There is a phenomena that is frequently found among liberal progressive leftists. Their heroes are mostly societal frauds, and more often than not, monsters. Take the case of Dr. John Money and gender studies.
It is now taken as self-evident that something called "gender" exists, that it is distinct from biological sex, and that the former [and perhaps even the latter, they tell us now] is an artificial social construct. But these ideas were not always self-evident. In fact, they weren't evident at all for the entire history of the human race up until about a century ago.
Thousands of generations lived and died, engaging in art and science and philosophy and everything else that comprises human civilization, all while assuming that there were only males and females, and rarely finding any need for other categories. But fast forward to the 20th century, and that all changed.
Considering the magnitude of the suddenness of this shift in our understanding of human nature, we should probably take the time to acquaint ourselves with the people responsible for it. And when it comes to the concept of "gender" and "gender constructs," there is no better place to start than Dr. John Money.
A prominent psychologist and sexologist, Money was one of the early pioneers of the gender theories that are currently taught in grade schools and universities. Among the first to take the word "gender" out of the realm of grammar and apply it to people, he coined the terms "gender role," "gender identity," and "sexual orientation."
A professor at York University recently published a book labeling John Money "the man who invented gender." Suffice it to say, he was an extremely influential man, and anyone who propagates Left-wing gender theory today is parroting at least some of the ideas of John Money, whether they know it or not. That fact ought to trouble gender theory proponents because John Money was, among other things, a fraud and a sexual predator.
Along with more conventionally degenerate views — his advocacy of open marriages and group sex, for example — Money was also "ambivalently supportive" of pedophilia. Drawing a distinction between what he called sadistic pedophilia and affectional pedophilia, Money held that a relationship between a grown man and a child who really love each other, should not be considered disordered.
Speaking to a Dutch pro-pedophilia publication, Money explained, "If I were to see the case of a boy aged 10 or 12 who's intensely attracted toward a man in his 20s or 30s, if the relationship is totally mutual, and the bonding is genuinely totally mutual, then I would not call it pathological in any way." His nonchalant tolerance for child rape may help explain some of the events that transpired later.