No. The patient in question did not need any neurocorrective medication or therapy, since he never identified as transgender in any way, shape, or form.
What happened in this single specific, highly unusual and distinctive case was that the patient was a normal male baby whose penis was accidentally damaged in a circumcision accident. The ironically named Dr. John Money -- who at that time was pretty much at the peak of his career, and was considered one of the leading experts on sex and gender --told the parents that their son would never be able to live a happy, normal life with his damaged penis, and that the best way to handle this was to apply what was at that time (and for quite a few decades to come) was the standard medical protocol for any infant judged at birth to be of ambiguous gender or otherwise intersex: surgically "correct" to female anatomical configuration and raise as female. It is important to understand that at this time, this was the completely uncontroversial treatment for intersex infants. The only unusual aspect in this case was that they were applying intersex -- not transgender, but intersex -- treatment to a damaged "normal male".
Conventional wisdom at that time -- and most conservative groups still argue that this is the proper and correct treatment -- was that an infant must be raised as a normal male or female; therefore if the physical sex was in any way ambiguous, the doctors should simply step in and assign a normal gender via surgical and hormonal treatment. Money simply took it one step further in saying that the same protocol should be applied to a male infant with a damaged penis. The modern protocol, which Money continued to oppose until he passed away in 2006, is to delay surgical and hormonal treatment until the infant is old enough to actually express a coherent gender identity.
----
Let me point out here that Money's argument actually goes completely against what trans people actually argue. Money argues that there is no such thing as an innate, fixed gender identity -- he argues that gender is entirely a social construct, so a baby's sex is whatever is surgically and hormonally assigned to that baby, and as long as upbringing is strictly consistent, the baby will grow up and follow their assigned gender with absolutely zero trauma, zero dysphoria, zero difference from any other baby with that gender.
That's why Money is against the modern "wait and see" protocol; he argues that there's nothing to wait for because there is no innate gender identity at all, and that any psychological trauma in the upbringing of an intersex child originates strictly from ambiguity in upbringing. This was, again, broadly accepted at the time, and is why under the "immediate intervention" protocols, the doctors often did not even tell the parents about any of it, simply marking off the child as female on the birth certificate and telling the parents they had a perfectly normal baby girl.
Money had absolutely nothing to do with "transgender identity politics" -- given his denial of an innate gender identity, his position is actually closer to that of anti-transgender feminists.
Last edited:
