Scientific Sodoku
A careful analysis of a large study like the Nuttbrock, et al. gives us a chance to have fun with numbers. From this may glean additional insights. It took a bit of doing, recalculating, but I was able find the data on the Asexual population and add it to the table I showed earlier. Consider the results:
Self-reported Homosexual Heterosexual Bisexual Asexual AGP AGP
Sexuality (androphilic) (gynephilic) Actual Expected
Number: (n=391) (n=71) (n=96) (n=12)
Autogynephilia 23.0 81.7 67.7 66.7
Ethnicity
White (n=150) 18.6 38.0 37.3 6.0 78.7 64.4
Black (n=120) 90.0 2.5 7.5 0.0 23.1 27.8
Hispanic (n=246) 90.2 1.6 7.3 0.8 22.8 27.2
Other (n=54) 61.1 13.0 24.1 1.9 27.9 46.8
From the percentage that of each sexual identity report erotic cross-dressing, we can calculate an expected percentage for each ethnicity based upon the relative number of each sexual identity, assuming that ethnicity should have no effect on the likelihood of a given sexual identity group reporting such autogynephilic arousal to cross-dressing. However, looking at the expected and the actual percentages, we see a very striking pattern. Our assumption that ethnicity has no effect isn’t supported. In fact, we see a far different pattern in that the White population reports far higher than expected amounts of autogynephilia, while the other ethnicities report significantly lower amounts than expected. A higher number of white folk reported experiencing autogynephilic arousal, even when controlling for sexual identity. Also of interest is that most of the Asexual group (75%) are White, when we would have expected only 25% of them to have been White if there had been no correlation with ethnicity.
leave a comment