is to explore the hypothesis first presented by Freud at the turn of the century—that human beings are innately bisexual, “that instinctive masculinity and instinctive femininity are present in all members of the human species, but in different proportions.” Bisexuality in Freud’s theory is a biological concept, not a description of a person’s sexual orientation; it is an “innate and constitutional psychic bisexuality,” the presence of both male and female elements in each person, irrespective of reproductive anatomy. Money and the Hampsons chose to study intersexual people in order to “ascertain if new and additional information relevant to the psychologic theory of sexuality might be obtained.” From the very start they assumed that data obtained from intersexual people could be used to explain the process of gender differentiation in all people. A fatal assumption, some would later argue.
The 1955 paper describes patients with a variety of clinical conditions, from “true hermaphrodites” who possess both testicular and ovarian tissue to various forms of “simulant” males and females whose external genitalia are somehow at odds with either their chromosomal or their gonadal sex, or who have ambiguous genitals. In each case, the researchers compare the sex of rearing with the other six variables to determine the weight of each in determining the person’s gender role. In each case, they find that the influence of the sex of assignment and rearing trumped the competing variable.
Of the twenty patients whose gonadal sex (ovaries or testicles) conflicted with their sex of assignment and rearing, only three rejected the sex they had been assigned at birth. Of the twenty-seven people whose hormonal functioning and secondary sexual body morphology (breasts, body hair, body shape) were at odds with their sex of assignment and rearing, only four displayed ambivalence or anxiety about their assigned gender role. Twenty-three of the seventy-six patients had lived for more than two-thirds of their lives with an obvious difference between the appearance of their genitals and their assigned sex (girls with penises; boys with vaginas). In all but one instance, according to Money and the Hampsons, they had accepted the gender role assigned to them at birth.
The life experiences of this last group appeared to make a great impression on the researchers, one that produced a marked difference in the language used to describe them. Money, the primary author of the paper, uses subjective