Dr. Money and the Boy with No Penis

Dr. Cash did not prove his theory of gender neutrality because "Brenda" grew up sensation like a young boy no matter the reality that she was raised as a girl. Initially, evaluating from one of the very first interviews in between Dr. Money and the children, she was adapting to her function. However, as she grew up, she resided in a consistent battle with herself since she just did not feel like she fit the role that was given to her.

No matter the reality that she was castrated and there were no more male hormonal agents produced, Brenda constantly had a manly disposition. Her general mindset was that of a guy's.

Brenda was very fast to adjust and accept her role as a male when she discovered the reality. I think that is the best proof to negate his theory of gender neutrality. Assuming that a man/woman could effectively have been nurtured as the opposite sex, there need to have been more reluctance to believe and adapt to their real identity.

Get quality help now

Doctor Jennifer

Verified writer

Proficient in: Money

5 (893)

“ Thank you so much for accepting my assignment the night before it was due. I look forward to working with you moving forward ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

I think Dr. Cash made extreme ethical infractions with both kids, particularly with Brenda. From the interviews and her recounts, it seems that he constantly tried to steer her to answer questions and act how he wanted her to behave.

He basically wished to rig the result of this experiment. His publication of the experiment itself without additional observation appears to additional prove his unrelenting belief of his theory of gender neutrality. His publication was released when Brenda was only 7 years of ages and there is proof that even he noticed contradictions to his theory.

Yet, he chose to publish a false publication in which he ensured the credibility of his theory. Nobody really knows whether he took those alleged photos of the twins but if he did that definitely would have been an ethical offense.

It’s also troubling that the parents were nowhere near and absolutely uninvolved during the process of these interviews. I can see how their presence could have altered the answers of the children during interviews but surely there could have been a way for them to oversee the process of their experiments. And surely, Dr. Money is not the only one at fault for that because the parents should have asked to be more involved. The National Commission for the Protection of

Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research did not release the Belmont Report outlining the ethical conduct for psychologists until 1979; even though the National Research Act was made legal in 1974. In 1979, Brenda was 14, which was around the time when she stopped seeing Dr. Money. I do not think Dr. Money’s behavior was justified but his behavior was also not legally unethical yet during the time when the experiment took place. The experiment itself is utterly fascinating. It’s sad that it was carried out in such an unethical manner and that the subjects were so deeply harmed to the point of a tragic outcome.

I honestly did not judge the parents too harshly because even though I think it is wrong that they were uninvolved for the most part, I truly believe they had the best in mind for their children. Seeing the transgender woman really sparked a hope in their heart that their child could grow up and lead a happy, fulfilling life. It’s hard to imagine what my choice would have been because it is hard to ignore the knowledge of the outcome; hindsight bias at its’ finest. I would like to think I would have raised my child as a boy and that I would have had hope that the advancements in the medical field would aid his situation when he grew up.