Availability of Data and Material
Not applicable.
Code Availability
Not applicable.
References
Bailey, J. M. (2019). How to ruin sex research [Guest Editorial]. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 48, 1007–1011.
Bailey, J. M., & Hsu, K. J. (2022). How autogynephilic are natal females? Archives of Sexual Behavior, 51, 3311–3318.
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. (2005). Early history of the concept of autogynephilia. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 34, 439–446.
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.
Dreger, A. D. (2008). 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, 37, 366–421.
Freund, K., & Blanchard, R. (1993). Erotic target location errors in male gender dysphorics, paedophiles, and fetishists. British Journal of Psychiatry, 162, 558–563.
Lawrence, A. A. (2013). Men trapped in men’s bodies: Narratives of autogynephilic transsexualism. Springer.
Lawrence, A. A. (2017). Autogynephilia and the typology of male-to-female transsexualism. European Psychologist, 22, 39–54.
Moser, C. (2009). Autogynephilia in women. Journal of Homosexuality, 56, 539–547.
Moser, C. (2022). A response to Bailey and Hsu (2022): It helps if you stop confusing gender dysphoria and transvestism [Letter to the Editor]. Archives of Sexual Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-022-02418-0
Serano, J. (2020). Autogynephilia: A scientific review, feminist analysis, and alternative ‘embodiment fantasies’ model. Sociological Review, 68(4), 763–778.
Serano, J. M., & Veale, J. F. (2022). Autogynephilia is a flawed framework for understanding female embodiment fantasies: A response to Bailey and Hsu (2022) [Letter to the Editor]. Archives of Sexual Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-022-02414-4
Veale, J. F. (2015). Comments on ethical reporting and interpretations of findings in Hsu, Rosenthal, and Bailey’s (2014) “The Psychometric Structure of Items Assessing Autogynephilia” [Letter to the Editor]. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44, 1743–1746.
Funding
Conru Foundation.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The author has no conflicts of interests or competing interests to declare.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bailey, J.M. Autogynephilia and Science: A Response to Moser (2022) and Serano and Veale (2022). Arch Sex Behav 52, 479–481 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-022-02482-6
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-022-02482-6