Questions of gender and sexuality are commingled throughout Colapinto’s text. From a young age, Dr. Money rigorously presses Brenda about her sexual attractions and interests: For him, it seems that heterosexuality is a marker of healthy gender assimilation. As Brenda grows older, Money realizes that Brenda may be a lesbian, and he “[wants] to know how [Ron and Janet] feel about raising a lesbian” (102).

Money’s fixation fades as certainty about gender identity is the more important of his claims to fame. Nevertheless, his work on gender has important implications in the field of sexuality studies. Money’s argument is taken up by Dr. Bernard Zuger, who refutes Money’s dominant hypotheses using Money’s own PhD dissertation to suggest that toxic family environments are not the causes of homosexuality but the effects of them. Colapinto weaves in the implications of Money’s nurture theory for gay rights. Namely, if gender and sexuality can be shaped by nurture, then homosexuality is a failure of environment, not a difference in biology. Though Money seems unconcerned by this implication, it is meaningful for other scholars.

Feminists also take hold of Money’s theories, though they do not actively work to refute them. Colapinto tracks the appearance of Brenda/David’s case in feminist literature and then its gradual decline as David’s story appears in popular literature. As Money’s theory, and its failure to encompass David’s reality, becomes part of political reality, Colapinto recognizes, it becomes far more difficult to debate purely scientifically.

Colapinto frequently returns to the margins of profit, and the frequency of publication, that Money achieves based on his work with Brenda/David. Money’s NIH grant, awarded in the mid-1950s, continues to pay out at least through the end of the millennium. He earns over $100,000 each year to fund his work. Even as Money falls out of favor at Johns Hopkins, his appearances on media and political circuits allow his star to remain bright and dominant in his field.

Colapinto anxiously writes around the possible claims of profiteering that he recognizes will shroud his own writing of this text. Who stands to profit from a text like As Nature Made Him? Colapinto suggests that David Reimer should split his profits, though he also makes it clear that David entered the project under the belief that his only gain would come in the form of helping others in similar positions. Profit, then, is not only monetary.

This is not to suggest that profit is not important for those who are damaged by elective surgeries. Colapinto raises David’s settlement from his botched surgery, and the “Shaggin’ Wagon” it allows him to buy, as evidence of the important reconstructive value of monetary repayment for medical damages. He also follows the comparatively astronomical settlements received by children who undergo similar failed treatments in the decades since Bruce’s burned penis.