Abstract
John Money is one of the most controversial figures in gender and sexuality studies, challenged by both feminist and LGBTIQ activism as well as anti-gender movements. Many of these criticisms argue that Money is a hyperconstructionist who overemphasizes the power of rearing and socialization in shaping gender identity at the expense of biological forces (chromosomes, hormones, gonads). In this article, I argue that this criticism is not entirely adequate and that we need another interpretive framework to evaluate his work, one that does not force us to choose between whether gender is natural or cultural.
Comments
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 Unported License.
Copyright (c) 2024 Revista de Filosofía de la Universidad de Costa Rica