Content uploaded by M. Paz Galupo
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by M. Paz Galupo on Mar 23, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wijt20
Download by: [M. Paz Galupo] Date: 30 June 2016, At: 04:55
International Journal of Transgenderism
ISSN: 1553-2739 (Print) 1434-4599 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wijt20
“The labels don't work very well”: Transgender
individuals' conceptualizations of sexual
orientation and sexual identity
M. Paz Galupo, Shane B. Henise & Nicholas L. Mercer
To cite this article: M. Paz Galupo, Shane B. Henise & Nicholas L. Mercer (2016) “The
labels don't work very well”: Transgender individuals' conceptualizations of sexual
orientation and sexual identity, International Journal of Transgenderism, 17:2, 93-104, DOI:
10.1080/15532739.2016.1189373
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15532739.2016.1189373
Published online: 27 Jun 2016.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 14
View related articles
View Crossmark data
“The labels don’t work very well”: Transgender individuals’conceptualizations of
sexual orientation and sexual identity
M. Paz Galupo, Shane B. Henise, and Nicholas L. Mercer
Psychology Department, Towson University, Towson, MD, USA
ABSTRACT
The conceptualization and measurement of sexual orientation for transgender individuals is
uniquely complicated by the way sexual orientation is rooted in dichotomous notions of sex and
gender. The present research investigates the conceptualization of sexual orientation among
transgender individuals by exploring the sexual identity labels they choose, the descriptions they
provide for these labels, and their general descriptions of their sexuality. Participants included 172
adult U.S. residents, ranging in age from 18 to 65, who self-identified as transgender, transsexual,
gender variant, or having a transgender history. Participants individually completed an online
survey. Qualitative responses were analyzed via thematic analysis. Six themes were identified
related to transgender individuals’descriptions of their sexuality: (1) trans sexuality as complex; (2)
shifts in trans sexuality; (3) focus on beloved; (4) relationship style and status; (5) sexuality, bondage
& discipline / domination & submission / sadism & masochism (BDSM), and kink; and (6) separating
sexual and romantic attraction. Discussion focuses on the ways that transgender individuals’
descriptions of sexuality fall outside the traditional research frameworks that problematize
transgender experience, conflate gender identity and sexual orientation, and inherently define
transgender experience in both cisnormative and heteronormative terms.
KEYWORDS
Gender identity; sexual
identity; sexual orientation;
transgender
Sexual orientation is a multidimensional construct
that encompasses identity, attraction, and behavior
(Lauman, Gagnon, Michael, & Michaels, 1994) and is
understood as an internal mechanism that directs sex-
ual and romantic interests (Diamond, 2003; Rosario &
Schrimshaw, 2014). The present research investigates
the conceptualization of sexual orientation among
transgender individuals by exploring the sexual iden-
tity labels they choose, the descriptions they provide
for these labels, and their general descriptions of their
sexuality.
Framing an understanding of sexual orientation
among trans individuals
Sexual orientation research in the United States has
historically reflected two dominant trends, one
stemming from a premise of sickness and pathol-
ogy and the other from a framework of minority
identity (Hammack, Mayers, & Windell, 2013).
Research on transgender sexuality has been simi-
larly shaped from within these trends. Although
only a few studies have focused directly on under-
standing the sexual orientation of transgender indi-
viduals, research from both of these perspectives
has profound implications for the way in which
transgender sexuality has been conceptualized. In
particular, sexual orientation is conceptualized for
transgender individuals from each of these perspec-
tives in a way that contributes to the overall confla-
tion of sexual orientation and gender identity.
There is a general failure of sexuality researchers to
treat gender identity and sexual orientation as inde-
pendent constructs (Fassinger & Arseneau, 2007)or
to systematically explore the intersections of the
two (Galupo, Bauerband, et al., 2014; Galupo,
Davis, Gynkiewicz, & Mitchell, 2014). This general
conflation of gender identity and sexual orientation
often leads researchers focused on sexual minority
experience to conceptualize sexual orientation
based on cisgender assumptions (Galupo, Davis,
et al., 2014) and researchers focused on transgender
experience to conceptualize gender identity based
on heterosexual assumptions (Galupo, Bauerband,
CONTACT M. Paz Galupo pgalupo@towson.edu Psychology Department, Towson University, 8000 York Road, Towson, MD 21252-0001, USA.
© 2016 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TRANSGENDERISM
2016, VOL. 17, NO. 2, 93–104
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15532739.2016.1189373
Downloaded by [M. Paz Galupo] at 04:55 30 June 2016
et al., 2014). This conflation distorts our under-
standing of sexual orientation and identity among
transgender individuals.
Transgender sexuality: Medical framework
Transgender experience has been consistently pathol-
ogized in the medical and psychological literature.
From this perspective the focus on transgender experi-
ence has been on classifying transgender types and
diagnosing gender identity. The sexual orientation of
the individual has been central to the way this litera-
ture has approached an understanding of transgender
identity and experience. The centrality of sexual orien-
tation in the conceptualization of gender identity is
illustrated in Blanchard’s highly contested model of
male-to-female (MtF) transgenderism (1989a). In this
model same-sex desire is hypothesized to be the rea-
son behind gender dysphoria where homosexual trans-
sexuals see themselves as women attracted to men.
Similarly Blanchard’sautogynephilic transsexuals are
considered “nonhomosexual”individuals who are not
attracted to men but are instead are sexually aroused
by the thought of themselves as women. The way this
theory connects two constructs—sexual orientation
and gender identity—that are now generally under-
stood to be distinct has not gone uncriticized in the
academic literature (Coleman, Bockting, & Gooren,
1993; Moser, 2010; Serano, 2010).
Blanchard (1989b) further suggested that sexual ori-
entation for transgender individuals should be deter-
mined on the basis of chromosomal sex regardless of
gender presentation or surgical status and classified
into four categories: homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual,
and analloerotic. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual
of Mental Disorders Third Edition (DSM-III;American
Psychiatric Association, 1980) similarly denoted indi-
viduals’predominant prior sexual history as a subclassi-
fication of transsexualism with options of asexual,
homosexual (same anatomic sex), heterosexual (other
anatomic sex), or unspecified. In the DSM-IV the diag-
nosis of Gender Identity Disorder was accompanied by
designations that recharacterized sexuality outside of
the traditional sexual orientation labels that require a
sex designation of self in relation to other (i.e. hetero-
sexual, homosexual); instead subclassification options
were attraction to females, males, both, and neither
(American Psychiatric Association, 2000). No such sub-
classification based on sexual orientation is included in
the DSM-5 Gender Dysphoria diagnosis (American
Psychiatric Association, 2013).
Psychomedical perspectives of gender identity
based on heteronormative assumptions of sexual ori-
entation have led to a narrow interpretation of trans-
gender experience and a narrow definition of
transgender sexuality. As such, this classification does
not always resonate with the diversity of experience
among transgender individuals (Rowniak & Chesla,
2013; Serano, 2010; Veale, Clarke, & Lomax, 2012). In
fact, as much of the research on sexual orientation
among transgender individuals focuses on attraction,
more emphasis is needed to understand the role of
self-identification (Bockting, Benner, & Coleman,
2009; Bockting & Coleman, 1991; Devor, 1993).
Transgender sexuality: Minority identity framework
Transgender sexuality has also been conceptualized
from within the larger LGBT minority framework. Sex-
ual minorities (lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer) and gender
minorities (transgender and gender nonconforming
individuals) are often discussed as a unified group
based on shared stigma and community. However,
transgender persons often experience more stigmatiza-
tion than sexual minorities (Weiss, 2004) and a unique
form of prejudice/transphobia (Hill & Willoughby,
2005;Nadal,Skolnik,&Wong,2012; Nagoshi et al.,
2008) and do not always feel connected to the LGBT
community (Fassinger & Arseneau, 2007). Transgender
concerns have historically been minimized within the
larger LGBTQ community where issues surrounding
sexual orientation and LGBQ experience often take
precedence (Hill & Willoughby, 2005).
Research focused on understanding transgender
experience and influenced from a minority stress
framework provides a wider understanding of sexuality
among transgender individuals. Instead of sexual orien-
tation defining transgender experience, sexual orienta-
tion has been used in these studies as a way to describe
the diversity of transgender experience and is reported
based on participant self-identification or stated attrac-
tion. This research broadens our understanding of
transgender sexuality by emphasizing sexual diversity;
for example, this research suggests that transgender
individuals report a range of current sexual identities
(Dargie, Blair, Pukall, & Coyle, 2014;Diamond,Pardo,
& Butterworth, 2011;Hines,2007), a range of sexual
identities prior to transition (Rowniak & Chesla, 2013),
94 M. P. GALUPO ET AL.
Downloaded by [M. Paz Galupo] at 04:55 30 June 2016
andthatitiscommonfortransgenderindividualsto
endorse nonbinary/plurisexual sexual identities such as
bisexual, pansexual, and queer (Dargie et al., 2014;
Galupo,Davis,etal.,2014; Kuper, Nussbaum, & Mus-
tanski, 2012). In addition, transgender individuals
sometimes experience a shift in their sexuality following
social or medical transition (Devor, 1993; Galupo,
Mitchell, Grynkiewicz, & Davis, 2014; Kuper et al.,
2012; Meier, Pardo, Labuski, & Babcock, 2013).
Transgender sexuality: Measures of sexual
orientation and sexual identity labels
Sexuality measures typically assess sexual orientation
on a single continuum with heterosexual on one end
and lesbian/gay on the other (e.g., Kinsey scale;
Kinsey, Pomeroy, & Martin, 1948; Savin-Williams,
2010). Designed with the intent of better characteriz-
ing the multidimensional aspects of sexuality, the
Klein Sexual Orientation Grid (KSOG) expanded the
measurement of sexual orientation by prompting indi-
viduals to rate their behavior, attraction, and fantasies
on a continuum of same- and other-sex attracted or to
rate their community and political affiliation as falling
somewhere between heterosexual and lesbian/gay
(Klein, Sepekoff, & Wolf, 1985).
The way that sexual-orientation labels and meas-
urements require participants to gauge their desire
by making individual sex/gender designations in
relation to the individual/group of interest is partic-
ularly complicated by transgender identity or his-
tory (Dozier, 2005;Lev,2004; van Anders, 2015).
Recent qualitative research has focused on the sub-
jective evaluation of typical measures of sexual ori-
entation (i.e., Kinsey, KSOG). When asked how
well these measures capture their experience, sex-
ual- and gender-minority participants raised a
number of concerns surrounding the way sexual
orientation is conceptualized and measured
(Galupo, Mitchell, et al., 2014). For example, par-
ticipants questioned whether a single continuum
scaleisabletocapturethecomplexityandfluidity
of their sexuality. Many participants challenged the
conceptualization of sexual orientation as anchored
on binary dimensions of sex and gender. This was
particularly true for transgender, bisexual, and
other plurisexual
1
individuals (Galupo, Davis, et al.,
2014) who were most likely to express that their
sexuality could not be represented accurately within
the confines of these traditionalsexualorientation
scales.
Recent research has documented parallel findings
for sexual identity; transgender and plurisexual
individuals were less likely to feel that their sexual
identity could be captured in a single sexual-orien-
tation label (Galupo, Mitchell, & Davis, 2015).
Transgender and plurisexual individuals were more
likely than their cisgender and monosexual coun-
terparts, respectively, to endorse multiple sexual
identity labels and more likely to provide additional
context for their identity labels than were individu-
als with normative identities. It is likely that by
analyzing the descriptors provided by transgender
individuals, we can gain insight into the way they
conceptualize their sexuality. Given that current
conventions in sexual orientation measurement and
identity labeling do not resonate with transgender
individuals’experiences, additional research focused
onthesubjectiveexperienceoftransgenderindivid-
uals is necessary. In addition to providing a fuller
characterization of transgender sexuality, this
approach may also inform alternative ways of con-
ceptualizing sexuality in general, as Hammack,
Mayers, and Windell (2013) suggest that a subject-
focused investigation of sexuality is needed to dis-
rupt the assumptions of the dominant frameworks.
Statement of purpose
The present research investigates transgender sexual-
ity by analyzing the sexual identity labels transgender
individuals choose, the descriptions they provide for
these labels, and the individuals’general descriptions
of their sexuality. By recentering on the lived experien-
ces of transgender individuals and removing the theo-
retical frameworks of past research that conflate
sexual orientation and gender identity, our thematic
analysis focuses on identifying the aspects most salient
to transgender sexuality. In addition, because past
research has mostly investigated transgender sexuality
separately for MtF (e.g., Moser, 2010; Veale, Clarke,
Lomax, 2008) and FtM (e.g., Devor, 1993; Dozier,
2005) individuals, we include a diverse nonclinical
sample including transgender individuals who identify
with both transfeminine and transmasculine spec-
trums. In addition, to better reflect the diversity of the
transgender community we also include individuals
who self-identify as gender variant and agender.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TRANSGENDERISM 95
Downloaded by [M. Paz Galupo] at 04:55 30 June 2016
Method
Participant demographics
Participants were 172 adults who self-identified as
transgender, as transsexual, as gender variant, or as
having a transgender history. Participants ranged in
age from 18 to 65 (MD32.29, SD D11.62). All partic-
ipants were U.S. residents representing all 50 United
States and Washington, DC. Table 1 includes partici-
pant demographics with regard to racial/ethnic diver-
sity, highest level of education, and socioeconomic
status. There was limited racial/ethnic diversity within
the sample, with 75.0% of participants identifying as
White/Caucasian and 19.8% identifying as a racial/
ethnic minority, with another 5.2% identifying as
“other.”
Participants self-identified with a range of gender
identity labels including female/woman, male/man,
trans, trans woman, trans man, MtF, FtM, genderqueer,
bigender, gender nonconforming, and agender, with
many participants utilizing multiple labels simulta-
neously. For the purpose of describing our participant
demographics and ensuring diversity of trans identities
within our sample we asked participants to group
themselves in one of four gender categories, provided
by the researchers, that best describes their experience.
Participants chose transfeminine (nD47), transmascu-
line (nD84), gender variant (nD31), and agender (n
D10). Several demographic characteristics differed
across these four groups (age, sex assigned at birth, and
primary sexual orientation identity), and we provide
this information in Table 2. Transfeminine participants
were older, most likely to be assigned male at birth
(98.8%), and most likely to endorse bisexual (25.5%)
and lesbian (25.5%) as their most frequent primary sex-
ual-orientation labels. Transmasculine (97.6%), gender
variant (74.2%), and agender (80%) participants, in
contrast, were most likely to be assigned female at
birth. Transmasculine participants were most likely to
endorse queer (28.6%) and heterosexual (26.2%) as
their most frequent primary sexual-orientation labels.
Gender variant participants were most likely to endorse
queer (48.4%), bisexual (12.9%), and pansexual (12.9%)
labels while agender participants were most likely to
endorse queer (50.0%) and asexual (30.0%) labels.
Recruitment
Recruitment announcements, including a link to the
online survey, were posted on social media sites,
online message boards, and emailed via transgender
listservs. Some of these resources were geared toward
specific transgender communities (e.g., nonbinary, gay
FtMs, Two Spirit), while others served the transgender
community more generally. Participants heard about
the study primarily through online means, including
Facebook (76.8%), Tumblr (7.7%), Twitter (0.5%),
research-oriented websites/message boards (4.3%),
and receiving a forwarded email through an acquain-
tance or listserv (5.3%). Other participants were
directed to the survey by a friend or significant other
(4.8%), and one participant (0.5%) did not provide an
answer to this question.
Measures and procedure
The present study focused on information obtained
from a demographic section of a larger online study
Table 1. Participant demographics.
(n)%
Gender identity
Transfeminine 47 27.3
Transmasculine 84 48.8
Gender variant 31 18.0
Agender 10 5.8
Sex assigned at birth
Female 116 67.4
Male 49 28.5
Intersex 4 2.3
No answer 3 1.7
Sexual orientation
Queer 48 27.9
Heterosexual 30 17.4
Pansexual 28 16.3
Bisexual 23 13.4
Lesbian 14 8.1
Gay 8 4.7
Asexual 6 3.5
Fluid 4 2.3
Other 11 6.4
Race/ethnic identity
White/Caucasian 129 75.0
Bi/multiracial 12 7.0
Black/African American 8 4.7
Hispanic/Latino 5 2.9
American Native 4 2.3
Asian American 3 1.7
Other 9 5.2
No answer 2 1.2
Education
High school 88 51.2
College 43 25.0
Graduate school 30 17.4
No answer 11 6.4
Socioeconomic status
Working class 58 33.7
Lower-middle class 35 20.3
Middle class 29 16.9
Upper-middle class 22 12.8
Upper class 2 1.2
Don’t know 16 9.3
No answer 10 5.8
96 M. P. GALUPO ET AL.
Downloaded by [M. Paz Galupo] at 04:55 30 June 2016
investigating gender identity and transgender experi-
ence. A structured sexual orientation question was pre-
sented to participants where they chose their primary
sexual orientation from discreet options: heterosexual,
gay, lesbian, bisexual, pansexual, fluid, queer, asexual,
and other. All participants were then asked to describe
their sexual orientation and to list any other sexual
identities they use via free response.
Data analysis
Thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006)wasusedto
consider how participants described their sexual orien-
tation and how they defined and used sexual identity
labels. Analysis began with the second and third author
independently coding data, looking for themes related
to each category of identity. The research team met
and discussed the coding categories and agreed upon
an initial set of codes. The second and third authors
then coded and sorted the data set using the initial set
of codes and provided the first author (who served as
external auditor) with a list of themes and sorted
quotes based on theme. There was significant overlap
in the ratings across the two coders; only three discrep-
ant codes needed to be resolved via consensus of the
entire research team. All three members of the research
team agreed upon the final coding structure and met
several additional times to discuss and solidify which
quotes would fit under each theme. Final quotes were
chosen to simultaneously exemplify each theme and to
ensure that the table of quotes best represented the
diversity of trans
2
identities endorsed by the sample.
Several checks were included in our data analysis
process to increase the credibility of our results. First,
at the end of the survey we provided participants with
the opportunity to reflect upon how our questions
captured (and failed to capture) their individual expe-
riences. Participants were also asked to provide feed-
back to improve the present and future studies.
Responses obtained were incorporated into our analy-
sis. Second, throughout the data analysis process we
discussed the themes and made decisions via consen-
sus. Because of the range of our collective experiences
across sexual orientation, gender identity, gender pre-
sentation, and relationship experiences we came to
these discussions with different perspectives. Our
research team includes a professor of psychology who
self-identifies as a bi/pansexual cisgender woman (first
author), an advanced undergraduate student of psy-
chology and LGBTQ studies who self-identifies as a
pansexual trans man (second author), and an
advanced undergraduate student of family studies and
community development and LGBTQ studies who
self-identifies as a gay cisgender man (third author).
Results and discussion
Six major themes emerged in participants’descrip-
tions of their sexuality: (1) trans sexuality as complex;
(2) shifts in trans sexuality; (3) focus on beloved; (4)
relationship style and status; (5) sexuality, BDSM, and
kink; and (6) separating sexual and romantic attrac-
tion. All participant responses in the data set are rep-
resented in the coding structure and reflected at least
one of the themes. Quotations are used throughout
the paper to illustrate the themes and are accompa-
nied by the gender identity label provided as a free
response by the participant.
Table 2. Demographics across gender identity.
Transfeminine
(nD47)
Transmasculine
(nD84)
Gender variant
(nD31)
Agender
(nD10)
Age
M(SD) 41.36 (14.85) 29.12 (9.73) 30.0 (9.50) 23.5 (4.72)
Sex assigned at birth (%)
Male 98.8 —19.4 —
Female —97.6 74.2 80
Intersex —1.2 6.5 10
No answer 2.1 1.2 —10
Sexual orientation (%)
Asexual —1.2 6.5 30
Bisexual 25.5 8.3 12.9 —
Fluid 2.1 3.6 ——
Gay 2.1 7.1 3.2 —
Heterosexual 12.8 26.2 3.2 10
Pansexual 17 17.9 12.9 10
Queer 8.5 28.6 48.4 50
Lesbian 25.5 —6.5 —
Other 6.4 7.1 6.5 —
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TRANSGENDERISM 97
Downloaded by [M. Paz Galupo] at 04:55 30 June 2016
“It’s complicated”: Trans sexuality as complex
When asked to describe their sexual orientation, trans-
gender participants’responses can be summed up by
the main sentiment, “It’s complicated.”Many partici-
pants described their sexual orientation using a series
of labels, as illustrated by the following quotation: “It’s
complicated. Graysexual, autosexual, questioning les-
bian but so far pansexual”(genderqueer, trans
). The
complexity is exemplified further by the following par-
ticipants’simultaneous endorsement of labels that are
conceptualized in the literature as mutually exclusive
(e.g., gay/straight; homo/bi): “Queer, Gay. Straight, Bi,
Pan, Homo”(genderqueer). The use of multiple labels
is consistent with recent quantitative research finding
that sexual minority individuals who are also trans-
gender are more likely than cisgender sexual minority
individuals to endorse multiple sexual orientation
labels (Galupo et al., 2016). The present findings sug-
gest that for trans individuals, sexuality is not easily
captured in a single label. Multiple labels, then, are
used to attempt to capture the complexity of trans
individuals’sexuality. Even when choosing a single
label, participants described choosing broader
“umbrella”terms while acknowledging their choice as
a way to reduce the confusion or complexity of their
sexuality. This is exemplified in the following three
quotations:
I often define myself as gay to simplify my sexuality.
(male)
I like the term queer. As a bisexual trans person, I like
using queer to sum up the otherness of it all. (female)
I am primarily asexual, but I think “queer”may apply, as
things get complicated sometimes. (genderqueer/FtM)
In addition to providing their preferred sexual ori-
entation labels, transgender participants often quali-
fied their responses by including in their descriptions
their sex/gender assigned at birth, their gender iden-
tity (present and past), the status of their bodies or
body parts, and/or the way in which others classify
them.
I feel heterosexual based on my birth gender, but lesbian
based on my gender-identity. I feel like I am a lesbian,
but lesbians do not accept me as such. (female)
I tick queer because although I have come out as
attracted to women, as I don’t ID as a woman, lesbian
doesn’t work for me. Also I am still married to a man.
(genderqueer/trans
)
Calling myself heterosexual doesn’t feel quite right
because I still have some female parts. (transgender)
Consistent with past research, trans participants’
understandings of their sexuality was complicated by the
way sexual orientation is anchored on binary conceptual-
izations of sex and gender (Galupo, Mitchell, et. al, 2014)
and the way sex and gender is often tied to gendered
notions of the body (Spade, 2011). Despite medical per-
spectives on transgender sexuality that have traditionally
rooted definitions of sexual orientation solely on natal
sex (Blanchard, 1989b; DSM-III; American Psychiatric
Association, 1980), biological notions of sex/gender were
not the sole consideration in our trans participants’
understanding of their sexuality though it was sometimes
one consideration of many that informed the way sexual
orientation was regarded.
When discussing the complexity of their sexual ori-
entation, participants’general conclusion was that the
current system of labeling doesn’t quite capture their
experience.
In the past, I was a man, attracted exclusively to
women—aka heterosexual. Then I was in transition,
expressing an appearance of being a women—while
retaining male sexual parts—and I was attracted to
women—aka Bisexual. Now, I’m expressing being a
women, and having female sexual parts-and am
attracted to women—aka Lesbian. The labels don’t work
very well. (transgender woman)
“My orientation flipped”: Shifts in trans sexuality
A central theme to the way our trans participants dis-
cussed their sexuality was by noting the shifts in their
sexual orientation. Most often this shift was discussed
in terms of their gender identity. Sometimes this was
on the basis of their coming out to themselves or
others, “I identified as a straight woman before com-
ing to terms with being trans; now I identify as a gay
man”(FtM or male). Often the shift in sexual orienta-
tion was based on social or medical transition: “Cur-
rently I would be Gay, but after MTF-SRS I will be
Hetero”(female) and “My orientation flipped on
HRT, but still straight”(female). This shift of sexual
98 M. P. GALUPO ET AL.
Downloaded by [M. Paz Galupo] at 04:55 30 June 2016
orientation is consistent with past research that has
documented sexuality shifts among trans men follow-
ing testosterone use (Meier et al., 2013; Rowniak &
Chesla, 2013). Our participants, however, saw the shift
as relevant to their overall descriptors of sexuality.
In addition to gender-identity-specific attributions
for shifts in trans sexuality, some participants
described their sexuality as changing across context
and time.
It changes and depends on the context. I sometimes say I
am gay, fag queer, bi but lean towards men, that I don’t
have an orientation, gray asexual for stretches of time,
periods of time when I fantasize about cis women then I
lose interest …so queer. But gay. Basically, I don’t know
and I’ve given up trying to tie myself down, but my
attraction to men is a part of my identity and I think
people assume I’m more interested in women as a trans
guy if I say I’m queer. I’m much more immersed in gay
male culture than queer culture. (male)
These general shifts in sexuality are consistent with
multidimensional measurements of sexual orientation,
such as the Klein Sexual Orientation Grid, which
allows for measurement of attraction in the past, the
present, and ideal contexts (Klein et al., 1985). These
shifts are also reflective of general theories of sexual
fluidity and flexibility (Diamond, 2008; Zinik, 1985).
Who “I’m attracted to,”“like,”and “date”: Focus on
beloved
Many of our participants described their sexuality in
ways that avoided the use of traditional sexual orienta-
tion labels and favored instead descriptions that
focused on the characteristics that guide their attrac-
tion. Sometimes the descriptions focused on the iden-
tity of whom they were attracted to—I like girls
(transgender) and Tri-sexual (I like male female and
trans) (female). Sometimes descriptions included gen-
der and gender expression:
I’m attracted to feminine, and/or females and/or androg-
ynous …(other) or body parts I only like vaginas—
gender expression is moot. (genderqueer)
People usually read me as a guy, which is close enough
for comfort in most situations. People rarely read me as
genderqueer. Re sexual identities, I mostly date trans-
masculine genderqueers, sometimes trans men and
occasionally non-trans men. (genderqueer FTM)
This “focus on the beloved”(Weinrich, 2014)
approach taken by our participants reduces sexual orien-
tation from two parameters (requiring a match of identity
or characteristic of the individual to that of the beloveds)
to one (characteristic of the beloved). These findings sup-
port Kuper et al.’s(2012) contention that some trans
individuals “may wish to represent their attractions in
ways that do not specifically reference their own sex or
gender, which may be in transition, fluid or not fully cap-
tured by gay, lesbian, or heterosexual identity labels.”(p.
251). This approach has also been shown to resonate
with transgender individuals in the context of sexual ori-
entation measurement (Galupo, Lomash, & Mitchell,
2016) as this system of classification is seen as more inclu-
sive of trans individuals’identity and experience. For
example, Galupo et al. (2016) describe a novel sexual ori-
entation measure, the Gender-Inclusive Scale, that
assesses attraction to masculinity, femininity, androgyny,
and gender nonconformity (in addition to attraction to
the same- and other-sex in the original version of the
scale). Transgender individuals felt this measure better
captured their experience of sexuality than do traditional
measures of sexual orientation. The authors offer a slight
modification to address the wording of the same- and
other-sex dimensions. The suggested version of the scale
includes attraction to women, men, masculine individu-
als, feminine individuals, androgynous individuals, and
gender nonconforming individuals (Galupo et al., 2016).
This modification allows all six dimensions to be assessed
without requiring individuals to describe their attractions
in reference to their own sex or gender designation.
“Monogamy,”“polyamory,”relationship style and
status
Relationship style and status was an important context
for many of our trans participants when describing
their sexual orientation: “Technically I am bi, but I
often just say gay since I am engaged to another man
(male) and “Queer. Polyamorous. Submissive”
(agender). For some, it was the central factor or only
label provided by trans participants when describing
their sexuality.
In a committed non monogamous relationship (poly-
amorous) for 18 years with a cis-gendered woman who
has identified as straight, bi, and queer. (transfeminine)
Polyamorous. (transmasculine)
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TRANSGENDERISM 99
Downloaded by [M. Paz Galupo] at 04:55 30 June 2016
This finding is consistent with recent research that
has suggested that relational status and relationship
type play a role in some individuals’conceptualization
of sexual orientation (Galupo, Mitchell, et al., 2014),
and these relational factors may account for shifts in
sexuality across time and context (Manley, Diamond,
& van Anders, 2015).
“Power exchange friendly”: Sexuality, BDSM, and
kink
Another theme that emerged from the way our
participants described their sexuality included ele-
ments of BDSM and kink. Sometimes this was indi-
cated with single labels, (“BDSM”), or in reference
to particular roles (“submissive,”Switch boi, pan-
sexual,”and “demisexual submissive”). Others pro-
vided more context regarding this aspect of their
sexuality.
I am orientated to people based on their heart and not
their genitals. My sexuality is also sensitive to power and
kinky dynamics. (female to guy)
I’m into bdsm and the daddy Cboy dynamic. (ftm/
genderqueer)
Power exchange friendly. (m2f transsexual pre-op)
I am a sex worker and heavily into BDSM. (nonbinary)
Our participants’responses regarding BDSM and
kink go beyond framing their involvement as an indi-
vidual or community experience. Rather, these find-
ings suggest that for some transgender individuals
BDSM and kink are seen as relevant to the core of
their sexual orientation and identity. These findings
resonate with emerging theories of BDSM as inform-
ing sexual identity (Bauer, 2014) and even of being a
type of sexual orientation (Gemberling, Cramer, &
Miller, 2015).
“I feel about sex the way most people feel about
bowling”: Separating sexual and romantic attraction
Many participants described their sexuality in ways
that made distinctions between sexual and romantic
attraction. Sometimes this was indicated by using one
label: “Aromantic,”“Gray-A,”“autosexual,”and
“demisexual.”Sometimes two separate labels were
used to document the discordance between romantic
and sexual attraction: “homoromantic asexual,”and
“panromantic greysexual.”
Others provided more detail in their descriptions
regarding the way sexual/romantic attraction may be
more or less important to their experience.
I also consider myself grey-asexual, in the sense that I
seem to feel about sex the way most people feel about
bowling. On occasion, I am attracted to people, but I
don’t seem to be as interested in that whole area of life
as most people. (male side of neutral)
While I am gay and attracted 99% to men (I only want to
have romance with men, only strongly desire or go out
of my way for relationships with men) sexually I am
more flexible and would fuck a girl, although I wouldn’t
want to commit to her etc. I don’t have interest in spe-
cific females the way I do with males. (male)
I’m not attracted to much of anyone these days. On the
other hand, my interest in having sex (with any gender)
is rather high. (mtf but a little nonbinary)
Gray a, almost asexual in addition to being pan.
(agender)
Pan-romantic, The idea that you can be romantically
involved with out being lustful, so you can have two
straight men dating they may have sex, but it’s because
of the proximity they have together and the amount
they care for another not because of the lust. (agender)
Asexual due to end stage cancer. (male)
The disaggregation of sexual and romantic
attraction is often highlighted in the asexuality lit-
erature. Consistent with the way asexual individu-
als often endorse dual identity labels to make the
distinction explicit (Flore, 2014;Przbylo,2013)it
is important to note that even nonasexual/verisex-
ual individuals find the distinction meaningful
(Galupo, Lomash, & Mitchell, 2016). This was
made clear in our trans participants’responses
where sexual and romantic attraction were
described in discordant ways.
Conclusions
The present research focuses on understanding trans-
gender sexuality from the perspective of trans individ-
uals by exploring the sexual identity labels they
choose, the descriptions they provide for these labels,
100 M. P. GALUPO ET AL.
Downloaded by [M. Paz Galupo] at 04:55 30 June 2016
and their general descriptions of their sexuality. In
addition to providing a fuller characterization of
transgender sexuality it has been suggested that a sub-
ject-focused investigation of sexuality is needed to dis-
rupt the assumptions of the dominant frameworks of
sexuality (Hammack, Mayers, & Windell, 2013). As
such, this approach may also inform alternative ways
for conceptualizing sexuality in general. In particular,
by centering on transgender experience, the present
research allows a conceptualization of transgender
sexuality outside of the traditional research frame-
works that problematize transgender experience, con-
flate gender identity and sexual orientation, and
inherently define transgender experience in both cis-
normative and heteronormative terms.
Limitations and directions for future research
We recruited participants who identify as transgender,
transsexual, gender variant, or having a transgender
history, which we used as broad terms intended to
encompass many different gender identities. Because
our recruitment strategy emphasized recruitment
through transgender community resources, individu-
als who see their trans experience as more of a history
or status may be underrepresented within our sample.
Although our intention was to recruit broadly within
the transgender communities, it is important to note
that the use of transgender as an umbrella term is
rooted in White middle- to upper-class conceptualiza-
tions of gender and can function to erase distinct sub-
groups (Valentine, 2007), which may partially account
for why less than 25% of our participants identified as
racial minorities.
Our sample demographics may have also been
impacted by our choice to recruit our participants
online. Participants represented a convenience sample
collected online. Although online sampling is useful
for LGBTQ research, where privacy and access issues
are unique from the general population (Riggle,
Rostosky, & Reedy, 2005), online samples have been
shown to disproportionately represent educated, mid-
dle class, White individuals (Dillman, Smyth, & Chris-
tian, 2008). Because our sample demographics reflect
this trend, interpretation of our findings should be
done within the noted demographics. This is particu-
larly important given that recent research has
highlighted the way gender and sexuality may be
uniquely experienced among people of color (Kuper,
Wright, & Mustanski, 2014; Levitt, Horne, Puckett,
Sweeney, & Hampton, 2015). Additional research is
necessary to evaluate whether the themes identified in
the present research related to transgender sexuality
would resonate with transgender and gender-noncon-
forming people of color.
Despite the limitations of recruitment, we received
a geographically diverse sample with a strong repre-
sentation across gender identities. The present
research extends the current transgender sexuality
research by including individuals who endorse gen-
der-identity labels within both transfeminine and
transmasculine spectrums and also by including indi-
viduals who identify as gender variant/nonbinary and
agender. We did find demographic differences across
transfeminine, transmasculine, gender variant, and
agender participants with regard to age, sex assigned
at birth, and primary sexual orientation identity.
Future research is needed, however, to consider how
the themes described in the present research might be
similarly or differently expressed across participants’
gender identity.
Implications for research and theory
Participants described their sexuality in ways that
challenge traditional research frameworks for under-
standing transgender experience. The medical litera-
ture in particular has used “biological/anatomical”sex
as a basis for classifying the sexual orientation of
transgender individuals (Blanchard, 1989b; DSM-III;
Hammack, Mayers, & Windell, 2013). However, our
participants did not use biological indicators of sex/
gender as the sole basis for describing their sexual ori-
entation, and in many cases it was not a factor at all.
Rather, individual (gender) identity was more likely to
guide sexual orientation self-identification. This find-
ing was consistent with recent qualitative research on
critiques of sexual orientation measures where partici-
pants’sexual and gender identities were central to the
way in which they viewed sexual orientation (Galupo,
Davis, et al., 2014). In addition to being more likely to
focus on gender identity (versus gender/sex) our par-
ticipants described their sexuality in ways that
highlighted fluidity, relational factors, and a disaggre-
gation of sexual and romantic attraction. Participants
also described their sexual orientation in reference to
transgender-specific experiences. For example, partici-
pants described shifts in their sexual attraction and
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TRANSGENDERISM 101
Downloaded by [M. Paz Galupo] at 04:55 30 June 2016
sexual identities that they attributed to coming out as
trans to themselves or others and/or to transition-spe-
cific experiences (e.g., hormone therapy, gender affir-
mation treatments and surgeries).
These findings have important implications for
sexual orientation researchers, who should note the
unique context in which transgender individuals
experience and define their sexuality. This may be
particularly important when interpreting trans indi-
viduals’scores on traditional measures of sexual
orientation or when trans individuals are given
forced-choice labels and grouped based on sexual
identity for research purposes. Caution should also
be exercised when comparing sexual orientation or
identity labels across transgender and cisgender
individuals. Recent research has focused on the
development of sexual orientation measures that
better capture the experience of transgender indi-
viduals (such as the Gender Inclusive Scale
described earlier in this article). The Gender Inclu-
sive Scale may represent a measure of sexual orien-
tation that avoids cisgender assumptions present in
traditional scales (Galupo et al., 2016)whilestill
resonating with cisgender experience.
The present findings also have important implica-
tions for transgender researchers, as they suggest a
need to expand our understanding of transgender sex-
uality in ways that better reflect the lived experience of
trans individuals. In particular, these findings point to
the need to conceptualize transgender sexuality in a
way that decenters models of sexual orientation from
exclusively focusing on gender/sex or from making
cisnormative assumptions. One such example is the
recent work of Tate (2012), who posits two lesbian
identity models that acknowledge trans identities. The
current identity model includes cisgender women,
transgender women, and genderqueer (female identi-
fied) individuals within the definition of lesbian; the
life-course identity model also includes transgender
men and genderqueer individuals of all identities as
long as they identified as female at some point in their
life. By allowing for the possibility of gender diversity,
Tate (2012) provides a way for conceptualizing lesbian
identity that does not assume a cisgender identity.
Van Anders (2015) provides a new and comprehen-
sive framework for understanding sexuality that
extends beyond traditional theories of sexual orienta-
tion. Sexual Configurations Theory (SCT) is a model
of partnered sexuality that is inclusive of diverse
sexualities and gender identities, while making distinc-
tions between eroticism and nurturance (which paral-
lels the way our participants’discuss sexual/romantic
attraction). Van Anders’s model moves beyond a
focus on just gender or sex and adopts an integrated
gender/sex framework by including both socialization
and biology/evolution while also remaining sensitive
to identity.
The present findings suggest that a reframe around
gender/sex is critical for making trans identities visible
in a model of sexuality. By including identities not
specifically related to binary conceptualizations of sex
or gender, van Anders’s(2015) gender/sex framework
is inclusive of multiple labels including “woman, man,
trans woman, trans man, ciswoman, cisman, gender-
queer, intersex.”By allowing for binary/nonbinary
and cisgender/transgender articulations of gender/sex,
the types of nuanced dimensions of sexuality provided
by our participants are able to come into view. Future
research is needed to consider the ways that transgen-
der individuals’experiences of sexuality directly map
onto these new ways of measuring or theorizing about
sexuality.
Notes
1. We use plurisexual to refer to identities that are not explic-
itly based on attraction to one sex and leave open the
potential for attraction to more than one sex/gender—for
example, bisexual, pansexual, queer, and fluid. The term
plurisexual is used instead of nonmonosexual because the
former does not linguistically assume monosexual as the
ideal conceptualization of sexuality (see Galupo, Davis,
Grynkiewicz, & Mitchell, 2014).
2. When discussing the results of the present study and when
referring to our participants, we use the term trans as an
inclusive term to be sensitive to the range of gender identi-
ties endorsed by our participants.
Funding
This research was supported by a research grant from the
American Institute of Bisexuality awarded to the first author.
References
American Psychiatric Association. (1980). Diagnostic and sta-
tistical manual of mental disorders (3rd ed.). Washington,
DC: American Psychiatric Association.
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and sta-
tistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text rev.).
Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.
102 M. P. GALUPO ET AL.
Downloaded by [M. Paz Galupo] at 04:55 30 June 2016
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and sta-
tistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington,
DC: American Psychiatric Association.
Bauer, R. (2014). Queer BDSM intimacies: Critical consent and
pushing boundaries. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Blanchard, R. (1989a). The concept of autogynephilia and the
typology of male gender dysphoria. Journal of Nervous and
Mental Disease,177, 616–623.
Blanchard, R. (1989b). The classification and labeling of non-
homosexual gender dysphorias. Archives of Sexual Behavior,
18, 315–324.
Bockting, W. O., Benner, A., & Coleman, E. (2009). Gay and
bisexual identity development among female-to-male trans-
sexuals in North America: Emergence of a transgender sex-
uality. Archives of Sexual Behavior,38, 688–701. Retrieved
from http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10508-009-9489-3
Bockting, W. O., & Coleman, E. (1991). A comment on the
concept of transhomosexuality, or the dissociation of the
meaning. Archives of Sexual Behavior,20(4), 419–421.
Braun,V.,&Clarke,V.(2006).Usingthematicanalysisinpsy-
chology. Qualitative Research in Psychology,3,77–101.
Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Coleman, E., Bockting, W. O., & Gooren, L. (1993). Homosex-
ual and bisexual identity in sex-reassigned female-to-male
transsexuals. Archives of Sexual Behavior,22(1), 37–50.
Dargie,E.,Blair,K.,Pukall,C.,&Coyle,S.(2014).Somewhere
under the rainbow: Exploring the identities and experiences
of trans persons. Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality,23
(2), 69–74. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.3138/cjhs.2378
Devor, H. (1993). Sexual orientation identities, attractions, and
practices of female-to-male transsexuals. Journal of Sex
Research,30(4), 303–315. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.
org/stable/3813004.
Diamond, L. M. (2003). What does sexual orientation orient? A
biobehavioral model distinguishing romantic love and sexual
desire. Psychological Review,110(1), 173–192. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.110.1.173
Diamond, L. M. (2008). Sexual fluidity: Understanding wom-
en’s love and desire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Diamond, L., Pardo, S. T., & Butterworth, M. R. (2011). Trans-
gender experience and identity. In S. J. Schwartz, K. Luyckx
& V. L. Vignoles (Eds.), Handbook of identity theory and
research (Vol. 2, pp. 629–647). New York, NY: Springer.
Dillman, D., Smyth, J., & Christian, L. M. (2008). Internet,
mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method.
New York, NY: Wiley.
Dozier, R. (2005). Beards, breasts, and bodies: Doing sex in a
gendered world. Gender and Society,19, 297–316. Retrieved
from http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0891243204272153
Fassinger, R. E., & Arseneau, J. R. (2007). “I’d rather get wet
than be under the umbrella”: Differentiating the experien-
ces and identities of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender
people. In K. J. Biesche, R. M. Perez & K. A. DeBord (Eds.),
Handbook of counseling and psychotherapy with lesbian,
gay, bisexual, and transgender clients (pp. 19–49). Washing-
ton, DC: American Psychological Association.
Flore, J. (2014). Mismeasures of asexual desires. In K. J. Ceran-
kowski & M. Milks (Eds.), Asexualities: Feminist and queer
perspectives (pp. 17–34). New York, NY: Routledge.
Galupo, M. P., Bauerband, L. A., Gonzalez, K. A., Hagen, D. B.,
Hether, S., & Krum, T. (2014). Transgender friendship
experiences: Benefits and barriers of friendships across gen-
der identity and sexual orientation. Feminism and Psychol-
ogy,24(2), 183–215. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/
10.1177/0959353514526218
Galupo, M. P., Davis, K. S., Grynkiewicz, A. L., & Mitchell, R.
C. (2014). Conceptualization of sexual orientation identity
among sexual minorities: Patterns across sexual and gender
identity. Journal of Bisexuality,14, 433–456. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15299716.2014.933466
Galupo, M. P., Lomash, E., & Mitchell, R. C. (2016). “All of my
lovers fit into this scale”: Sexual minority individuals’
responses to two novel measures of sexual orientation. Jour-
nal of Homosexuality, online advanced publication.
Galupo, M. P., Mitchell, R. C., & Davis, K. S. (2015). Sexual
minority self-identification: Multiple identities and com-
plexity. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diver-
sity. Advance online publication.
Galupo,M.P.,Mitchell,R.C.,Grynkiewicz,A.L.,&Davis,K.S.
(2014). Sexual minority reflections on the Kinsey Scale and
the Klein Sexual Orientation Grid: Conceptualization and
measurement. Journal of Bisexuality,14,404–432. Retrieved
from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15299716.2014.929553
Gemberling, Cramer, & Miller. (2015). BDSM as sexual orien-
tation: A comparison to lesbian, gay, and bisexual sexuality.
Journal of Positive Sexuality,1,37–43.
Hammack, P. L., Mayers, L, & Windell, E. P. (2013). Narrative,
psychology and the politics of sexual identity in the United
States: From “sickness”to “species”to “subject.”Psychology
and Sexuality,4(3), 219–243. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.
org/10.1080/19419899.2011.621131
Hill, D. B., & Willoughby, B. L. B. (2005). The development
and validation of the genderism and transphobia scale. Sex
Roles,53, 531–544. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/
10.1007/s11199-005-7140-x
Hines, S. (2007). Transforming gender: Transgender practices of
identity, intimacy, and care. Bristol, UK: Policy Press.
Kinsey, A., Pomeroy, W. B., & Martin, C. E. (1948). Sexual
behavior in the human male. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders.
Klein, F., Sepekoff, B., & Wolf, T. (1985). Sexual orientation: A
multivariate dynamic process. Journal of Homosexuality,
11,35–49. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/
J082v11n01_04
Kuper, L. E., Nussbaum, R., & Mustanski, B. (2012). Exploring
the diversity of gender and sexual orientation identities in
an online sample of transgender individuals. Journal of Sex
Research,49, 244–254. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/00224499.2011.596954
Kuper, L. E., Wright, L., & Mustanski, B. (2014). Stud identity
among female-born youth of color: Joint conceptualizations
of gender variance and same-sex sexuality. Journal of
Homosexuality,61(5), 714–731. Retrieved from http://dx.
doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2014.870443
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TRANSGENDERISM 103
Downloaded by [M. Paz Galupo] at 04:55 30 June 2016
Laumann,E.,Gagnon,J.H.,Michael,R.T.,&Michaels,S.
(1994). The social organization of sexuality: Sexual practices
in the United States. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Lev, A. (2004). Transgender emergence: Therapeutic guidelines
for working with gender-variant people and their families.
New York, NY: Haworth Clinical Practice Press.
Levitt,H.M.,Horne,S.G.,Puckett,J.C.,Sweeney,K.K.,
& Hampton, M. (2015). Gay Families: Challenging
Racial and Sexual/Gender Minority Stressors through
Social Support. Journal of GLBT Family Studies,11(2),
173–202. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
1550428X.2014.958266
Manley, M. H., Diamond, L. M., & van Anders, S. M. (2015).
Polyamory, monoamory, and sexual fluidity: A longitudinal
study of identity and sexual trajectories. Psychology of Sex-
ual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 2(2), 168–180.
Meier, S. C., Pardo, S. T., Labuski, C., & Babcock, J. (2013).
Measures of clinical health among female-to-male transgen-
der persons as a function of sexual orientation. Archives of
Sexual Behavior,42, 463–474. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.
org/10.1007/s10508-012-0052-2
Moser, C. (2010). Blanchard’s autogynephilia theory: A cri-
tique. Journal of Homosexuality,57(6), 790–809. Retrieved
from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2010.486241
Nadal, K. L., Skolnik, A., & Wong, Y. (2012). Interpersonal and
systemic microaggressions toward transgender people:
Implications for counseling. Journal of LGBT Issues in
Counseling,6(1), 55–82.
Nagoshi,J.L.,Adams,K.A.,Terrell,H.K.,Hill,E.D.,Brzuzy,
S., & Nagoshi, C. T. (2008). Gender differences in correlates
of homophobia and transphobia. Sex Roles,59,521–531.
Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-008-9458-7
Przybylo, E. (2013). Producing facts: Empirical asexuality and
the scientific study of sex. Feminism and Psychology,23(2),
221–242. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0959353512443668
Riggle, E. D. B., Rostosky, S. S., & Reedy, C. S. (2005). Online
surveys for BGLT research. Journal of Homosexuality,49,1–
21. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J082v49n01-01
Rosario, M., & Schrimshaw, E. W. (2014). Theories and etiolo-
gies of sexual orientation. In D. L. Tolman & L. M. Diamond
(Eds.), APA handbook of sexuality and psychology: Vol. 1.
Person-based approaches (pp. 555–596). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association. Retrieved from http//dx.
doi.org/10.1037/14193-018
Rowniak, S., & Chesla, C. (2013). Coming out for a third time:
Transmen, sexual orientation, and identity. Archives of Sex-
ual Behavior,42, 449–461. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/
10.1007/s10508-012-0036-2
Savin-Williams, R. C. (2010). Sexual orientation label (7-point).
Retrieved from http://www.human.cornell.edu/hd/sexgen
der/research.cfm.
Serano, J. M. (2010). The case against autogynephilia. Interna-
tional Journal of Transgenderism,12(3), 176–187. Retrieved
from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15532739.2010.514223
Spade, D. (2011). About purportedly gendered body parts.
Retrieved from http://www.deanspade.net/wp-content/
uploads/2011/02/Purportedly-Gendered-Body-Parts.pdf.
Tate, C. C. (2012). Considering lesbian identity from a social-
psychological perspective: Two different models of “being a
lesbian.”Journal of Lesbian Studies, 16(1), 17–29. Retrieved
from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10894160.2011.557639
Valentine, D. (2007). Imagining Transgender: An ethnography
of a category. Durham, NC and London, UK: Duke Univer-
sity Press.
Van Anders, S. M. (2015). Beyond sexual orientation: Integrating
gender/sex and diverse sexualities in sexual configurations the-
ory. Archives of Sexual Behavior,44(5), 1177–1213.
Veale, J. F., Clarke, D. E., & Lomax, T. C. (2008). Sexuality of
male-to-female transsexuals. Archives of Sexual Behavior,
37(4), 586–597. doi:10.1007/s10508-007-9306-9
Veale, J. F., Clarke, D. E., & Lomax, T. C. (2012). Male-to-
female transsexuals’impressions of Blanchard’s autogyne-
philia theory. International Journal of Transgenderism,13,
113–139.
Weiss, J. T. (2004). GL vs. BT: The archaeology of biphobia
and transphobia in the U.S. lesbian and gay community.
Journal of Bisexuality,3,25–55.Retrieved from http://dx.
doi.org/10.1080/1553273
Weinrich, J. D. (2014). Multidimensional measurement of sex-
ual orientation: Ideal. Journal of Bisexuality,14(3–4), 544–
556. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15299716.
2014.960958
Zinik, G. (1985). Identity conflict of adaptive flexibility? Bisex-
uality reconsidered. Journal of Homosexuality,11,7–20.
Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J082v11n01_02
104 M. P. GALUPO ET AL.
Downloaded by [M. Paz Galupo] at 04:55 30 June 2016
