Evidence Against a Typology: A Taxometric Analysis of the Sexuality of Male-to-Female Transsexuals
Previous theories and research have suggested there are two distinct types of male-to-female (MF) transsexuals and these types can be distinguished by their sexuality. Using the scales Attraction to Femininity in Males, Core Autogynephilia, Autogynephilic Interpersonal Fanasy, and Attraction to Transgender Fiction as indicator variables, taxometric analysis was applied to an online-recruited sample of 308 MF transsexuals to investigate whether such a distinction is justified. In accordance with previous research findings, MF transsexuals categorized as “nonandrophilic” scored significantly higher on Core Autogynephilia than did those categorized as “androphilic”; they also scored significantly higher on Attraction to Femininity in Males and Attraction to Transgender Fiction. Results of one of the taxometric procedures, L-Mode, gave slightly more support for a dimensional, rather than taxonic (two-type), latent structure. Results of the two other taxometric procedures, MAMBAC and MAXCOV, showed greater support for a dimensional latent structure. Although these results require replication with a more representative sample, they show little support for a taxonomy, which contradicts previous theory that has suggested MF transsexuals’ sexuality is typological.
KeywordsAutogynephilia Transsexuals Sexuality Gender dysphoria Taxometric analysis
- Gómez-Gil, E., Esteva, I., Carrasco, R., Almaraz, M. C., Pasaro, E., Salamero, M., & Guillamon, A. (2011). Birth order and ratio of brothers to sisters in Spanish transsexuals. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 505–510.Google Scholar
- Lawrence, A. A. (2010). A validation of Blanchard’s typology: Comment on Nuttbrock et al. (2010) [Letter to the Editor]. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 1011–1015.Google Scholar
- Lawrence, A. A., & Bailey, J. M. (2009). Transsexual groups in Veale et al. (2008) are “autogynephilic” and “even more autogynephilic” [Letter to the Editor]. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38, 173–175.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- Meehl, P. E. (1973). MAXCOV-HITMAX: A taxonomic search method for loose genetic syndromes. In P. E. Meehl (Ed.), Psychodiagnosis: Selected papers (pp. 200–224). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
- Meehl, P. E., & Yonce, L. J. (1994). Taxometric analysis: I. Detecting taxonicity with two quantitative indicators using means above and below a sliding cut (MAMBAC procedure). Psychological Reports, 74, 1059–1274.Google Scholar
- Nuttbrock, L., Bockting, W. O., Mason, M., Hwahng, S., Rosenblum, A., Macri, M., & Becker, J. (2011a). A further assessment of Blanchard’s typology of homosexual versus non-homosexual or autogynephilic gender dysphoria. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 247–257.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Nuttbrock, L., Bockting, W., Rosenblum, A., Mason, M., & Hwahng, S. (2011b). Sexual arousal associated with private as compared to public feminine dressing among male-to-female transgender persons: A further response to Lawrence (2011) [Letter to the Editor]. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 1093–1096.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Ruscio, J. (2009). Taxometric programs for the R computing environment: User’s manual. Retrieved from http://www.taxometricmethod.com/TaxProgManual%202009-05-15.pdf.
- Ruscio, J., Haslam, N., & Ruscio, A. M. (2006). Introduction to the taxometric method: A practical guide. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Veale, J. F. (2005). Love of oneself as a woman: An investigation into the sexuality of transsexual and other women. Unpublished master’s thesis, Massey University, Auckland, New Zealand.Google Scholar