Bonus review: As Nature Made Him: The Boy Who Was Raised as a Girl

Someone on goodreads asked me why I had rated this book so low, so I wrote an extemporaneous review. Not part of this year's reading. Enjoy!


Title: As Nature Made Him: The Boy Who Was Raised as a Girl
Author: John Colapinto
Publisher: HarperCollins
Year: 2000
Genre: medical, LGBTQ
279 pages  
I use this book (and the related NOVA special) to teach my students about poor methodology. It intends (among other things) to discredit John Money's work on gender. I'm no fan of Money's, but this book doesn't use the work it could have to really discredit him. (Milt Diamond's work alone would make a good start but it is not adequately described or cited in this book, which is admittedly not scientific, but an outgrowth of a Rolling Stone article).

Money's work isn't placed in historical context very well, so a lot of energy is wasted focusing on Money's misunderstandings when, in reality, Money's studies contributed (sometimes unintentionally, but importantly) to contemporary gender studies. Money's techniques absolutely should be scrutinized with a contemporary eye, but also they need to be seen within the parameters of contemporaneous social science. I'm not saying I agree with his techniques, or his write-ups, but that he was far from alone in his behavior, thinking, or practices.

In terms of this particular family, the biggest confound to either Money's ideas about gender fluidity or to the counterargument of gender essentialism is that it wasn't blind, and certainly not double-blind. It's really hard to have a blind case study, but what that means is that this issue should figure prominently in the discussion. Numerous family members and doctors knew that the subject had been born male and was reassigned as female. That's a huge methodological problem. We don't know how the family would have behaved if they'd had a girl, so we can't compare outcomes, but my impression is that they pushed "female-gender" dress, possessions, and behaviors pretty hard. This doesn't work well for many biological females, let alone a child for whom it represents a change of behaviors toward and responses to that child. That's not emotionally neutral, nor is a shift toward what appears to be more restriction neutral, especially when the child is old enough to be aware of the difference, which Bruce/Brenda was. He had a sibling he was treated like, then suddenly he wasn't. What's not bizarre about that from a child's point of view?

Nor is the child likely to be unaware of a reasonable amount of ambient tension hinging on his gendered behavior over time. I perceive this family as pretty average, not terrifically sophisticated, and highly self-effacing in relation to authorities. Perhaps a different family would have managed this situation differently. Under the circumstances, I don't think there was a lot of choice at the time.

One family's experience, however tragic it is and however much I empathize with them and am professionally embarassed by Money, is just one case. It raises questions, but it doesn't do much for either side of the argument about whether gender is innate.

I also thought the author couldn't see Bruce/David as a person and was too fascinated by the freakish aspect of the story.

All that said, I'm terrifically sorry for the family's pain and very distressed that David later committed suicide.