Gay Men’s Hands Tell Us About Their Erotic Role

Thirteen years ago, I wrote an essay on how scientists had been frustrated using the 2D:4D digit ratio to demonstrate that gays and transsexuals had anomalous pre-natal exposure to androgens. They had gotten very confusing, contradictory results. I’ve been following the research hoping that some headway would be made. Well, maybe we have.

First was the confusion of not segregating and analyzing transsexual subjects data based on etiology / sexual orientation. We may now have found a similar issue with looking at gay men. There is strong evidence that there is an etiological difference between subsets of androphilic males that has correlates with preferred erotic role, specifically, preferring receptive anal sex vs. everything else.

There have also had some scientists questioning whether the 2D:4D is really about androgen exposure at all. Some data suggests that the differences within, but not across the sexes, may be due to other factors such as stress induced cortisol exposure, etc. But for our purposes, that does not matter. What matters is that when we see data that differentiates between populations and correlates with other markers for those populations, we have something interesting to note and explore. Such is the case with the Swift-Gallant paper on 2D:4D difference between tops and bottoms.

“A growing body of work indicates that anal sex role (ASR) preferences may serve as a proxy for subgroups of gay men who differ in development and gender conformity. Thus, in the present study we asked whether gay men with different ASR preferences may differ in 2D:4D. We hypothesized that gay men with a Bottom ASR (receptive), who tend to be more gender nonconforming (GNC), would have a higher (more female-typical) average digit ratio than ASR Tops (insertive), who tend to be more gender conforming. We predicted that gay men with a Versatile ASR preference (i.e., preference for insertive and receptive) would be intermediate between these two groups in both GNC and 2D:4D.”

The data they gathered is remarkable. The statistical difference between the tops and bottoms was d=0.63 for their right hands. Compare this to the difference between control men and women (from another study) at d=0.76. Thus the difference is nearly as large as that between men and women. This is a dramatic result!

They found that versatiles, those that both top and bottom were intermediate between the two. There are two hypotheses that would explain this. One is that this is a dimensional trait that smoothly varies between tops and bottoms. The other is that this is in fact, taxonic, and those that self-labeled as “versatile” were in fact an admixture of the taxonomically distinct tops and bottoms. The data presented does not allow us to determine this.

I’m predicting that the later hypothesis is correct, based on the fact that earlier work supported that, especially since the obligate bottoms appear to be the only subset of androphilic males who exhibit the Fraternal Birth Order Effect.

Further Reading:

2010 Essay on 2D:4D frustrations

Essay on Etiological Differences between Tops & Bottoms

Essay on Socio-Economic Status effecting 2D:4D differences

Essay on 2D:4D study that supports transsexual taxonomy.

References:

Swift-Gallant, A., Di Rita, V., Major, C.A. et al. Differences in digit ratios between gay men who prefer receptive versus insertive sex roles indicate a role for prenatal androgen. Sci Rep 11, 8102 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-87338-0

One’s Job or Education Do NOT Define Either HSTS Nor AGP Transwomen

— Just as one’s job or education do NOT define men nor women.

For over a decade, I’ve been writing on the Science of Changing Sex, explaining how the science supports the Two Type Taxonomy. This after spending years researching, teaching, and writing about our history. (Trivia: many of the current texts on our history have borrowed rather heavily from that earlier work. No, I’m not upset by that, but pleased it has become so well known.) That after having worked as an early transsexual rights activist, including joining with several other transsexuals to form the ACLU Transsexual Rights Committee in 1980. This early work almost certainly set the stage for later activists to join in that work.) Sadly, while there has been progress in understanding the nature of the Two Type Taxonomy, there is a continuing denialist opposition to it. That opposition has not restricted itself to respectful scientific arguments, but often descends into personal attacks, calumny, and character assassination.

Please Read “What The Next Wave of Transgender Activists Need To Know”

One of the silliest of these is based on mistaken sexist stereotypes about the differences between the two types, sadly started by several of the top sexologists that researched the taxonomy and support further research and education, to wit, that Autogynephilic (AGP) transwomen are very likely to be “geeky” and become scientists, engineers, and technologists while Homosexual (HSTS) transwomen are not. This is based on the totally erroneous idea that straight men are more interested in these careers than either women or gay men, by nature. The other false stereotype is that HSTS are too stupid to have such careers, having lower IQ than average. This too was started by an offhand personal obsersation by a sexologist.

Please Read “Stereotypes Are Dangerous” and “The Right Stuff”

The reality is that women are just as likely to be interested in such educations and careers as men, when given the chance and not discouraged from doing so. And HSTS show the same average IQ as the general population, though very rare, there are HSTS with very high IQs.

Please Read “Tech Bros and Silicon Valley’s Misogyny Problem”

From the graph, we can see how women, when the sexist limits on their enrollment in the physical sciences, legal, and medical fields were reduced, the percentage of women seeking degrees in those fields climbed and now has reached near parity with men. Computer Science is the only field where the enrollment initially climbed, then fell off. It was NOT that women didn’t like the field. It was and remains a problem of a toxic culture in computer programming where immature, misogynistic, young men make studying and working in the field a hostile environment for women.

Women have long wanted to be scientists and technologists. Consider these women: Ada Lovelace who worked with Babbage on the concepts of computer programming before computers existed; Maria Sklowdowska Curie who was awarded, not one, but two Nobel prizes in physics and chemistry; her daughter Irène Joliet-Curie who also won a Nobel prize in chemistry; Lise Meitner, who should have won the Nobel Prize for the discovery of atomic fission that led to nuclear power. The list is long. Although these are extraordinary women for their accomplishments, they are not unusual for being interested in science.

I would argue that gay men are also just as likely to be interested in these fields, though we don’t have as much documentation to prove it. But consider Alan Turing, one of the most celebrated mathematicians and computer pioneers of the 20th Century, was gay. Today, we have Tim Cook, CEO of Apple, Inc., one of the most successful Silicon Valley companies. The most amazingly brilliant technologist who ever reported to me was an undergraduate summer intern from MIT in the early ’80s. When he later came out, he asked me if I knew he was gay before. “I knew the day I hired you!”. He later earned a Ph.D., published a textbook on robotics, and became a Silicon Valley executive.

The stereotype of autogynephilic transwomen being geeky also fails to hold water when we look at them and note how many have careers that are not at all “geeky”, but are stereotypically male/masculine coded like law enforcement, military, construction, transportation, etc. Then there are the number who are living in poverty and squalor because they have no marketable skills acceptable to (accepting of) women post-transition.

Thus, women and gay men like and pursue education and careers in the physical sciences and technology just as much as straight men. But straight men will avoid fields that are coded as “women’s work” or feminine/”gay”. Autogynephilic transwomen notoriously have the same aversion pre-transition. So, while we can NOT use pursuing an education in the sciences or working in technology as a useful marker for autogynephilia, nor as exclusionary of being homosexual (transsexual or not); we can use female coded careers and jobs, especially those pursued before transition, as likely exclusionary of being autogynephilic and also increasing the odds that such an individual is homosexual (transsexual or not).

Back to the issue of what does define and differentiate the two types of transwomen. Very simply, their sexuality. One is gynephilic and autogynephilic, the other is androphilic (homosexual w/ respect to their natal sex). Nothing else defines the two types.

However, there are indicia that highly correlate with the two types. In my years of examining the science literature I have found seventeen independent lines of evidence that correlate and supports the two type taxonomy. None of them are educational / career interests. Some of these correlates can only be used at the population level, but several can be used at the individual level: gender atypical behavior as a pre-adolescent, age of onset of gender dysphoria, age of social transition, and of course, definitionally, sexual history (showing actual sexual orientation).

Please Read the first few entries in the “FAQ on the Science of Changing Sex”

The Personal Is Political

Back to the problem of the denialism and of the calumnious attacks, specifically, those attacks on me. In an ironically revealing, one might even say, self-own, they simultaneously claim that there is no two type taxonomy and nearly in the same breath tell me to shut up because I must be AGP as well because of my interest in the sciences and my long career in Silicon Valley! But as I showed above, that does NOT define nor differentiate the two types. But if one examines my bio, one can find all the indicia needed to determine which etiological type I fall into.

Please Read “About”

Consider this section to be an expansion of my bio, focused on those indicia. As I said in my bio, the only honorable defense against lies is the truth.

My mother, during an interview with Dr. Fisk at the Stanford Gender Dysphoria Clinic, complained bitterly about my early gender atypical behavior, under the false impression that he would be attempting to “cure” me. I was but 17 years old at the time.

“I have known for years that he wanted to be a girl.  But I thought that was [morally] wrong.  He was very different than his brothers.  All their friends were boys.  His were always girls,” naming several of my friends over the years, starting with those when I was five and six years old, but couldn’t remember my friend who had been my only guest on my tenth birthday.  “Marian,” I interjected for the only time during the whole interview.  “He was always very prissy.  He would walk clear around even the shallowest puddles.  When he was little, I would put him in clean clothes on Monday and on Friday they would still be clean.”  She confirmed that I had been sent to a therapist about my behavior when I was ten years old and again when I was 15/16.

When I was nine years old, at the end of 4th grade, our elementary school was planning one of those embarrassing shows where students perform for their parents and friends. I’m sure you know the type I’m talking about. I was cast for a part but when told the details of the part, I had a total emotional melt-down, tears, loud drama, refusing to take a male role. It set off a chain of interviews and behind the scene discussions with my parents that I only learned about years later. The next school year, I was required, by the school district psychologist, to be sent to a very special therapist some miles from our home, to “play” and talk with Dr. Peters every Friday afternoon. Interesting thing about the playroom. It had only boy’s toys, which held zero interest for me. Sometimes, we played chess, but otherwise, we only talked. Why?

Please Read, “Shameful History of Reparative Therapy of Transsexual and Gay Children”

I’ve already disclosed a few details about how in Jr. High, I spent my time at the library reading about girl’s fashion, make-up, etc. I also practiced putting on make-up, borrowing my mother’s, given that we had the same coloring, etc. I was always careful to put everything back exactly as I found it and to wash my face carefully, but she knew I was doing it. She just couldn’t catch me at it.

One of the stories my mother would tell other mothers, often in my presence to try to embarrass me, was about the day she was sitting out on the lawn pulling weeds when she saw me at a distance walking home from school. When I saw her, I discretely adjusted the stack of books I was carrying (female style, books against my chest, if you must know), sadly not discretely enough. She would tell her listeners that she was convinced that I must be bringing home and attempting to hide, pornography, so she later searched my room. What she found instead was a book on manners and etiquette for teenagers, mostly for girls.

When I was fourteen, my freshman year in high school, Debra asked me to the Sadie Hawkins dance. I loved dancing and she was one of my friends so I agreed. A couple weeks after the dance, she invited me over to her house. Her mother wasn’t home as I had expected her to be. Debra went into her bedroom and changed out of school clothes and into a very revealing, slinky dress. She literally draped herself across me as I sat on the front room couch. Disturbed, I pushed her off of me and jumped up off the couch. She tried to cajole me into rejoining her on the couch but I refused, as I paced the floor. She gave up and changed back into more modest jeans and top. The next day, as school ended, she again invited me over to her house, but I turned her down. Debra broke into tears and ran away. We never spoke again.

During the next summer, just after I turned 15, I took square dancing classes with one of my female friends. I paid special attention to the girl’s part, intending to attend square dances as a girl, and dance with the cute boys. My friend supported this plan and lent me one of her square dancing outfits. My mother discovered the plot and forbid me to attend any more lessons and forced the return of the outfit.

Another girl, who was in the square dancing crowd freaked out and cut me off when I came out to her. Thank goodness we didn’t go to the same school. But I hated losing friends.

We moved to a new house in a nearby suburb a couple months after that and I transferred to the local high school. I joined up with a crowd of kids that included a boy, Greg, I had known in Jr. High. He now lived with his mother and new stepdad, while his brother Jeff (Not my husband Jeff) lived with his dad and attended my old high school. Thus, my circle of friends doubled as I kept in touch and occasionally met with my old friends. One of those old friends, Dennis, would meet me half-way, at Cassie’s house. Dennis was very comfortable being affection with me, often letting me massage his back or just sitting close. One day, at Cassie’s, the two of them started making out hot and heavy right in front of me. The green eyed monster joined us and took over. I stormed out, slamming the door as hard as I could. For the next week, Dennis tried calling me several times a day. I just hung up on him as soon as I heard his voice. After a week, Cassie called. I wasn’t mad at her. She could make out with any boy she wanted as far as I was concerned. Cassie said to me, “You have punished him enough.”

So, with that we agreed that I would go to Cassie’s and talk to Dennis, to patch things up. But I had a plan. Cassie agreed to let me come early and borrow her clothes. She was two inches taller and a bit bigger, but her dress size was close enough to mine. I met Dennis wearing a cute blouse with a jumper dress over it, panty-hose and nice shoes. Dennis and I talked pleasantly, never once making any reference to how I was dressed. I was trying to let him see that I was attracted to him, etc. He didn’t reject me, but wasn’t going to be dating me either. Oh well… I tried. Skipping forward three years for just a moment. Dennis visited me right around graduation. During a walk around the block, away from other’s ears, he asked, “You going for that sex change?” I answered simply, “Yes.” Upon which he said, “Good luck.” and hugged me.

That same year, aged 15, my mother decided it was time she dealt with me and my “homosexuality”. She first took me to our family doctor for a physical and a consult about it. There didn’t seem to be anything physically wrong, save that I was “underdeveloped” (and stayed that way, thank the Blessed Goddess… At 15 I was perhaps at Tanner stage 3, I never reached stage 5). He recommended a therapist, Dr. Kanski, who I had to see once a week to “talk about my problem”. I would talk very pleasantly about almost any subject, but my sexual orientation and gender dysphoria / identity. Dr. Kanski later told my mother that I was “uncooperative”.

Around this time Jeff introduced me to his best friend Kevin. I had a huge crush on him for the rest of my time in high school. Jeff and Kevin occasionally came over to our house. My mother would notice that I got excited each time they did this, but thought it was Jeff that I had a crush on.

Later that year, as I was helping Cassie with her homework (I was often asked to help others and gladly did so), she reached under the table and grabbed my genitalia, saying in coquettish voice, “My mother won’t be home for hours.” I was horrified! I pulled her hand away from me and pretended nothing had happened. She started to slide her hand to my crotch again but I grabbed it and held it tight against her leg, while continuing to explain the homework problem. I was hurt and angry. She knew about my transsexuality. Why would she should do this?

The summer, just after I turned 17, I got a job as a full-time nanny taking care of two boys, ages ten, and four. Their mom later wrote a letter of introduction and recommendation using my new name and gender. The family also gave me some of her older, but stylishly appropriate for a teenager, clothes that would fit me.

Our house was next door to our community pool. We often had friends over for a swim, including Cassie and Barby, among others. One day, I picked up Barby from her house in our family’s spare car to go for a swim. She was wearing a skimpy bikini and nothing else. As we were going down the street, she grabbed my hand and pulled my hand to her crotch. (You just know that a straight boy would have loved it and also be having ‘trouble’ with his own.) I was never more grateful that I was driving a car with a manual transmission as I removed my hand back to the gear shift knob.

It was past time I came out to Barby.

My senior year I called our family doctor and asked for female hormones. His reply was, “You can do anything you want with your life, but I won’t be any part of it.” Soon after that I found a reference to the Stanford Gender Dysphoria Clinic. On the phone, they said I needed to have my parents make the appointments, etc. After some serious family drama, my Dad did. After the intake interviews with Dr. Fisk, I filled out their required paperwork at school, with friends looking over my shoulders, offering comments. Both of my parents tried to talk me out of transition.

Please Read “Cognitive Dissonance…”

A few months before graduation rolled around, I was out to all my close friends and word was getting around. Of course, the fact that I was often seen around town or at the mall with friends dressed as a girl helped that. But, I still had to present as a boy in class. I openly hung up my new wardrobe in my closet, earning silent glares of disapproval from my mother, but gave her a ‘I dare you’ look back. But after graduation, I was living full time as a girl.

At one point my father strongly suggested, “Have sex with a girl.  I’m sure that will change you.  What about one of your friends, Barby, or Cassie?  Wouldn’t they do it to help you?”  I replied angrily,  “I’m sure they would.  But that won’t change me and I DON’T want to have sex with them!”

I turned eighteen a week before graduation. My dad came over to wish me happy birthday and give me a present, the only one I got from anyone, a nice clock radio. I would need it as he also told me I was being evicted from my mother’s house and not allowed to move in with him.

I won’t go into details, that’s not anyone’s business; I dated several boys/young men from my circle of high school friends starting then and for the next few years. But one of my boyfriends, Jordan, from that time, later introduced me to his wife as his “first girlfriend”. Think about that, a straight man was proudly telling his wife that his first relationship was with a pre-op transwoman! Of the others, my mother had accused Jeff of being my lover. Wrong, he had rebuffed me… his brother Greg on the other hand… The one that really created family drama was Don, my brother’s best friend.

Barby complained, bitterly and unkindly, that I was “boy crazy”.

Bob at Jeff’s and my wedding in 1999

The relationship that lasted the longest was Bob. His mother was an engineer, president of the Silicon Valley chapter of the Society for Women Engineers. I was a welcome guest at their family dinners. She strongly encouraged me to study engineering. When he was away at Rensselaer, back east, we handwrote letters often and occasionally talked long distance on the phone. I learned from one of his housemates on the phone that when Bob was lonely, he would open the drawer where he kept my letters, just for the waft of my perfume I scented them with. When he was home… we dated on and off like that for several years. in the end though, he married my best friend Jan and raised two girls with her. But we remained friends. In fact, Bob attended my wedding to Jeff.

I remained friends with several female friends, most especially Jan and Robyne, occasionally sleeping over in their bedrooms. Think about that for a moment. Their families had known me for years…Robyne’s since Jr. High, do you think for one moment that they would let me be alone, in their teenaged daughter’s bedrooms over night, if they thought I might be interested or capable of having sex with them?

As to choice of careers. I love teaching and have been an instructor/tutor in several schools in several subjects, from teaching little kids swimming to teaching teens and adults flying. I started my career in Silicon Valley as a secretary / administrative assistant. I worked as an electronic assembler (a female coded job) and proceeded up the ranks of supervisor and management, all while earning a degree by examination after self-study. That’s not the career arc of a typical AGP.

So, remembering the definitions and indicia of sexual history & orientation, childhood gender atypicality (as reported by my mother), age of gender dysphoria onset, age of transition, etc. What type am I?

I have no doubt the AGPs in denial, haters, disappointed chasers, and TERF/GC folk will all still tell lies. But I know who and what I am.

Male Androphilia Runs In Both Father’s and Mother’s Families

Male homosexuality has long been known to have a very high consanguinity, that is, gay men and homosexual transsexuals are both very likely to have male relatives who are also either gay or homosexual transsexual. There has been some question as whether it ‘runs in the family’ or not and if so, on the mother’s or the father’s side. Well, that question has been answered. It can be either or both.

Earlier, some studies have shown that there is an X chromosome linkage which would only be passed down from the mother. (A male child can only get an X chromosome from their mother, their Y chromosome partner, causing them to be male, always comes from their father.

But two studies of androphilic males in Somoa and Mexico, demonstrate conclusively, that not only does it run in families, it does so on both sides of the family. Further, the Mexican study, involving Muxe that are both trans and gay male, show that this family linkage is the same linkage for both. That is to say, it provides additional indication that homosexual transsexuals are a subset of more traditional homosexual males, not a different etiological taxon.

This last point will not be popular with the “all transsexuals” are the same and are NOT related to gay men. Sorry Virginia, that’s not what the science tells us.

From the Mexican study,

Overall, muxes were characterized by significantly more muxe relatives than gynephilic men. This familial patterning was equivalent in both the paternal and maternal lines of muxes. The population prevalence rate of male androphilia was estimated to fall between 3.37–6.02% in the Istmo Zapotec

And from the Samoan study,

Samoan fa’afafine had significantly more fa’afafine relatives in their maternal and paternal lines compared to Samoan gynephilic males. The prevalence of male androphilia was equivalent across both the paternal and maternal lines. The revised prevalence estimate of male androphilia in Samoa falls between 0.61% and 3.51%.

It should be noted that the fa’afafine are only the trans type, thus the smaller prevalence number, since they don’t include the non-trans type of androphilic male.

A key point to this is that HSTS transwomen are much more likely to have another HSTS transwoman or gay male relative than either a non-trans man or an autogynephilic transwoman would. Another bit of evidence that there are two (and only two) types of MTF transsexuals.

Further Reading:

Oh Brother, Where Art Thou?

References:

Gomez, et al, “Familial patterning and prevalence of male androphilia among Istmo Zapotec men and muxes“, PLOS ONE, 2018 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0192683

Semanya, et al, “Familial Patterning and Prevalence of Male Androphilia in Samoa”, Journal of Sex Research, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2016.1218416

Common Correlations In HSTS Transwomen & Gay Men

In learning about correlations between various behaviors and characteristics between exclusively androphilic transwomen and gay men, we may learn things that point to etiological factors that effect both.  An interesting correlation is that both gay men and androphilic transwomen, both populations exhibit the now famous Fraternal Birth Order Effect (FBOE) in which they have more older brothers than straight men.  That is to say, that the more boys that a given mother gives birth to, the higher the chances of a boy being androphilic, either gay or trans.  The FBOE strongly supports a biological etiology for androphilia in males.

But the really interesting thing about this effect is that it is stronger for androphilic transwomen than it is for gay men.  This opens up some interesting avenues of research.  Does this effect also mean that there is a correlation within the gay male population between meansures of femininity and the FBOE?  What about other characteristics that are more common in androphilic transwomen than in gay men?

The picture of androphilic transwomen is that of early and notable gender atypical behavior, hypomasculine appearance (even before medical intervention) and near universal preference for anal receptive sexuality, “bottom” as its called in the modern Western gay community.  Many gay men are just the opposite, preferring to “top” other gay men.  So, is there are a correlation between prefered anal sex role and FBOE, childhood gender atypical behavior, or hypomasculine appearance?  Are tops more like straight men in less FBOE, less gender atypicality, and more masculine appearance?  Conversely, are bottoms more like transwomen?

In the Wienrich paper they found a correlation between childhood gender atypicality and a preference for being a bottom,

“The connections between childhood gender nonconformity (assessed by the Freund Feminine Gender Identity Scale, or FGI) and adult genitoerotic role (assessed by a sex history) were examined. … Although other workers have cautioned against assuming a priori that childhood gender role is inherently related to adult preferences for particular sexual acts, our data suggest that there is at least a statistical association between these two concepts. In particular, the FGI (and many of its factors and items) are significantly associated with preferences for receptive anal intercourse and, less clearly, with oral-anal contact — but not with oral-genital intercourse or insertive anal intercourse. … The data also suggest that in sex research involving homosexual men, the correct genitoerotic role distinction is not insertive vs. receptive behaviors, or even insertive vs. receptive anal intercourse, but receptive anal intercourse vs. all other behaviors.”

Thus, like transwomen, bottoms are more likely to have been gender atypical than tops.

In Moskowitz, they found that physical traits, relative masculinity, was correlated with sex role,

“We surveyed 429 men engaging in same-sex anal intercourse to investigate the degree to which anal penetrative self-identity was concordant with actual penetrative behavior. Additionally, the roles of masculinity and physical body traits (e.g., penis size, muscularity, height, hairiness, and weight) were tested as correlates of anal penetrative identity and identity-behavior concordance. … Generally, tops reported larger penises than bottoms. They also reported being comparatively more masculine than bottoms. … Our study suggests that the correlates of gay men’s sexual self-labels may depend on objective traits in addition to the subjective pleasure associated with receptive or insertive anal intercourse.”

Thus, bottoms were more physically hypomasculine, just like androphilic transwomen.

In the Wampold paper he explores the correlation between sex role and FBOE,

“Bottoms had a significantly greater mean number of older brothers than did Not-Bottoms. … Thus, late fraternal birth order was correlated with receptive anal-erotic behavior among MSM.”

This same effect was found by Swift-Gallant,

“Only gay men with a bottom anal sex role showed evidence of a fraternal birth order effect. … These results suggest that the fraternal birth order effect may apply to a subset of gay men who have a bottom anal sex role preference and that this subgroup is more gender-nonconforming. “

Thus, we’ve come full circle.  There is evidence for a multivariate cluster of indicia in a subset of gay men that would appear to be very much like androphilic transwomen save for one behavior, social transition to being transwomen.  The question we then need ask, is this difference between tops and bottoms dimensional or taxonic.  It sure looks taxonic to me.  The next question is the difference between bottom gay men and androphilic transwomen dimensional or taxonic?  I’m betting it’s dimensional.

If this is the case, what makes the difference between bottom gay men and androphilic transwomen?  We have strong hints that it is cultural.  There are cultures where feminine androphilic males are granted greater latitude to express their native femininity and not be coerced into hiding in the closet, or attempting to pretend to be ‘straight acting – straight looking’ gay men like ours does.  Assuming this to be the case, as our Western society is becoming less transphobic and misogynist, we should see more young gender atypical androphilic males persisting and chosing social transition as transwomen.

Further Reading:

Essay on cross cultural expression of male androphilia

Essay on the Fraternal Birth Order Effect

References:

Blanchard, R., “Fraternal Birth Order, Family Size, and Male Homosexuality: Meta-Analysis of Studies Spanning 25 Years”, Archives of Sexual Behavior, (2017)
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-017-1007-4

Weinrich, et al., “Effects of recalled childhood gender nonconformity on adult genitoerotic role and AIDS exposure” Archives of Sexual Behavior, 1992)
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01542256

Moskowitz, et al., “The Influence of Physical Body Traits and Masculinity on Anal Sex Roles in Gay and Bisexual Men”, Archives of Sexual Behavior, (2011)
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-011-9754-0

Wampold, C., “The Association Between Fraternal Birth Order and Anal-Erotic Roles of Men Who Have Sex with Men”, Archives of Sexual Behavior, (2018)
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-018-1237-0

Swift-Gallant, A. et al., “Gender Nonconformity and Birth Order in Relation to Anal Sex Role Among Gay Men” Archives of Sexual Behavior (2018)
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-017-0980-y

Pose: A Look at Transsexual Realities

My husband and I have been watching a great new drama show on FX, POSE.  I don’t normally watch shows with a transgender theme.  They usually either misrepresent us, make fun of us, or we are the designated tragic losers.  But Pose is different.  As Janet Mock, one of the writers for the show and an important voice in how the show was developed and what issues it covers, said, the show “centers transwomen of color”.  Yes, it does that, and a whole lot more.  It also, by the simple statistical reality that transwomen of color in the US are far more likely to be exclusively androphilic early transitioners, the show centers “homosexual transsexuals” (HSTS).  I love the mix of black, puerto rican, and white transwomen in the show.  This being set in New York, that fits the local demographics.  (Here on the west coast, our mix also includes meso-american hispanic, Filipino, and chinese.)

I haven’t seen a single “late transitioner” being portrayed.  Even better, they don’t make the oft mistake of conflating the two types.  No, we see only one type, as they really are.

This essay is less a review than an educational exposition.  Because the show focuses on HSTS in a realistic way, in a way that I have never seen a TV show actually do before, it offers me an opportunity to connect the science, sociology, psychology, history, to a show that you can watch and connect the dots.

Not all of those dots are flattering.  In the very first episode we see Electra Abundance, a house mother of a collection of trans & gay youth, lead her crew on a caper to steal 18th Century court dress from a museum just so that they could outshine their competition at a Ball.  At least one of the crew, Angel, is a sex worker on the street.  In a later episode, we see a bisexual young man, one of House of Evangelista is a street drug dealer.  Yes, it was like real life, but it still hurts to see stereotypes of street kids, gay and trans alike, as petty criminals.  Electra and Angel have sugar daddies that help get them off the street.  On the other hand, we see Blanca, the mother of the House of Evangelista working a real job at a nail salon.  This too is very realistic.  Very few transwomen who end up on the margins of society when young ever climb very far on their own.

Speaking of throwaways, the show opens with heart wrenching scene of a gay teen being thrown out of his family by homophobic parents.  Blanca and Angel both relate ugly stories of being rejected by their families as kids.  (Been there, done that!)  The show gives us a glimpse of how transwomen form houses and in essence are the social workers that provide group homes for throw away queer kids.  They have been doing this for a very long time.

As the show is set in the late ’80s, there is an ever-present pall hanging over the characters, “the plague”, HIV/AIDS.  At the time, being HIV+ was literally a death sentence.  There is a powerful reminder that though thousands of people were dying, then President Reagan couldn’t even bring himself to mention it.  Homophobes literally saw it as ‘God’s Punishment’ on queer folk.  In the opening scene of the first episode, we meet Blanca as she learns that she is HIV+.  She is a strong woman and decides that knowing that she may get sick and die soon, she is determined to make the world a better place by creating her own house built on love and encouragement for her charges.  She hides that she is HIV+, but works to educate others on safer sex practices.  In another episode, we see AIDS patients in the hospital being treated as pariahs; in one case hospital staff refused to enter the room to deliver their meal.  In another vignette an older gay man cajoles three younger men to get tested at a clinic.  We see three of them joyful that they tested negative, but the older man is first devastated, then puts on a brave face to lie about his own HIV+ status.

Allow me to switch to a few personal anecdotes.  I’m 61 years old now… I lived through all of this.  We first began to suspect something was wrong with the first hints were a rash of young men getting a rare cancer.  I vividly recall reading a cartoon in the gay press, must have been 1980 (?) that read, “I’m glad I’m middle-aged… too young to get old man’s Karposi’s carcinoma and too old to get young man’s Karposi’s.”  I remember standing in line to see a movie at the Castro Theatre and recognizing Karposi’s lesions on a man’s face.  Then, gay men and HSTS transwomen started dying of lots of illnesses that shouldn’t have been killing them.  I remember talking to one of my childhood friends trying to explain all of this, including the various theories, some of them incredibly homophobic such as the notion that gay men were dying because of too much partying, drugs, and of course, sex.  But then it became more obvious that this was an infectious agent that was sexually transmitted.  The fear was palpable.

My own sex life took a very steep nose-dive.  I was then recently post-op, but I had been having unprotected sex with men as an exclusive bottom for years before that.  I had never even seen a condom.  Why should I?  It wasn’t like I was going to get pregnant, more’s the pity.  Sure, there were STDs… but antibiotics could take care if it.  I learned about and how to use a condom at a safer sex house party hosted by members of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance at Stanford.  Like the men in the show, I was too afraid to learn my HIV status when testing became available; but my good friend and sister transactivist, Joy Shaffer, M.D. then a medical resident working with HIV/AIDS patients in the hospital when many others refused, insisted.  Joy and her girlfriend Patricia went with me to the clinic.  They were obviously not in a high risk group, but got tested alongside me to offer encouragement.  I was negative.  I felt relief… but the fear was still there.  My sex life remained much more restrained for a good many years later, until I got married.

Public Service Advertisement:

Practice Safer Sex!  Keep and use condoms.  EVERY TIME!!  Learn about and take PrEP medications to reduce your chances of becoming HIV+.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled show.

Because this show has writers that are themselves early transitioners, we see some intimate details that aren’t usually portrayed.  For instance, we see in one episode that not only are HSTS obligate bottoms, but that they are also “avoidant”.  That is, that they would prefer not to have their pre-op genitalia touched during sex.  Just to make sure the audience understands that this is universal, both Electra and Angel have discussions with their sugar daddy boyfriends about it.  As Electra’s boyfriend puts it, “What?! You didn’t think I noticed you grimace when I touch you there?”  This detail, of course, is almost never discussed or portrayed elsewhere because most of those shows wish to portray young transwomen as sex toys for “chasers”.  In this same show, we learn that Electra’s and Angel’s boyfriends are both chasers, gynandromorphophilic.  That is, they both prefer pre-op transwomen and want to touch their lover’s pre-op genitalia.  Electra is faced with the prospect of losing her man if she has SRS, but decides to go ahead, for her own sake.  Angel, upon learning that her man is a chaser, is repulsed and loudly orders him to leave.

The writers seem to know their history.  In one of the episodes, we see Blanca angered by the blatant transphobia from the ‘straight looking – straight acting’ gay male crowd at a local bar.  She attempts to use civil rights style counter sit-in tactics to force the bar to accept her presence and to serve her.  But that bar uses bouncers and even the police to enforce their ‘no queens’ policy, deliberately insulting and misgendering her.  The gay men at the bar cheer as Blanca is arrested for no real reason.  I see this as a metaphor for the way that much of the larger gay and lesbian community mistreated the transcommunity from the early ’70s through the late ’90s.

The show is singularly refreshing and I look forward to viewing the rest of the season.

Further Reading:

Essay on correlation between non-white ethnicity and HSTS

Essay on HSTS being ‘avoidant’

Essay on gynandromorphophilia

Essay on historic transphobia in the gay and lesbian communities

External Further Reading

‘We’re More Than Capable’: Pose Stars Push Back on Cis Actors Playing Trans Roles by Maiysha Kai

Pose Writer Janet Mock on Making History with Trans Story Telling by Janet Mock

“When Are Trans Actors Allowed to Act?” by Hannah Giorgis in the Atlantic
The FX drama Pose is the rare example of a show that actually gives trans actors top billing—an effort made all the more urgent by a recent controversy that saw Scarlett Johansson cast as a transgender man.

“POSE” IS A TESTAMENT TO THE SELFLESSNESS OF TRANS WOMEN by Dr. Jon Paul

Fraternizing with the…

… Allies  Or, The Fraternal Birth Order Effect: Early Onset Transwomen vs. Gay Men

In a very recently published meta-study conducted by Ray Blanchard further exploring the Fraternal Birth Order Effect (FBOE), in which he had earlier noted that androphilic males tend to have more older brothers than sisters, he deals with several concerns and new research questions.  First, there had been some concerns with how best to handle the potential effects of family size.  But what really interests me is that here, for the first time, he carefully considers the effect of transgender (feminine presentation / identity) vs. non-trans androphilic men (masculine presentation / identity i.e. conventional gay men).  The results are striking!

“The pooled Older Brothers Odds Ratio for the feminine groups was 1.85, and the value for the non-feminine groups was 1.27. The corresponding risk ratios were 1.52 and 1.19.  The differences between groups were highly significant.  To sum up the results so far in common language:  Feminine homosexual males have more older brothers than non-feminine homosexual males, and non-feminine homosexual males, in turn, have more older brothers than heterosexual males.”

These results weren’t just “statistically significant”, the effect was very great with the 95% Confidence Levels not even overlapping!

But we should introduce a note of caution here.  The feminine androphilic data was very heterogeneous as can be seen in this plot of the data.  This may be caused by the differences between cultures sampled from all over the world.  Some of this data is from Samoan Fa’afafine, some from Western gender dysphoria clinics in the US, UK, and Spain, some from non-Western cultures like Brazil and Korea.  Blanchard also noted this issue and suggested exploration of this might interest some future researcher as more data becomes available.  But in any case, we are shown some very intriguing data that strongly suggests that we may be seeing a difference in etiology between feminine and masculine androphilic males.

Blanchard discusses possible conclusions regarding this,

“A … possibility is that the neurodevelopmental pathway triggered by older brothers is inherently more feminizing than path ways triggered by other etiologic factors (e.g., ‘‘gay’’ genes or prenatal hormone exposure). Thus, a group of homosexual males selected for generalized femininity is likely to contain a higher proportion of individuals who acquired their sexual orientation via the older brother pathway. Other hypotheses, equally speculative, are also possible. … Blanchard and Bogaert (1996) proposed that the FBOE reflects the progressive immunization of some mothers to male-specific (i.e., Y-linked) antigens by each succeeding male fetus and the concomitantly increasing effects of anti-male antibodies on sexual differentiation of the brain in each succeeding male fetus. According to this maternal immune hypothesis, cells (or cell fragments) from male fetuses enter the maternal circulation during childbirth or perhaps earlier in pregnancy. These cells include substances that occur only on the surfaces of male cells, primarily male brain cells. The mother’s immune system recognizes these male-specific molecules as foreign and produces antibodies to them.  When the mother later becomes pregnant with another male fetus, her antibodies cross the placental barrier and enter the fetal brain. Once in the brain, these antibodies bind to male-specific molecules on the surface of neurons.  This prevents these neurons from ‘‘wiring-up’’ in the male-typical pattern, so that the individual will later be attracted to men rather than women.”

Something not discussed, indeed I’m not sure how it can even be explored – unless the curve in the data shown for the odds of an older brother per other sibling is evidence for the effect of first born males experiencing self-induced maternal immunity creating the same etiological pathway.  I would also expect that some first born males may have this etiology due to previous maternal miscarriages and abortions of male fetuses since they too would be expected to have Y-linked antigen challenges to the maternal immune system.

Still, and all, very exciting paper well worth reading.

Further Reading:

Essay showing that feminine gay men (“bottoms”) exhibit different FBOE than more masculine gay men (“tops”).

Essay on evidence that the FBOE etiology also applies to first born males.

Reference:

Blanchard, R., “Fraternal Birth Order, Family Size, and Male Homosexuality: Meta-Analysis of Studies Spanning 25 Years”, Archives of Sexual Behavior, (2017),
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-017-1007-4

 

Going to the Chapel… ♫♫

♫♫… and We’re Going to Get Married…♫♫

Dr. Richard Green in his 1974 book on transsexuals, “Gender Identity Conflict in Children and Adults” wrote,

“The men who fall in love with and perhaps marry women who are themselves former males, by and large, have known their partners only as women.  Their prior sexual experiences have been only with females.  They consider themselves heterosexual and their relationships heterosexual.  To varying degrees they are consciously and unconsciously aware of the biologic status of their partners, but it would be simplistic and would furthermore blur generally accepted definitions to call these men homosexual.  Rather they are men who respond to the considerable femininity of male-to-female transsexuals, ignoring the dissonant cues of masculinity.”

Those very words, read when I was 17 years old, gave me hope that my dearest wish, to find and marry a straight man, hopefully to also adopt children, just might be possible, in spite of my own mother’s words of encouragement that “No man will ever love you, you know.”  Fortunately, Dr. Green was right, and my mother quite wrong.  Although there are few references, and almost no serious studies, that specifically look at the men who marry transwomen, either “early onset” or “late onset”, I believe from my own observations that most early onset MTF who marry, do find husbands who are straight and narrow (but not narrow minded), because gay men just aren’t interested in transsexuals. As by negative proof, Green describes a married couple in his book, a pre-op transwoman and a putatively, self-described, straight man.  In quoting this man, he describes the day he met his ladylove,

“The first time I ever remember was she was walking across the street, and one of the fellows I work with said, “Hey, that looks like a guy wearing capris.”

Thus, this man knew she was a transwoman from the very start, as she was just barely beginning to transition.  From the description given both by Dr. Green and by this man, it is clear that this transwoman was a classic transkid.  This transwoman, in the same section, lamented that she very much wanted SRS, but was getting serious resistance from her husband,

“My marriage is not doing so good.  It’s not good because my husband more and more has turned to — now he’s turned to more and more to homosexuality.  It’s something I’ve found very difficult to live with.  I could understand his turning to another woman, because of my position, but not another man.  It really tears me up.”

Thus, we see that this transwoman has married a gay man who used her as a stepping stone in coming out.  It seemed clear reading the book that this marriage would soon end, because when asked if she thought her husband was possibly against her transitioning she replied,

“Yes, I do, because were were closer before I started dressing as a woman regularly.  The point was when I got my breast  operation.  It was one thing I didn’t understand.  It meant so much for me to get this operation, and when I did get it, he was very cold for about two months afterwards.  He was very nasty to me. and he told me that as time goes by I’m getting more womanly and more adjusted and this is bugging him.”

Thus, he showed that MTF transsexuals’ husbands are by and large heterosexual, because gay men lose interest as we transition. Green interviews a number of other men who are either married or engaged to MTF transsexuals, who were all clearly straight.  Green was mostly right… but in some respects he missed a few nuances.  Back in the early 70’s he failed to differentiate between exclusively androphilic and autogynephilic transwomen, and the nature of the men who married AGP transwomen.  But we still find hints.  In his book he writes about a candidate for surgery who detransitions when he falls in love with a post-op transsexual.  This individual is in fact gynephilic, and as a man who detransitioned, would be described as heterosexual, but he is also autogynephilic and gynandromorphophilic. While it is obvious why MTF transkids, who are, after all, genuinely androphilic would wish to find and marry heterosexual men.  It has always puzzled me as to why obviously autogynephilic, and just as obviously, truly gynephilic, transwomen would chose instead to marry men.  Further, just what motivates such men to marry these autogynephilic transwomen?  Lawrence, in her 2013 book speculates,

“… some of them go to great lengths to maintain a facade of “heterosexual normality.”  One can observe this phenomenon on a few internet web sites belonging to MtF transsexuals who fit the autogynephilic demographic (formerly married to women, male-typical occupational history, etc.) and have found men willing to marry them.  On their web sites, these transsexuals clearly convey their pride in their status as married women; sometimes they even display their wedding photographs…”

I can almost see this… but it doesn’t explain the men involved, nor why these transwomen are able to maintain such relationships.  Perhaps we saw a hint of who these men are, and what dynamic maintains the relationship in Green’s book, mutual gynandromorphophilia and autogynephilia?  Consider that Green’s detransitioned transgendered individual likely still experiences autogynephilic arousal to cross-dressing?  Could it be that such men who AGP transsexuals marry are themselves autogynephilic and gynandromorphophilic?

About twenty years ago, a young transwoman in her mid-20’s called me up because she wanted me to meet her new boyfriend.  This news very much surprised me because I had never gotten the impression that she was terribly interested in men.  She had, after all, been in the Navy, on board submarines, for months at a time, and never felt any desire toward her shipmates (me?  I would have gone nuts trying to keep my hands off of them!).   We discussed our conflicting schedules and finally agreed that the best time would also coincide with her support group meeting time.  So off I trudged to an AGP transgender support group meeting.  When I finally met my friend’s new boyfriend, all was made clear… her “boyfriend” was also her “girlfriend”… as he was a classic and typical cross-dresser, fully dressed in women’s clothes for this CD/TG/TS support group meeting. To the outside world, they were a heterosexual couple.  To TG ‘insiders’ it was known that they were a pre-op TS woman and a semi-closeted cross-dresser.

Some time ago, when I was still single, I was introduced to a man who sounded like a potential mate.  He took me to classical music concerts, romantic drives in the country in his sports car, cooked a fine meal… seemed ideal… yet I wasn’t attracted to him, though he was to me, strongly.  He broached the idea of marriage.  It couldn’t have been described as a proposal, likely because he “knew” I would turn him down,   because included in his reasons for why the match was perfect was the idea that we could share the same wardrobe, as we wore the same size 12 dresses.  Although this was personally repugnant, we know for a fact that many autogynephilic transwomen would find this to be ideal.

In the Daskalos paper purportedly about changes in sexual orientation after transition, we see two more examples of exactly such relationships.  In combination with autogynephilic pseudo-androphilia, this makes a potent brew of mutual sexual attraction.  Exactly how many AGP transwomen have found such a mutually agreeable relationship with a cross-dressing man is uncertain.  That such relationships exist is beyond doubt.  This would make for a very interesting research paper.

You may wish to read more from Green’s book here.

Further Reading:

Essay on men who are interested in pre-op transwomen

Essay on autogynephiles being sexually interested in pre-op transwomen

References:

Richard Green, M.D., 1974, “Sexual Identity Conflict in Children and Adults“, Basic Books

Anne Lawrence, 2013, “Men Trapped in Men’s Bodies“, Springer

Daskalos CT., “Changes in the sexual orientation of six heterosexual male-to-female transsexuals.” http://www.springerlink.com/content/pu44808u15q78k21/

Anne Lawrence, “Letter to the Editor” (in response to Daskalos) http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A%3A1018725518592

Etiological Conjectures, Part 2

As I alluded in my previous post, scientists also like to speculate and generate conjectures regarding the etiology of transsexuals. In this post, I will explore and comment on some of them.

Many of the earlier conjectures were highly influenced by psychoanalysis, shoehorning observations into existing, yet completely untested, models of psycho-sexual development.  These were largely psychogenic theories, that is to say, that mental process create the condition, either transsexuality or homosexuality.  More specifically, they theorized that family constellations, usually an overly involved mother and a distant father create the conditions whereby a male child gets the erroneous idea that they must be female, as they can’t separate themselves as individuals from their mothers.  Or, the theory might be that fear of losing their precious penis causes them to overly-identify with their mother so that losing it doesn’t  seem such a bad alternative.  (Yes, I’m over simplifying, deliberately, sarcastically.)

Before we completely laugh at the idea of psychogenic illness, we should remember that there are several very real psychiatric illnesses which have been identified and shown, using modern science, to be of such psychogenic origin.  The most heart breaking is Reactive Attachment Disorder, which is common among institutionalized children who as babies and toddlers were literally not cuddled.  The lack of physical / emotional contact with caregivers literally creates a condition whereby these children have severe emotional and behavioral problems as they grow up (but not autism).  Another illness that has a psychogenic origin is post-traumatic stress disorder.  Although traumatic events as adults act as the proximate trigger, horrific events in childhood have been identified as leaving these individuals without the emotional resilience to weather such events.  A history of physical abuse as a child is one of the more commonly identified preconditions for later post-traumatic stress syndrome, likely due to down-regulation of cortisol production.

But, during the early to mid-twentieth century, psychoanalysis claimed illnesses were psychogenic that we now have clearly established as neurological defects including schizophrenia and autism spectrum disorders.  Typically, the quality of mothering was blamed.  (Sound familiar?)  Mothers were blamed for nearly every sort of bad outcome in their children, without ANY corroborating statistics or evidence.  The ugliest of these was calling the mothers of autistic children, “refrigerator mothers” and the mothers of schizophrenic young adults, “schizogenic mothers”.

So, in a similar vein, I call the theories that invoke parenting styles, especially those that blame mothers, for MTF transkids, the “smother mother” hypothesis.  Without ANY corroborating statistics or evidence, many psychoanalysts and their medical colleagues, accepted many of these theories as “true”.  Although it is true that many parents become emotionally distant from a transkid, this is far more likely a result, not a cause, of the child’s gender atypical behavior.  These theories, although largely abandoned by scientists, still seem to have currency with a number of therapists that I’ve talked to.  In one odd conversation I had about two decades ago, an elderly therapist acknowledged that it didn’t seem to be true of her “early transitioners”, but she was convinced that her “late transitioners and transvestites” had come from such families with smothering mothers and distant fathers.  During the conversation, I began to suspect that she was guilty of confirmation bias and of  subtly “coaching” her clients in what she expected them to say, so that they could obtain their “letters”.

To a modern scientifically based intellect, the creation and wide scale acceptance of psychodynamic theories about the origins of both typical and atypical gender and sexual behavior seems incomprehensible.  How could they ever even entertain such odd notions?  But, if we understand that the ideas have at their core, the pre-Darwinian notion that humans are a special creation, unlike any other species on the planet, it starts to make some sense.  While to us, the thought that gendered and sexual behavior comes from a mental process that, if we translated to our rodent cousins, would make it sound, and be, ludicrous:  Baby rat sees Daddy rat’s penis and notices she doesn’t have one… and envies Daddy rat’s penis… so she starts acting like Mommy rat to get Daddy rat’s affectional attention, etc.   But, if humans are special creation, the theory doesn’t have to work for our rodent, or even, or maybe especially (?) our primate cousins.  These notions had their genesis in Late-Victorian Europe, which was then struggling with the implications of Darwin’s theory of natural selection and evolution and spread to North America which is still struggling (!) .

Another hypothesis is that an anomalous hormonal environment causes cross-sex neurological development.  This is bolstered by experimental research in various animal models, usually rodents, in which exogenous hormonal intervention at certain critical times in neurological development induces cross-sex behaviors.  When coupled with the discovery of cross-sex neurological features in the brain, this would seem to clinch the matter.  Yet… and yet… it doesn’t explain how or why these events occur in otherwise phenotypically normal individuals.  Further, phenotypical markers of prenatal hormone exposure, such as the 2D:4D finger ratio have failed to provide consistent, reproducible, results.

(Addendum 7/7/2017:  We may have found a consistent, reproducable marker of perinatal androgen exposure!  And lo… it correlates with gender atypical play styles in four years olds.)

Thus was born the “gay gene” hypothesis.  Studies of gay men and MTF transkids consistently show evidence of consanguinity, that male homosexuality and exclusive androphilic MTF transsexuality both run in families.  However, the idea of a “gay gene” caused problems with evolutionary theory, since how could such a genetic allele continue to exist against the obvious reproductive disadvantage that being gay (or transkid) naturally presented.  Researchers have spent the past two decades searching for an evolutionary advantage that the relatives of gay men and transkids might enjoy as a “carrier” of the putative “gay gene”.  But years of searching have failed to find such a gene(s).  Perhaps that’s because, there isn’t one?

Finally, we have our new variant on the “gay gene”, the “gay epigene”.  An epigenetic model is based on the recognition that genes are controlled and regulated by other genes using chemical tags, dangling links, attached to the DNA in each and every cell in the body.  These marks are like the conditional branch points, the “flags” or variables, of a computer program.  The interesting thing about such epi-marks is that though it is believed that they should all be erased between generations, many of them are not always fully erased.  This might be a mistake… or it might even be an evolved ability for a crude form of transgenerational gene regulation “memory”.  For example, if an organism needs to adjust it’s metabolism to lean times, like not enough food, by becoming careful about not burning off fat too quickly, it might be advantageous to their progeny to have that adjustment already turned on.  Just such a behavior has been seen in humans, where grandchildren of individuals who knew starvation have slower metabolisms than individuals whose grandparents and parents never knew such lean times.

One of the earliest models to include an epigenetic explanation was from Richard Green M.D., ( a stalwart friend of the transsexual community) and E.B. Keverne, a noted geneticist.  This model suggests that the failure to erase/modify epigenetic markers on the X chromosome that are supposed to be passed down to only one generation, but when passed down past that generation, are theorized to cause severe harm:

A significant skewing in the sex ratio in favour of females has been reported for the families of homosexual men such that there are fewer maternal uncles than aunts. This finding is repeated for a large series of transsexual families in this study. Four hundred and seventeen male-to-female transsexuals and 96 female-to-male transsexuals were assessed. Male-to-female transsexuals have a significant excess of maternal aunts vs. uncles. No differences from the expected parity were found for female-to-male transsexuals or on the paternal side. A posited explanation for these findings invokes X inactivation and genes on the X chromosome that escape inactivation but may be imprinted. Our hypothesis incorporates the known familial traits in the families of homosexuals and transsexuals by way of retention of the grand parental epigenotype on the X chromosome. Generation one would be characterized by a failure to erase the paternal imprints on the paternal X chromosome. Daughters of this second generation would produce sons that are XpY and XmY. Since XpY expresses Xist, the X chromosome is silenced and half of the sons are lost at the earliest stages of pregnancy because of the normal requirement for paternal X expression in extra-embryonic tissues. Females survive by virtue of inheriting two X chromosomes, and therefore the possibility of X chromosome counting and choice during embryonic development. In generation three, sons inheriting the paternal X after its second passage through the female germline survive, but half would inherit the feminizing Xp imprinted genes. These genes could pre-dispose the sons to feminization and subsequent development of either homosexuality or transsexualism.

The latest attempt to explain the presence of homosexuality goes into greater detail of how epigenetic markers canalize (channel) the sex hormone influenced masculinization in males or protect against such masculization in females.  This model assumes that all of the epimarkers should have been erased between generations, but the ones from the cross-sex parent were not fully erased:

It is well established that fetal androgen signaling strongly influences sexual development. We show that an unappreciated feature of this process is reduced androgen sensitivity in XX fetuses and enhanced sensitivity in XY fetuses, and that this difference is most feasibly caused by numerous sex-specific epigenetic modifications (“epi-marks”) originating in embryonic stem cells. These epi-marks buffer XX fetuses from masculinization due to excess fetal androgen exposure and similarly buffer XY fetuses from androgen underexposure. Extant data indicates that individual epi-marks influence some but not other sexually dimorphic traits, vary in strength across individuals, and are produced during ontogeny and erased between generations. Those that escape erasure will steer development of the sexual phenotypes they influence in a gonad-discordant direction in opposite sex offspring, mosaically feminizing XY offspring and masculinizing XX offspring. Such sex-specific epi-marks are sexually antagonistic (SA-epi-marks) because they canalize sexual development in the parent that produced them, but contribute to gonad-trait discordances in opposite-sex offspring when unerased. In this model, homosexuality occurs when stronger-than-average SA-epi-marks (influencing sexual preference) from an opposite-sex parent escape erasure and are then paired with a weaker-than-average de novo sex-specific epi-marks produced in opposite-sex offspring. Our model predicts that homosexuality is part of a wider phenomenon in which recently evolved androgen-influenced traits commonly display gonad-trait discordances at substantial frequency, and that the molecular feature underlying most homosexuality is not DNA polymorphism(s), but epi-marks that evolved to canalize sexual dimorphic development that sometimes carryover across generations and contribute to gonad-trait discordances in opposite-sex descendants.

This model has much to recommend it.  For instance, it would fit with the conjecture I made in my last post regarding the possibility of multiple semi-independent genes controlling sexually dimorphic behavior being involved. Yet,the odd thing about this recently published paper is that the authors seem to have no understanding of the nature of homosexuality and the close relationship it has with transkids, childhood gender atypicality, childhood gender dysphoria in desisting pre-homosexuals, and persisting transkids.  Incredibly, they actually predict that such epigenetic marking will have no correspondence with “gender identity”:

We describe our hypothesis for an epigenetic cause of homosexuality as a series of statements (see Figure 3 for a graphical summary):

a) Empirical studies demonstrate that XX fetuses are canalized to blunt androgen signaling (lower sensitivity to T) and XY fetuses are canalized to boost androgen signaling (higher sensitivity to T).

b) Empirical studies demonstrate the production of XX- and XY-induced epi-marks in embryonic stem cells and extensive sex-specific differences in gene expression at this time. Epi-marks laid down during the embryonic stem cell stage are also established to influence gene expression later in development. This stem cell period is the most plausible candidate time point for the production of epi-marks influencing sensitivity to androgens later in development (canalization of fetal androgen signaling).

c) Epi-marks produced in embryonic stem cells are mitotically transmitted to cell lineages leading to both the soma and the germline, and hence can contribute to pseudo-heritability when they escape erasure across generations (nonerasure in the primordial germ cells and in the zygote and first few cell divisions of the next generation). Animal models as well as human data unambiguously demonstrate that such a multistep escape from erasure does occur at nontrivial frequency.

d) Epi-marks blunting (in XX fetuses) or boosting (in XY fetuses) androgen signaling will be sexually antagonistic (SA-epi-marks) when they have a nonzero probability of carryover across generations and are expressed in oppose sex descendants. Such carryover will contribute to discordance between the gonad and one or more sexually dimorphic traits.

e) Our modeling work shows that SA-epi-marks are favored by natural selection over a broad span of parameter space because there is a net benefit to the carrier (due to canalization of sexually dimorphic development) that is not offset sufficiently by transmission (and fitness reduction) to opposite sex descendants.

f) Genetic mutations causing SA-epi-marks are expected to fix in populations and are therefore not expected to be polymorphic except transiently during their initial spread within a population. Therefore, no association between genotype and homosexuality is predicted.

g) Because the androgen signaling pathways differ among organs and tissues (e.g., use of different AR cofactors), the same inherited SA-epi-mark can affect only a subset of sexually dimorphic traits, e.g., no effect on the genitalia, but a large effect on a sexually dimorphic region of the brain.

h) Shared, gonad-discordant SA-epi-marks that carryover across generations would contribute to the observed realized heritability of homosexuality, e.g., monozygotic twins share the same SA-epi-marks coinherited from a parent.

i) Unshared, gonad-concordant SA-epi-marks, produced during fetal development, would contribute to the low proband concordance of homosexuality observed between monozygotic twins, i.e., they need not share SA-epi-marks generated during development that occurs after the twins have separated.

j) Homosexuality occurs when an individual inherits one or more gonad-discordant SA-epi-marks that are not masked nor erased by the production of de novo gonad-concordant SA-epi-marks that accrue during ontogeny. The SA-epi-mark(s) influence androgen signaling in the part of the brain controlling sexual orientation, but not the genitalia nor the brain region(s) controlling gender identity.

Perhaps they are referring not to the existence of transkids “gender identity” but of the “gender identity” of autogynephilic transsexuals? If so, I would TOTALLY agree with them. But, somehow, I believe that they are simply basing this odd assertion on the mistaken acceptance of our late 20th Century adoption of the separation of sexual orientation and gender identity as being unrelated phenomena, without having read the scientific literature dispelling it.

Thus, we see that cultural biases have and continue to distort scientific discourse into the etiology of homosexual transsexuality.

References:

David E. Simpson, J.J. Hanley, Gordon Quinn, Documentary film: “Refrigerator Mothers”
http://www.pbs.org/pov/refrigeratormothers/#.UNntP6xLnkY

Pasterski, V., “Fetal Androgens and Human Sexual Orientation: Searching for the Elusive Link”, (2017) Archives of Sexual Behavior
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-017-1021-6

Pasterski, V., et al., “Postnatal penile growth concurrent with mini-puberty predicts later sex-typed play behavior: Evidence for neurobehavioral effects of the postnatal androgen surge in typically developing boys”, (2015) Hormones and Behavior
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0018506X15000033#f0005

Green, R., Keverne, EB., The disparate maternal aunt-uncle ratio in male transsexuals: an explanation invoking genomic imprinting.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10623499

Rice, et al.  “Homosexuality as a Consequence of Epigenetically Canalized Sexual Development”
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/668167

 

Etiological Conjectures, Part 1

We all love to speculate on what made us the way we are.  We all love to generate models for how the transgendered world came to be.  I’m certainly not immune to those speculations, and neither are many of the scientists who conduct research on the trans-phenomena.  About two decades ago, I formulated a model of how MTF transkids (HSTS) and conventional gay men were similar and dissimilar.  At the time, it was purely based on personal observation and conjecture.  Imagine my surprise and delight when I read a recent paper based on genetic manipulation (gene “knock-out”) on sexual dimorphic behaviors in mice that would support part of my conjecture.

Many animals who are bisexual (i.e. that come in two and only two sexes) also often have sexually dimorphic behaviors.  Typically, they involve reproductive behavior, sexual uniting of gametes, mating, and rearing or protection of their young.  The range of such behaviors found in the animal world are so diverse, that I would fill up an entire multi-volume set of books just to list them all.  However, for mammals, many of these behaviors are similar enough that we can use some animals as stand-ins for researching what is likely to be also true for humans, especially in the evolutionarily close relatives in primates and rodents.  The most useful, due to their short lifespans, small size, and ease of maintaining, are mice and rats.

My personal model has been that many sexually dimorphic behaviors are independently evolved and genetically encoded.  They are developmentally controlled by similar mechanisms such as sex hormone receptors on neurons.  This implied that masculinity and femininity (to be defined below) are not a “one shot deal” nor a simple one dimensional, nor even a two dimensional behavioral space.  That is to say, that many of the sexually dimorphic behaviors may be “switched on or off” independently.  In fact, when describing this model to others, I often asked my listener to imagine a long row of switches, which may be up or down.  Some of these switches control masculine behaviors and some feminine.  In theory, they could be in any combination, but during development, processes come into play such that the vast majority of people have all of one type, masculine or feminine in the on, while the opposite type are in the off positions.  However, in a small number of individuals some of the switches are flipped to the “wrong” state.  In an even smaller number of individuals, quite a few of the switches are flipped to the wrong state.  Some of those switches have only small effects.  But some of the switches have rather dramatic effects.

To say that a given behavior is masculine or feminine is to say that that behavior is more likely to be produced by one sex than the other.  For example, in common rabbits, a female is far more likely to pull hair from its belly to line an underground nest in preparation for caring for kits (newborn rabbits).  Thus, in rabbits, nest lining would be a “feminine” behavior.  In rodents, females are far more likely than males to exhibit lordosis, arching of the spine to tilt and raise the pelvis, than males, usually in the presence of adult male.  So we can describe lordosis as also being “feminine” behavior.  Conversely, mounting behavior is usually only seen in males, and thus may be described as a “masculine” trait.

Now, at least in mice, we have confirmation that it is possible to switch “off” individual genes that are associated with such behaviors, both masculine and feminine.  This study did not demonstrate turning “on” a cross-sex behavior, but that has been demonstrated repeatedly, if crudely, by administering cross-sex hormones to neonatal rats.   Further, in sheep, we have seen that a mix of masculine and feminine traits can coexist in that one finds male sheep who preferentially mount (masculine) other male sheep for sex (feminine).  (I needn’t provide references, given that these are well known in the literature.)

In humans, there are a range of behaviors that show varying levels of sexual dimorphism.  Simple observation would suggest that the single most sexually dimorphic trait in humans is the propensity for sexual attraction to men.  In women, approximately 98% exhibit sexual attraction to men, while in men perhaps only 5-10% are attracted to other men, and only 3% are exclusively so.  Thus, sexual attraction to men would, by our definition, be a “feminine” trait.  Interestingly, there appears to be analogs to “mounting behavior” and “lordosis” in humans.   Men who are sexually attracted to other men, also exhibit a preference for mounting (active or “top”) or lordosis (passive or “bottom”).  It is my thesis here that in gay men, independent sexually dimorphic behaviors have been feminized while others have not, and that this independent switching has occurred in varying combinations in individual men.  That is to say, that a gay man could be quite feminized in at least one behavior (androphilia) but show a range of other behaviors that may or may not also be feminine.

Which brings us to MTF transkids.

Transkids are universally attracted to men.  They are also universally obligate “bottoms”.  In fact, they are also universally “avoidant” as well.  That is to say, that they refuse to allow a partner to take notice of, or touch, their pre-op genitalia.  Transkids are also, by definition, persistors, while most gay men were at least somewhat gender atypical as young children and may or may not have also been gender dysphoric, yet they desisted being so by the time they were eleven or twelve.  Transkids remain behaviorally feminine in voice production, motor movements, etc.  I’ve often noted that many transkids are especially interested in small children and babies.  As a speculative conjecture, might the difference between conventional gay men and transkids be the number, or a key subset, of the sexually dimorphic behaviors that are possible?  That it is not so much that they are “more feminine” than most gay men, but that they are “feminine in more ways”?  So much so, that they find it far more comfortable and advantageous to transition?

Etiological Conjectures, Part 2

Etiological Conjectures, Part 3

References:

X. Xu et al. “Modular Genetic Control of Sexually Dimorphic Behaviors”
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2011.12.018

 

The Sound of Your Voice…

♫♫…Oh, how I miss waking up to the sound of your voice…♫♫
-Bare Naked Ladies

Each time we utter a word, we communicate far more than just the lexical unit of speech; we also announce to the listener our native language, our hometown, our age, our gender, and possibly our sexual orientation.  In the transgender field guide videos, I asked the viewer to pay attention to the vocal inflections of each of the transwomen.  If you listened carefully, you probably noted that the HSTS transkids each were distinctly different than the AGPs.  This vocal difference that transkids have, compared to non-gender-atypical boys, is present since childhood.  It is not a recent development, not a conscious attempt to sound like women.  That voice is largely untrained.

Many gay men have a discernibly “gay voice”, but not all.  Interestingly, this voice quality corresponds to the level of gender atypicality that they exhibited as children.  That is to say, that straight sounding gay men report having been typically masculine as boys, but “gay” sounding men report having been gender atypical as boys.  Research also shows that this “gay voice”, far from being a speech defect, the stereotyped “lisp”, it is actually clearer sounding speech.  This speech is also more like how heterosexual women speak, than how straight men speak.  Given this, it shouldn’t surprise anyone that gender atypical boys should sound more like girls than gender typical boys.

A large percentage of boys who were gender atypical grow up to be gay, though some do grow up to be straight identified.  (Given that being gay is still socially stigmatized and discriminated against, I personally suspect that many of these so-called “straight” men are in fact closet homosexuals.)  A number of these gender atypical boys are also gender dysphoric.  And a subset of those that are gender dysphoric will persist being so to become transkids.

In the Crocker and Munson study, they showed that older gender atypical boys had even more feminine voices than younger atypical boys.  As I showed in my essay on persisting and desisting gender dysphoria in children, those who desist in being gender atypical and gender dysphoric seem to be doing so just before the age of 10 or so.  Thus, I believe that we can surmise that Crocker& Munson’s older boys would have a higher percentage of ‘persisters’, transkids, than their younger test group.  So, I hypothesize that the increased perceived femininity of voice production in the older group is an artifact of the desisters having dropped out of the potential pool of older boys, leaving the more naturally feminine transkids.

One working assumption is that a sizable subset of gay men have significantly feminized brain structures that influence both erotic target (sexual orientation) and vocal production.  This is supplanting the hypothesis that the “gay voice” is the result of community wide agreement upon a ‘code’, a voice that helps gay men identify each other.  The evidence supports the former, rather than the latter, as pre-adolescent boys are unlikely to have self-identified as gay, and to have deliberately learned a community code.

I hypothesize that the feminization of the brain is more extensive in ‘persisters’, transkids, and that the voice production is similarly more feminized.  This is in keeping with the conceptualization that (at least some) gay men are somewhat feminized, more like women than straight men, and that HSTS transkids are “so gay they’re women”, as James Cantor has quipped.

I think it would be interesting for researchers to compare the “gay voice” to the “transkid voice”.  From my own experience, they are similar, but not identical.  The gay voice is trending towards the transkid voice, but doesn’t reach it.  The average transkid voice is trending toward the female voice, but also doesn’t quite reach it, though, with just a tiny effort, it can allow the average transkids to pass as female to most listeners.  Some transkids have voices so like the typical female voice that no effort is needed.

Again, as I pointed out in the field guide, the untrained AGP voice is typically masculine.  A great conscious effort must be made if an AGP wishes to achieve a passably female voice.  I think it would be interesting to compare and contrast the HSTS and AGP voice.

Addendum 1/4/2013:

Lal Zimman has conducted an interesting bit of research on FtM transmen’s voice, which I now reference.  He has a couple sound clips that may be of interest.

References:

Crocker, L., & Munson, B., “Speech Patterns of Gender Non-Conforming Boys”
http://www.tc.umn.edu/~munso005/Crocker&Munson_NWAV2006_PostConference.pdf

Peter Renn, “Speech, male sexual orientation, and childhood gender nonconformity”
http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homepage/class/psy158h/prevhonors/z111/project.htm

Deborah Günzburger, “Acoustic and perceptual implications of the transsexual voice”
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01541604

Lal Zimman, “Pronunciation of ‘s’ sounds impacts perception of gender, CU-Boulder researcher finds”
http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2013/01/03/pronunciation-%E2%80%98s%E2%80%99-sounds-impacts-perception-gender-cu-boulder-researcher