The Origins of Gender Identity Theory

15 minute read

In my previous article I took a development approach to unpick the idea that children are born with an innate Gender Identity and (hopefully) demonstrated that this is highly unlikely.  Identity is co-constructed socially, however we are not blank slates when we are born; there are biological forces (genetics, epi-genetics, hormones) which influence identity formation.

In this article I will be exploring where the idea of having an innate Gender Identity separate from biological sex comes from.

What is Gender?

The word gender has more than one meaning, it can be used synonymously with biological sex, as with forms which ask for your gender and then give 2 options; male or female, it has been used this way in England since C15 but this use became more prevalent in the C20.  It can also mean the socially constructed expectations (stereotypes) associated with being either male or female; this use came to the forefront in feminist writing from the 1970s onwards.  Gender is seen by ‘2^nd wave’ feminists (from the 1970s & 80s) as a social construct which is used as a tool of oppression; the idea that women should be submissive and nurturing and are weak whereas men are dynamic, assertive and more intelligent and this is our natural way of being , is harmful to both women and men. 

More recently gender has taken on another meaning, that of ‘gender identity’:  Concepts of gender identity came from three main sources in the 1960s; from Lawrence Kohlberg, a psychologist who was looking at cognitive development in humans (University of Chicago then Harvard), discussed in my previous article,  from Robert Stroller, a psychiatrist at UCLA (University of California) who worked with ‘intersex’ patients, transvestites and transsexuals and from John Money, a psychologist and sexologist working at the John Hopkins University (Maryland) with ‘intersex’ children.

Kohlberg’s theory of gender identity development could be termed sex identity development as it demonstrates the child’s developing awareness of their sexed body and the constancy of biological sex; however awareness of this is tied in with the cultural norms and expectations of the family and society in which they are raised.  Kohlberg’s theory is empirically evidenced (see my last article).  

I will discuss the theories of Stroller and Money in more depth here; their theories have led to the current understanding of Gender Identity (I use capitals where I refer to the current concept of Gender Identity as meaning an internal feeling of being either male or female, an innate entity unconnected to biological sex).  First I will give a bit of historical context to the development of these theories:

Social Context in C20:

As a Social Worker I am interested in the social context, I think it’s relevant to understanding the development of ideas of Gender Identity:  The scientific study of human development began with the emergence of the social sciences (psychology, anthropology and sociology) as distinct subjects in the C20.  This was in a time of great political and cultural changes in the UK and USA:

The first wave feminists began their work in the C19 seeking votes for women and for women to be have rights to own their own property and money after marriage; in 1870 The Married Women’s Property Act gave them this right in the UK and in 1928 women over 21 were given the right to vote in the UK. The USA was ahead of the UK in this regard giving women the right to vote in 1920. 

In WW2 (1939-1945) women were taking the place of men in factories and on farms as men were away fighting.  Leaps forward in technology, including in household appliances, meant that more women had time to pursue other interests, including careers.  The introduction of the contraceptive pill in the 1960s meant that women were able to enjoy the same sexual freedoms as men without the fear of unwanted pregnancy. 

These were huge societal changes, women were moving out of the home more and into the world of work, the world of men, which may have left some men feeling threatened.  With the development of technology came rapid changes in advertising and media; the 1950s and 60s are a period known as ‘the golden age of advertising’; sexism was rife and images of women in the media were either sexualised or portrayed women as dependent and inferior.  The first pornographic magazine was produced in 1953 (Playboy).  

In the 1950s & 1960’s news stories were starting to emerge about transsexuals such as Christine Jorgenson, April Ashley and in 1972 Jan Morris; men who had sought out surgery to ‘change sex’, surgery which was developed in the late 1930s.

Another relevant part of the social context is that homosexuality was both illegal and seen as a perversion, so gay men and lesbian women were not able to be open about their sexuality.  In 1952 Alan Turin was arrested for homosexuality and only avoided prison by accepting chemical castration with female hormones.  Even though homosexuality was decriminalised in the UK in 1967 this was only for private acts for over 21s, it took much longer for homosexuality to be widely accepted publicly; equal laws around the age of consent were not in place in the UK until 2000 and homophobia is still rife in some parts of society.  Both Christine Jorgensen and April Ashley were attracted to men, and Jan Morris wrote about enjoying kisses with other boys at boarding school and about having an open marriage, so it is possible that Jan was bisexual.  At the time when Christine and April transitioned they were men attracted to other men when their attraction was seen as a perversion, they did not fit with the stereotypical expectations of masculinity so it may have been a psychological defence mechanism; to tell themselves that they were really women trapped in a man’s body.

It was in this social context, where the stereotypical gender norms associated with sex were being questioned that ideas of gender identity began being discussed.  Advances in medical techniques (in surgery and development of hormones) in the mid C20 meant it was possible to change secondary sex characteristics to appear externally as the opposite sex.  These societal changes put the spotlight on the differences between men and women in the 1960s; are they biological or socially constructed?

Robert Stroller:

Born in 1925, Robert Stroller was a professor of psychiatry at UCLA Medical school from 1954.  Stroller worked with ‘intersex ‘ patients (those born with disorders / differences of sexual development).  In a 1962 paper Stroller refers to “sexual identity” as “the result of a combination of somatic  and psychological components”.  (Somatic means physical/ of the body.)  Stroller’s ideas around gender identity were influenced by his work with people with DSDs (0.018% of the population or 1 in 10,000), not people following a standard developmental pathway. 

The term gender identity was coined by Stroller and his colleague Ralph Greenson in 1964, however his original phrase could be seen as meaning ‘sex identity’ as gender here is synonymous with sex:

“Gender identity is the sense of knowing to which sex one belongs, that is, the awareness ‘I am male’ or ‘I am female’….The term gender identity was arrived at in joint discussions……by Greenson and Stroller” 

In  his1968 book ‘Sex and Gender, on the development of masculinity and femininity’ Stroller made the distinction between sex (biological) and gender (masculinity or femininity).  He coined the term ‘core gender identity’ and hypothesized that:

 "The sense of core gender identity...is derived from three sources: the anatomy and physiology of the genitalia; the attitudes of parents, siblings and peers toward the child's gender role; and a biological force that may more or less modify the attitudinal (environmental) forces."

This is a more complex understanding of gender identity, closer to the current idea of Gender Identity as something innate, a combination of internal and external biological factors but Stroller is also clear that there is a component of socialisation involved and that having a core gender identity inconsistent with biological sex is in some cases caused by psychological issues. 

John Money:

Born in New Zealand in 1921 John Money had a difficult childhood with a physically abusive father who died when he was 8.  Later in life John wondered if the world would be a better place if men were “gelded at birth” like animals (John money grew up on a farm, gelded is the livestock terminology for castration).

John moved to America to continue his studies and completed his doctorate in Psychology in 1952, his thesis was on ‘hermaphroditism’ (intersex people/ people born with DSDs) and he began working at the John Hopkins University clinic with babies born with DSDs.

Like Robert Stroller’s work Money’s theories about the development of gender identity originated from working with people who were not on a standard developmental pathway.  In a 1955 paper (Money, John; Hampson, Joan G.; Hampson, John, “An Examination of Some Basic Sexual Concepts: The Evidence of Human Hermaphroditism,”) Money identified 7 variables which define sex 1. Chromosomes, 2. Genitals, 3. Internal reproductive structures, 4. Hormones & secondary sex characteristics, 5. Gonadal sex (ie testes or ovaries) 6. Assigned sex and sex of rearing and 7. Gender Role

If you’ve read my previous article “What is Gender Identity Ideology” you will realise that these are the same arguments being used today to suggest that sex is on a spectrum.

Money was working with children born with DSDs, which is where the phrase ‘assigned sex’ comes from: when a child was born with ambiguous genitals Drs would decide whether it would be easier to make the genitals appear more male or female irrespective of the child’s biological sex.  Drs would then assign a sex and operate on the child, some of these children grew up to be comfortable in their assigned sex, but many did not.

Gender Role – “All those things that a person says or does to disclose himself or herself as having the status of boy or man, girl or woman, respectively. It includes, but is not restricted to sexuality in the sense of eroticism. Gender role is appraised in relation to the following: 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 replies to direct inquiry.”

As you can see from the section I have put in bold Money suggests that stereotypical appearance, mannerisms and play preferences are what makes someone a boy or a girl, along with asking them if they think they are a boy or a girl.  The developmental perspective tells us a child does not develop an understanding of sex constancy until around 7, prior to this they are influenced by how well they feel they fit with the stereotypical likes /dislikes associated with being a boy or a girl within their own cultural environment.  A young girl may well think she is a boy if she likes stereotypical boy things and vice versa. 

Along with this Money mentions fantasies and erotic practices; remember this was a time of institutional homophobia, a time when homosexuality was illegal; if a teenage boy felt attraction to other boys would this suggest he is really a girl to Money?

Money believed that for most people all of these elements align, but that Gender Identity was separate from biology and could be changed within a developmental window up to around 30 months old (the gender identity gate) after which it would be locked in. 

Money needed to prove his theory and in 1967 he began working with the Reimer family; twin boys Bruce and Brian, both developmentally normal but aged 8 months old a circumcision gone wrong left Bruce with a severely damaged penis.  Doctors told Mr & Mrs Reimer that Bruce would not be able to have a normal life as a boy or a man without his penis. The Reimer’s saw John Money talking about his theory on television (that there is a gender identity gate and gender is malleable before this gate closes) and thought he could help them.

John Money began working with the family and in 1967, at 22 months old, Bruce was given an orchiectomy (removal of testicles) and a rudimental vaginoplasty.  Bruce’s name was changed to Brenda and his parents were told not to tell anyone that Bruce had been born a boy, and to ensure Brenda always wore dresses not trousers and was encouraged in ‘feminine’ behaviours and interests.

Money wrote that this experiment was a complete success and reported that Brenda had completely assimilated her female Gender Identity.  The truth did not come out till 30 years later, in 1997, when an academic sexologist Milton Diamond tracked Brenda Reimer down:  ‘Brenda’ had never been comfortable as a girl, he changed his name to David aged 14 and began living as a boy.  David’s parents said he had never fitted in with girls and gravitated towards masculine pursuits.  David and his brother disclosed that John Money would make them act out sexual positions to enforce their gender roles.  The impact of John Money’s experiment on the boys had a life-long impact; Brian Reimer died by a drugs overdose and shortly afterwards, aged 38, David died by suicide. 

John Money used this one case of a child on a normal developmental pathway (as opposed to children born with DSDs) to demonstrate that gender identity is not fixed at birth and is separate from biology.  The case is now being used to demonstrate that Gender Identity is something innate, something we are born with; David did not take to his female identity because he had an innate male Gender Identity.  However David was born male, he had experienced the male developmental pathway in the womb so this case only proves the primacy of biology over socialisation.  It does not do anything to prove the existence of Gender Identity as separate from sex.

In 1963 John Money began working with a research group set up by Harry Benjamin to look into transsexualism, funded by a wealthy transman Reed Erickson.  Reed Erickson also funded the John Hopkins Gender Identity Clinic in 1966, the first of it’s kind in the USA.  Harry Benjamin was an endocrinologist who set up the Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association which went on to become WPATH (the World Professional Association for Transgender Health).  I will talk about Harry Benjamin in another article; it is interesting to note as an endocrinologist (a Dr who works with hormones), Harry would have financially benefitted from encouraging people to take cross-sex hormones.

Conclusion:

The idea of people having an innate Gender Identity came mainly from two doctors (a Psychiatrist and Psychologist) in America who were working with people born with rare medical conditions (DSDs) and with a small number of adults who wished they could be the opposite sex.  It is Money’s ideas which really led us to the current theory of Gender Identity and of sex being a spectrum.

Money’s research didn’t prove his theory but this didn’t come to light until 30 years later, by which time his theory was embedded in academia and in teachings in universities.  Money was clearly a man with some trauma in his own background, and later his research into sexuality led him to a pro-paedophilia stance;  Money’s own trauma may have led him to approach research from a biased perspective.  As documentary film maker Tim Wardle said about another piece of unethical research on children which caused them trauma tin later life “That era, the ’50s and ’60s, was the Wild West of psychology …. Psychology was trying to establish itself as a new science, and people were pushing the envelope.”  

The idea that children can be assigned a gender that does not align with their birth sex and that they will assimilate this identity without problem has been disproven not only by Money’s own research with David (Bruce) Reimer, but also in research into boys born with cloacal extrophy (2004):  Based on Money’s theory about Gender Identity boys born with this disorder were assigned female at birth because it was easier to “dig a hole than build a pole” .  In the 2004 study it was found that of the 14 boys in the study who were ‘assigned female’ surgically and socially only 5 carried on living with their female gender identity (4 of them had gone through puberty but one was only 9 at the last assessment).   Another study found similar results for biological males who were assigned as female at birth due to a DSD.  For a view of the impact of this at the personal level you could read what Sophie Ottoway  and Joe Holliday have to say about their experiences (or you can watch an interview with Sophie).

We are now over 50 years on from the period when John Money put forward his theory of Gender Identity, the cultural context has changed; gay marriage is legal and society is more accepting of difference.  It is clear that some people feel a deep unease at their biological sex and want to change their bodies, but other than their subjective experience we have no scientific evidence of Gender Identity.

 As a Social Worker with an interest in human psychology I approach things from a psycho-social perspective; the reasons someone may want to change their body or may feel discomfort with their biological sex are myriad, something I explored a little in my article “What does transgender mean?”  I think the cultural context plays a big part particularly for gender non-conforming children who tend to grow up as gay or lesbian; this includes family context, how accepting are the family and wider society of gender non-conformity?  It also plays a big part for some autogynephilic men; from the 1950s onwards there has been an increasing sexualisation of women which I believe influences their desire to become women, something I will explore in another article.