Gender Nonconformity Is Perceived Differently for Cisgender and Transgender Targets

Abstract

The present research examined the role gender non-conformity plays in attitudes toward transgender people. Study 1 with 232 U.S college students focused on attitudes toward female targets; Study 2 with 217 U.S. college students focused on male targets; and Study 3 with 462 mTurk workers directly compared attitudes toward female and male targets. In all three studies, participants read a vignette depicting either a transgender or cisgender target who presents as either gender conforming or gender nonconforming. In all three studies, we found that gender nonconforming targets and transgender targets were perceived as more threatening to the distinction between men and women, and in two of the studies, we found that gender conforming transgender targets were more threatening than conforming cisgender targets. We also found that anti-transgender prejudice, traditional gender role beliefs (Studies 1 and 2), and biological gender essentialism (Study 3) moderated these effects. Transgender targets who conform to the traditional binary gender role associated with their gender expression are perceived as transgressing distinct binary gender boundaries, which may be threatening because “passing” transgender individuals are harder to detect as transgressors and because their “passing” challenges the belief that gender is biologically essential and immutable. Furthermore, as anti-transgender prejudice, traditional gender role beliefs, and gender essentialist beliefs increase, liking decreased and threat increased for transgender and gender nonconforming targets. Working to alter gender essentialist beliefs may be a route to reducing anti-transgender prejudice.

Full text

1 23
Sex Roles
A Journal of Research
ISSN 0360-0025
Sex Roles
DOI 10.1007/s11199-018-0947-z
Gender Nonconformity Is Perceived
Differently for Cisgender and Transgender
Targets
Kristin A.Broussard & Ruth H.Warner

1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and
all rights are held exclusively by Springer
Science+Business Media, LLC, part of
Springer Nature. This e-offprint is for personal
use only and shall not be self-archived in
electronic repositories. If you wish to self-
archive your article, please use the accepted
manuscript version for posting on your own
website. You may further deposit the accepted
manuscript version in any repository,
provided it is only made publicly available 12
months after official publication or later and
provided acknowledgement is given to the
original source of publication and a link is
inserted to the published article on Springer's
website. The link must be accompanied by
the following text: "The final publication is
available at link.springer.com”.

ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Gender Nonconformity Is Perceived Differently for Cisgender
and Transgender Targets
Kristin A. Broussard
1
&Ruth H. Warner
1
#Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018
Abstract
The present research examined the role gender non-conformity plays in attitudes toward transgender people. Study 1 with
232 U.S college students focused on attitudes toward female targets; Study 2 with 217 U.S. college students focused on male
targets; and Study 3 with 462 mTurk workers directly compared attitudes toward female and male targets. In all three studies,
participants read a vignette depicting either a transgender or cisgender target who presents as either gender conforming or gender
nonconforming. In all three studies, we found that gender nonconforming targets and transgender targets were perceived as more
threatening to the distinction between men and women, and in two of the studies, we found that gender conforming transgender
targets were more threatening than conforming cisgender targets. We also found that anti-transgender prejudice, traditional
gender role beliefs (Studies 1 and 2), and biological gender essentialism (Study 3) moderated these effects. Transgender targets
who conform to the traditional binary gender role associated with their gender expression are perceived as transgressing distinct
binary gender boundaries, which may be threatening because Bpassing^transgender individuals are harder to detect as trans-
gressors and because their Bpassing^challenges the belief that gender is biologically essential and immutable. Furthermore, as
anti-transgender prejudice, traditional gender role beliefs, and gender essentialist beliefs increase, liking decreased and threat
increased for transgender and gender nonconforming targets. Working to alter gender essentialist beliefs may be a route to
reducing anti-transgender prejudice.
Keywords Transgender (attitudes toward) .Gender conformity .Gender roles .Prejudice .Stereotyped behavior .Boundary
violations .Explicit attitudes
Prejudice toward and discrimination against transgender indi-
viduals (i.e., those whose assigned birth sex is not congruent
with their current gender identity; Tate et al. 2014)iswide-
spread. Indeed, fully 58% of transgender individuals report
experiences of serious discrimination, including job loss and
eviction, bullying and physical harassment, and denial of
medical services (James et al. 2016). One source of prejudice
against transgender individuals is that they may be perceived
as gender nonconforming (i.e., not conforming to the gender
roles traditionally assigned to men and women, such as feminine
men or masculine women) and thus as threatening toward the
gender binary. People evaluate those who do not conform to
traditional gender roles more negatively (Blashill and Powlishta
2009;Levyetal.1995; Richardson et al. 1980), especially
nonconforming men (McCreary 1994; Sirin et al. 2004).
However, transgender individuals may be perceived as
gender nonconforming in multiple ways—not conforming to
the traditional roles of either their assigned sex (i.e., their sex
assigned at birth by a medical professional, commonly based
on genitalia) or their gender identity (i.e., their authentic gen-
der, which does not conform to their assigned sex). For exam-
ple, a transgender woman (i.e., assigned as male at birth, but
lives as a woman) may be seen as transgressing gender roles
for her assigned sex (i.e., male) by identifying and living as a
woman, but could also be seen as transgressing gender norms
for her gender identity (i.e., woman) if she does not appear or
behave femininely. Thus, the question is, would a masculine
transgender woman (or feminine transgender man) be per-
ceived the same way as a masculine cisgender (i.e., one whose
assigned birth sex is congruent with their current gender iden-
tity) woman (or feminine cisgender man)?
*Kristin A. Broussard
kristin.broussard@slu.edu
1
Department of Psychology, Saint Louis University, 3700 Lindell
Blvd, St. Louis, MO 63108, USA
Sex Roles
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-018-0947-z
Author's personal copy

Although prior research has examined the connection be-
tween violation of the gender binary and anti-transgender prej-
udice, it has been correlational in nature and has not investi-
gated how gender nonconformity of transgender individuals
to their gender identity affects perceptions of them. The aim of
our research was to examine attitudes toward cisgender (peo-
ple whose gender identity and expression matches their
assigned birth sex) and transgender (people whose gender
identity and expression does not match the label assigned at
birth) men and women based on their conformity to gender
roles for their gender.
Anti-Transgender Prejudice
Most of the existing anti-transgender prejudice research is
correlational and has focused on identifying a number of in-
dividual differences that predict anti-transgender prejudice,
most often using college or adult samples in the United
States. Prior studies have suggested a variety of individual
differences and personality traits associated with increased
anti-transgender prejudice including right-wing authoritarian-
ism, religious fundamentalism, political conservatism, religi-
osity (among cisgender women participants only), anti-
egalitarian attitudes, and hostile sexism (Nagoshi et al. 2008;
Norton and Herek 2013), as well as Need for Closure, prefer-
ence for traditional gender roles, and anti-gay, anti-lesbian,
and anti-bisexual (LGB) prejudice (Makwana et al. 2017;
Tebbe and Moradi 2012). Researchers have also found that,
overall, men tend to hold more negative attitudes toward trans-
gender individuals than women do (Antoszewski et al. 2007;
Norton and Herek 2013; Tebbe and Moradi 2012).
Another potential reason for prejudice and discrimination
against transgender individuals is binary gender role sociali-
zation because transgender individuals may be seen as threat-
ening the distinction between groups. Gender binarism belief
refers to the belief that there are only two genders, correspond-
ing with biological sex (Tebbe and Moradi 2012), and such
beliefs are associated with greater anti-transgender prejudice
(Ching and Xu 2018; Norton and Herek 2013; Tebbe and
Moradi 2012). It is possible that transgender people are threat-
ening to those scoring higher in gender binarism because
transgender people are perceived as transgressing the strict
boundary between the binary genders.
Social identity theory (Tajfel and Turner 1979)positsthat
people define themselves based on the social group to which
they belong. People tend to see themselves as more similar to
other ingroup members and as very different from outgroup
members when Bus versus them^dynamics are made salient.
Similarly, social categorization theory (Turner et al. 1987)
states that people determine which social identities to utilize
for categorization based on how well the social categories are
reflective of actual group differences, preferring
categorizations that maximize intragroup similarities and min-
imize intergroup similarities. Both social identity theory and
self-categorization theory (Tajfel and Turner 1979; Turner
1999; Turner et al. 1987) suggest that group members are
highly motivated to maintain intergroup distinctiveness (i.e.,
distinct binary gender boundaries: male versus female) and
may attempt to protect such distinctiveness by devaluing
outgroup members who are perceived as obscuring group
boundaries, a phenomenon known as distinctiveness threat
(e.g., Jetten et al. 1996,2004,2005;Spearsetal.1997;Van
Knippenberg and Ellemers 1990). Transgender individuals
may be perceived as transgressing the distinctions between
binary gender categories (i.e., men and women) that are based
on traditional gender roles (i.e., distinctiveness threat;
Glotfelter and Anderson 2017). Thus, individuals who chal-
lenge the idea that birth sex solely determines gender identity
may threaten binary gender boundaries and challenge gender
binarism beliefs. It is possible that transgender people are
devalued as a way to protect distinctiveness between the bi-
nary genders and uphold gender binarism beliefs (Glotfelter
and Anderson 2017).
Additionally, it is possible that the degree to which trans-
gender individuals conform to the traditional gender roles as-
cribed to their gender expression or identity may affect per-
ceivers’attitudes toward them. Using data from the 2008
National Transgender Discrimination survey, Miller and
Grollman (2015) found that transgender people who reported
being perceived as transgender or gender nonconforming (to
their gender expression) were more likely to report experi-
ences of major discrimination events and everyday transgen-
der discrimination, even after controlling for medical and so-
cial transition status and other demographic factors such as
age, race, and gender identity. In effect, transgender people
who were identified as transgender based on their appearance
(i.e., nonconforming to their gender expression) were more
likely to be actively discriminated against. It is possible that
transgender individuals who do conform to the traditional
gender roles associated with their gender expression are less
likely to be actively discriminated against but may be more
threatening to binary gender distinctiveness because they are
harder to visually distinguish from a cisgender individual.
Gender Conformity
Research on sexism and anti-gay prejudice suggests that peo-
ple tend to be more prejudiced toward violators of traditional
gender roles, especially in appearance and behaviors (Blashill
and Powlishta 2012; Rudman 2005). There is ample evidence
that gender nonconforming men experience prejudice and
backlash in work environments (Moss-Racusin et al. 2010),
and that, beyond adult work settings, men may face greater
backlash for expressing stereotypically feminine
Sex Roles
Author's personal copy

characteristics (e.g., communal, caring, interdependent) than
women do for expressing typically male characteristics (e.g.,
agentic, ambitious, self-reliant; Rudman and Phelan 2008).
Indeed, men who transgress behavioral gender roles are often
viewed more negatively than are gender role-transgressing
women (McCreary 1994).
In addition, gender conformity is often researched in con-
junction with sexual orientation. A pervasive (but arguably
incorrect) assumption among laypersons and researchers is
that gender nonconformity (especially in boys and men) indi-
cates homosexuality (Gottschalk 2003; Herek 1984,1994).
Assumptions of sexual orientation based on gender conformi-
ty are strongest for feminine male targets (compared to mas-
culine female targets), especially among heterosexual male
raters (McCreary 1994). Furthermore, the stigmatization of
gender nonconformity appears to play a role in perceptions
of gay people. Feminine gay men are rated as less desirable
than masculine gay men, and masculine gay women are rated
as less desirable (e.g., acceptable, likeable, Bcorrect^) than
feminine gay women, especially by heterosexual male partic-
ipants (Schope and Eliason 2004). Likewise, gender atypical
(i.e., masculine women, feminine men) gay targets were rated
as more immoral than gender atypical heterosexual targets,
and gay targets were seen as more gender atypical, but only
for those raters high in anti-gay prejudice (Lehavot and
Lambert 2007). Additionally, people tend to perceive gender
atypical behaviors and appearance as not only prescriptive of
gay sexual orientation, but also as a conscious demonstration
of their gay social identity (Lick et al. 2014). Targets depicting
gender atypical walking patterns and facial cues were more
likely to be categorized as gay and were presumed to have
changed their appearancein order to communicate their sexual
orientation to others, which led to more negative evalua-
tions—especially for gay female targets (Lick et al. 2014).
However, some evidence suggests that negative attitudes
toward gender conformity and sexual orientation are separate.
Blashill and Powlishta (2009) had heterosexual male partici-
pants rate gender conforming or gender nonconforming gay
men and heterosexual men, and they found that feminine men
were rated more negatively (i.e., liked less, avoided more, less
desirable as a work partner) and as possessing negative traits
(i.e., boring, unintelligent), regardless of sexual orientation.
Gay men, regardless of gender conformity, were rated more
negatively as well. However, whenno information was explic-
itly given about the target’s sexual orientation, more feminine
male targets were rated as more homosexual (although not as
Bclearly gay^) than were more masculine male targets.
Social identity theory suggests that the socially accepted
categories of male/masculine and female/feminine are conflat-
ed (i.e., gender identification and gender-role characteristics
are based on the same categorization criteria). Thus, an indi-
vidual who can be categorized as a man or a woman based on
their self-identification is expected to also possess gender-
conforming characteristics (i.e., femininity for a woman, mas-
culinity for a man). Those who transgress binary gender cat-
egory expectations by identifying as one gender but having
characteristics of the other (e.g., masculine women, feminine
men) are likely seen as threatening to binary gender category
distinctions and are discriminated against as a means of main-
taining distinct binary gender boundaries (i.e., distinctiveness
threat).
Gender conformity in transgender targets is potentially
more complex because the same behavior or characteristics
may be seen as conforming to their gender identification and
expression, but nonconforming to their assigned birth sex (or
vice versa). One experimental study found that participants
rated targets whose facial appearance was incongruent with
their gender expression (e.g., a transgender woman who
looked more masculine; a transgender man who looked more
feminine) more negatively than targets whose facial appear-
ance was congruent with their gender expression
(Gerhardstein and Anderson 2010). This research suggests
that, at least regarding appearance, people rate transgender
individuals who conform to their gender identity, rather than
their assigned birth sex, more positively. However, it is un-
known whether this holds true for conformity to gender nor-
mative behavior and interests. Transgender individuals who
conform to their gender identity may also be perceived as
Bpassing^as cisgender more easily and so as more threaten-
ing. Gender identity Bpassing^maybeviewedasmorethreat-
ening for those higher in gender binarism beliefs for whom
there exist only two genders (that conform to biological sex).
For those higher in gender binarism beliefs, a Bviolator^of
those gender boundaries would be threatening enough, but a
Bviolator^who could not be detected easily may be perceived
as even more of a threat.
The Current Studies
Past studies have investigated the role of gender conformity in
relation to sexual orientation and perceptions of gay and les-
bian targets (Blashill and Powlishta 2009,2012). However,
little research has experimentally investigated the role of gen-
der conformity in relation to evaluating targets based on gen-
der identity. Based on social identity theory and research on
distinctiveness threat, it may be that anti-transgender prejudice
stems from perceptions that transgender people transgress or
blur boundaries between the binary genders. If so, transgender
individuals who are highly gender role conforming to their
gender expression may be more threatening because they
demonstrate that gender is non-essential and that boundaries
separating men and women are malleable or even non-exis-
tent. This effect may be particularly robust among those
higher in gender binarism and gender essentialism because
they believe that there are only two genders, which are
Sex Roles
Author's personal copy

biologically determined (Ching and Xu 2018; Tebbe and
Moradi 2012). Additionally, people who hold traditional (ver-
sus egalitarian) gender role beliefs may be more threatened by
gender conforming transgender people because traditional
gender roles are based on an underlying ideology that gender
differences are biologically based (versus socially
constructed; Larsen and Long 1988). Anti-transgender atti-
tudes may also influence how people view gender conformity
among transgender people. For those higher in anti-
transgender prejudice, a gender conforming transgender per-
son may be more threatening because they are not detectable
as targets of prejudice.
The current studies sought to disambiguate how gender
conformity affects attitudes toward a transgender male or fe-
male target. Specifically, we assessed how attitudes toward a
gender conforming versus gender nonconforming transgender
person (Study 1: woman, Study 2: man, Study 3: man or
woman) differ from attitudes toward a gender conforming
versus nonconforming cisgender person (i.e., someone whose
gender-identity conforms with their assigned birth sex; not
transgender). In all three studies, we looked at conformity to
the gender identity of the target (i.e., a feminine transgender
woman and a feminine cisgender woman are both conforming
to female gender roles).
Study 1 focused on attitudes toward transgender women;
Study 2 focused on transgender men; and Study 3 directly
compared attitudes toward transgender women and men. In
all three studies, participants read a vignette depicting either a
transgender or a cisgender target who presents as highly gen-
der conforming or not gender conforming. Participants rated
their liking of the target in the vignette, their acceptance of the
target’s gender expression, and their level of distinctiveness
threat. They also completed individual difference measures
(i.e., anti-transgender prejudice in Studies 1 and 2, traditional
gender roles in Studies 1 and 2, and gender essentialism in
Study 3) that we predicted would be related to the dependent
variables (i.e., liking, distinctiveness threat), and that those
relationships would be moderated by the target’sgenderiden-
tity and gender conformity. For all three studies, all materials
and procedures were approved by an IRB.
Study 1: Transgender Prejudice Targeting
Women
In our first study, we investigated attitudes toward women
(cisgender and transgender). The design of Study 1 was a 2
(target gender identity: transgender woman or cisgender wom-
an) × 2 (target gender-role conformity: feminine gender-
conforming or feminine gender-nonconforming). Because
transgender people are often the targets of prejudice and dis-
crimination (Nagoshi et al. 2008; Tebbe and Moradi 2012), we
hypothesized that participants would like transgender women
less than cisgender women, regardless of target gender con-
formity (Hypothesis 1). Prior research has also demonstrated a
consistent trend in cisgender men having more negative atti-
tudes toward transgender people than cisgender women have
(Antoszewski et al. 2007; Norton and Herek 2013; Tebbe and
Moradi 2012). We hypothesized that male participants would
have greater dislike of transgender targets than would female
participants (Hypothesis 2).
Gender-based distinctiveness threat should be elicited by
targets who transgress against the traditional gender roles as-
sociated with biologically-essential binary sexes. Thus, dis-
tinctiveness threat should be greater for the transgender female
targets than for cisgender female targets (Hypothesis 3), as
well as greatest for the gender-conforming transgender female
target (Hypothesis 4). Pre-existing negative attitudes toward
transgender people and rigid traditional gender role beliefs
may activate negative responses to the targets based on gender
identity and gender conformity.
We also predicted that the effect of anti-transgender preju-
dice (Hypothesis 5) and traditional gender role beliefs
(Hypothesis 6) on ratings of the targets would be moderated
by gender conformity and gender identity. Specifically we
hypothesized that the relationships between target ratings on
liking and distinctiveness threat and anti-transgender preju-
dice would be moderated by target gender identity
(Hypothesis 5a) and by target gender conformity
(Hypothesis 5b) such that the relationships between anti-
transgender prejudice with both liking and distinctiveness
threat would be more pronounced for transgender and
nonconforming targets. We predicted the same pattern for
the relationships between both liking and distinctiveness
threat with traditional gender role beliefs (Hypothesis 6).
Specifically, we hypothesized that the relationships between
both liking and distinctiveness threat with traditional gender
role beliefs would be more pronounced for transgender targets
(Hypothesis 6a) and gender nonconforming targets
(Hypothesis 6b).
Our predictions for Hypotheses 5 and 6 treat target gender
identity and target gender conformity separately and indepen-
dently by testing for simple moderation. Although we offer no
formal hypotheses, we further wanted to explore the interac-
tion of target gender identity and gender conformity, particu-
larly focusing on the gender-conforming cisgender targets
who are, by definition, the most normative group. To do so,
we conducted moderated moderation analyses in which gen-
der conformity served as the superordinate contextual moder-
ator within which targets held either transgender or cisgender
identities. Through four moderated moderation analyses, we
were able to explore the relationships between both liking and
distinctiveness threat with both anti-transgender prejudice and
traditional gender role beliefs across the four target groups
resulting from the crossing of gender identity (transgender
and cisgender) with gender conformity (conforming and
Sex Roles
Author's personal copy

nonconforming). For all studies, we report how we deter-
mined our sample size, all data exclusions, all manipulations,
and all measures in the study.
Method
Participants
Participants were cisgender (as determined by responses to a
single-item measure of gender identity where participants chose
one of the following categories: male, female, non-cisgender
[transgender, intersexed, or other –open text]), undergraduate
psychology students at a U.S. Midwestern Jesuit University
who received course credit for participation. Although 323 stu-
dents participated (a priori power analysis indicated 231 were
needed to obtain power = .90), 91 (28%) failed the reading or
attention checks and were excluded from analyses. (Participants
needed to correctly answer all three reading check questions
and follow all of the Instructional Manipulation
Check attention check instructions, described in the
following section, to be included.) The final sample then includ-
ed 232 students, with a mean age of 18.69 years-old (SD =1.01,
range = 18–23) and the majority of whom were female (152,
65.5%) and White (177, 76.3%; 32, 13.8%, Asian; 6, 2.6%,
Black/Hispanic/Biracial). Most students were moderately to
very religious (134, 57.7%) and Catholic (117, 50.4%). Many
identified as moderate in their political orientation (94, 40.9%;
76, 33.1% liberal; 60, 26.1% conservative). A majority of stu-
dents (145, 62.5%) reported having no contact with a transgen-
der person (friend, family member, acquaintance) and 37.5%
(n= 87) reported having some kind of contact with a transgen-
der person. Male and female participants were comparable ac-
cording to their race, χ
2
(5) = 8.53, p=.13, Cramer’sV=.19;
religious affiliation, χ
2
(8) = 8.81, p=.36, Cramer’sV=.20;
and religiosity, χ
2
(3) = 1.73, p=.63, Cramer’sV= .09. The
one exception was political orientation, χ
2
(4) = 12.42,
p=.01, Cramer’sV= .23, such that more women were liberal
and more men were conservative.
Vignettes
Four vignettes (modified from Horn 2007) described BJamie^
as a female college student who displays traditional female
gender-role conforming behavior or nonconforming behavior
and was identified (with definitions) as either transgender or
cisgender (bracketed phrases indicate the gender conformity
manipulation and italicized bracketed phrases indicate the
gender identity manipulation):
Jamie is a college student. Jamie plays on the school
volleyball team. Jamie is a BB^student. Jamie dresses
and acts like [differently from] most of the other girls at
school. Jamie has long hair, and enjoys wearing make-
up and dresses [a crew cut, and never wears make-up or
dresses]. Jamie is biologically male (i.e., was born with
a penis) and identifies as a transgender woman. [Jamie
is biologically female (i.e., was born with a vagina) and
identifies as a cisgender woman.]
There is a precedent for using the specific indicators presented
in these vignettes to operationalize gender conformity and
nonconformity (e.g., Horn 2007). The gender nonconforming
vignette was taken directly from Horn (2007) and only mod-
ified by changing the target’s name and making the target a
college student rather than a high school student. However,
Horn’s gender conforming vignettes did not have as much
detail about the target’s behavior and appearance (i.e.,
Bdresses and acts like most of the other girls at school^). In
order to make the vignettes more balanced, we added a de-
scription of behaviors and appearance to the gender
conforming vignettes that were equivalent to those in Horn’s
gender nonconforming vignettes.
Reading and Attention Checks
Following the vignette, participants answered three multiple-
choice reading check questions: BWhat was the name of the
person you read about?^BWhat was one of the hobbies of the
person you read about?,^and BWhat gender identity was the
person you read about?^The items ensured that participants
read and understood the pertinent information in the vignettes.
We also included Instructional Manipulation Check (IMC;
Oppenheimer et al. 2009) questions within the questionnaires
in the study. The IMC questions appear in identical format to
the other items in the questionnaire but instruct participants to
leave the item blank (i.e., not select any scale options). These
items act as attention checks; participants failing the attention
checks were excluded from analyses.
Dependent Variables: Liking and Distinctiveness Threat
We created questions for our dependent variables focused on
(a) liking of the target and (b) distinctiveness threat elicited by
the target. Three questions for liking (BIlikeJamie,^BIwould
want to be friends with Jamie,^and BI would like to meet
Jamie^) used a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not
at all)to7(very much). We created a composite liking score
across all three items (α= .92) by averaging across items such
that higher scores indicate stronger liking. Two items
(modified from Warner et al. 2007)ratedonthesame7-
point scale were used for distinctiveness threat: BJamie blurs
the boundary between female and male genders^and BJamie
threatens the differences between people who are born female
and people who are born male.^A composite score was cre-
ated for the distinctiveness threat items (corrected split-half
Sex Roles
Author's personal copy

r= .72) wherein higher averaged scores indicated stronger
distinctiveness threat.
We also included a single multiple-choice item to examine
the acceptance of gender expression: BWhat pronoun would
you use to describe this person?^he/his; she/hers (coded as
Bcorrect^when the pronouns matched the gender expression
of the target). However, in all three studies, the vast majority
(91% in Study 1; 85.4% in Study 2; 74.4% in Study 3) report-
ed that they would use the correct pronoun, creating a ceiling
effect. As such, we excluded this variable from any further
analyses.
Individual Difference Measures: Prejudice and Gender Role
Attitudes
We included individual difference measures to be used in
the moderated moderation analyses. The general attitudes sub-
scale of the Prejudice toward Trans Women Scale (Winter et
al. 2009) is a 17-item scale measuring attitudes toward trans-
gender women (e.g., BTranswomen…Are men with some-
thing wrong in their mind^;B…Are in some way unnatural^),
using a Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree)to5
(strongly agree). Higher averaged scores indicate greater
anti-transgender prejudice. This scale showed good reliability
in our sample (α=.91).
The Traditional-Egalitarian Sex Roles Scale (TESR;
Larsen and Long 1988) is a 20-item scale assessing support
for traditional versus egalitarian gender roles for both men
(e.g., BMen who cry have weak character^)andwomen
(e.g., BA woman’s place is in the home^). Responses are made
to statements using a 5-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strong-
ly disagree)to5(strongly agree). Higher averaged scores
indicate greater adherence to traditional gender roles (and less
acceptance of egalitarian gender roles). The scale showed
good reliability in our sample (α=.85).
Procedure
Participants completed the study online. Participants were ran-
domly assigned to read one of the four vignettes describing
Jamie: feminine-conforming transgender woman,
nonconforming transgender woman, feminine-conforming
cisgender woman, or nonconforming cisgender woman.
Following the vignette, participants were provided with defi-
nitions of key terms (i.e., BA transgender woman is someone
who is assigned male at birth but identifies and lives as a
woman;^BA cisgender woman is someone whose gender-
identity conforms with their biological sex; not transgender^)
and instructed to keep these definitions in mind when com-
pleting the rest of the questionnaires. Participants rated their
liking of Jamie, how accepting they were of Jamie’sgender
expression, and their level of distinctiveness threat.
Participants also completed questionnaires of prejudice to-
ward transgender women, traditional-egalitarian gender role
preference, and demographic information (i.e., age; gender
identity; ethnicity; if they are United States citizens; if
English is their first language; approximate population of their
hometown; zip code of their hometown; political orientation;
political party affiliation; political leanings on social, econom-
ic, and foreign policy issues; religion; religiosity; contact with
transgender people [family member, friend, acquaintance]).
Participants also completed a measure of social distance from
transgender women (i.e., modified from Gentry 1987); how-
ever, no significant results were found for social distance and
the results pertaining to this measure are not included.
Results
ANOVAs
To assess liking and distinctiveness threat elicited by the tar-
gets, we conducted a 2 (target gender identity: transgender
woman or cisgender woman) × 2 (target gender-role confor-
mity: feminine gender-conforming or feminine gender-
nonconforming) × 2 (participants’binary gender: male or fe-
male) ANOVA for each dependent variable: liking and dis-
tinctiveness threat.
Liking We found a main effect of participant gender on liking
of the targets, F(1,222)= 21.82, p< .001, η
p
2
=.09; men
(M=4.21, SD = 1.28) liked the targets less than did women
(M=5.11, SD = 1.22). There was also a main effect of target
gender identity, F(1,222) =6.94, p=.009, η
p
2
=.03;as pre-
dicted, cisgender targets (M=5.01, SD = 1.20) were liked
more than transgender targets (M=4.63, SD = 1.38) regard-
less of gender conformity, supporting Hypothesis 1 which
predicted that transgender targets would be liked less than
cisgender targets.
There was also a two-way interaction between participants’
gender and target gender identity, F(1,222) = 8.90, p=.003, η
p
2
= .04. Simple effects tests indicated that the effect was sig-
nificant only for transgender targets, F(1,119) = 32.70,
p= .001, η
p
2
= .22, not for cisgender targets,
F(1,107) = .1.28, p= .26. Male participants’liking of the
transgender targets (M= 3.84, SD = 1.18) was significantly
lower than was female participants’liking of the transgender
targets (M=5.14,SD = 1.26), supporting Hypothesis 2, which
predicted male participants would like transgender targets less
than female participants. None of the remaining main effects,
two-way, nor three-way interactions was significant.
Because political orientation differed between male and
female participants, we also conducted an ANCOVA with
political orientation as the covariate to test that the effects of
participants’gender were not actually artifacts of the signifi-
cantly different political orientations among the binary
Sex Roles
Author's personal copy

participant gender groups. We found that the effects of partic-
ipants’gender remained significant even when controlling for
political orientation.
Distinctiveness Threat We found a main effect of target gender
conformity, F(1,222) = 7.45, p= .007, η
p
2
= .03; feminine-
conforming targets (M=2.20,SD = 1.52) elicited less distinc-
tiveness threat than did feminine nonconforming targets (M=
2.86, SD = 1.59). There was also a main effect of target gender
identity, F(1,222) = 40.84, p< .001, η
p
2
= .16; cisgender
women (M=1.86, SD = 1.28) elicited less distinctiveness
threat than did transgender women (M=3.17, SD =1.58),
supporting Hypothesis 3 which predicted that distinctiveness
threat would be higher for transgender than for cisgender tar-
gets. There were no significant interactions, thus failing to
support Hypothesis 4, which predicted that conforming trans-
gender targets would generate the highest levels of distinctive-
ness threat. These effects also remained unchanged when we
conducted an ANCOVA analysis that included political orien-
tation as a covariate.
Moderated Moderation Analyses
To begin, bivariate correlations among the variables in the
moderated moderation models suggest small-to-medium rela-
tionships among the variables, suggesting little to no
multicollinearity (see Table 1). The initial patterns show a
significant positive correlation between anti-transgender prej-
udice and traditional gender role beliefs. There were also sig-
nificant positive correlations between distinctiveness threat
with target conformity, target gender identity (such that dis-
tinctiveness threat is higher for nonconforming targets and
transgender targets), anti-transgender prejudice, and tradition-
al gender role beliefs. Liking was significantly negatively cor-
related with target gender identity (such that liking was lower
for transgender targets), anti-transgender prejudice, traditional
gender role beliefs, and distinctiveness threat.
We hypothesized that the effect of anti-transgender preju-
dice (Hypothesis 5) and traditional-egalitarian gender role be-
liefs (Hypothesis 6) on ratings of the target would be moder-
ated by gender identity (Hypotheses 5a and 6a) and gender
conformity (Hypotheses 5b and 6b). We predicted that the
moderators (i.e., target gender identity, target gender confor-
mity) each would have a strengthening effect on the dependent
variables, such that the relationships between the individual
difference variables (i.e., anti-transgender prejudice, tradition-
al gender role beliefs) and both liking and distinctiveness
threat would be more pronounced for transgender and
nonconforming targets (i.e., simple moderation). We also ex-
plored a possible moderated moderation relationship between
target gender identity and gender conformity such that the
relationships between anti-transgender prejudice/traditional
gender role beliefs with both liking and distinctiveness threat
would be differentiated for transgender and cisgender targets
based on their gender conformity. We conducted four inde-
pendent moderated moderation analyses to assess the com-
bined and separate influence of target gender identity and
target gender conformity on the relationships between (a) lik-
ing with anti-transgender prejudice, (b) liking with traditional
gender role beliefs, (c) distinctiveness threat with prejudice,
and (d) distinctiveness threat with gender role beliefs.
All analyses were conducted using PROCESS Model 3
(Hayes 2013). Anti-transgender prejudice and traditional gen-
der role beliefs were centered. Target conformity was coded as
0 = conforming and 1 = nonconforming. Gender identity was
coded such that 0 = cisgender and 1 = transgender. We chose
not to include gender of the participant in the regression
models because it would have added an additional moderator,
which would be difficult to interpret.
Liking Our first moderated moderation analysis examined the
effects of target conformity and gender identity on the rela-
tionship between anti-transgender prejudice and liking. The
moderators were target gender conformity and target gender
identity, the predictor was anti-transgender prejudice, and the
Table 1 Correlations among
variables in the regression
models, Studies 1 and 2
Correlations
123456
1. Target conformity –.04 −.04 .06 .19** −.12
2. Target gender identity .02 –.02 .05 .41** −.15*
3. Anti-transgender prejudice .02 .07 –.61** .43** −.52**
4. Traditional gender roles −.01 .08 .68** –.29** −.41**
5. Distinctiveness threat .37** .31** .27** .13 –−.40**
6. Liking .06 −.04 −.49** −.40** −.18** –
Study 1 correlations are above the diagonal, Study 2 correlations are below the diagonal. In Study 1 the targets
were women; in Study 2 the targets were men. The categorical IVs are coded such that lower numbers indicate
conforming and cisgender, respectively.* p<.05. **p<.01
Sex Roles
Author's personal copy

criterion was liking. The overall model was significant
(R
2
=.37,MSE = 1.11), F(7,223) = 18.46, p< .001. Both gen-
der identity (β=−.54,SE=.21, t=−2.64,p= .009) and gen-
der conformity (β=−.54,SE=.21, t=−2.59,p=.01) were
significant predictors of liking; as shown by the ANOVAs,
liking was lower for transgender and nonconforming targets.
The relationship between liking and transgender prejudice
was significantly moderated by gender identity (β=−1.23,
SE = .30,t=−4.04,p< .001) and by gender conformity
(β=−.73,SE=.31,t=−2.38,p=.02) (i.e., both simple mod-
eration analyses were significant). As anti-transgender preju-
dice increased, liking of transgender targets and of
nonconforming targets decreased, supporting Hypotheses 5a
and 5b which predicted that transgender (Hypothesis 5a) and
nonconforming (Hypothesis 5b) targets would be liked less by
those scoring higher in anti-transgender prejudice.
The overall moderated moderation analysis predicting lik-
ing was also significant (β=1.07,SE=.43,t=2.48,p=.01)
and increased the amount of explained variance (ΔR
2
=.02),
F(1, 223) = 6.13, p= .01. To probe this model, we looked at
simple moderation of target gender identity within each of the
conformity conditions. For conforming targets, the simple
moderated model was significant (β=−1.23,SE= .30,t=
−4.04,p<.001; see Fig. 1a), but it was not significant for
nonconforming targets (β=−.16,SE=.30,t=−.54,p=.59;
see Fig. 1b). Simple slopes analyses showed that higher prej-
udice was associated with lower liking for conforming (β=
−1.60,SE=.23,t=−6.93,p< .001) and nonconforming
transgender (β=−1.27,SE=.19,t=−6.60,p< .001) as well
as nonconforming cisgender (β=−1.10,SE=.24,t=−4.67,
p< .001) targets. However, prejudice and liking were unrelat-
ed for conforming, cisgender targets (β=−.37,SE=.20,t=
−1.85,p=.07; seeFig.1).
Our second moderated moderation analysis tested the ef-
fects of target conformity and gender identity on the relation-
ship between traditional gender role beliefs and liking. The
model included target gender conformity and identity as mod-
erators, gender role beliefs as the predictor, and liking as the
criterion. The overall model was significant (R
2
=.24,MSE =
1.34), F(7,223) = 10.32, p< .001. Target gender identity (β=
−.53,SE=.22,t=−2.40,p= .02) was a significant predictor
of liking, showing, consistent with the ANOVA, that transgen-
der targets were liked less. For the simple moderator analyses,
the relationship between traditional gender role beliefs and
liking was moderated by target gender identity (β=−1.60,
SE = .46,t=−3.49,p< .001), such that as traditional gender
role beliefs increased, liking of transgender targets decreased,
supporting Hypothesis 6a which predicted that liking of trans-
gender targets would be lower among those higher in tradi-
tional gender role beliefs. Hypothesis 6b (i.e., liking of
nonconforming targets would be lower among those higher
in traditional gender role beliefs) was not supported (β=−.65,
SE = .46,t=−1.42,p=.16). Finally, the test of moderated
moderation for the second model was not significant
(β=.95,SE=.65,t=−1.46,p=.14).
Distinctiveness Threat Our third moderated moderation anal-
ysis assessed the effect of target conformity and gender iden-
tity on the relationship between anti-transgender prejudice and
distinctiveness threat. The moderators were target gender con-
formity and target gender identity, the predictor was anti-
transgender prejudice, and the criterion was distinctiveness
threat. The overall model for the effects of target conformity,
target gender identity, and anti-transgender prejudice on dis-
tinctiveness threat was significant (β=.43, MSE =1.48),
F(7,223) = 23.89, p< .001. Both gender identity (β= 1.63,
SE =.24, t= 6.89,p< .001) and conformity (β=.99,
SE =.24,t=4.14,p< .001) were significant predictors of dis-
tinctiveness threat, such that transgender and nonconforming
targets elicited more distinctiveness threat, which was consis-
tent with the ANOVAs. Both simple moderation analyses
were not significant. The relationship between anti-
transgender prejudice and distinctiveness threat was not
(a) Conforming targets
(b) Nonconforming targets
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
- 1 SD +1 SD
Anti-transgender Prejudice
Liking
Cisgender
Target
Transgende
r
Target
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
- 1 SD +1 SD
Anti-transgender Prejudice
Liking
Cisgender
Target
Transgender
Target
Fig. 1 Moderation effect of target gender identity and target gender
conformity on the relationship between anti-transgender prejudice and
ratings of liking, study 1. Black lines (both solid and dashed) indicate a
significant negative relationship between prejudice and liking; the grey,
dashed line indicates a nonsignificant effect for the conforming, cisgender
target
Sex Roles
Author's personal copy

moderated by target gender identity (β=.66,SE=.35,
t= 1.89,p=.06) or by target gender conformity (β=.11,
SE =.36,t=.32,p=.75). Thus, neither Hypothesis 5a (i.e.,
transgender would elicit greater distinctiveness threat for those
scoring higher in anti-transgender prejudice) nor Hypothesis
5b (i.e., nonconforming targets would elicit greater distinc-
tiveness threat for those scoring higher in anti-transgender
prejudice) were supported. The test of moderated moderation
for the third model was also not significant (β=.11,SE=.50,
t=.22,p=.83).
The fourth moderated moderation analysis assessed the ef-
fect of target conformity and gender identity on the relation-
ship between traditional gender role beliefs and distinctive-
ness threat. The moderators were target gender conformity
and target gender identity, the predictor was traditional gender
role beliefs, and the criterion was distinctiveness threat. This
model was also significant (β=.29,MSE =1.91),F(7,223) =
12.82, p< .001). Both gender identity (β= 1.64, SE = .27,
t= 6.17,p< .001) and conformity (β= .80, SE =.27,
t= 3.01,p= .003) significantly predicted distinctiveness
threat, such that distinctiveness threat was greater for trans-
gender and for gender nonconforming targets, which was con-
sistent with the ANOVA. The simple moderation analyses
were not significant. The relationship between traditional gen-
der role beliefs and distinctiveness threat was not moderated
either by target gender identity (β=.76,SE=.55,t=1.38,
p= .17) or by target gender conformity (β=−.20,SE=.58,
t=−.34,p=.74). Thus, Hypothesis 6a (i.e., transgender tar-
gets would elicit greater distinctiveness threat for those scor-
ing higher in traditional gender role beliefs) and Hypothesis
6b (i.e., gender nonconforming targets would elicit greater
distinctiveness threat for those scoring higher in traditional
gender role beliefs) were not supported. The test of moderated
moderation for the fourth model was also not significant (β=
−.45,SE=.
78,t=−.58,p=.56).
Discussion
The present study investigated attitudes toward cisgender and
transgender women who were gender conforming or
nonconforming. We found that regardless of gender conformity,
transgender targets were liked less than cisgender targets and
that distinctiveness threat was greater for the transgender targets
(compared to cisgender targets) and nonconforming targets
(compared to conforming targets). Additionally, the relation-
ship between liking and anti-transgender prejudice was moder-
ated by both target gender identity and target gender conformi-
ty, such that liking decreased as scores in anti-transgender prej-
udice increased when reading about a conforming transgender
target or a nonconforming target of either gender identity.
Consistent with prior research (e.g., Norton and Herek
2013), male participants expressed more negative attitudes
toward transgender targets. Transgender targets were also
liked less and elicited more distinctiveness threat than
cisgender targets did, which is consistent with prior research
on attitudes toward transgender individuals (Tebbe and
Moradi 2012). Additionally, gender nonconforming targets
elicited more distinctiveness threat. We found that transgender
women and nonconforming women are viewed more nega-
tively and are perceived as transgressing the distinct bound-
aries between binary genders. These findings suggest that
people still tend to view assigned birth sex as primary and
transgender women as transgressing their assigned birth sex
(i.e., Bmen that dress as women;^Gazzola and Morrison2014,
p. 83). Additionally, gender nonconforming women (regard-
less of gender identity) also elicited distinctiveness threat,
suggesting that any woman who appears or acts in a tradition-
ally masculine manner is also perceived as threatening the
distinction between binary genders. However, we did not find
an interaction between gender identity and gender conformity,
which may suggest that, at least for transgender women, con-
formity to traditional gender roles for their gender expression
does not affect people’s perceptions of them.
Study 2: Transgender Prejudice Targeting
Men
Based on the results of Study 1, we were interested in whether
these results would be replicated with a transgender male tar-
get. Most research has not separately examined attitudes to-
ward transgender women and transgender men (for some
exceptions see Gerhardstein and Anderson 2010;Nagoshiet
al. 2018), but it has instead focused on attitudes toward trans-
gender people more generally. The design of Study 2 was the
same as Study 1, but with cisgender and transgender men as
the targetsinstead ofwomen, that is a 2 (target gender identity:
transgender man or cisgender man) × 2 (target gender-role
conformity: masculine gender-conforming or masculine gen-
der-nonconforming) design. We made the same hypotheses
(but for male targets) as in Study 1: We hypothesized that
participants would likemale transgender targets less than male
cisgender targets (Hypothesis 1) and that male participants
would like male transgender targets less than female partici-
pants (Hypothesis 2). We also hypothesized that male trans-
gender targets would elicit greater distinctiveness threat than
male cisgender targets (Hypothesis 3) and that gender-
conforming transgender targets would elicit the greatest
amount of distinctiveness threat (Hypothesis 4). We again
predicted that target gender identity and target gender confor-
mity would moderate the relationships between the individual
difference variables (i.e., anti-transgender prejudice, tradition-
al gender role beliefs) and the dependent variables (i.e., liking,
distinctiveness threat). Specifically, we again predicted that
that liking would be less and distinctiveness threat would be
greater for those scoring higher in anti-transgender prejudice
Sex Roles
Author's personal copy

when rating transgender targets (Hypothesis 5a) and
nonconforming targets (Hypothesis 5b). Similarly, we predict-
ed that liking would be less and distinctiveness threat would
be greater for those scoring higher in traditional gender role
beliefs when rating transgender targets (Hypothesis 6a) and
nonconforming targets (Hypothesis 6b).
Method
Participants
Participants were undergraduate introductory psychology stu-
dents at a U.S. Midwestern Jesuit University who completed
the study online and received course credit for their participa-
tion. Fully 282 students participated (a power analysis indicat-
ed 231 were needed to obtain power = .90). However, 61
(21.6%) participants were excluded for failing reading and
attention checks (using the same exclusion criteria as in
Study 1) and four (1.4%) were excluded for self-identifying
as non-cisgender (on a single-item gender identity item), be-
cause four is not enough to analyze separately, leaving 217
(observed power = .92) viable respondents. The demo-
graphics were very similar to those of the Study 1 sample:
young (M
age
=19.06, SD = 1.12, range = 18–24), mostly fe-
male (n= 144, 66.4%), White (162, 74.7%; 30, 13.8%
Asian; 9, 4.1% Hispanic/Latino; 6, 2.8% Black; 10, 4.6%
Biracial/other), and moderately to very religious (125,
57.6%) and Catholic (115, 53%). The majority identified as
moderate in their political orientation (105, 48.4; 63, 29.1%
liberal; 50, 22.3% conservative). Only slightly more students
did not have contact with a transgender person (119, 54.8%)
than did have contact with a transgender person (98, 45.2%).
Male and female participants were comparable demographi-
cally: race, χ
2
(5) = 6.31, p= .28, Cramer’sV=.17; political
orientation: χ
2
(4) = 3.14, p=.53, Cramer’sV=.12, with the
exception of religious affiliation,χ
2
(10) = 20.48, p=.03,
Cramer’sV= .31, and religiosity, χ
2
(3) = 11.18, p=.01,
Cramer’sV= .23. More women identified as Catholic and as
moderately religious than did men.
Materials
We replicated the materials used in Study 1, with the excep-
tion that we used the male gender nonconforming vignettes
from Horn (2007). The male vignettes were modified in the
same way as the female vignettes in Study 1 (i.e., target name
and school level altered; equivalent gender-conforming be-
haviors and appearance descriptions added). The male vi-
gnettes depict Jamie as a transgender or cisgender man who
dresses and acts in a traditionally masculine manner (i.e., gen-
der-conforming) or in a more traditionally feminine manner
(i.e., gender-nonconforming). Bracketed phrases indicate the
gender conformity manipulation and italicized bracketed
phrases indicate the gender identity manipulation:
Jamie is a college student. Jamie plays on the school
baseball team. Jamie is a BB^student. Jamie dresses
and acts like [differently from] most of the other guys
at school. Jamie acts masculine, has short hair, and
mostly wears jeans and t-shirts [feminine, and some-
times wears fingernail polish and eyeliner]. Jamie is
biologically male (i.e., was born with a penis) and iden-
tifies as a cisgender man. [Jamie is biologically female
(i.e., was born with a vagina) and identifies as a trans-
gender man.]
Throughout the survey, terms and pronouns were altered to
reflect transgender men (versus transgender women, as in
Study 1). As is Study 1, we had acceptable reliabilities for
all of the measures: liking (α= .94), distinctiveness threat
(corrected split-half r= .71), anti-transgender prejudice
(α= .87), and traditional gender roles (α=.83).
Procedure
The procedure was identical to that of Study 1. The definitions
provided were for cisgender and transgender men: BAtrans-
gender man is someone who is assigned female at birth but
identifies and lives as a man^;BAcisgendermanissomeone
whose gender-identity conforms with their biological sex; not
transgender.^
Results
ANOVAs
We conducted 2 (target gender identity: transgender man or
cisgender man) × 2 (target gender-role conformity: masculine
gender-conforming or masculine gender-nonconforming) × 2
(participants’binary gender: male or female) ANOVAs to as-
sess liking and distinctiveness threat for the targets.
Liking As in Study 1, there was a main effect of participants’
gender on liking, F(1,209) = 8.37, p=.004, η
p
2
= .04, where
men (M= 4.21, SD = 1.39) liked all of the targets less than
women (M= 4.80, SD = 1.32) did, partially supporting
Hypothesis 2, which predicted that male participants would
like transgender targets less than would female participants.
There were no main effects for target gender identity, which
failed to support Hypothesis 1, which predicted transgender
targets would be liked less than cisgender targets. There were
no other significant main effects or interactions for liking.
Distinctiveness Threat There were main effects of target gen-
der conformity, F(1,209) = 25.89, p< .001, η
p
2
=.11,and of
Sex Roles
Author's personal copy

target gender identity, F(1,209) = 31.38, p< .001, η
p
2
=.13.
Gender nonconforming targets (M=3.05, SD = 1.35) elicited
greater distinctiveness threat than did conforming targets
(M= 2.04, SD = 1.22), and transgender targets (M=2.96,
SD = 1.41) elicited more distinctiveness threat than did
cisgender targets (M=2.10, SD = 1.20), supporting
Hypothesis 3, predicting transgender targets would elicit
greater distinctiveness threat than would cisgender targets.
There was also an interaction of target gender identity and
target gender conformity, F(1,209) = 10.00, p= .002, η
p
2
= .05. Simple effects tests indicated that gender conforming
transgender targets (M=2.69,SD = 1.25) elicited greater dis-
tinctiveness threat than did gender conforming cisgender tar-
gets (M=1.36, SD = .71), F(1,103) = 58.03, p< .001, η
p
2
= .36, whereas there was not a significant difference in dis-
tinctiveness threat posed by nonconforming targets based on
gender identity, F(1,106) = 2.19, p= .14. These results sup-
port Hypothesis 4, which predicted conforming transgender
targets would elicit the greatest distinctiveness threat. There
were no other significant main effects or interactions.
Because religiosity differed between male and female par-
ticipants, we also conducted ANCOVAs with religiosity as the
covariate for both the analyses of liking and distinctiveness
threat. We found that the effects of participants’gender
remained significant even when controlling for religiosity.
Moderated Moderation Analyses
As in Study 1, we hypothesized that target gender identity and
target gender conformity would moderate the relationship be-
tween anti-transgender prejudice and traditional gender role
beliefs and both liking and distinctiveness threat, such that
transgender and nonconforming targets would be liked less
and elicit greater distinctiveness threat among those scoring
higher in anti-transgender prejudice or in traditional gender
role beliefs. We conducted the same set of four moderated
moderation analyses as in Study 1. Anti-transgender prejudice
and traditional gender role beliefs were centered. Target con-
formity was coded as 0 = conforming and 1 = nonconforming.
Gender identity was coded such that 0 = cisgender and 1 =
transgender. All analyses were conducted using PROCESS
Model 3 (Hayes 2013).
We conducted correlations among the variables included in
the models and found small-to-moderate relationships among
the variables (see Table 1). As in Study 1, anti-transgender
prejudice and traditional gender role beliefs were positively
correlated. Distinctiveness threat was again significantly pos-
itively correlated with target conformity and target gender
identity (i.e., higher for nonconforming targets and transgen-
der targets) and anti-transgender prejudice. Liking was signif-
icantly negatively correlated with anti-transgender prejudice,
traditional gender role beliefs, and distinctiveness threat, but
not with target characteristics. As in Study 1, we did not
include gender of the participant in the regression models for
parsimony and because no effects of participants’gender were
found in the ANOVAs.
Liking The first moderated moderation analysis, testing the
moderation of anti-transgender prejudice on liking by target
gender conformity and target gender identity, was significant
(R
2
=.36, MSE =1.24), F(7,209) = 17.08, p<.001. Target
gender identity and target gender conformity were not signif-
icant predictors of liking, consistent with the ANOVA find-
ings. The relationship between liking and anti-transgender
prejudice was significantly moderated by target gender con-
formity (β=−1.39,SE=.38,t=−3.65,p< .001) as well as
by target gender identity (β=−1.91,SE=.38,t=−5.07,p
< .001), such that as anti-transgender prejudice increased, lik-
ing decreased for gender nonconforming targets and for trans-
gender targets. These patterns support Hypothesis 5a (i.e.,
transgender targets would be liked less by those scoring higher
in anti-transgender prejudice) and Hypothesis 5b (i.e.,
nonconforming targets would be liked less by those scoring
higher in anti-transgender prejudice).
(a) Conforming targets
(b) Nonconforming targets
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
- 1 SD +1 SD
Anti-transgender Prejudice
Liking
Cisgender
Target
Transgende
r
Target
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
- 1 SD +1 SD
Anti-transgender Prejudice
Liking
Cisgender
Target
Transgende
r
Target
Fig. 2 Moderation effect of target gender identity and target gender
conformity on the relationship between anti-transgender prejudice and
ratings of liking, Study 2. Black lines (both solid and dashed) indicate a
significant negative relationship between prejudice and liking; the grey,
dashed line indicates a nonsignificant effect for the conforming, cisgender
target
Sex Roles
Author's personal copy

The overall moderated moderation analysis predicting
liking was also significant (β=1.55,SE=.52,t=2.99,
p< .001; see Fig. 2) and increased the amount of variance
explained (ΔR
2
=.03), F(1, 209) = 8.94, p< .001. To probe
this model, we looked at the simple moderation of target
gender identity within each of the conformity conditions.
For conforming targets, the simple moderated model was
significant (β=−1.91,SE= .38,t=−5.07,p<.001; see
Fig. 2a), but it was not significant for nonconforming
targets (β=−.36,SE=.36,t=−1.01,p=.31; see Fig.
2b).Simpleslopesanalysesshowedthathigherprejudice
was associated with lower liking for conforming (β=
−1.75,SE=.29,t=−6.11,p<.001) and nonconforming
(β=−1.59,SE=.21,t=−7.69,p<.001) transgender as
well as nonconforming cisgender (β=−1.23,SE=.29,
t=−4.21,p<.001) targets. However, prejudice and liking
were unrelated for conforming, cisgender targets (β=.16,
SE =.25,t=.67,p= .51; see Fig. 2).
The second moderated moderation analysistested the mod-
eration of traditional gender role beliefs on liking by target
gender conformity and target gender identity. The overall
model was significant (R
2
=.20, MSE = 1.55), F(7,209) =
7.52, p< .001. Target gender identity and target gender con-
formity were not significant predictors of liking, as in the
ANOVA. The relationship between gender role beliefs and
liking was significantly moderated by both target gender con-
formity (β=−1.34,SE=.64,t=−2.10,p= .04) and target
gender identity (β=−1.35,SE=.57,t=−2.38,p=.02). As
traditional gender role beliefs increased, liking decreased for
nonconforming targets and for transgender targets, supporting
Hypothesis 6a (i.e., transgender targets would be liked less by
those scoring higher in traditional gender role beliefs) and
Hypothesis6b (i.e., nonconforming targets would be liked less
by those scoring higher in traditional gender role beliefs). The
test of moderated moderation was not significant (β=1.35,
SE = .84,t=1.60,p=.11).
Distinctiveness Threat The third moderated moderation anal-
ysis, testing the moderation of anti-transgender prejudice on
distinctiveness threat by target gender conformity and target
gender identity, was significant (R
2
= .35, MSE =1.27),
F(7,209) = 16.28, p< .001. Both target gender identity
(β=1.40,SE=.22,t=6.42,p< .001) and target gender con-
formity (β=1.55,SE=.23,t=6.87,p< .001) were signifi-
cant predictors of distinctivness threat, such that distinctive-
ness threat was greater for transgender and nonconforming
targets. The relationship between anti-transgender prejudice
and distinctiveness threat was significantly moderated by tar-
get gender identity (β=.82,SE=.38,t=2.15,p= .03), such
that as anti-transgender prejudice increased, distinctiveness
threat increased for transgender targets. These results support
Hypothesis 5a, which predicted that transgender targets would
elicit greater distinctiveness threat for those scoring higher in
anti-transgender prejudice. Target gender conformity did not
moderate the relationship between anti-transgender prejudice
and distinctiveness threat (β=.02,SE=.39,t=.04,p=.97),
which did not support Hypothesis 5b (i.e., nonconforming
targets would elicit greater distinctiveness threat for those
scoring higher in anti-transgender prejudice). The test of mod-
erated moderation was not significant (β=−.28,SE=.53,t=
−.52,p=.60).
The final moderated moderation analysis, testing the mod-
eration of gender role beliefs on distinctiveness threat by target
gender conformity and target gender identity, was significant
(R
2
=.28, MSE =1.41), F(7,209) = 11.59, p< .001. Both tar-
get gender identity (β=1.36,SE=.23,t=5.90,p< .001) and
target gender conformity (β=1.59,SE=.24,t=6.58,p
< .001) were significant predictors of distinctiveness threat,
such that distinctiveness threat was greater for transgender
and nonconforming targets. The relationship between tradi-
tional gender role beliefs and distinctiveness threat was not
moderated by either target gender identity (β=.42,
SE = .54,t=.78,p=.44)ortargetgenderconformity
(β=.40,SE=.61,t=.66,p= .51); thus, Hypotheses 6a and
6b were not supported. The test of moderated moderation was
not significant (β=−.61,SE=.80,t=−.76,p=.45).
Discussion
Our results for the male targets largely replicated those found
in Study 1 with female targets. Transgender and gender
nonconforming targets elicited greater distinctiveness threat
than did cisgender or gender conforming targets.
Additionally, for the male targets, we found an interaction
between gender identity and gender conformity:
Distinctiveness threat was higher for gender conformingtrans-
gender targets than for gender conforming cisgender targets.
We again found that target gender identity and target confor-
mity moderated the relationships between anti-transgender
prejudice and traditional gender role beliefs on both liking
and distinctiveness threat. As in Study 1, as anti-transgender
prejudice increased, liking decreased for both conforming
transgender targets and nonconforming targets (of bothgender
identities). Our second study demonstrates that overall, trans-
gender men are liked less than cisgender men and that femi-
nine men are liked less than masculine men.
Additionally, the relationship between liking and anti-
transgender prejudice was moderated by target gender identity
and target gender conformity, such that liking for transgender
and nonconforming targets decreased as anti-transgender prej-
udice increased. In contrast to Study 1, we did find an inter-
action between gender identity and gender conformity for the
male targets on distinctiveness threat. This supports our hy-
pothesis that transgender individuals who conform to the gen-
der roles associated with their gender expression may be per-
ceived as a greater threat to binary gender distinctiveness,
Sex Roles
Author's personal copy

potentially because they would be harder to detect as
Btransgressors^(i.e., are passing). It is also possible that gen-
der conforming transgender individuals threaten beliefs about
the immutability of binary gender because they are Bpassing,^
consistent with their gender expression but not with their birth
sex. Because we did not find this predicted effect in Study 1
with women targets, we conducted a third study to examine
both male and female targets together.
Study 3: Transgender Prejudice Targeting
Women and Men
Although the results of Studies 1 and 2 were very similar, a key
difference is that in Study 2, an interaction was found between
target men’s gender identity and gender conformity (i.e., that
distinctiveness threat was significantly higher for conforming
transgender men than conforming cisgender men), but the same
interaction was not found in Study 1 for women targets. Based
on these differential findings, we were interested whether there
is a difference in attitudes toward transgender men and trans-
gender women, and if, specifically, gender conformity differen-
tially impacts attitudes toward transgender men and transgender
women. National statistics indicate that transgender women are
more frequently the victims of anti-transgender discrimination
and violence than transgender men are (James et al. 2016),
which might suggest that attitudes are more negative toward
transgender women than toward transgender men. However,
previous research also suggests that attitudes toward gender
nonconforming men are more negative than attitudes toward
gender nonconforming women (McCreary 1994; Sirin et al.
2004), which might explain the differential effects of gender
conformity for the women targets (Study 1) and men targets
(Study 2). Conversely, among respondents to the 2008
National Transgender Discrimination survey, it was found that
transgender women were more likely to be perceived as gen-
der nonconforming than transgender men were (Miller and
Grollman 2015), suggesting that there may be an interaction
between gender identity and gender conformity for women
targets that was not detected in Study 1. For these reasons,
we sought to directly compare attitudes toward transgender
and cisgender men and women depending on their gender
conformity. Additionally, Study 3 sought to replicate the find-
ings of Studies 1 and 2 with a larger, U.S. community sample
(versus the U.S. university student samples utilized in the
previous studies).
The design of Study 3 was a 2 (target gender identity:
transgender or cisgender) × 2 (target gender-role conformity:
gender-conforming or gender-nonconforming) × 2 (target
gender expression: woman or man). We hypothesized that
our results from Studies 1 and 2 would be replicated such that
participants would like transgender targets less than cisgender
targets and that transgender targets would elicit greater
distinctiveness threat than cisgender targets, regardless of tar-
get gender conformity (Hypothesis 1). We also hypothesized
that nonconforming male targets (both cisgender and trans-
gender) would be liked less and elicit greater distinctiveness
threat than nonconforming female targets (Hypothesis 2). We
also predicted that (as shown in Study 2) distinctiveness threat
would be greater for conforming transgender targets than for
nonconforming transgender targets (Hypothesis 3). For parsi-
mony, we chose to measure only a single potential individual
difference variable that we had not previously assessed: gen-
der essentialist beliefs. One potential cause for greater distinc-
tiveness threat being elicited for conforming transgender tar-
gets in Study 2 is that Bpassing^transgender individuals chal-
lenge the idea that gender roles are directly linked to biological
sex differences. Thus, we hypothesized that target gender
identity (Hypothesis 4a) and target conformity (Hypothesis
4b) would moderate the relationship between gender essen-
tialism and both liking and distinctiveness threat, such that
liking would decrease and distinctiveness threat would
increase as gender essentialist beliefs increased for both trans-
gender and nonconforming targets.
Method
Participants
U.S. participants were recruited from Amazon’sMechanical
Turk (mTurk), a micro-worker site where adult workers com-
plete online tasks posted by researchers and businesses for
small sums of money. Fully 622 workers participated, al-
though a large number (n= 155, 24.9%) failed to complete
the survey or were excluded for failing reading and attention
checks (using the same exclusion criteria as in Studies 1 and
2), and five participants (.8%) who identified as non-cisgender
(based on self-identification on a single-item gender identity
question) were excluded (because five is not enough to ana-
lyze separately), leaving 462 viable participants (a power anal-
ysis indicated that 357 participants were needed to obtain
power = .95).
The mean age of participants was 38.57 (SD = 12.84,
range = 18–75) and the majority were female (n=301,
66.5%). A majority were White (366, 79.6%; 39, 8.5%
Black; 26, 5.7% Asian; 16, 3.5% Hispanic/Latino; 2, .4%
Native American; 11, 2.4% Biracial/other), liberal (188,
40.9%; 154, 33.6% moderate; 117, 25.5% conservative), and
not at all to only a little religious (300, 64.9%). About an equal
number did not have contact with a transgender person (222,
48.1%) as did have contact with a transgender person (240,
51.9%). Male and female participants were nearly comparable
demographically: race, χ
2
(6) = 3.87, p= .70, Cramer’s
V= .09, and political orientation, χ
2
(4) = 5.17, p= .22,
Cramer’sV= .11, with the exceptions of religious affiliation,
χ
2
(10) = 24.40, p= .007, Cramer’sV= .23, and religiosity, χ
2
Sex Roles
Author's personal copy

(3) = 17.67, p= .001, Cramer’sV=.20. More women identi-
fied as Protestant than men, and more men identified as ag-
nostic or atheist than did women. More women identified as
Bvery religious,^and more men identified as Bnot at all
religious.^
Dependent Variables: Liking and Distinctiveness Threat
We used the same questions about liking and distinctiveness
threat. We had adequate-to-good reliability for the liking
(α= .92) and distinctiveness threat (corrected split-half
r= .69) measures in the present sample.
Biological Gender Essentialism
For the sake of parsimony, we replaced the two individual
difference measures used previously with one new measure:
Biological Gender Essentialism (Brescoll et al. 2013). This 7-
item scale measures beliefs about the biological basis for gen-
der differences (i.e., gender essentialism), using a Likert-type
scale from 1 (completely disagree)to11(completely agree).
Higher averaged scores indicate greater belief in biological
gender essentialism. This scale showed good reliability
(α= .88). Sample item: BI think that differences between
men and women in behavior are largely determined by the
biological differences between the genders.^
Procedure
We used the same vignettes as in Studies 1 and 2, such that
participants were randomly assigned to read one of the eight
vignettes—factorially crossing target’s gender expression
(male, female), gender conformity (conforming.
nonconforming), and gender identity (transgender, cisgender).
Participants were provided with the same definitions for
cisgender man, transgender man, cisgender woman, transgen-
der woman as used in Studies 1 and 2. Participants then com-
pleted the dependent and individual difference measures and
the same demographic questions as in Study 1.
Results
ANOVAs
To test our hypotheses that participants would report less lik-
ing and greater distinctiveness threat for transgender targets
than cisgender targets (Hypothesis 1), that nonconforming
male targets (regardless of gender identity) would be liked less
and elicit greater distinctiveness threat than women targets
(Hypothesis 2), and that conforming transgender targets
would elicit more distinctiveness threat than nonconforming
transgender targets (Hypothesis 3), we conducted an ANOVA
for each dependent variable. Unlike Studies 1 and 2, the design
of Study 3 was a 2 (target gender identity: transgender or
cisgender) × 2 (target gender-role conformity: gender-
conforming or gender-nonconforming) × 2 (target gender ex-
pression: female or male); for parsimony, we did not include
participants’gender in the ANOVA (i.e., keeping it a 2 × 2 × 2).
Liking We found a main effect for target gender expression,
F(1,454) = 4.96, p= .03, η
p
2
= .01, where male targets
(M= 4.28, SD = 1.51) were liked less than female targets
(M=4.58, SD = 1.37). There was also an interaction of target
gender identity and target gender expression, F(1,454) = 5.54,
p= .02, η
p
2
= .02. Simple effects indicated that there was a
significant difference in liking of female targets only,
F(1,231) = 5.57, p= .02, η
p
2
= .02, such that cisgender fe-
male targets (M= 4.79, SD = 1.29) were liked more than
transgender female targets (M= 4.37, SD = 1.41), partially
supporting Hypothesis 1 that transgender targets would be
liked less than cisgender targets. There was not a significant
difference in liking among male targets based on gender iden-
tity, F(1,227) = 1.12, p= .29. No other main effects or inter-
actions were significant, failing to fully support Hypothesis 1
(i.e., transgender targets, regardless of gender expression,
would be liked less than cisgender targets). Hypothesis 2
was also unsupported: We did not find evidence that
nonconforming male targets (M=4.31,SD = 1.57) were liked
less than nonconforming female targets (M=4.62,SD =1.32).
Distinctiveness Threat There was a main effect of target con-
formity, F(1,454) = 16.61, p< .001, η
p
2
= .04, and a main
effect of target gender identity, F(1,454) = 59.17, p< .001, η
p
2
= .12, on distinctiveness threat. Nonconforming targets elic-
ited greater distinctiveness threat (M= 2.93, SD = 1.48) than
did conforming targets (M=2.36, SD = 1.73), and transgender
targets elicited more distinctiveness threat (M= 3.18, SD =
1.61) than did cisgender targets (M= 2.11, SD = 1.47),
supporting Hypothesis 1 which predicted transgender targets
would elicit greater distinctiveness threat than cisgender targets.
There was also an interaction between target conformity and
target gender identity, F(1,454) = 33.79, p< .001, η
p
2
= .07.
Simple effects tests indicated there was not a significant differ-
ence in distinctiveness threat between conforming transgender
targets and nonconforming transgender targets, F(1,228) =
1.35, p= .25, which fails to support Hypothesis 3 predicting
that conforming transgender targets would elicit greater distinc-
tiveness threat than would nonconforming transgender targets.
However, looking at the simple effects for conforming targets
and nonconforming targets, the effect was significant among
conforming targets only, F(1,233) = 93.14, p< .001, η
p
2
= .29; for nonconforming targets, the effect was not signifi-
cant, F(1,225) = 1.72, p=.80. Among gender conforming tar-
gets, distinctiveness threat was greater for transgender
(M= 3.30, SD = 1.78) than for cisgender (M= 1.45, SD =
1.08) targets, which replicates the findings of Study 2.
Sex Roles
Author's personal copy

Finally, there was an interaction between target gender iden-
tity and target gender expression, F(1,454) = 3.89, p= .049, η
p
2
= .01. Simple effects revealed that there was a significant effect
of gender identity on the gender expression of both male,
F(1,227) = 15.38, p< .001, η
p
2
= .06, and female, F(1,231) =
45.23, p< .001, η
p
2
= .16, targets. Transgender male targets
(M=3.07, SD = 1.59) elicited greater distinctiveness threat than
did cisgender male targets (M=2.24, SD = 1.58), and transgen-
der female targets (M= 3.29, SD = 1.64) elicited greater distinc-
tiveness threat than did cisgender female targets (M=1.97, SD =
1.35), supporting Hypothesis 1 that transgender targets would
elicit greater distinctiveness threat than would cisgender targets.
No other main effects or interactions were significant.
Moderated Moderation Analyses
As in Studies 1 and 2, we were interested in how target gender
identity and target conformity affect the relationships between
gender essentialist beliefs and both liking and distinctiveness
threat. In the current study, we used gender essentialism as a
predictor. We predicted that target gender identity and target
conformity would moderate the relationship between gender
essentialism and both liking and distinctiveness threat, such
that transgender and nonconforming targets would be liked
less and elicit greater distinctiveness threat for those scoring
higher in gender essentialist beliefs. We conducted two sepa-
rate moderated moderation analyses using Model 3 in
PROCESS (Hayes 2013): one for liking and the other for
distinctiveness threat. Gender essentialism was centered.
Target conformity was coded 0 = conforming and 1 =
nonconforming. Gender identity was coded such that 0 =
cisgender and 1 = transgender.
Correlations among the variables in the regression model
were small (see Table 2). Distinctiveness threat was signifi-
cantly positively associated with target conformity and target
gender identity (such that distinctiveness threat was greater for
nonconforming targets and transgender targets) and with gen-
der essentialist beliefs. Liking was significantly negatively
associated with gender essentialist beliefs and distinctiveness
threat, as well as was lower among targets with male gender
expression.
Liking The overall moderated moderation analysis testing the
moderation of gender essentialism and liking by target gender
identity and target gender conformity was not significant
(R
2
=.03, MSE =2.05), F(7,454) = 2.01, p=.05). Target
gender identity and target gender conformity were also
not significant predictors of liking. The relationship be-
tween gender essentialism and liking was significantly
moderated by target gender identity (β=−.14,SE=.08,
t=−1.74,p= .08), such that liking decreased for transgen-
der targets for those scoring higher in gender essentialism
beliefs, which supported Hypothesis 4a (i.e., transgender
targets would be liked less by those scoring higher in gen-
der essentialism). Target gender conformity did not moder-
ate the relationship between gender essentialism and liking
(β=−.12,SE=.09,t=−1.39,p=.16),whichfailedtosup-
port Hypothesis 4b (i.e., nonconforming targets would be
likedlessbythosescoringhigheringenderessentialism).
The test of moderated moderation was not significant
(β=.13,SE=.12,t=1.06,p=.29).
Distinctiveness Threat The moderated moderation testing the
moderation of gender essentialism and distinctiveness threat
by target gender identity and target gender conformity was
significant (R
2
=.30, MSE = 1.91), F(7,454) = 27.27, p
< .001). Both target gender identity (β=1.74,SE=.18,
t= 9.61,p<.001) and target gender conformity (β=1.34,
SE =.18,t=7.39,p< .001) were significant predictors of dis-
tinctiveness threat, such that transgender and nonconforming
targets elicited more distinctiveness threat, as seen in the
ANOVAs. The relationship between gender essentialism and
distinctiveness threat was significantly moderated by both tar-
get gender identity (β=.25,SE=.08,t=3.13,p=.002) and
by target gender conformity (β=.19,SE=.08,t=2.25,
p=.02). As gender essentialism beliefs increased, distinctive-
ness threat increased for transgender targets and for
nonconforming targets, supporting Hypothesis 4a (i.e., trans-
gender targets would elicit greater distinctiveness threat for
those scoring higher in gender essentialism) and Hypothesis
4b (i.e., nonconforming targets would elicit greater distinc-
tiveness threat for those scoring higher in gender
essentialism).
The overall moderated moderation analysis predicting dis-
tinctiveness threat was also significant (β=−.30,SE= .12,
t=−2.59,p=.01) and increased the amount of explained
variance (ΔR
2
= .01), F(1, 454) = 6.69, p= .01 (see Fig. 3).
To probe this model, we looked at the simple moderation
Table 2 Correlations among variables in the regression models, Study 3
Correlations
12 3 4 5 6
1. Target conformity –.02 −.01 −.01 .17** .03
2. Target gender identity –−.02 .07 .33** −.04
3. Target gender expression –.00 .00 −.10*
4. Gender essentialism –.32** −.14**
5. Distinctiveness threat –−.26**
6. Liking –
The categorical IVs are coded such that lower numbers indicate gender
role conforming, cisgender gender identity, and gender expression as
woman, respectively.
*p< .05. ** p<.01
Sex Roles
Author's personal copy

of target gender identity within each of the conformity con-
ditions. For conforming targets, the simple moderated mod-
el was significant (β=.25,SE=.08,t=3.13,p<.001; see
Fig. 3a), but it was not significant for nonconforming tar-
gets (β=−.05,SE=.08,t=−.61,p=.54; see Fig. 3b).
Simple slopes analyses showed that higher gender essen-
tialism was associated with higher distinctiveness threat for
conforming (β=.31,SE=.05,t=5.91,p<.001) and
nonconforming (β=.20,SE=.06,t=3.21,p<.001) trans-
gender as well as nonconforming cisgender (β=.25,
SE =.06,t=4.36,p<.001) targets. However, gender es-
sentialism and liking were unrelated for conforming,
cisgender targets (β=.06,SE=.06,t=1.06,p=.29; see
Fig. 3).
Discussion
As in Studies 1 and 2, we found that distinctiveness threat was
greater for transgender and nonconforming targets, regardless
of gender expression. In comparing male and female gender
expression directly, we found that female targets were liked
less than male targets, regardless of gender identity or expres-
sion. We also found that liking was lower for transgender
female targets than for cisgender female targets, but there
was no effect of gender identity for male targets. There was
also an interaction between gender identity and gender con-
formity, such that both transgender male and transgender
female gender-conforming targets elicited greater distinc-
tiveness threat than gender-conforming cisgender targets.
Higher gender essentialism beliefs were associated with
lower liking for transgender targets and with higher distinc-
tiveness threat for conforming transgender targets and for
nonconforming targets of both gender identities. This pat-
tern mirrors the moderations of liking effects found in
Studies 1 and 2.
Overall, the present results suggest that transgender women
and transgender men are not perceived significantly different-
ly, although transgender women seem to be liked less than
transgender men. Of greater interest, Study 3 confirms that
for both men and women targets, gender-conforming trans-
gender individuals elicited greater distinctiveness threat than
did gender-conforming cisgender individuals. Regardless of
gender expression, it seems that Bpassing^transgender indi-
viduals may be threatening to binary gender boundaries.
Furthermore, as we predicted, higher gender essentialist be-
liefs were associated with greater distinctiveness threat for
conforming transgender targets. It is possible, then, that the
reason Bpassing^transgender individuals are seen as more
threatening to binary gender distinctions is because they chal-
lenge beliefs about gender essentialism and the gender binary.
General Discussion
Across all three studies, we consistently found that transgen-
der and gender nonconforming targets elicited greater distinc-
tiveness threat and that conforming transgender targets elicited
greater distinctiveness threat than did conforming cisgender
targets. These findings are consistent with prior research,
which has shown that gender nonconformity is rated negative-
ly for cisgender targets (Blashill and Powlishta 2009;Heilman
and Okimoto 2007; Kapoor et al. 2010)andfor
nonconforming transgender targets, at least in facial appear-
ance (Gerhardstein and Anderson 2010). Although not previ-
ously tested experimentally, our findings that gender identity-
conforming transgender targets elicited greater distinctiveness
threat is consistent with theoretical predictions. Because trans-
gender individuals are perceived as transgressing binary gen-
der roles, transgender individuals who cannot be easily detect-
ed as gender Bviolators^(i.e., are Bpassing^) may be especial-
ly threatening to binary gender distinctiveness. Our research is
among the first to demonstrate that gender conformity does
not necessarily affect perceptions of transgender targets the
(a) Conforming targets
(b) Nonconforming targets
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
- 1 SD +1 SD
Gender Essentialism
Distinctiveness Threat
Cisgender
Target
Transgende
r
Target
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
- 1 SD +1 SD
Gender Essentialism
Distinctiveness Threat
Cisgender
Target
Transgende
r
Target
Fig. 3 Moderation effect of target gender identity and target gender
conformity on the relationship between gender essentialism and ratings
of distinctiveness threat, Study 3. Black lines (both solid and dashed)
indicate a significant negative relationship between prejudice and
liking; the grey, dashed line indicates a nonsignificant effect for the
conforming, cisgender target
Sex Roles
Author's personal copy

same way as it does cisgender targets. Although a large body
of research has been devoted to understanding the role of
gender conformity in perceptions of cisgender (including
cisgender LGB) targets, and a growing body of work has
investigated anti-transgender prejudice, to date, no other
known research has compared the effects of gender conformi-
ty on evaluations of cisgender versus transgender targets.
Additionally, in Studies 1 and 2, target gender identity
moderated the relationships between anti-transgender preju-
dice and traditional gender role beliefs and liking, such that
higher anti-transgender prejudice and traditional gender role
beliefs were associated with lower liking of transgender tar-
gets. In Studies 2 and 3, target gender identity moderated the
relationships between both anti-transgender prejudice and
gender essentialism with distinctiveness threat, such that
higher anti-transgender prejudice and gender essentialism
were associated with greater distinctiveness threat for trans-
gender targets. We did not find any differences in attitudes
toward transgender men versus transgender women; however,
in Study 3, we found that nonconforming cisgender men elic-
ited more distinctiveness threat than did conforming cisgender
men, but found no differences based on gender conformity for
cisgender women. This finding supports past research, which
has consistently shown that male gender role transgressors are
perceived more negatively than are female gender role trans-
gressors (McCreary 1994; Sirin et al. 2004).
Overall, we found that attitudes tend to be more negative
toward non-normative targets. As has been shown previously
in research on anti-gay prejudice (Blashill and Powlishta
2009), our results suggest that negative attitudes toward gen-
der role nonconformity and gender identity are largely sepa-
rate. Across all three studies, main effects were found for
gender conformity and gender identity, such that
nonconforming targets and transgender targets were liked less
and seen as more threatening. When we did find interactions
between gender conformity and gender identity, the results did
not indicate that negative transgender attitudes were related to
gender nonconformity; indeed, the opposite was true—gender
conforming transgender targets were most threatening to bi-
nary gender boundaries. Gender-conforming transgender tar-
gets elicited greater distinctiveness threat than conforming
cisgender targets (Studies 2 and 3), suggesting that it is trans-
gender men and women who are able to Bpass^as cisgender
who are perceived as threatening to the distinctions between
binary genders. This is consistent with social identity theory,
which suggests that people devalue individuals perceived as
transgressing distinctive group boundaries as a means of
maintaining those meaningful boundaries (Jetten et al. 1996,
1997; Van Knippenberg and Ellemers 1990) and with prior
research that demonstrated that anti-transgender attitudes may
stem from the need to maintain strict binary gender boundaries
(Glotfelter and Anderson 2017). Additionally, this effect was
bolstered for participants with stronger beliefs that gender
differences are biological in nature, suggesting that at least
part of the reason transgender individuals who conform to
the gender roles associated with their gender expression are
more threatening is because they also challenge the belief
that gender is biological and immutable. By Bpassing^so
well as to be undetectable as a transgender person, gender-
conforming targets may cast doubt onto what defines gen-
der, which threatens beliefs about gender essentialism and
the gender binary.
Limitations and Future Directions
These studies were conducted to address experimental gaps in
the literature on anti-transgender prejudice and how gender
conformity interacts with gender identity in predicting atti-
tudes toward transgender individuals. However, these stud-
ies are not without their own limitations. One potential lim-
itation is that some of the vignettes were not completely
balanced (e.g., stating that Jamie Bacts masculine/
feminine^in the male target vignettes but not in the female
target vignettes). It is possible that these minor differences
could change the way participants reacted to each vignette,
influencing group differences in ratings of liking or distinc-
tiveness threat. These vignettes, however, were based on
validated measures created and tested by Horn (2007), with
little modification made by the authors. Many of the minor
inconsistencies between the vignettes are present in Horn’s
original vignettes. The modifications we made were to cre-
ate parallel gender-conforming male and female vignettes
basedonHorn’s gender nonconforming man and woman
vignettes. Our modified vignettes match well with the con-
tent of Horn’s originals, at least within the target gender
categories.
Additionally, we assessed attitudes toward transgender tar-
gets on only two dimensions, liking and distinctiveness threat.
These outcomes were the ones of interest for our research
questions, and liking is frequently used as a measure of atti-
tudes toward specific outgroup targets in prejudice research.
However, future research might benefit from investigating
other attitudes toward transgender targets, such as other types
of threat (e.g., danger, as seen in bathroom laws), stereotype
content (e.g., mentally ill, abnormal, assumed to be gay and
wanting sex reassignment surgery, unattractive; see Gazzola
and Morrison 2014 for a preliminary study) or emotional re-
actions (e.g., disgust, discomfort; Nagoshi et al. 2008).
It should also be noted that gender identity and sexual
orientation are often conflated, which could possibly affect
our results. Anti-transgender prejudice and anti-gay prejudice
are often correlated (Hill and Willoughby 2005; Nagoshi et al.
2008; Norton and Herek 2013; Tebbe and Moradi 2012;
Tebbe et al. 2014), and according to the sexual orientation
model (Herek 1984,1994), feminine men are presumed to
be gay (although masculine women are less likely to be
Sex Roles
Author's personal copy

perceived as lesbian). It is possible that participants in our
study may have assumed that the transgender or
nonconforming targets were gay, which led to less liking be-
cause of anti-gay prejudice. However, anti-gay prejudice is
not the focus of the current studies; there are a variety of
additional threats cisgender people may perceive from trans-
gender people as the outgroup (see Branscombe et al. 1999;
Cottrell and Neuberg 2005 for discussions of intergroup
threat), but the current studies focus only on distinctiveness
threats based on gender identity and gender conformity.
Additionally, as with most self-report survey research,
there is the potential for socially desirable responding and
participant bias. We also used convenience sampling in our
studies, which may have affected the representativeness of our
samples to the general U.S. population. Studies 1 and 2 were
conducted with student samples from a private Jesuit univer-
sity, which means the sample was predominantly White,
wealthy, and religious. Study 3 used mTurk workers and our
sample had a similar racial/ethnic breakdown as the entire
country, although it was a little more liberal and less religious.
It is possible that samples more representative of the U.S.
population would alter our findings; however, on some key
demographics known to influence anti-transgender attitudes
(e.g., religiosity, conservatism), we found similar results in
both the religious student samples and less religious mTurk
samples. Additionally, the expression of anti-transgender atti-
tudes remains acceptable to many people in the United States
(see James et al. 2016 for anti-transgender discrimination
rates; see Human Rights Campaign 2016; National Center
for Transgender Equality 2015 for information on anti-
transgender legislation), so it is less likely that participants felt
pressure to respond in a socially desirable manner in these
studies versus studies about less acceptable prejudices, such
as racial attitudes. The results of our studies should also be
considered within this cultural context; attitudes about gender
role conformity, gender role norms, and transgender individ-
uals likely vary between nations and cultural groups. It is
possible that our results would not be replicable in other na-
tions or cultures.
Practice Implications
Our results add confirmatory evidence that gender
nonconforming and transgender individuals are viewed
more negatively and that transgender individuals who con-
form to the societal gender roles for their gender identity
(i.e., are Bpassing^) are viewed as the most threatening,
likely because they are perceived as transgressing distinct
binary gender boundaries and beliefs about gender essen-
tialism. Thus, it is hypothetically possible to target
gender essentialist beliefs using bias-reduction or
counterinformational interventions aimed at reducing be-
liefs that there are only two binary genders and that binary
gender categories are natural and immutable. Recent re-
search has suggested that mere exposure to both informa-
tion about transgender individuals and images of
nonconforming and conforming transgender individuals
can reduce anti-transgender prejudice (Flores et al. 2018).
However, the long-term effectiveness of such interventions
may be poor, if they are effective at all, especially for those
with more traditional beliefs about gender. It is unclear
whether gender essentialist beliefs can be altered through
bias-reduction training or counter-information interven-
tions (e.g., intersexuality, which demonstrates that even
biological sex is not binary; Yoder 2012) because these
beliefs are likely seen as scientific and evidenced in the
natural world, and thus may be too deep-rooted to be in-
fluenced by counter-information.
Conclusion
In three studies, we investigated the role that gender con-
formity plays in attitudes toward transgender targets (com-
pared to cisgender targets). In all three studies, attitudes
were more negative toward nonconforming targets (regard-
less of gender identity) and transgender targets (regardless
of gender conformity). Additionally, we found evidence
that gender conformity does interact with gender identity
such that gender-conforming transgender men and gender-
conforming transgender women are seen as threatening to
distinct gender boundaries. These effects were also aug-
mented for those scoring higher on anti-transgender preju-
dice, traditional gender role beliefs, and gender essential-
ism. Together, these studies suggest that perceptions of
transgender people transgressing or blurring distinct binary
gender boundaries are threatening to gender essentialist
beliefs about gender and that this is especially true for
gender expression-conforming transgender individuals
(i.e., those who are Bpassing^). Thus, anti-transgender
prejudice may stem from a need to devalue and punish
transgender people as a means of maintaining distinctive
binary gender boundaries. Prejudice-reduction strategies
and interventions should consider targeting gender essen-
tialist beliefs in an attempt to reduce the perceptions people
have about transgender people as unnatural and threatening
to binary gender categories.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest We have no conflicts of interest to disclose.
Research Involving Human Participants The research was conducted in
compliance with APA’s ethical standards.
Informed Consent The study was approved by an Institutional Review
Board at the authors’institutions.
Sex Roles
Author's personal copy

References
Antoszewski, B., Kasielska, A., Jędrzejczak, M., & Kruk-Jeromin, J.
(2007). Knowledge of and attitude toward transsexualism among
college students. Sexuality and Disability, 25,29–35. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11195-006-9029-1.
Blashill, A. J., & Powlishta, K. K. (2009). The impact of sexual orienta-
tion and gender role on evaluations of men. Psychology of Men &
Masculinity, 10,160–173. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014583.
Blashill, A. J., & Powlishta, K. K. (2012). Effects of gender-related do-
main violations and sexual orientation on perceptions of male and
female targets: An analogue study. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41,
1293–1302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-012-9971-1.
Branscombe, N. R., Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (1999). The
context and content of social identity threat. In N. Ellemers, R.
Spears, & B. Doosje (Eds.), Social identity: Context, commitment,
content (pp. 35–58). Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell.
Brescoll, V. L., Uhlmann, E. L., & Newman, G. E. (2013). The effects of
system-justifying motives on endorsement of essentialist explana-
tions for gender differences. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 105,891–908. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034701.
Ching, B. H. H., & Xu, J. T. (2018). The effects of gender
neuroessentialism on transprejudice: An experimental study. Sex
Roles, 78,228–241. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-017-0786-3.
Cottrell, C. A., & Neuberg, S. L. (2005). Different emotional reactions to
different groups: A sociofunctional threat-based approach to
Bprejudice.^Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88,
770–789. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.5.770 .
Flores,A.R.,Haider-Markel,D.P.,Lewis,D.C.,Miller,P.R.,Tadlock,B.
L., & Taylor, J. K. (2018). Challenged expectations: Mere exposure
effects on attitudes about transgender people and rights. Political
Psychology, 39, 197–216. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12402.
Gazzola, S. B., & Morrison, M. A. (2014). Cultural and personally en-
dorsed stereotypes of transgender men and transgender women:
Notable correspondence or disjunction? International Journal of
Transgenderism, 15,76–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/15532739.
2014.937041.
Gentry, C. S. (1987). Social distance regarding male and female homo-
sexuals. The Journal of Social Psychology, 127,199–208. https://
doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1987.9713680.
Gerhardstein, K. R., & Anderson, V. N. (2010). There’s more than meets
the eye: Facial appearance and evaluations of transsexual people. Sex
Roles, 62,3
61–373. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9746-x.
Glotfelter, M. A., & Anderson, V. N. (2017). Relationships between gen-
der self-esteem, sexual prejudice, and trans prejudice in cisgender
heterosexual college students. International Journal of
Transgenderism, 18, 182–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/15532739.
2016.1274932.
Gottschalk, L. (2003). Same-sex sexuality and childhood gender non-
conformity: A spurious connection. Journal of Gender Studies, 12,
35–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/0958923032000067808.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and condi-
tional process analysis: A regression-based approach.NewYork:
Guilford Press.
Heilman, M. E., & Okimoto, T. G. (2007). Why are women penalized for
success at male tasks? The implied communality deficit. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 92,81–92. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.
92.1.81.
Herek, G. M. (1984). Beyond Bhomophobia:^a social psychological
perspective on attitudes toward lesbians and gay men. Journal of
Homosexuality, 10,1–21. https://doi.org/10.1300/J082v10n01_01.
Herek, G. M. (1994). Assessing heterosexuals’attitudes toward lesbians
and gay men: A review of empirical research with the ATLG scale.
In B. Greene & G. M. Herek (Eds.), Lesbian and gay psychology:
Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 206–228).
Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Hill, D. B., & Willoughby, B. L. (2005). The development and validation
of the genderism and transphobia scale. Sex Roles, 53,531–544.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-005-7140-x.
Horn, S. S. (2007). Adolescents’acceptance of same-sex peers based on
sexual orientation and gender expression. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 36,363–371. https://doi.org/10.1007/2Fs10964-006-
9111-0.
Human Rights Campaign. (2016). Anti-transgender legislation spreads
nationwide, bills targeting transgender children surge. Retrieved
from http://assets.hrc.org//files/assets/resources/HRC-Anti-Trans-
Issue-Brief-FINAL-REV2.pdf?_ga=2.158229106.938249866.
1502110857-1302716106.1502110857. Accessed 6 May 2018.
James, S. E., Herman, J. L.,Rankin, S., Keisling, M., Mottet, L., & Anafi,
M. (2016). The report of the 2015 U.S. transgender survey.
Washington, DC: National Center for Transgender Equality.
Jetten, J., Spears, R., & Manstead, A. S. R. (1996). Intergroup norms and
intergroup discrimination: Distinctive self-categorization and social
identity effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71,
1222–1233. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.6.1222.
Jetten, J., Spears, R., & Manstead, A. S. (1997). Distinctiveness threat and
prototypicality: Combined effects on intergroup discrimination and
collective self-esteem. European Journal of Social Psychology, 27,
635–657. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(199711/12)27:
6<635::AID-EJSP835>3.0.CO;2-#.
Jetten, J., Spears, R., & Postmes, T. (2004). Intergroup distinctiveness and
differentiation: A meta-analytical investigation. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 86,862–879. https://doi.org/
10.1037/0022-3514.86.6.862.
Jetten, J.,Summerville, N.,Hornsey, M. J., & Mewse, A. J. (2005). When
differences matter: Intergroup distinctiveness and the evaluation of
impostors. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35,609–620.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.282.
Kapoor, U., Pfost, K. S., House, A. E., & Pierson, E. (2010). Relation of
success and nontraditional career choice to selection for dating and
friendship. Psychological Reports, 107,177–184. https://doi.org/10.
2466/07.17.PR0.107.4.177-184.
Larsen, K. S., & Long, E. (1988). Attitudes toward sex-roles: Traditional
or egalitarian? Sex Roles, 19(1–2), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/
BF00292459.
Lehavot, K., & Lambert, A. J. (2007). Toward a greater understanding of
antigay prejudice: On the role of sexual orientation and gender role
violation. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 29,279–292.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01973530701503390.
Levy, G. D., Taylor, M. G., & Gelman, S. A. (1995). Traditional and
evaluative aspects of flexibility in gender roles, social conventions,
moral rules, and physical laws. Child Development, 66,515–531.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1995.tb00887.x.
Lick, D. J., Johnson, K. L., & Gill, S. V. (2014). Why do they have to
flaunt it? Perceptions of communicative intent predict antigay prej-
udice based upon brief exposure to nonverbal cues. Social
Psychological and Personality Science, 5, 927–935. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1948550614537311.
Makwana, A. P., Dhont, K., De keersmaecker, J., Akhlaghi-Ghaffarokh,
P., Masure, M., & Roets, A. (2017). The motivated cognitive basis
of transphobia: The roles of right-wing ideologies and gender role
beliefs. Sex Roles. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-017-0860-x .
McCreary, D. R. (1994). The male role and avoiding femininity. Sex
Roles, 31,517–531. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01544277.
Miller, L. R., & Grollman, E. A. (2015). The social costs of gender
nonconformity for transgender adults: Implications for discrimina-
tion and health. Sociological Forum, 30,809–831. https://doi.org/
10.1111/socf.12193.
Moss-Racusin, C. A., Phelan, J. E., & Rudman, L. A. (2010). When men
break the gender rules: Status incongruity and backlash against
Sex Roles
Author's personal copy

modest men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 11, 140–151.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018093.
Nagoshi, J. L., Adams, K. A., Terrell, H. K., Hill, E. D., Brzuzy, S., &
Nagoshi, C. T. (2008). Gender differences in correlates of homopho-
bia and transphobia. Sex Roles, 59, 521–531. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s11199-008-9458-7.
Nagoshi, C. T., Cloud, J. R., Lindley, L. M., Nagoshi, J. L., & Lothamer,
L. J. (2018). A test of the three-component model of gender-based
prejudices: Homophobia and transphobia are affected by raters’and
targets’assigned sex at birth. Sex Roles. Advance online publication.
https://doi.org/10.1007/2Fs11199-018-0919-3.
National Center for Transgender Equality. (2015, January 30). Map: State
nondiscrimination laws. Retrieved from http://www.transequality.org/
issues/resources/map-state-transgender-non-discrimination-laws
Norton, A. T., & Herek, G. M. (2013). Heterosexuals’attitudes toward
transgender people: Findings from a national probability sample of
US adults. Sex Roles, 68,738–753. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-
011-0110-6.
Oppenheimer, D. M., Meyvis, T., & Davidenko, N. (2009). Instructional
manipulation checks: Detecting satisficing to increase statistical
power. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45,867–872.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.009.
Richardson, D., Bernstein, S., & Hendrick, C. (1980). Deviations from
conventional sex-role behavior: Effect of perceivers' sex-role atti-
tudes on attraction. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 1,351–
355. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp0104_6.
Rudman, L. A. (2005). Rejection of women? Beyond prejudice as antip-
athy.InP.Dovidio,P.Glick,&L.Rudman(Eds.),On the nature of
prejudice (pp. 106–120). Malden: Blackwell Publishing.
Rudman, L. A., & Phelan, J. E.(2008). Backlash effects for disconfirming
gender stereotypes in organizations. Research in Organizational
Behavior, 28,61–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2008.04.003.
Schope, R. D.,& Eliason, M. J. (2004). Sissies and tomboys: Gender role
behaviors and homophobia. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social
Services, 16,73–97. https://doi.org/10.1300/J041v16n02_05.
Sirin, S. R., McCreary, D. R., & Mahalik, J. R. (2004). Differential reac-
tions to men and women’s gender role transgressions: Perceptions of
social status, sexual orientation, and value dissimilarity. Journal of
Men’s Studies, 12,119–132. https://doi.org/10.3149/jms.1202.119.
Spears, R., Doosje, B., & Ellemers, N. (1997). Self-stereotyping in the
face of threats to group status and distinctiveness: The role of group
identification. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23,538–
553. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167297235009.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup
conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The Social
Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey:
Brooks/Cole.
Tate, C. C., Youssef, C. P., & Bettergarcia, J. N. (2014). Integrating the
study of transgender spectrum and cisgender experiences of self-
categorization from a personality perspective. Review of General
Psychology, 18,302–312. https://doi.org/10.1037/gpr0000019.
Tebbe, E. N., & Moradi, B. (2012). Anti-transgender prejudice: A struc-
tural equation model of associated constructs. JournalofCounseling
Psychology, 59,251–261. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026990.
Tebbe, E. A., Moradi, B., & Ege, E. (2014). Revised and abbreviated
forms of the genderism and transphobia scale: Tools for assessing
anti-trans* prejudice. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 61,581–
592. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000043.
Turner, J. C. (1999). Some current issues in research on social identity and
self-categorization theories. In N. Ellemers, R. Spears, & B. Doosje
(Eds.), Social identity: Context, commitment, content (pp. 6–34).
Oxford: Blackwell.
Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S.
(1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization
theory. New York: Blackwell.
Van Knippenberg, A., & Ellemers, N. (1990). Social identity and inter-
group differentiation processes. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone
(Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 137–
169). Chichester: Wiley.
Warner, R., Hornsey, M. J., & Jetten, J. (2007). Why minority group
members resent impostors. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 37,1–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.332/full.
Winter, S., Chalungsooth, P., Teh, Y. K., Rojanalert, N., Maneerat, K.,
Wong, Y. W., …Macapagal, R. A. (2009). Transpeople,
transprejudice and pathologization: A seven-country factor analytic
study. International Journal of Sexual Health, 21,96–118. https://
doi.org/10.1080/19317610902922537 .
Yoder, J. D. (2012). Women and gender: Making a difference. In
Cornwall-on Hudson (4th ed.). New York: Sloan Publishing.
Sex Roles
Author's personal copy