On the Science of Changing Sex

Profiles in Courage…

Posted in Confirming Two Type Taxonomy by Kay Brown on March 15, 2010

The recent Nuttbrock study gives us a snapshot of the current transfolk.  From this we may be able to test some of the long held stereotypes that have developed from various observers and authors over the years.  This study is not only the largest done to date, but it was also conducted in New York, possibly the most ethnically diverse city in the world.

One of the observations is that there is a difference between transkids and AGP ethnic mix, that is, that autogynephilic transfolk are more likely to be white, while “homosexual” transsexuals (HSTS) folk are more likely to be more mixed, with many ethnic minorities.

Another item is the widely observed comment that androphilic transsexuals transition far younger than AGPs.  This too is strongly supported by the Nuttbrock data.

First about age of transition, the Nuttbrock study did not directly measure this.  Instead, they used the age of starting on feminizing hormones, HRT (Hormone Replacement Therapy).  Sadly, they only broke it down to two age groupings, adolescent and adult.  It would have been interesting to have a further breakdown between ages 20-25, as many have observed that this is the upper limit for androphilic transition and the lower limit for AGP.  Age of beginning HRT for each sexual identity is shown below.  Strangely, they didn’t include any data on any of the “asexual” group.  Note that this gives a very strong signal.  In fact, out of 571 subjects in the study, only one (1) exclusively gynephilic identified person had started HRT as an adolescent!!  Data is given in percentage.

Self-reported:   “Homosexual”  “Heterosexual”    Bisexual    AGP
Sexuality            (androphilic)     (gynephilic)
Number:                  (n=391)           (n=71)                (n=96)
Ethnicity
White (n=141)          19.9                 40.2                      39.9          78.7
Black (n=120)          90.0                   2.5                        7.5           23.1
Hispanic (n=244)    91.0                   1.6                        7.4           22.8
Other (n=53)             62.3                 13.2                     24.5           27.9
Hormone Therapy
Adolescent(n=171) 91.8                 0.6                         7.6            14.0
Adult (n=242)           64.5               13.2                       22.2           42.6
None (n=158)            54.2               25.5                      20.2           59.5

Reworking the data from the above table so that we look at it from the other direction:
Start HRT:        Adolescent   Adult     None
Androphilic       40                40           20
Bisexual               14                 56           33
Gynephilic           1.4              44            56

From the data above, one can clearly see a very strong pattern, gynephilic individuals are extremely unlikely to have begun transition as an adolescent.  It is unfortunate that we can’t have a “Young Adult” (20-25) category, as I believe that would have given us a bit more resolution into the life arcs of the different groups.  We also see a very strong correlation between age of starting HRT and autogynephilia.  The older one is before starting HRT, the greater the likelihood of being autogynephilic.  The most striking inference from the data is that ethnically White transfolk are significantly more likely to be gynephilic and more likely to be autogynephilic.  Another important piece of the puzzle is that the highest percentage of erotic cross-dressing in the Nuttbrock study was reported by those who were identified as exclusively and intensely gynephilic at 82%, while the single lowest percentage reported erotic cross-dressing was 14% for those who had started HRT as adolescents.

Thus, we see that “young transitioners” are typically exclusively androphilic and not autogynephilic, and more likely to be a minority.  While “older transitioners” are typically gynephilic (including bisexual), autogynephilic, and more likely to be white.  Note that being White is not a bar to being an HSTS, young transitioner… they are just significanlty less likely to be.

Again the final word is that the Nuttbrock data absolutely, positively, with no reasonable doubt left, supports the two type taxonomy of MTF transsexuals, one type being exclusively androphilic that transitions quite young, and the other is autogynephilic and transitions later, as an adult.

Reference:

A Further Assessment of Blanchard’s Typology of Homosexual versus Non-Homosexual or Autogynephilic Gender Dysphoria, Nuttbrock, et al. Archives of Sexual Behavior
http://www.springerlink.com/content/b48tkl425217331j/

Comments Off on Profiles in Courage…

Love is love and not fade away… ♫♫

Posted in Confirming Two Type Taxonomy by Kay Brown on March 14, 2010

Many transfolk make the claim that data supporting Blanchard’s hypothesis has not been replicated.  Already I’ve shown how it had been replicated by both the Leavitt&Burger study and the Smith Study, which was further refined by Lawrence when she showed that the statistical signal strength is increased when one carefully sorts by sexual history.  Now, a recent paper has been added to the list: Nuttbrock, et. al.  This study is important because it was conducted in such a way as to “cast a wider and looser net” and has the largest sample size of any study (N=571).

First, the conclusion, so as not to lose my reader’s attention:  The Nuttbrock paper confirms, absolutely confirms, the Freund/Blanchard two type taxonomy for Male-To-Female (MTF) transsexuals, one that is exclusively androphilic and one that is autogynephilic. There can be no doubt now.

In analyzing the data of each paper, to compare the results, we must bear in mind both the similarities and the differences between each of the study’s sort method, as each will result in different signal strength’s for the same underlying populations.

Blanchard (N=163) sorted by using a two dimensional survey instrument that measured the level of androphilia and gynephilia on separate axis.  He then used a software program to find latent clusters in the two dimensional data.  Looking at the data, as I’ve already explored, we note that there was a tight cluster of exclusively androphilic individuals that yeilded a strong signal of a low number of autogynephilic individuals.  Also, Blanchard used another survey instrument, to measure autogynephila, which captured “dreamers”, individuals whose autogynephilia did not include erotic cross-dressing, as well as those who were classically erotic cross-dressers.

Leavitt and Berger used only Blanchard’s androphilia scale to find those who self-reported a strong erotic interest in men.  Thus, it did not separate out those who would have scored high on gynephilia as well.  However, as I showed in an earlier post, Leavitt&Berger did ask the all important question about sexual history, so I was able to demonstrate that the more a given group of transsexuals had had a sexual history of attraction to women (gynephilia), the more that group reported erotic cross-dressing.

The Smith study (N=111) used no other criteria to sort other than to ask, post-transition, whether the subject was exclusively attracted to men or not.  This binary sort did not separate out those who had had a sexual history of attraction to women.

Lawrence took the Smith study data set and further sorted out those who self-reported being androphilic but had a sexual history of being attracted to women, as being non-homosexual.

Nuttbrock, et al.  followed the Smith example and used self-report, but with Blanchard’s original four categories, sorting into exclusively androphilic, bisexual, exclusively gynephilic, and asexual.  I must emphasize, this was self-reported sexual identity, not actual sexual history.  Interestingly, the study, which was funded to explore risk factors for sexually transmitted diseases, did in fact study, in great depth, sexual history, but did not use that as a sort method (as was done in Lawrence).  Another important difference between the Nuttbrock study and the others is that while all of the other subjects were from a gender reassignment clinic seeking somatic feminization, those in the Nuttbrock study were obtained through advertisements and direct contact, in the community at large.  This means that potentially, an important personality type may have been missed, as it has been remarked that asexual transsexuals are typically schizotypal (fancy word for non-social, shy, loner).  It also means that many of the subjects are not strongly motivated toward somatic feminization, instead simply identifying as “transgender” or “gender-queer”.  Indeed, 28% of the subjects are not even taking feminizing hormones.  These differences may change the absolute numbers in some fashion, however, we still expect to see a similar statistical effect if the two type taxonomy is correct, and indeed, the data clearly shows just that.  The percentage of subjects reporting erotic cross-dressing  (and other expressions of autogynephilia, in Blanchard’s study) for each type in each study is shown below here:

“Type”     Nuttbrock  Smith    Lawrence    L&B    “Avoidant”  Blanchard

HSTS                    23%       31%        15%            36%          7%              15%

Non-HSTS         73%       63%        60%          N/A         N/A           ~75%

Given that Nuttbrock and Smith are using similar self-reported sexuality, we would expect that these two studies would have both similar sorting efficiency and thus similar signal strengths, and we do.  In fact, Nuttbrock’s is stronger, but not by much.  Although not provided, I would predict that if we had access to the Nutbrock data set, we could resort it in the same fashion that Lawrence did with the Smith data set, and that Leavitt and Berger accidentally did for the “avoidant” group, and get a similarly increased signal strength.

It is important when reviewing the above data, that as in all sociological studies of taxa, because we have not yet found a perfect instrument by which to sort the taxa, and do not have a perfect instrument to detect autogynephilia, we are only able to statistically tease out the two types.  After all, we are asking people to be self-reflective, honest, and accurate, about something that is very personal and as yet poorly understood.  But about the existence of the two types, there is no doubt.

Thus, Blanchard’s taxonomy is very much alive and well… and won’t be fading away.

Please read additional entries and analysis:

Profiles in Courage

Scientific Sodoku

Time Will Tell

Scientific Sodoku II

References:

A Further Assessment of Blanchard’s Typology of Homosexual versus Non-Homosexual or Autogynephilic Gender Dysphoria, Nuttbrock, et al. Archives of Sexual Behavior
http://www.springerlink.com/content/b48tkl425217331j/

Typology of male-to-female transsexualism, Archives of Sexual Behavior
Blanchard, R.,
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4004548?dopt=Abstract

Transsexual subtypes: Clinical and theoretical significance
Yolanda L.S. Smith, Stephanie H.M. van Goozen, A.J. Kuiper, Peggy T. Cohen-Kettenis
http://akikos-planet.cocolog-nifty.com/blog/files/psychiatry_research__transsexual_subtypes_clinical_and_theoretical_significance.pdf

Clinical Patterns Among Male Transsexual Candidates with Erotic Interest in Males
Frank Leavitt, Ph.D., Jack C. Berger, M.D.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/fp15j71n57474k1l/

Male-to-female transsexual subtypes: Sexual arousal with cross-dressing and physical measurements
Lawrence, A.
http://www.psy-journal.com/article/S0165-1781(07)00200-4/abstract

Comments Off on Love is love and not fade away… ♫♫

Counting Noses…

Posted in Confirming Two Type Taxonomy by Kay Brown on February 13, 2010

Among those who acknowledge that there are indeed autogynephilic males who seek and obtain somatic feminization there is a common belief that they must be the odd man out, so to speak.  However, the data does not support this belief.  On the contrary, the data says quite the opposite.  Consider the 2005 Netherlands study, looking at self-report of sexual arousal to cross-dressing, by definition, an expression of autogynephilic arousal.  Those who report Erotic Cross Dressing are nearly half of the total population:

ECD  46  (45%)

Not  56  (55%)

However, if we look at those who self-report being presently gynephilic, we see that percentage climb significantly:

ECD  28  (64%)

Not  16  (36%)

Fully two thirds of those transsexuals who self-identify as gynephilic readily admit to being autogynephilic.  This is hardly a small handful!  In addition, Blanchard has shown that many transgendered males who state that they do not have sexual arousal to cross-dressing, none-the-less experience physiological arousal as measured by increases in penile volume when listening to narration of cross-dressing literature.  Thus, for a number of TS folk, the self-report of no arousal is likely unintentionally inaccurate, leading to smaller reported numbers.  If we also consider that acknowledging erotic cross-dressing is potentially shame provoking and that some individuals may also believe that such admissions may hurt one’s chances of receiving medical services, they may fail to report it. Further, this is only an assessment of erotic cross-dressing.  There are also TS folk who acknowledge other forms of autogynephilic arousal which do not include the use of cross-dressing.  Some report arousal to the thought of being or becoming female in an of itself.  They find the thought of being female, of having female anatomy, sexually arousing and may use such imagery as an aid to arousal during masturbation or even partnered sex.  If an individual uses autogynephilic ideation in which she is a nude female, use of cross-dressing is not going to useful, nor reported.  The Netherlands study did not capture this data, so we must count these percentages as a lower bound to the percentage of transsexuals who are autogynephilic.

Contrast this with Lawrence’s resorted Netherlands (Smith) exclusively androphilic group combined with the group from Leavitt and Burger (L&B) who also had no sexual experience with women:

Study:  Smith         L&B               Total

ECD   5 (15%)     1 (7%)         6   (12%)

Not  29 (85%)   14 (93%)   43  (88%)

Thus, when we look at those individuals who self-identify as androphilic and that they have not had sexual experience with women, we see a very different pattern.  Very few report erotic cross-dressing.  We know that there are individuals who originally self-identified as gynephilic before transition, but report that they are are self-identified as androphilic post-transition.  (How this happens is perhaps a subject for another post?)  We also know that there are transsexuals who self-identify as asexual, who Blanchard has shown have similar levels of self-reported autogynephilic arousal as those who self-identify as bisexual and gynephilic, so it isn’t a stretch to imagine that there would be a small number of TS folk who would be more like a cross between the asexual and bisexual group, having no experience with women, but still self-identifying as androphilic.  Indeed, we see that in Leavitt and Burger’s study, that there are those who self-identify as being androphilic but have never actually had sex with a man! This may explain the small number of self-identified autogynephilic “androphilic” transsexuals.

In addition to showing a significantly reduced number of individuals reporting erotic cross-dressing, exclusively androphilic transsexuals show a distinctly different clinical profile.  They have been obviously feminine from early childhood and begin living full time as women at a much younger age than those who are not exclusively androphilic.  In fact, the clinical presentation difference is so noticeable, as to lead us to conclude that they are a distinctly different population, with a different etiology.

If we take these differences between the two groups, and the similarities within each group, we can create a description of the “prototypical” member of each.  While no one individual will conform to the prototype in all respects, it still has clinical value to describe each.

The prototypical feminine androphilic transsexual was called a “sissy” by her peers growing up.  She avoided rough & tumble activities.  Her primary social circle consisted of one or two girls.  She actively participated in girls games and imaginary play.  Her parents were embarrassed by her femininity, and may or may not have sought professional help in trying to discourage her behavior.  As a young teen, she became interested in girls fashion and make-up, often exploring how she might look as a girl by dressing up and experimenting with make-up.  This did not involve erotic cross-dressing.  She had crushes on boys at school.  Her peers thought she might be homosexual.  She was hassled, perhaps even bullied, by homophobic boys, but otherwise was reasonably popular in her chosen circle.  She was considered very neat and well dressed in boy’s clothes.  She sought out opportunities to interact with small children and infants, taking on babysitting jobs.  As she approached adulthood, looking at her own nature, her potential future, both romantic and economic, made a rational decision to transition to living as a girl so as to grow up to be a woman socially.  Her family may or may not have disowned her in late adolescence.  As she is naturally feminine, she found that she was socially and romantically more successful as a woman.  She actively dated men while pre-op, but assiduously avoided direct contact with her penis, finding that emotionally uncomfortable.  She lived several years as a woman, taking feminizing hormones, before having SRS to improve her sex life, replacing genitalia that she didn’t use with those that she did.

The prototypical autogynephilic transsexual was accepted as a boy as a child, though she wasn’t the most masculine.  She was often a “loner”, finding her hobbies and reading to be more rewarding, but still willing and ready to participate in rough & tumble play.  She often envied girls and observed them more often than most masculine boys.  As she entered puberty, she began erotic cross-dressing in private, often masturbating while dressed, usually with lingerie.  She found this shameful and hid her cross-dressing as best she could.  She entertained thoughts of living as a woman, often in very idealized situations.  As a young adult, she dated women, often finding it necessary to imagine that she was female to “perform”.  She typically hid this fact from her dates.  She fell in love and found that the previously growing desire to live as a woman abated for a while.  She married and had children.  Her need to cross-dress… and use autogynephilic ideation grew, as the first blush of their romance matured into committed love.  She agonized about it obsessively, trying alternatively to push it out of her thoughts and trying to appease it by cross-dressing.  At one point, perhaps in her early 30s, or in her late 50s, a set-back or other significant personal change brought all of these feelings to the fore… and she made the fateful decision that she could no longer ignore her sexuality.  After having tried to ignore the cognitive dissonance between her successful social identity as a man, husband, and father, and her obligatory autogynephilic image of being female, concluded that the female image is her “true” image.  She then made steps to begin counseling with a gender therapist, obtained prescription for feminizing hormones, and then began the painful steps to living full time as a “transsexual”, since she had too many social connections who know of her previous status as a man.  She had SRS within a short time of nominally living as a woman, as she was impatient, feeling like she had waited long enough in her previous life as a man.  Her wife may or may not have demanded a divorce.

Again, although recognizing not every individual will fit the prototype (lest we fall into believing stereotypes), these profiles still describe a large number.  However, it should be noted that feminine androphilic transsexuals are much more likely to be like the prototypic description than autogynephilic type.  There is simply more variation in the autogynephilic population in their responses to their condition.  Having described the prototypical autogynephilic transsexual, we can see that even those who report, nay, insist, that they do not experience autogynephilic arousal, still closely fit the clinical profile.  We can, as makes sense in evidence based medicine, assume if an individual fits the clinical profile, then they belong to that class.  Indeed, common sense would demand, that if they “walk like a duck”…

Although difficult to sort out, I am interested in trying to calculate how many folk are likely feminine androphilic (homosexual) transsexuals (HSTS) and how many are non-exclusively androphilic, likely autogynephilic (AGP) transsexuals, as percentages.  If we make the assumption that Lawrence accidentally excluded the same number of feminine androphilic transsexuals as the number of AGPs she accidentally included, we can ignore the small number of self-reported AGP TS folk in her androphilic sample.  (I believe this is valid because human lives are messy.  One can imagine that under certain circumstances an MTF transkid may have been briefly married, and thus accidently excluded.  e.g. I personally know an MTF transkid who, because of parental expectations and community pressure, married her best friend, both were still virgins… that “marriage” lasted only long enough to find out that this had been a very bad idea, and ended with them jointly, happily, hiring a lawyer to process the paperwork.)  This would give us a rough estimate of the ratio:

Transkid    37  (33%)

AGP             75  (66%)

Thus, we find that the majority of transsexuals are autogynephilic, likely out-numbering the feminine androphilic transsexuals two to one.  However, if we assume that Lawrence did not accidentally exclude any transkid, then we must remove all of those that report erotic cross-dressing, as well as removing those that didn’t report either way just for good measure:

Transkid    29  (26%)

AGP             80  (74%)

Which would mean that AGPs out number MTF transkids by three to one.  It could even be higher, if several of those self-identifying as androphilic had failed to report their autogynephilic arousal.  If we assume that the number that reported is the same as those that didn’t report, that would move another five from the Trankid to the AGP catagory:

Transkids    24  (22%)

AGP                85  (78%)

Which is about four to one.  From personal experience, over the years, this number seems more realistic to me.  But in any case, we have numbers that range from 45% that absolutely admit to being AGP up to 80% that are likely to be.  Far from being rare, the autogynephilic transsexual is the majority, no matter how you slice it.

Addendum 4/2/2013:

The ratio of AGP vs. exclusively androphilic transwomen varies by culture, as Anne Lawrence has shown.  The Anglo-American culture has the highest ratio and more extended family (collectivist) cultures have the lowest.  See the this essay for more information.

References:

Male-to-female transsexual subtypes: Sexual arousal with cross-dressing and physical measurements
Lawrence, A.
http://akikos-planet.cocolog-nifty.com/blog/files/maletofemale_transsexual_subtypes_sexual_arousal_with_crossdressing_and_physical_measurements_319320.pdf

Transsexual subtypes: Clinical and theoretical significance
Yolanda L.S. Smith, Stephanie H.M. van Goozen, A.J. Kuiper, Peggy T. Cohen-Kettenis
http://akikos-planet.cocolog-nifty.com/blog/files/psychiatry_research__transsexual_subtypes_clinical_and_theoretical_significance.pdf

Clinical Patterns Among Male Transsexual Candidates with Erotic Interest in Males
Frank Leavitt, Ph.D., Jack C. Berger, M.D.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/fp15j71n57474k1l/

 

 

Comments Off on Counting Noses…

Brideshead Revisted…

Posted in Confirming Two Type Taxonomy by Kay Brown on January 30, 2010

…Or reanalyzing old data sets

Anne Lawrence revisited the data set from a Netherlands study of the differences between “homosexual” and “non-homosexual” types of transsexuals.  She suspected that the self-report of sexual orientation that was used in the study is inadequate at separating the two types of MTF transsexuals.

Note that by resorting those that had reported being attracted to men and having been previously married and/or reporting sexual experience with women to being non-homosexual, she achieved a stronger signal strength in the newly winnowed homosexual group, with respect to sexual arousal while cross-dressed:

Sort:       Old                New

AGP     18 (31%)        5 (15%)
Not      40 (69%)       29 (85%)

Compare that data to the Berger & Leavitt results for those who had by inclusion in the study had indicated that they too were attracted to men, and who had accidentally been sorted into a group which had no sexual history with women owing to their being separated into a category defined as being “avoidant”, that is of being sexually active with men, but of not using their penis in their relations with men:

AGP      1 (7%)
Not     14 (93%)

Thus, we see a very similar result.  I’m not sure if the stronger signal found by using this test is, mathematically speaking, “significant” given the very small sample, but it sure is similar, and perhaps really would be stronger if we got a larger sample to confirm it.  Also, in the same vein of confirmation, I was curious if I added all of the data of Berger&Leavitt’s data set together would I get similar results as the Netherlands study, given that they would both then have the same sorting category, of self-reported interest in men:

AGP     29 (36%)
Not     52 (64%)

Amazingly, the two are indeed almost exactly the same, given that we can expect some noise to be present in such small samples.  Thus, I believe that we have a confirmation of the hypothesis that self-report alone can not be used to separate genuinely homosexual from non-homosexual transsexuals.  We also have further evidence that non-homosexual transsexuals exhibit autogynephilic arousal while homosexual transsexuals do not.

References:

Lawrence, A., “Male-to-female transsexual subtypes: Sexual arousal with cross-dressing and physical measurements”

Yolanda L.S. Smith, Stephanie H.M. van Goozen, A.J. Kuiper, Peggy T. Cohen-Kettenis, “Transsexual subtypes: Clinical and theoretical significance”

Clinical Patterns Among Male Transsexual Candidates with Erotic Interest in Males
Frank Leavitt, Ph.D., Jack C. Berger, M.D.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02442350

Comments Off on Brideshead Revisted…

Sex, Lies, and Videotape…

Posted in Confirming Two Type Taxonomy by Kay Brown on December 28, 2009

… well, maybe not videotape.

One of the problems causing confusion in recognition of the two types is that autogynephilic transsexuals will, to first appearances either lie, or at the very least, distort their current, real sexual interests.  The reasons for this apparent lying is worthy of its own study.  But, one reason is usually that the AGP transsexual is under the erroneous impression that it is required to get needed medical services.  They may feel that that an androphilic, feminine, transsexual will find it easier to access services, so may deliberately distort their own presentation to more closely match that.  But, I feel that that is far too simplistic.  It is far more likely that at that point in time, the distortion is actually accepted as part of one’s own personal narrative, in order to feel better about oneself, a defense against shame of being autogynephilic.  Further, in at least one area of their lives, they may be expressing a wish about themselves, rather than an actuality.  They may wish that they are more like the younger, prettier, more feminine androphilic transsexual.  They may also do so because they want to be “real women”… and in their minds, “real women” are straight, primarily interested in men.  Or, it may not be a serious distortion of the understanding of themselves, but rather their understanding of themselves is what is limited.  To be specific, if an autogynephilic transsexual incorporates the ability to attract straight men into her autogynephilic ideation, she is attracted to men, right?  Uh… no… she is still simply AGP, men have become a prop in her sexual ideation of being a woman.  (No pulling punches, remember?)

So, if AGPs often do not report their current sexual interests in a reliable way, how is science to separate the two types when needed.  Oh… and… how can we be sure that they actually are distortions?

Ok, Please read the paper at the  following link, then come back:

{Link is dead… I’ll add it back when I find a new one}

The authors, Berger and Leavitt have fallen for a trap set by the distortions of the types above, and included many AGPs who are not in fact, primarily interested in men.  But, they have accidentally given us the data to allow us to separate them.  And by doing so, further demonstrate that there are in fact the two completely different group.  Note that the author’s mistake was in using Kurt Freund’s Androphilia Scale, as modified by Blanchard.  This instrument focuses on self-report, rather than on actual sexual history.  It is my hypothesis, that using actual history is the only reliable method of differentiating real from potentially distorting self-reports of sexual orientation among self-identified transsexuals.  Fortunately, we have that sexual history.  So, let me reorganize the data:

Type:             Avoidant            Pleasure     Inactive

Number                 n=15              n=30         n=36
Age                          29.9                32.8          34.5
SD                              4.2                 7.5             9.6

Full
time:                         4.9                 3.1           0.73
Transition:             25               29.7            33.7
Married:                    0%            23%             47%
Penis “OK”             6.7%           83.3%         33%
Fetishistic              6.7%           33.3%         50%
Sex w/ female:       0%             33.3%         58%
Attraction to
females:                     0%             33.3%        70%
Male toys               16%              46%            50%
Male playmates   16%              37%           47%

This paper was originally meant to explore the sexual practices of Blanchard’s “Homosexual Transsexual”.  But Blanchard had only managed to statistically separate them out.  But, if we examine the above data, we can see that Berger & Leavitt have managed to further separate them.  Note that the $64K question has been asked, how much sexual experience with women did each have.

Looking at such small numbers, the standard deviation (SD) is almost the same as the range.  So, the Avoidants ranged in age at transition from 20 to 30, the Pleasure from 22 to 36 and the Inactive from 24 to 42.  Based on the fact that half of the Inactive had been married, and that they have not ever had sex with men, I would strongly argue that many, if not most, of L&B’s “Inactive” are AGP.   Finally, fully 50% of the Inactive admit to having fetishistic arousal, that is… that fully 50% essentially admit that they are in fact AGP!  Note the number who admit to sexual history with women is nearly the same as those that admit to AGP arousal.  In fact, the statistical correlation, the most powerful method of determining a relationship, is 0.999036, so close to a perfect 1.0 as to essentially be so, given measurement and rounding error!

Note that one of the Avoidant group admits that they don’t hate their penis… and that one admits that they have had AGP arousal.  Perhaps that is the same person?  We might even wonder about that person’s age… what if that was the oldest at transition?  That would pull down the average age at transition to below 25 and the range wouldn’t go as high.  Sadly, this paper doesn’t give us the details by which we could make such an adjustment.  The same analysis is possible for the Pleasure group.  This is strongly in agreement to our expectation that Blanchard showed that his “Homosexual Transsexual” group almost always transition before age 25.

Note the similarity in the numbers between admitted AGP arousal and having been married.  Again, sadly we don’t have the data for whether those that had been previously married would be the same group, or highly overlapping group, as had admitted to being AGP.  But, statistically, this could be a safe bet.

Again, looking at the Pleasure group, If only 33% of them are actually feminine androphilic type, the age at transition may or may not fall below age 25.  We simply don’t have enough data from this paper to determine that.  There appears *very* strong evidence that AGPs, and only AGPs, are comfortable with having sex with women.  Finally, the similar results of the MMPI and DAP of the Pleasure and Inactive groups suggest that they are the same and radically different than the Avoidant group.

This data clearly shows that there are two groups, that one is clearly uninterested in having sex with women, actively interested in men, transitions younger, and exhibited more femininity as a child.  The other is interested in women, is older at transition, and was not feminine as a child.

Q.E.D.

Comments Off on Sex, Lies, and Videotape…