Content uploaded by Jaimie F. Veale
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jaimie F. Veale
Content may be subject to copyright.
ORIGINAL PAPER
Sexuality of Male-to-Female Transsexuals
Jaimie F. Veale Æ Dave E. Clarke Æ Terri C. Lomax
Received: 18 January 2006 / Revised: 12 December 2006 / Accepted: 28 July 2007 / Published online: 26 February 2008
Ó Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008
Abstract Blanchard’s (J Nerv Ment Dis 177:616–623, 1989)
theory of autogynephilia suggests that male-to-female trans-
sexuals can be categorized into different types based on their
sexuality. Little previous research has compared the sexuality
of male-to-female transsexuals to biological females. The pres-
ent study examined 15 aspects of sexuality among a non-clin-
ical sample of 234 transsexuals and 127 biological females,
using either an online or a paper questionnaire. The results
showed that, overall, transsexuals tended to place more impor-
tance on partner’s physical attractiveness and reported higher
scores on Blanchard’s Core Autogynephilia Scale than bio-
logical females. In addition, transsexuals classified as autogy-
nephilic scored significantly higher on Attraction to Feminine
Males, Core Autogynephilia, Autogynephilic Interpersonal
Fantasy, Fetishism, Preference for Younger Partners, Interest in
Uncommitted Sex, Importance of Partner Physical Attrac-
tiveness, and Attraction to Transgender Fiction than other
transsexuals and biological females. In accordance with Blan-
chard’s theory, autogynephilia measures were positively cor-
related to Sexual Attraction to Females among transsexuals. In
contrast to Blanchard’s theory, however, those transsexuals
classified as autogynephilic scored higher on average on Sexual
Attraction to Males than those classified as non-autogynephilic,
and no transsexuals classified as autogynephilic reported
asexuality.
Keywords Autogynephilia Gender identity disorder
Transsexualism Sexuality Masochism
Introduction
Since its beginnings in the early 20th century, research
investigating the sexuality of male-to-female transsexuals
has classified them into groups based on their sexual orien-
tation. However, this approach has been disputed by a number
of transsexuals (Lawrence, 2004). The present study attem-
pted to shed some light on this issue by assessing aspects of
male-to-female transsexuals’ sexuality, including sexual ori-
entation, autogynephilia, sexual attraction to transgender
fiction, and factors relevant to evolutionary theory, among a
non-clinical population. These variables were also compared
to a group of biological females to ascertain similarities and
differences in the sexuality of male-to-female transsexuals.
Before outlining these aspects of sexuality, a brief review of
some previous studies of male-to-female transsexual sexu-
ality is given. In this article, the term transsexual refers to
male-to-female transsexuals unless otherwise stated.
Hirschfeld (1914/2000) distinguished among gynephilic
(exclusively sexually attracted to adult females), bisexual,
androphilic (exclusively sexually attracted to adult males),
asexual, and narcissistic or automonosexual gender-variant
persons. He described automonosexuals as sexually aroused
by the idea or impression of themselves as females.
Freund, Steiner, and Chan (1982) found that gynephilic
transsexuals reported cross-gender fetishism that was not
seen among androphilic transsexuals. Androphilic trans-
sexuals also reported a greater level of childhood feminine
gender identity than gynephilic transsexuals. Using factor
analysis, they identified one relatively strong factor, which
included erotic attraction to women and fetishism loading
J. F. Veale D. E. Clarke (&)
School of Psychology, Massey University, Albany Campus,
Private Bag 102-904, North Shore Mail Centre, Auckland,
New Zealand
e-mail: d.clarke@massey.ac.nz
T. C. Lomax
School of Computer and Information Sciences, Auckland
University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand
123
Arch Sex Behav (2008) 37:586–597
DOI 10.1007/s10508-007-9306-9
positively, and childhood feminine gender identity and erotic
attraction to males loading negatively. Freund et al. con-
cluded that there were two distinct ‘‘types’’ of transsexuals:
gynephilic and androphilic.
Using standardized self-report questionnaires, Blanchard
(1985a, 1988, 1989) provided evidence for the two-type
model of transsexuality proposed by Freund et al. (1982).
Blanchard (1985a) compared four groups of transsexuals
that were differentiated by their sexual orientation and found
that there were no significant differences among gynephilic,
bisexual, and asexual transsexual groups in the proportion of
cases reporting a history of erotic arousal in association
with cross-dressing, which was significantly higher than the
androphilic group. He labeled the three groups ‘‘nonhomo-
sexual’’ relative to their biological sex.
Blanchard and Clemmensen (1988) found that although
gender dysphoria and fetishistic arousal were negatively cor-
related,they were not mutually exclusive—many transsexuals
reported both. Blanchard (1988) found that nonhomosexual
transsexuals reported significantly lower childhood feminin-
ity than the androphilic group.
Blanchard (1989) introduced the concept of autogynephilia,
whichheusedtoreferto‘‘amale’s propensity to be sexually
aroused by the thought of himself as a female’’ (p. 616). This
concept formed the basis of Blanchard’s hypothesis that there
are two distinct manifestations of male-to-female transsexual-
ism: ‘‘homosexual’’ and ‘‘autogynephilic.’’ According to Blan-
chard, nonhomosexual gender dysphoria is the result of auto-
gynephilia. Autogynephilic transsexuals are sexually aroused
by stimuli that result in them to perceiving themselves in a more
feminine way. Cross-dressing is the most striking example
here—Blanchard believed that there was much commonality
between autogynephilic transsexuals and transvestites. How-
ever, he believed autogynephilia can also encompass erotic
ideas of feminine situations in which women’s clothing plays
little or no role at all, such as going to the hair salon or even
doing knitting.
Blanchard believed that the sexual interest in males that
arises in bisexual transsexuals was fundamentally different
from the androphilic group. According to Blanchard, in bisex-
ual transsexuals, autogynephilia produces a secondary interest
in males to go along with the transsexuals’ basic erotic interest
in females (Blanchard, 1989). Blanchard (1990) stated that the
interest was not in the male body or physique as it is for the
androphilic group, but rather in the perception of themselves
as a woman that males are attracted to. The inclusion of a male
can add to the fantasy of being regarded as a woman for the
bisexual group and the attraction to a male would diminish if
the bisexual transsexual was not being regarded as a woman.
Blanchard (1989) supported this hypothesis with the finding
that bisexual transsexuals were significantly more likely to
report autogynephilic interpersonal fantasy—erotic fantasies
of being admired by another person—than all of the other
transsexual groups.
Blanchard(1991) stated that autogynephilic sexual arousal
may diminish or even disappear due to age, hormone treat-
ment, and sex reassignment surgery (SRS), and yet the desire
to live as a woman does not diminish, and often grows
stronger. He conceptualized this as a likeness to heterosexual
pair bonding: after years of marriage, sexual excitement with
a partner tends to decrease; however, one continues to be just
as attached to that person. Similarly, the desire to have a
female body continues in a ‘‘permanent love-bond’’ (Blan-
chard, 1991, p. 248).
A number of subsequent findings have relevance to Blan-
chard’s theory.Among transsexuals,Johnson and Hunt (1990)
found gynephilia was significantly positively correlated with
sexual arousal to cross-gender fantasy, and significantly
negatively correlated with feminine gender identity in child-
hood. More recent studies have also reported the existence of
cross-gender sexual arousal among transsexuals (Docter &
Fleming, 2001; Lawrence, 2003;Walworth,1997). Two fur-
ther studies have found that transsexuals who were sexually
attracted to males were significantly more feminine as a child
and significantly less likely to report sexual arousal when
cross-dressing (Lawrence, 2005;Smith,vanGoozen,Kuiper,
& Cohen-Kettenis, 2005).
Another interesting observation that has relevance to
Blanchard’s theory is the existence of erotic narratives that are
found in transvestite publications and on the Internet that
appear to be created for individuals with transvestic and
autogynephilic fantasies. Beigel and Feldman (1963)exam-
ined 90 such narratives and noted that nearly half of the stories
ended with the indication that the main character will go on to
live as a woman—an indication of transsexual fantasy among
consumers of such fiction. Buhrich and McConaghy (1976)
observed that the experiences in the transvestite fiction dif-
fered sharply from what the transvestite experienced in real
life. They believed these stories illustrated wish fulfillment of
desires that are deprived of expression in reality. Docter
(1988) believed that the themes of these stories merely provide
insight into what transvestites find most pleasurable, but they
are of little use in distinguishing individual’s motives or rea-
sons for cross-dressing. Many of these narratives can be
interpreted as autogynephilic fantasies because the male is
transformed into a female, not just through a change of
clothes, but also through changes via a surgical, magical, or
science fiction means. One question this research is addressing
is whether transsexuals are sexually attracted to this fiction.
Lawrence (2004) noted that many transsexuals oppose
Blanchard’s theory of autogynephilia. It is clear that many
transsexuals do not accept the underlying assumption of
Blanchard’s theory that persons with autogynephilia are
males with a sexual fetish (e.g., James, 2004). Another
Arch Sex Behav (2008) 37:586–597 587
123
phenomenon that added fuel to the argument was the release
of Bailey’s (2003) book. In this book, Bailey supported
Blanchard’s theory, and explained it in layperson terms in an
attempt to popularize it among the general public. However,
this has been very unpopular among transsexuals because
among other things Bailey asserted that all transsexuals who
do not believe in Blanchard’s model are lying, either to
themselves or to others (for a history of this controversy, see
Dreger, in press).
Some further aspects of sexuality were of interest for
the present study: sexual attraction to feminine males, sado-
masochism, and aspects of sexuality relevant to evolutionary
theory. These are briefly described in the following para-
graphs.
Little previous research has examined attraction to fem-
ininity in males among gender-variant persons. Ovesey and
Person (1976) stated that transvestites tend to avoid sexual
encounters with males, with the exception of other trans-
vestites. Blanchard and Collins (1993) found that 26% of
personal advertisements looking for transsexuals and trans-
vestites were placed by self-described cross-dressers.
Several researchers have noted sadistic and masochistic
tendencies in transsexuals and transvestites (Bolin, 1988;
Buhrich & McConaghy, 1977; Walworth, 1997). If autogy-
nephilia is a type of paraphilia as Blanchard (1989) contends,
then we would expect to see a positive relationship between
autogynephilia and sadomasochism and other fetishistic
fantasies.
Bailey, Gaulin, Agyei, and Gladue (1994)showedthat,in
accordance with sexualselection theory, malesare more likely
than females to report interest in uncommitted sex, interest in
visual sexual stimuli, preference for younger partners, to value
partner physical attractiveness, and experience of sexual jeal-
ousy more strongly than emotional jealousy. On the other
hand, women were more likely than men to report concern
with partner status, and to report experiencing emotional jeal-
ousy more strongly than sexual jealousy.
The aim of this research was to measure these aspects of
sexuality among male-to-female transsexuals and compare
them to those of a group of biological females, to ascertain
similarities and differences in the sexuality of transsexuals.
Method
Participants
Transsexual participants were recruited from transgender
social/support groups in New Zealand, and biological female
participants were recruited through an undergraduate psy-
chology class at Massey University in Auckland, New
Zealand. These participants were given the option of either
completing the questionnaire on the Internet or completing a
paper version. Transsexual and biological female participants
were also recruited via the Internet. The link to the survey was
posted on a number of transgender, women’s, and psychology
online interest groups and email lists. Participants recruited
via the Internet were given only the option of completing the
survey over the Internet.
The questionnaire received a total of 361 completed
responses; 327 of these were via the Internet questionnaire.
Paper surveys were given to 71 people; 34 of these were
returned completed, giving a response rate of 48%. Of the
total, 127 responses came from biological females and 234
came from transsexuals.
Transsexuals (M = 39.21 years, SD = 14.03) were on
average significantly older than biological females (M =
30.63 years, SD = 11.90), t(359) = 5.83, p < .001. The
majority (90%) of participants identified as European. Ethnic
minorities were represented in 14% of participants. Partici-
pants in highly skilled occupations were well represented in
this sample, with 46% of participants classified in the three
most highly skilled categories on the New Zealand Standard
Classification of Occupations (Statistics New Zealand, 1999).
A large proportion (23%) of participants were students. The
current sample appeared to be well-educated: 27% reported
having a bachelor’s degree, 16% reported having a master’s
or doctoral degree, and only 6% reported achieving 3 years of
high school or less. Transsexual and biological female groups
did not differ significantly in ethnicity, occupation classifi-
cation, or level of education. Most of the transsexual par-
ticipants (83%) had not undertaken SRS, and 61% of trans-
sexuals reported that they were currently taking female
hormones.
\Differences between participants who completed and did
not complete the entire survey were examined. Participants
who did not complete the entire questionnaire were signifi-
cantly less likely to be European v
2
= 32.11, p < .001, and
significantly more likely to be Asian v
2
= 39.25, p < .001.
Completers and non-completers did not differ significantly
in terms of gender identity, occupation classification, marital
status, age, level of education, number of biological children,
sexual orientation, or on any of the remaining variables.
Measures
Sex-Linked Behaviours Questionnaire (McConaghy, 1998)
Sexual orientation was determined by responses to eight
questionnaire items on sexual fantasy, sexual arousal, and
sexual attraction, for example, ‘‘Rate the degree to which in
your current sexual fantasies you are aroused by males.’’ In
this study, items measuring sexual attraction to males had an
internal reliability coefficient (alpha) of .85, and items
588 Arch Sex Behav (2008) 37:586–597
123
measuring sexual attraction to females had an alpha coeffi-
cient of .86.
Attraction to Male Physique
This scale contains six items measuring sexual attraction to
the male physique, designed by Veale, and included in the
Appendix. This scale had an internal reliability coefficient
of .82 in the present study.
Attraction to Feminine Males Scale
This scale contains six items measuring sexual attraction to
femininity in males, designed by Veale, and included in the
Appendix. This scale had an internal reliability coefficient
of .94 in the present study.
Recalled Gender Identity/Gender Role questionnaire
(Zucker et al., 2006)
This scale measures recalled childhood gender identity and
gender role; for example, ‘‘As a child, I put on or used cos-
metics (make-up) and girls’ or women’s jewellery.’’ This
scale uses 5-point responses, with one or two extra response
items to allow participants to indicate that they did not
remember or that the behavior did not apply. Only the 15
items that loaded over .65 on the gender identity/gender role
factor that emerged from Zucker et al.’s (2006) factor anal-
ysis, and one other item asking about gender of closest
childhood friend were included in the questionnaire. This
scale had an internal reliability coefficient of .90 in the present
study.
Core Autogynephilia Scale (Blanchard, 1989)
This 8-item scale was developed by Blanchard to measure
sexual attraction to the fantasy of being a woman, for
example, ‘‘Have you ever been sexually aroused at the
thought of being a woman?’’ Changes were made to six of the
questions so that participants were asked if they have ever
been sexually aroused when picturing themselves with attr-
active or more attractive female physical features. The
‘‘attractive or more attractive’’ part was added to Blanchard’s
(1989) original version of the scale to make the questions
more applicable to biological females. The skip instructions
were also changed so that participants answering negatively
to the first two questions would skip all remaining questions
of this scale.
Among a sample of 2,700 biological male presenting at a
gender identity clinic, Blanchard (1989) found an internal
reliability coefficient of .95. Among a sample of 427 patients
who reported histories of cross-dressing and/or feeling like
a woman, Blanchard (1992) found an internal reliability
coefficient of .94. In the present study, this scale had an
internal reliability coefficient of .95.
Autogynephilic Interpersonal Fantasy Scale (Blanchard,
1989)
This 4-item scale measures the sexual arousal of being
admired by another person as a female, for example, ‘‘Have
you ever been sexually aroused while picturing yourself as a
woman in the nude being admired by another person?’’
Blanchard (1989) found an internal reliability coefficient of
.86, and Blanchard (1992) found a coefficient of .84. In the
present study, this scale had an internal reliability coefficient
of .83.
Fetishism Scale (Freund & Blanchard, 1998)
This scale measures sexual attraction to inanimate objects,
for example, ‘‘Were you ever more strongly sexually attra-
cted by inanimate things than by females or males?’’ Freund
et al. (1982) reported an internal reliability coefficient of .91
from a sample of 444 sexology patients and controls. Blan-
chard (1992) found an internal reliability coefficient of .97.
This scale had an internal reliability coefficient of .94 in the
present study.
Masochism Scale (Freund & Blanchard, 1998)
This scale measures masochistic tendencies, for example,
‘‘Has imagining that you were being humiliated or poorly
treated by someone ever excited you sexually?’’ Freund et al.
(1982) reported an internal reliability coefficient of .83, and
this scale had an internal reliability coefficient of .86 in the
present study.
Responses to the Sex Linked Behaviors Questionnaire,
Core Autogynephilia, Autogynephilic Interpersonal Fantasy,
Fetishism, and Masochism scales were altered from their
original author’s format to 6-point Likert scales from never to
all the time with responses scored from 0 to 5. However, since
conducting this research we have been made aware that the
amount of time a person is sexually attracted to something is
not consistent with standard definitions of sexual attraction
(e.g., Sell, 1997). To extract some meaningful results from the
data the questions on these scales were converted to dichot-
omous measures. For each of the questions in these scales, if
Arch Sex Behav (2008) 37:586–597 589
123
participants responded never they would receive a score of 0,
and any other response would elicit a score of 1.
Sexual and Emotional Jealousy (Buss, Larsen, Westen,
& Semmelroth, 1992)
This 4-item scale was designed to assess sexual and emo-
tional jealousy, for example, ‘‘Rate how distressing imag-
ining your partner falling in love with that other person
would be.’’ Instead of using the forced-choice responses that
Buss et al. employed, this version of the scale followed
Cann, Mangum, and Wells (2001) in asking participants to
respond with how distressing they found each of the four
alternatives. The response scale has 5 points ranging from
not at all distressing to extremely distressing. In the present
study, this scale had an internal reliability coefficient of .90.
Preference for Younger Partners (Bailey et al., 1994)
This 11-item scale measures age preference for sexual part-
ners, for example, ‘‘If someone showed definite signs of aging
it would be difficult for me to be very sexually attracted to
them.’’ Nine of the items were scored on a 7-point Likert-
scale format from strongly agree to strongly disagree. Two of
the items ask participants to specify an age of desired partner.
This was then subtracted from the participant’s age to give a
difference score. Bailey et al. reported internal reliability
coefficients ranging from .63 in heterosexual men to .80 in
heterosexual women among a total sample of 277. In the
present study, this scale had an internal reliability coefficient
of .74.
Interest in Uncommitted Sex (Bailey et al., 1994)
This scale is a 10-item measure of attraction to casual sexual
relationships, for example, ‘‘Monogamy is not for me.’’ The
items were scored on a 7-point Likert-scale format from stro-
ngly agree to strongly disagree. Bailey et al. reported an
internal reliability coefficient of .90 from their sample, and in
the present study this scale had a coefficient of .91.
Interest in Visual Sexual Stimuli (Bailey et al., 1994)
This scale is a 12-item measure of sexual interest in visual
stimuli, for example, ‘‘Seeing my sexual partner undress is a
real turn-on.’’ The items were scored on a 7-point Likert-
scale format from strongly agree to strongly disagree.
Bailey et al. reported internal reliability coefficients ranging
from .83 in heterosexual men to .86 in homosexual women,
and in the present study this scale had a coefficient of .84.
Importance of Partner Status (Bailey et al., 1994)
This scale is a 12-item measure of concern with the amount
of resources held by a partner or potential partner, for exam-
ple, ‘‘I would like my partner to be from a higher social class
background than I.’’ The items were scored on a 7-point
Likert-scale format from strongly agree to strongly disagree.
Bailey et al. reported internal reliability coefficients ranging
from .65 in homosexual men to .82 in heterosexual women,
and in the present study this scale had a coefficient of .72.
Importance of Partner Physical Attractiveness (Bailey
et al., 1994)
This scale is a 10-item measure of concern with the physical
attractiveness of partners, for example, ‘‘I would be happy if
my partner were more sexually attractive than I.’’ The items
were scored on a 7-point Likert-scale format from strongly
agree to strongly disagree. Bailey et al. reported internal
reliability coefficients ranging from .70 in homosexual men
to .77 in all women, and in the present study this scale had a
coefficient of .72.
Attraction to Transgender Fiction Scale
This scale contains 12 items measuring sexual attraction
to erotic narratives containing transgender themes. Veale des-
igned this scale, and it is reproduced in the Appendix. This
scale had an internal reliability coefficient of .96 in the present
study.
Transgender Identity Scale (Docter & Fleming, 1992)
This 9-item scale measures cross-gender identification, and
continuous commitment to cross-gender behavior through
the desire to live entirely in the female role, for example, ‘‘If
it were possible, I’d choose to live my life as a woman (or I
now do so).’’ This scale was only completed by transsexual
participants. Instead of using the 2-point yes or no scales
presented by Docter and Fleming, the items were scored on a
7-point Likert-scale format from strongly agree to strongly
disagree. This scale consisted of nine items loading greater
than .72 on the factor labeled ‘‘identity’’ on Doctor and
590 Arch Sex Behav (2008) 37:586–597
123
Fleming’s (2001) factor analysis. From a sample of 682
transvestites and transsexuals, Docter and Fleming (1992)
reported internal consistency of .88. This scale had an
internal reliability coefficient of .62 in the present study.
Additional information was collected from transsexual
participants about the age they first desired to change their
sex, how long they had been taking female hormones, and
whether they had undertaken SRS.
Results
Comparisons Between Biological Females
and Transsexuals
Table 1 outlines ANCOVAs comparing mean scores of
biological female and transsexual participants, using age as
a covariate. After adjusting for age differences, transsexuals
Table 1 ANCOVA comparisons of means for transsexual and biological female participants using age as a covariate
Variable Range TS BF Fpg
2
Power
Sexual Attraction to Males
a
0–4 M 3.13 3.43 0.01 ns .000 .05
SD 1.35 1.18
Sexual Attraction to Females
a
0–4 M 3.37 3.31 0.61 ns .003 .12
SD 1.20 1.26
Attraction to Male Physique 0–32 M 16.69 19.09 0.84 ns .002 .15
SD 10.60 8.67
Attraction to Feminine Males 0–32 M 10.51 7.98 11.21 .001 .033 .92
SD 9.74 8.33
Recalled Feminine Gender Identity 0–75 M 41.29 35.34 21.89 .001 .074 1.00
SD 9.26 11.54
Core Autogynephilia 0–9 M 7.50 5.07 26.36 .001 .130 1.00
SD 2.90 3.50
Autogynephilic Interpersonal Fantasy 0–4 M 3.08 2.93 2.59 ns .014 .36
SD 1.43 1.40
Fetishism 0–6 M 2.69 2.97 0.05 ns .000 .06
SD 2.62 2.60
Masochism 0–11 M 2.10 3.16 1.84 ns .010 .27
SD 2.43 3.17
Sexual Jealousy
b
0–8 M 5.73 6.20 2.18 ns .007 .31
SD 2.49 2.60
Emotional Jealousy
b
0–8 M 6.33 6.97 7.47 .007 .024 .78
SD 1.99 1.78
Preference for Younger Partners Any range
c
M 34.58 21.53 25.02 .001 .075 1.00
SD 17.16 14.88
Interest in Uncommitted Sex 0–60 M 23.78 25.06 0.08 ns .000 .06
SD 12.95 15.47
Interest in Visual Sexual Stimuli 0–72 M 39.83 41.75 0.25 ns .001 .08
SD 12.43 12.13
Importance of Partner Status 0–72 M 39.59 36.49 12.67 .001 .041 .94
SD 9.59 9.05
Importance of Partner Physical Attractiveness 0–60 M 31.32 27.56 13.07 .001 .043 .95
SD 7.88 8.49
Attraction to Transgender Fiction 0–48 M 11.72 5.39 21.58 .001 .069 1.00
SD 12.79 8.69
Note:TS= transsexuals; BF = biological females
a
Sex Linked Behaviors Questionnaire
b
Sexual and Emotional Jealousy Scale
c
Any range possible; actual scores ranged from 9 to 66
Arch Sex Behav (2008) 37:586–597 591
123
scored significantly higher on Attraction to Feminine Males,
Recalled Feminine Gender Identity, Core Autogynephilia,
Preference for Younger Partners, Importance of Partner Sta-
tus, Importance of Partner Physical Attractiveness, and Attrac-
tion to Transgender Fiction. Biological females scored sig-
nificantly higher on Emotional Jealousy.
Comparisons Among Autogynephilic Transsexuals,
Non-Autogynephilic Transsexuals, and Biological
Females
Transsexual participants were categorized as autogynephilic
or non-autogynephilic based on their scores on the Core
Autogynephilia, Autogynephilic Interpersonal Fantasy,
Attraction to Feminine Males, and Attraction to Transgender
Fiction scales. These scales were selected because they were
found most effective for classifying transsexuals into groups
in a taxometric analysis using the same data as the present
study (Veale, Lomax, & Clarke, 2007). A hierarchical cluster
analysis using squared Euclidian distance assigned two
clusters: 118 transsexuals were classified as non-autogyne-
philic and 51 were classified as autogynephilic. These scales
were not completed sufficiently by 65 transsexual partici-
pants, and their data were excluded from this analysis.
ANCOVA tests were performed to compare autogyne-
philic transsexual, non-autogynephilic transsexual, and
biological female participants on all of the variables mea-
sured in the study. The results of the ANCOVAs are shown in
Table 2. All of the scales in the ANCOVA yielded a sig-
nificant difference between the three groups except for the
sexual orientation scales, and Attraction to Male Physique.
Post-hoc Bonferroni tests were applied to identify homog-
enous subsets. Non-autogynephilic transsexuals scored sig-
nificantly lower on Masochism and Interest in Visual Sexual
Stimuli than autogynephilic transsexuals and biological
females, who did not differ significantly from each other.
Autogynephilic transsexuals scored significantly higher on
Attraction to Feminine Males, Autogynephilic Interpersonal
Fantasy, Preference for Younger Partners, and Attraction to
Transgender Fiction, and lower on Sexual Jealousy than non-
autogynephilic transsexuals and biological females, who did
not differ significantly from each other. For Fetishism and
Interest in Uncommitted Sex, autogynephilic transsexuals
scored significantly higher than biological females, who
scored significantly higher than non-autogynephilic trans-
sexuals. Biological females scored significantly lower on
Recalled Feminine Gender Identity than both transsexual
subgroups, which did not differ significantly from each other.
Autogynephilic transsexuals scored significantly lower than
biological females on Emotional Jealousy and significantly
higher on Importance of Partner Status; non-autogynephilic
transsexuals did not differ significantly from autogynephilic
transsexuals or biological females for these variables. For
Core Autogynephilia and Importance of Partner Physical
Attractiveness, autogynephilic transsexuals scored signifi-
cantly higher than non-autogynephilic transsexuals, who
scored significantly higher than biological females.
Comparisons were made between autogynephilic and
non-autogynephilic transsexuals on the measures that were
only completed by transsexuals. Autogynephilic transsex-
uals had a significantly later age of first desire to change
sex (U = 1675.5, p = .016), were less likely to be taking
female hormones (v
2
= 7.20, p = .007), had fewer months
taking hormones (U = 1461.0, p = .003), and less likely to
have had SRS (v
2
= 4.36, p = .037) than non-autogyne-
philic transsexuals. These groups did not differ significantly
in age or scores on the Transgender Identity Scale.
Correlational Analyses
Table 3 displays correlation scores between autogynephilia
variables and other variables relevant to autogynephilia the-
ory. Sexual Attraction to Males correlated positively with
Core Autogynephilia among biological females and with
Autogynephilic Interpersonal Fantasy among all participants.
Sexual Attraction to Females correlated positively with Core
Autogynephilia among all participants and with Autogyne-
philic Interpersonal Fantasy among transsexuals. Attraction
to Male Physique correlated positively with Autogynephilic
Interpersonal Fantasy among biological female participants.
Attraction to Feminine Males correlated positively with Core
Autogynephilia and Autogynephilic Interpersonal Fantasy
among all participants. Attraction to Transgender Fiction was
positively correlated with Core Autogynephilia among all
participants and with Autogynephilic Interpersonal Fantasy
among transsexuals. Recalled Feminine Gender Identity was
not related to Autogynephilia variables for transsexual or
biological female participants. However, Recalled Feminine
Gender Identity was positively correlated with Sexual Attrac-
tion to Males among both transsexuals (q = .24, p < .01) and
biological females (q = .30, p < .01), and negatively corre-
lated with Sexual Attraction to Females among both trans-
sexuals (q =-.28, p < .01) and biological females (q =-
.30, p < .01).
Finally, in testing Blanchard’s hypothesis that bisexual
autogynephilic transsexuals are not attracted to the male
physique, we found among transsexual participants classi-
fied as autogynephilic in the cluster analysis described above,
Attraction to Male Physique correlated significantly posi-
tively with Sexual Attraction to Males (q = .65, p < .01),
and this correlation was comparable to non-autogynephilic
transsexuals (q = .65) and biological females (q = .64).g.
592 Arch Sex Behav (2008) 37:586–597
123
Discussion
The results showed that male-to-female transsexual sexuality
differed from biological females on a number of variables, and
the largest differences were found when transsexuals were
classified into two groups. Those classified as autogynephilic
scored significantly higher on Attraction to Feminine Males,
Core Autogynephilia, Autogynephilic Interpersonal Fantasy,
Fetishism, Preference for Younger Partners, Interest in
Uncommitted Sex, Importance of Partner Physical Attrac-
tiveness, and Attraction to Transgender Fiction than those
transsexuals not classified as non-autogynephilic and bio-
logical females. Subject to further investigation, these erotic
preferences—especially Attraction to Feminine Males and
Attraction to Transgender Fiction—can be seen as notable
components or correlates of autogynephilia.
Both groups of transsexual participants scored signifi-
cantly higher than biological female participants on Recalled
Table 2 ANCOVA comparisons among autogynephilic transsexual, non-autogynephilic transsexual, and biological female participants, using age
as a covariate
Variable Range Non-autogynephilic
transsexuals
Autogynephilic
transsexuals
Biological
females
Fpg
2
Power
Sexual Attraction to Male
d
0–4 M 2.97 3.06 3.49 1.54 ns .010 .33
SD 1.43 1.37 1.13
Sexual Attraction to Females
d
0–4 M 3.18 3.67 3.25 2.87 ns .019 .56
SD 1.37 .93 1.33
Attraction to Male Physique 0–32 M 16.93 15.28 19.12 1.66 ns .011 .35
SD 9.33 9.10 8.64
Attraction to Feminine Males 0–32 M 5.64
a
17.83
b
7.65
a
45.36 .001 .237 1.00
SD 6.38 9.90 8.31
Recalled Feminine Gender Identity 0–75 M 42.73
b
41.20
b
35.48
a
12.98 .001 .099 1.00
SD 8.84 10.18 11.57
Core Autogynephilia 0–9 M 6.53
b
8.85
c
4.79
a
29.70 .001 .180 1.00
SD 3.41 .50 3.59
Autogynephilic Interpersonal Fantasy 0–4 M 2.66
a
3.57
b
3.00
a
7.36 .001 .051 .94
SD 1.62 .84 1.37
Fetishism 0–6 M 1.95
a
4.58
c
2.88
b
19.86 .001 .131 1.00
SD 2.43 2.02 2.56
Masochism 0–11 M 1.44
a
3.74
b
3.30
b
14.32 .001 .095 1.00
SD 1.98 3.05 3.08
Sexual Jealousy
e
0–8 M 5.97
b
4.96
a
6.22
b
4.09 .018 .029 .72
SD 2.38 2.71 2.59
Emotional Jealousy
e
0–8 M 6.51
a, b
5.79
a
6.98
b
6.42 .002 .045 .90
SD 1.82 2.29 1.78
Preference for Younger Partners Any range M 34.58
a
40.12
b
32.32
a
17.62 .001 .116 1.00
SD 7.18 9.98 9.28
Interest in Uncommitted Sex 0–60 M 19.77
a
32.71
c
24.94
b
14.45 .001 .098 1.00
SD 11.58 12.67 15.43
Interest in Visual Sexual Stimuli 0–72 M 36.34
a
46.38
b
41.55
b
10.83 .001 .076 .99
SD 11.06 12.36 12.24
Importance of Partner Status 0–72 M 39.31
a, b
40.44
b
36.59
a
6.17 .002 .045 .89
SD 8.65 10.81 9.05
Importance of Partner Physical Attractiveness 0–60 M 30.45
b
35.35
c
27.48
a
12.20 .001 .087 1.00
SD 7.57 8.34 8.49
Attraction to Transgender Fiction 0–48 M 5.21
a
29.22
b
5.35
a
145.31 .001 .534 1.00
SD 5.78 10.82 8.66
a, b, c
Homogenous subsets
d
Sex Linked Behaviors Questionnaire
e
Sexual and Emotional Jealousy Scale
Arch Sex Behav (2008) 37:586–597 593
123
Feminine Gender Identity, and Importance of Partner
Physical Attractiveness. It was unexpected that transsexuals
would score on average higher on childhood feminine gender
identity, because transsexuals would be given less opportu-
nity to express their femininity and would be discouraged
from doing so in their childhood. One possible explanation
for this finding is that a large number biological females
reporting sexual attraction to females were included in this
study—such persons have been shown to recall less femi-
ninity in childhood (e.g., Zucker et al., 2006). Transsexual
participants, even those categorized as non-autogynephilic,
reported placing greater importance of physical attractive-
ness of potential partners than biological females. The reason
for this phenomenon is unclear—it is possible that transsex-
uals, being biological males, have been shaped by natural
selection to view physical attractiveness as a marker of partner
fertility (Bailey et al., 1994); however, non-autogynephilic
transsexuals did not score in a significantly more ‘‘masculine’’
direction than biological females on any of the other sexuality
parameters relevant to evolution, but autogynephilic trans-
sexuals scored in the more ‘‘masculine’’ direction than other
participants on five out of seven of these variables. Overall,
biological female and transsexual participants also did not
differ on levels of Interest in Visual Sexual Stimuli. This is
in spite of Money and Primrose’s (1968) claim that male-
to-female transsexuals are more responsive to visual erotic
stimuli, similar to other biological males.
The finding that transsexuals—even those classified as
autogynephilic—did not differ significantly on Masochism
from biological females was unexpected given previous
reports of the prevalence of masochism in transsexuals, and
reports of co-occurrence of fetishism (Blanchard & Hucker,
1991; Chivers & Blanchard, 1996;Wilson&Gosselin,1980).
Autogynephilic transsexual participants reported a sig-
nificantly greater amount of sexual attraction to transgender
fiction themes than biological females. Transsexuals most
commonly endorsed themes of magical transformation into
a female, having to be transformed into a female as part of a
deal, bet or dare, and gender body swaps. However, some
transsexuals endorsed all of the themes, and no clear pattern
appeared among them. We conclude that sexual fantasy to
certain transgender fiction themes does not appear to be
predictive of transsexualism. This finding supports Docter’s
(1988) belief that these themes are of little use in distin-
guishing individual’s motives.
Contrary to Blanchard’s (1989) findings, when the trans-
sexual participants were divided into autogynephilic and non-
autogynephilic groups, they did not differ significantly on
sexual orientation measures. Among transsexual participants,
the Core Autogynephilia Scale positively correlated with
Sexual Attraction to Females—in line with Blanchard’s res-
earch. However, further analysis of the transsexual subgroups
revealed notable diversity within the groups. The average
score of Sexual Attraction to Males was higher for trans-
sexuals classified as autogynephilic than for transsexuals
classified as non-autogynephilic, although this difference was
not significant, this is at variance with Blanchard’s theory.
Also, 68% of transsexuals classified as non-autogynephilic
scored the highest possible score (4) on the Sexual Attraction
to Females scale. Finally, among the transsexuals classified as
autogynephilic, none scored low scores (from 0 to 2 on a scale
of 0–4) on both the Sexual Attraction to Males and Females
scales that would be expected if they were asexual—one of
the sexuality subgroups of Blanchard’s autogynephilic
transsexuals. Possible explanations for this lack of asexuality
include more liberal attitudes towards sexuality in today’s
culture, and participants in Blanchard’s research reporting a
greater asexuality if they believed this would increase their
chances of receiving medical intervention. Attraction to Male
Physique was positively correlated with Sexual Attraction to
Table 3 Spearman’s q
correlations between
autogynephilia measures and
scales relevant to Blanchard’s
hypothesis
a
Sex Linked Behaviors
Questionnaire
* p < .05; ** p < .01; two-
tailed
Core Autogynephilia Autogynephilic
Interpersonal Fantasy
Sexual Attraction to Males
a
Transsexuals .13 .29**
Biological females .22* .35**
Sexual Attraction to Females
a
Transsexuals .37** .28**
Biological females .20* .01
Attraction to Male Physique Transsexuals -.03 .14
Biological females .10 .20*
Attraction to Feminine Males Transsexuals .37** .34**
Biological females .30** .26**
Recalled Feminine Gender Identity Transsexuals -.08 .05
Biological females .04 .16
Attraction to Transgender Fiction Transsexuals .52** .35**
Biological females .21* .16
594 Arch Sex Behav (2008) 37:586–597
123
Males among autogynephilic transsexuals. If Blanchard’s
hypothesis that the sexual attraction to males experienced by
bisexual transsexuals is to include them as props in the fantasy
of being regarded as a woman, as opposed to sexual interest in
the male body is true then we would not expect to see this
positive correlation, or we would at least expect this correla-
tion to be lower than the corresponding correlations for non-
autogynephilic transsexualsand biological females. However,
it is still possible that this attraction to the male physique could
develop along with the secondary emergence of attraction to
males that Blanchard describes. Also, contrary to expectation
Recalled Childhood Feminine Gender Identity Scale did not
correlate with autogynephilia measures.
We conclude that while Blanchard’s two-group classifi-
cation of male-to-female transsexuals appears to have merit
for significant proportion of transsexuals, there is still diver-
sity in the experiences of transsexuals, and a simple cate-
gorization may not completely represent this diversity.
Limitations
In the questionnaire, changes were made to the questions in
the Core Autogynephilia scale so that participants were
asked if they have ever been sexually aroused when picturing
themselves with attractive or more attractive female physical
features. The responses were also altered from a yes/no
format, and the skip instructions were changed. All of these
alterations to the scale made these research findings less
comparable to Blanchard’s research. Also, as outlined in the
Methods section, the Sex Linked Behaviours Questionnaire,
Core Autogynephilia, Autogynephilic Interpersonal Fantasy,
Fetishism, and Masochism scales were originally measured
using a response scale that had questionable validity. To sal-
vage some valid data their response scales were altered to
dichotomous yes or no. However, this resulted in restriction
of range of the scores, and a large proportion of participants
scored the maximum possible score on many of these scales.
A further limitation of this research was that it relied
entirely on self-report. Blanchard (1985b) reported that the
group that he would later label autogynephilic may over report
their femininity and under report the extent of their cross-
gender sexual arousal. From clinical and research observa-
tions, previous researchers have claimed that non-androphilic
transsexuals may consciously or unconsciously distort their
responses to appear less autogynephilic (Bailey, 2003; Blan-
chard, Clemmensen, & Steiner, 1985). It is beyond the scope
of this research to assess whether participants were distorting
their answers. However, we believe participants would be less
likely to consciously distort their responses in this study
because their answers were anonymous and had no implica-
tions for whether they will receive treatment in a clinical
setting.
Another limitation was the susceptibility of this research
to manipulation. Although this is an issue with most Internet
surveys, the contentiousness of the subject matter in this
survey would make it more susceptible to dishonesty. Many
transsexuals have strong feelings about autogynephilia (Law-
rence, 2004) and could have manipulated the survey by
completing it many times with answers that they believe
would either discredit or confirm the theory, depending on
their beliefs. However, the length of the survey (162 ques-
tions) may have discouraged participants from answering it
many times—our system showed us that most participants
took longer than 25 min to complete it. In addition, we did not
see any suspicious responding in the data, such as a lot of
responses in a short period. Furthermore, distinct and often
thoughtful comments were made by 71.4% of transsexual
participants who completed the questionnaire on the Internet
when given the opportunity to comment on Blanchard’s
theory of autogynephilia and on the survey in general.
Although we did not see any signs of suspicious activity, we
are aware that this may have been a possibility, and this is a
considerable limitation to our findings.
The recruitment methods used in this research also con-
tributed to a biased sample. The biological female partici-
pants were either recruited through first-year psychology
classes or through Internet mailing lists and message boards
for persons with interests in psychology, sex research, or
transsexualism (e.g., support groups for family and friends of
transsexuals). The significant proportion of university stu-
dents in the biological female sample resulted in a large
number of participants in the 18–22 year age group. Among
the transsexual sample, those who access online transsexual
support groups and mailing lists were also likely to be over-
represented. Europeans were also overrepresented in the
overall sample, and the participants appeared to be more
educated than the general population. Also, a number of
previous studies have shown that females volunteering for
sexuality research are less sexually inhibited than the general
population (Strassberg & Lowe, 1995). It is likely that the
present sample was biased in this way as well.
Finally, our findings bring up an area in need of further
research. The concept of sexual attraction to oneself as a
woman (autogynephilia) has never been assessed among
biological female participants previously. Although a
number of biological female participants endorsed items on
the Core Autogynephilia and Autogynephilic Interpersonal
Fantasy scales, no previous studies have reported biological
females with such sexual attraction. Because of this, it is
unlikely that these biological females actually experience
sexual attraction to oneself as a woman in the way that
Blanchard conceptualized it. However, the scales used in
this research were not sufficient for examining this, so fur-
ther research is needed to confirm it.
Arch Sex Behav (2008) 37:586–597 595
123
Appendix
Attraction to Male Physique Scale
1. I find certain aspects of the male body sexually appeal-
ing: ‘‘Not at all’’ (0), ‘‘Slightly’’ (1), ‘‘Moderately’’ (2),
‘‘Quite’’ (3), ‘‘Extremely’’ (4).
If participants answered ‘‘not at all’’ to question 1, then
they do not answer the remainder of the scale.
2. I find a male’s face (e.g., eyes, smile) to be particularly
sexually appealing: ‘‘Strongly agree’’ (6), ‘‘Agree’’ (5),
‘‘Tend to agree’’ (4), ‘‘Undecided’’ (3), ‘‘Tend to disagree’’
(2), ‘‘Disagree’’ (1), ‘‘Strongly disagree’’ (0).
3. I find a male’s body (e.g., chest, arms, genitalia) to be
particularly sexually appealing: ‘‘Strongly agree’’ (6),
‘‘Agree’’ (5), ‘‘Tend to agree’’ (4), ‘‘Undecided’’ (3), ‘‘Tend
to disagree’’ (2), ‘‘Disagree’’ (1), ‘‘Strongly disagree’’
(0).
4. The first thing I notice about when I meet a male that I am
sexually attracted to is: ‘‘His face (e.g., eyes, smile)’’ (4),
‘‘His body (e.g., chest, arms)’’ (4), ‘‘The way that he seems
to admire me’’ (0), ‘‘I am not sexually attracted to males’’
(0).
5. I am currently in (or would like to have) a long-term
committed relationship with a male: ‘‘Strongly agree’’ (6),
‘‘Agree’’ (5), ‘‘Tend to agree’’ (4), ‘‘Undecided’’ (3), ‘‘Tend
to disagree’’ (2), ‘‘Disagree’’ (1), ‘‘Strongly disagree’’ (0).
6. A male showing a sexual interest in me is something I find
sexually arousing: ‘‘Strongly agree’’ (0), ‘‘Agree’’ (1),
‘‘Tend to agree’’ (2), ‘‘Undecided’’ (3), ‘‘Tend to disagree’’
(4), ‘‘Disagree’’ (5), ‘‘Strongly disagree’’ (6).
Attraction to Feminine Males Scale
All responses to questions scored: ‘‘Not at all’’ (0), ‘‘Slightly’’
(1), ‘‘Moderately’’ (2), ‘‘Quite’’ (3), ‘‘Extremely’’ (4).
1. I find feminine physical features are sexually attractive
on males.
If participants answer ‘‘not at all’’ to question 1, then they
do not answer the remainder of the scale.
2. I find long hair on males to be sexually attractive.
3. I find shaved legs to be sexually attractive on males.
4. I find it sexually attractive when a male wears articles of
female clothing.
5. I find males who have a feminine figure to be sexually
attractive.
6. I find males who have feminine mannerisms to be sex-
ually attractive.
7. I find people who were born as males but have female
breasts to be sexually attractive.
8. I find males who identify as feminine to be sexually
attractive.
Attraction to Transgender Fiction Scale
All responses to questions scored: ‘‘Not at all sexually
arousing’’ (0), ‘‘Slightly sexually arousing’’ (1), ‘‘Moderately
sexually arousing’’ (2), ‘‘Very sexually arousing’’ (3), ‘‘Ext-
remely sexually arousing’’ (4).
Please indicate how sexually arousing you would find the
following types of stories.
1. A story in which an unruly boy as a form of punishment
must dress as a girl or become a girl through other
means.
2. A magic or science fiction themed story in which a male
and a female character swap places.
3. A story in which the main character, a male, is caught
either fully dressed as female or wearing female under-
garments and must suffer or dress more as a result of
being caught.
4. A story in which the main character is transformed into
a female as the result of making a deal, part of a bet or
accepting a dare.
5. A story that involves a general male-to-female cross-
dressing theme.
6. A story that involves a female dominating a male or a
woman who uses an authoritarian attitude.
7. A story in which by some magical means a male is
transformed into a female.
8. A story in which a male has his mind altered by hyp-
nosis or brainwashing to stop resisting feminizing
changes forced on him.
9. A story in which the main character, a male, is phys-
ically forced or blackmailed to dress as a female, or be
transformed into a female against their will.
10. A story that contain scenes where the main character, a
male, getstheirhaircut,rolledor colored into afeminine
style either at home or in a hair salon.
11. A story that contains scenes where female hormones are
administered to the main character either voluntarily or
involuntarily.
12. A story that contain scenes where the main character, a
male, wears very high heels.
References
Bailey, J. M. (2003). The man who would be queen: The science of
gender-bending and transsexualism. Washington, DC: Joseph
Henry Press.
596 Arch Sex Behav (2008) 37:586–597
123
Bailey, J. M., Gaulin, S., Agyei, Y., & Gladue, B. A. (1994). Effects of
gender and sexual orientation on evolutionarily relevant aspects
of human mating psychology. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 66, 1081–1093.
Beigel, H., & Feldman, R. (1963). The male transvestite’s motivation
in fiction, research and reality. In H. Beigel (Ed.), Advances in sex
research (pp. 18–23). New York: Harper and Row.
Blanchard, R. (1985a). Typology of male-to-female transsexualism.
Archives of Sexual Behavior, 14, 247–261.
Blanchard, R. (1985b). Research methods for the typological study of
gender disorders in males. In B. W. Steiner (Ed.),Genderdysphoria:
Development, research, management (pp. 227–257). New York:
Plenum Press.
Blanchard, R. (1988). Nonhomosexual gender dysphoria. Journal of
Sex Research, 24, 188–193.
Blanchard, R. (1989). The concept of autogynephilia and the typology
of male gender dysphoria. Journal of Nervous and Mental
Disease, 177, 616–623.
Blanchard, R. (1990). Gender identity disorders in adult men. In R.
Blanchard & B. W. Steiner (Eds.), Clinical management of gender
identity disorders in children and adults (pp. 49–76). Washington,
DC: American Psychiatric Association.
Blanchard, R. (1991). Clinical observations and systematic studies of
autogynephilia. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 17, 235–251.
Blanchard, R. (1992). Nonmonotonic relation of autogynephilia and
heterosexual attraction. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 101,
271–276.
Blanchard, R., & Clemmensen, L. H. (1988). A test of the DSM-III-R’s
implicit assumption that fetishistic arousal and gender dysphoria
are mutually exclusive. Journal of Sex Research, 25, 426–432.
Blanchard, R., Clemmensen, L. H., & Steiner, B. W. (1985). Social
desirability response set and systematic distortion in the self-report
of adult male gender patients. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 14,
505–516.
Blanchard, R., & Collins, P. I. (1993). Men with sexual interest in
transvestites, transsexuals, and she-males. Journal of Nervous and
Mental Disease, 181, 570–575.
Blanchard, R., & Hucker, S. J. (1991). Age, transvestism, bondage, and
concurrent paraphilic activities in 117 fatal cases of autoerotic
asphyxia. British Journal of Psychiatry, 159, 371–377.
Bolin, A. (1988). In search of Eve: Transsexual rites of passage. New
York: Bergin & Garvey.
Buhrich, N., & McConaghy, N. (1976). Transvestite fiction. Journal of
Nervous and Mental Disease, 163, 420–427.
Buhrich, N., & McConaghy, N. (1977). The discrete syndromes of
transvestism and transsexualism. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 6,
483–495.
Buss, D. M., Larsen, R. J., Westen, D., & Semmelroth, J. (1992). Sex
differences in jealousy: Evolution, physiology, and psychology.
Psychological Science, 3, 251–255.
Cann, A., Mangum, J. L., & Wells, M. (2001). Distress in response to
relationship infidelity: The roles of gender and attitudes about
relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 38, 185–190.
Chivers, M., & Blanchard, R. (1996). Prostitution advertisements
suggest association of transvestism and masochism. Journal of
Sex and Marital Therapy, 22, 97–102.
Docter, R. F. (1988). Transvestites and transsexuals: Toward a theory
of cross-gender behaviour. New York: Plenum Press.
Docter, R. F., & Fleming, J. S. (1992). Dimensions of transvestism and
transsexualism: The validation and factorial structure of the cross-
gender questionnaire. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexu-
ality, 5(4), 15–37.
Docter, R. F., & Fleming, J. S. (2001). Measures of transgender
behavior.
Archives of Sexual Behavior, 30, 255–271.
Dreger, A. D. (in press). The controversy surrounding The Man Who
Would Be Queen: A case history of the politics of science,
identity, and sex in the Internet age. Archives of Sexual Behavior.
Freund, K., & Blanchard, R. (1998). Gender identity and erotic
preference in males. In C. M. Davis, W. L. Yarber, R. Bauserman,
G. Schreer, & S. L. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of sexuality-related
measures (2nd ed., pp. 454–462). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Freund, K., Steiner, B. W., & Chan, S. (1982). Two types of cross-
gender identity. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 11, 49–63.
Hirschfeld, M. (2000). Homosexualita
¨
t des mannes und des weibes.
Amherst: Prometheus Books. (Originally published 1914).
James, A. J. (2004). A defining moment in our history: Examining
disease models of gender identity. Retrieved 26 Oct 2006, from
http://www.tsroadmap.com/info/gender-identity.pdf.
Johnson, S. L., & Hunt, D. D. (1990). The relationship of male
transsexual typology to psychosocial adjustment. Archives of
Sexual Behavior, 19, 349–360.
Lawrence, A. A. (2003). Factors associated with satisfaction or regret
following male-to-female sex reassignment surgery. Archives of
Sexual Behavior, 32, 299–315.
Lawrence, A. A. (2004). Autogynephilia: A paraphilic model of gender
identity disorder. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Psychotherapy, 8(1/
2), 69–87.
Lawrence, A. A. (2005). Sexuality before and after male-to-female sex
reassignment surgery. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 34, 147–166.
McConaghy, N. (1998). Sex-linked behaviors questionnaire. In C. M.
Davis, W. L. Yarber, R. Bauserman, G. Schreer, & S. L. Davis
(Eds.), Handbook of sexuality-related measures (pp. 402–407).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Money, J., & Primrose, C. (1968). Sexual dimorphism and dissociation
in the psychology of male transsexuals. Journal of Nervous and
Mental Disease, 147, 472–486.
Ovesey, L., & Person, E. S. (1976). Transvestism: A disorder of the
sense of self. International Journal of Psychoanalytic Psycho-
therapy, 5, 219–235.
Sell, R. L. (1997). Defining and measuring sexual orientation: A
review. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 26, 643–658.
Smith, Y. L. S., van Goozen, S. H., Kuiper, A. J., & Cohen-Kettenis, P. T.
(2005). Sex reassignment: Outcomes and predictors of treatment for
adolescent and adult transsexuals. Psychological Medicine, 35,
89–99.
Statistics New Zealand. (1999). New Zealand standard classification
of occupations. Retrieved 25 Apr 2005, from http://www.stats.
govt.nz/statistical-methods/classifications/nz-standard-class-of-
occupations-1999.htm.
Strassberg, D. S., & Lowe, K. (1995). Volunteer bias in sexuality
research. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 24, 369–382.
Veale, J. F., Lomax, T. C., & Clarke, D. E. (2007). A taxometric
analysis of the sexuality of male-to-female transsexuals. Manu-
script submitted for publication.
Walworth, J. R. (1997). Sex reassignment surgery in male-to-female
transsexuals: Client satisfaction in relation to selection criteria. In
B. Bullough, V. L. Bullough, & J. Elias (Eds.), Gender blending
(pp. 352–369). Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
Wilson, G. D., & Gosselin, C. (1980). Personality characteristics of
fetishists, transvestites and sadomasochists. Personality and
Individual Differences, 1, 289–295.
Zucker, K. J., Mitchell, J. N., Bradley, S. J., Tkachuk, J., Cantor, J. M.,
& Allin, S. (2006). The Recalled Childhood Gender Identity/
Gender Role questionnaire: Psychometric properties. Sex Roles,
54, 469–483.
Arch Sex Behav (2008) 37:586–597 597
123