Trivia John Money's Failed Experiment

[Kaplok Kaplok]

John money was a psychologist-professor and sexologist. The current ideology on lgbtq+ gender ideology was his brainchild. He actually coimed the terms "gender identity" and "gender roles". He is a pioneer of the modern idea of gender fluidity and the society gender roles as a social construct.

Here is his controversial story:

Aside from this, there are trans-people who are longing to be heard by the public about the truth behind the movement to push transitioning on non-conforming people suffering gender dyphoria. Watch her statement.

 

[plhbg1]

i would agree to his work that gender is learned rather than innate but i don't agree that learning is involuntary (forced re-assignment of gender), i got units in professional education and learned some principles of learning which includes learning being voluntary and never involuntary, we cannot force anyone to learn but we can only motivate them to learn instead

 

[Kaplok Kaplok]

i would agree to his work that gender is learned rather than innate but i don't agree that learning is involuntary (forced re-assignment of gender), i got units in professional education and learned some principles of learning which includes learning being voluntary and never involuntary, we cannot force anyone to learn but we can only motivate them to learn instead

If you watch and understand what happened to his research, the results actually suggest that gender is more innate than learned.
Pero syempre, people nowadays will go with the idea that gender is learned, or a social construct, because that is the popular opinion, pero walang scientific backing yang idea na yan. And again, the experiment suggests the opposite.

 

[plhbg1]

If you watch and understand what happened to his research, the results actually suggest that gender is more innate than learned.

yes your video suggest that gender has failed from being learned and that caused the failure of his idea about gender being learned instead of being innate, but i have my own interpretation of what happened and it is not the gender that has failed from being learned but it is the learning that never happened, he enforced learning through "nurture over nature" idea and that is very wrong, he was already correct that gender is learned but he did not understand what is learning, he thinks learning can be enforced, the gays are not gays out of the blue but they always have chosen it, there is always a decision coming from the individual and not just become as if they were not aware of it, they choose it and learn it voluntarily, it is always a decision instead of it being unintentionally possessed

Pero syempre, people nowadays will go with the idea that gender is learned, or a social construct, because that is the popular opinion, pero walang scientific backing yang idea na yan. And again, the experiment suggests the opposite.

it only suggest but not prove it, it rather proved that learning cannot be enforced to any individual

 

[Kaplok Kaplok]

he was already correct that gender is learned but he did not understand what is learning,

How can you say that he is correct? Is this scientific or just a hunch? Again going back to the result of his research, it suggests that biology still contributes to the gender of a person.

it only suggest but not prove it, it rather proved that learning cannot be enforced to any individual

Any science experiment in psychological matter can only go as far as "suggest", because there is no ethical way, and accurate way to prove this with any experiment. If in case i am wrong, meron bang preceding experiment on this study which actually proves "things"? Meron bang scientific proof that really proves what you believe in..

Besides, referring to the full story, we can gather na biased na ang hypothesis ng research ni John Money. Who is to say kung nabuo yang hypothesis nya out of his perverse tendency (he SA'd the subjects fyi) or not?
And even if we refer it today, Tama bang i-push sa mga bata ang ideas on sexuality? Because at the end of the day, LGBTQ+ letters really define what gender role people prefer when it comes to sexual practices.. we might be unknowingly replicating not only John Money's failed experiment, but also his wierd obsession on children.

 

[Asherah Goddess]

Sa Pagan culture po ay walang "gender dysphoria". Yung culture at yung social norms po kase nila ay normal lang sa kanila na makipag-talik or normal lang sa kanila ang magkaroon ng relationship sa both male gender and / or both female gender. Hindi na po kase sila pressure in a society. All they do is ipinapagana lang po ng mga tao na andoon kung ano ang meron naturaliza sa kanila. Ganun. Iba ang feeling kapag andoon sa culture mismo. Hindi na ma-prepressure na mag-exchange ng "biological aspect ng isang physical".

The reason why meron hindi satisfied sa sarili nitong katawan ay dahil sa social pressure. Tipong nakakapagdecide na magpalit ng "gender" dahil sa pressure in society.

Like for example , yung lesbian na sumasali sa running competition. Tipong andoon ang pressure na ang mga lalake ay physically strong and since lesbian is still biological na girl ay malamang , meron possibility na hindi siya "masatisfied to the maximum level" dahil katawan pa rin nito is a girl. Andoon ang desire ng lesbian na mag-exchange sa other gender bilang lalake para lamang makuha nito ang success pagdating sa sumasali sa mga competition. Tipong pressure na hindi na happy sa ikinalalagyan niyang gender.

Well , I can not blame them kase. Nakatira po kase tayo sa heteronormativity ng society po. Tipong social norms is mga heterosexual as in. Heterosexual is a superior ideal for everyone and of course everyone thinks that naturally heterosexual ang lahat ng mga tao.

Iyon nga lang sa Pagan culture (in general speaking lang naman) ay balita ko na mas hirap naman ang mga straight doon. Yup. Hirap na hirap sila. Reverse sexism lang po. Iyon nga lang unlike sa atin , mahilig tayo mag-label ng different kinds of "disorder" porke hindi angkop ang isang tao sa ideology ng nakakaraming tao o hindi siya nag-coconform sa ideal ng nakakaraming tao. Sa Pagan culture ay wala naman ganun but of course , itong present modern days , matatalino ang mga tao kung kaya kung ano-ano naki-create na label like dati ay LGBT pagkatapos nagkaroon ng LGBTQI pagkatapos hindi nagtagal ay meron ng LGBTQRSTUVB pagkatapos ang disorder din na nilala-label ng mga tao ay madami din. Sobrang dami ng list of disorder from psychologist (kaya ang friend ko ay ayaw na maniwala sa psychologist dahil parang lumalabas na lahat tayo ay meron disorder - haha ) - dami.

Kaya nga ang sabi , pinipigilan ng bible ang naturaliza ng mga tao kaya huwag na tayo magtaka kung bakit madami bawal.

​

 

[plhbg1]

How can you say that he is correct? Is this scientific or just a hunch? Again going back to the result of his research, it suggests that biology still contributes to the gender of a person.

that's what it suggest to you because you believe that what happened is the correct test procedure to prove that gender is learned, for me it is not the appropriate test since it violates a very well established principle of "learning being always voluntary"

when you propose an idea but goes against existing principles then of course there is high chance of failing or else you will de-throne whatever theory that is against to what you're proposing

meron bang preceding experiment on this study which actually proves "things"?

same experiment will prove but this time it shouldn't involved forced learning, if only he let the subjects decide or find a subject that is willing to be sexually re-assigned then the subject would learn the mechanics of the newly assigned gender (voluntarily of course)

i have neighbors whose sexual re-assignment occurred in the later part of their lives and i have observed it is the environment where they were exposed to that is motivating them to learn the basics of being sexually transformed

Besides, referring to the full story, we can gather na biased na ang hypothesis ng research ni John Money. Who is to say kung nabuo yang hypothesis nya out of his perverse tendency (he SA'd the subjects fyi) or not?

the sexual assault is part of his teaching process but it didn't work, teaching will only work if the students are willing to learn (motivated), that is why recently teachers are no longer trained to teach but trained to motivate and elicit new ideas from students instead of purely passing knowledge to them

And even if we refer it today, Tama bang i-push sa mga bata ang ideas on sexuality? Because at the end of the day, LGBTQ+ letters really define what gender role people prefer when it comes to sexual practices..

what do you mean push the idea of sexuality?

 

[Kaplok Kaplok]

same experiment will prove but this time it shouldn't involved forced learning, if only he let the subjects decide or find a subject that is willing to be sexually re-assigned then the subject would learn the mechanics of the newly assigned gender (voluntarily of course)

i have neighbors whose sexual re-assignment occurred in the later part of their lives and i have observed it is the environment where they were exposed to that is motivating them to learn the basics of being sexually transformed

There is nothing scientific about this. You are only making assumption according to your belief.
And I dont think naiintindihan mo ang premise ng experiment nya either. His belief is that - as long as papalakihin ang isang bata as whatever gender, they will adapt this gender ang not thier biology. If he was successful, this would have proved that gender is only a social construct.
But instead, his experiment shows that biology still prevails when it comes to gender.

that's what it suggest to you because you believe that what happened is the correct test procedure to prove that gender is learned

Who said that is what I believe in? Im just asking you how you end up believing this... meron ka bang scientific sources or any experiment na ma-cite? Or are you saying this because this is what you feel is right?

At best, hear say ng kapitbahay ang "proof" mo? Of course transitioned people will have beliefs to validate their choice... wether it is scientific or not.

what do you mean push the idea of sexuality?

If in case you are not updated, some western countries in support of lgbtq movement introduce the ideologies of lgbtq movement in schools.... they would even allow drag queens to perform explicitly in the name of being accepting.

But yet again, LGBTQ+ is a definition of a peraons preference to whom they want to perform their bodily functions. Is it really the best interest of children to be introduced to these ideas?

 

[plhbg1]

There is nothing scientific about this. You are only making assumption according to your belief.

ehehe i give you an example about de-throning of existing theories, the miasma theory was de-throned by the germ theory, so why are you saying there is nothing scientific?

Who said that is what I believe in? Im just asking you how you end up believing this... meron ka bang scientific sources or any experiment na ma-cite? Or are you saying this because this is what you feel is right?

hehe i am already stating a scientific theory by Horne and Pine (1990) that one principle of learning is that it is always activated by the learner and not by the teacher

At best, hear say ng kapitbahay ang "proof" mo? Of course transitioned people will have beliefs to validate their choice... wether it is scientific or not.

the fact that you said "their choice" is very well supporting my argument that gender can be learned by choosing to learn a particular gender

If in case you are not updated, some western countries in support of lgbtq movement introduce the ideologies of lgbtq movement in schools.... they would even allow drag queens to perform explicitly in the name of being accepting.

how exactly they teach LGBTQ+ in class? did it require the students to be LGBTQ+? or still voluntary pa din naman yung pagiging LGBTQ+ nila

But yet again, LGBTQ+ is a definition of a peraons preference to whom they want to perform their bodily functions. Is it really the best interest of children to be introduced to these ideas?

yes of course, being aware is different from being forced to, just like se̾x education where we are made aware about se̾x

 

[Kaplok Kaplok]

the fact that you said "their choice" is very well supporting my argument that gender can be learned by choosing to learn a particular gender

Ok, whatever, kahit hindi kita magets. You are citing a study on learning, and that is a totally different topic - unless you already assumed unscientifically that being lgbtq+ is a learned trait.

how exactly they teach LGBTQ+ in class? did it require the students to be LGBTQ+? or still voluntary pa din naman yung pagiging LGBTQ+ nila

Why do you keep saying "voluntary" as if this is a discussion of voluntary or involuntary ang pagiging lgbtq+?

This is a duscussion of if heterosexuality (normal 2 gender) is a social construct, or a function of biology.
Lbgtq+ movement claims that ther is no such thing as male and female genders because it is a "social construct". John Money also believed that and the one who started the idea: but was failed by his experiment. If you dont get it yet, the goal was to prove that "normal" gender behaviors do not exist.
But despite failed experiments, lgbtq+ still uses the idea. Sana gets mo na.

 

[plhbg1]

Ok, whatever, kahit hindi kita magets. You are citing a study on learning, and that is a totally different topic - unless you already assumed unscientifically that being lgbtq+ is a learned trait.

the study i am citing is not even concerned about LGBTQ+ but money's experiment is very well under the scope of that study since the experiment involves teaching-learning process and not just LGBTQ+

Why do you keep saying "voluntary" as if this is a discussion of voluntary or involuntary ang pagiging lgbtq+?

yes it is always a decision and you against it means you didn't decide to be boy? hehe

This is a duscussion of if heterosexuality (normal 2 gender) is a social construct, or a function of biology.

in biology there is only male and female assigned at birth but gender is not biology, it is how we prefer to be identified in a given society

Lbgtq+ movement claims that ther is no such thing as male and female genders because it is a "social construct".

they are talking about male and female as genders instead of the se̾xes at birth

John Money also believed that and the one who started the idea: but was failed by his experiment. If you dont get it yet, the goal was to prove that "normal" gender behaviors do not exist.

if he tries to disprove that there is no such thing as preference to be identified as male or female then i would disagree and of course the experiment should fail then

But despite failed experiments, lgbtq+ still uses the idea. Sana gets mo na.

if it's about preference to be identified as male or female being non-existent then i would disagree since LGBTQ+ gender is not the only gender that can be chosen to learn, we also choose to be male or female, otherwise we all prefer to identify ourselves as LGBTQ+

 

[Kaplok Kaplok]

involves teaching-learning process

It is not even about teaching and learning process.. and it is not about lgbtq+ even.
It was to prove that "gender roles" "gender norms" are separate from biological ***.. which is exactly the idea you are saying here..

in biology there is only male and female assigned at birth but gender is not biology, it is how we prefer to be identified in a given society

Pero his experiment actually pointed the other way, that gender has connections to biological sêx. The child did not know of the mishap on his *******. He was raised knowing he was a girl, pero his body still somehow want to behave like a boy.

Yet, kahit meron tayong ganitong experiment in history, you still believe that gender "assigned at birth" is different from gender identity (note how the wordings already pressumes that gender is "assigned")

If you still dont get it by now, i am done. This is a discussion of the ideology of the movement. And not the nature of learning or teaching how to be lgbtq+.

 

[plhbg1]

It is not even about teaching and learning process.. and it is not about lgbtq+ even.

yes it is not about teaching-learning but it involves teaching-learning instead

Pero his experiment actually pointed the other way, that gender has connections to biological sêx. The child did not know of the mishap on his *******. He was raised knowing he was a girl, pero his body still somehow want to behave like a boy.

yes you can interpret like it's the boy thing that dictates it but i can also interpret it as failure of enforcement/teaching of new gender

Yet, kahit meron tayong ganitong experiment in history, you still believe that gender "assigned at birth" is different from gender identity (note how the wordings already pressumes that gender is "assigned")

that assignment is not random, it is based on the anatomy, but it doesn't mean that i cannot choose/prefer another gender when i come of age

If you still dont get it by now, i am done. This is a discussion of the ideology of the movement. And not the nature of learning or teaching how to be lgbtq+.

it is because the experiment you presented is conducted using another idea which is "nurture over nature" and the nurture part is obviously a teaching process