Gender-related traits in transsexuals and nontranssexuals.

Thirty-eight male-to-female (M-to-F) transsexuals, 7 female-to-male (F-to-M) transsexuals, 135 nontranssexual men, and 225 nontranssexual women were assessed on the following: gender diagnosticity (GD) measures, which assessed male- vs. female-typical occupational and hobby preferences; instrumentality; expressiveness; self-ascribed masculinity; and self-ascribed femininity. M-to-F transsexuals differed strongly and significantly from nontranssexual men on GD and self-ascribed femininity (effect sizes from 1.84 to 3.40) and more weakly on instrumentality, expressiveness, and self-ascribed masculinity (effect sizes from 0.40 to 0.56). F-to-M transsexuals differed strongly and significantly from nontranssexual women on GD and on self-ascribed masculinity and femininity (effect sizes from 2.45 to 3.97), but not on instrumentality or expressiveness (effect sizes of 0.07 and 0.39). The degree to which the six assessed gender-related traits distinguished transsexual from nontranssexuals was strongly correlated with the degree to which these same traits distinguished nontranssexual men from nontranssexual women. Using comparison data from past research, M-to-F transsexuals were quite similar to gay men on all gender-related traits except self-ascribed femininity, but F-to-M transsexuals were considerably more masculine than lesbian women on all gender-related traits except for instrumentality and expressiveness.

Gender-related traits in gay men, lesbian women, and heterosexual men and women: the virtual identify of homosexual-heterosexual diagnosticity and gender diagnosticity.

Three studies investigated the relationship between gender-related traits and sexual orientation. Study 1 showed that gay men and lesbians in an unselected sample of 721 college students differed from same-sex heterosexuals most strongly on gender diagnosticity (GD) measures, which assess male- versus female-typicality of interests (effect sizes of 2.70 for men and .96 for women) and least strongly on measures of instrumentality (I) and expressiveness (E). In Study 2, GD measures showed large differences between 95 gay and 136 heterosexual men (effect sizes of 1.61 and 1.83) and between 46 lesbian and 225 heterosexual women (effect sizes of .98 and 1.28), whereas I and E showed much smaller differences. In Study 3, GD showed large differences between 90 gay and 81 heterosexual men (effect sizes of 1.76 and 1.97) and between 82 lesbians and 108 heterosexual women (effect sizes 1.67 and 1.70). whereas I and E showed much smaller differences. Using data from Studies 2 and 3, "gay-heterosexual diagnosticity" measures were computed for men and "lesbian-heterosexual diagnosticity" measures for women, based on occupational and hobby preferences. These measures correlated very strongly with GD measures.

Genetic and environmental influences on individual differences in masculinity, femininity, and gender diagnosticity: analyzing data from a classic twin study.

Analyzing data from Loehlin and Nichols's (1976) classic twin study, we computed measures of Masculine Instrumentality (M), Feminine Expressiveness (F), and Gender Diagnosticity (GD). Quantitative genetic modeling analyses of within-sex individual differences in M, F, and GD indicated that: (1) Additive genetic factors contribute significantly to individual differences in M, F, and GD. (2) The environmental effects on M, F, and GD tend to be nonshared. (3) The genetic and environmental components of individual differences in M, F, and GD tend not to show gender differences. Finally, (4) the estimated within-sex heritability of GD (.53) is significantly greater than the estimated within-sex heritabilities of either M (.36) or F (.38).

Gender-related individual differences and the structure of vocational interests: the importance of the people-things dimension.

In 3 studies (respective Ns = 289, 394, and 1,678), males and females were assessed on Big Five traits, masculine instrumentality (M), feminine expressiveness (F), gender diagnosticity (GD), and RIASEC (Realistic, Investigative, Artistic, Social, Enterprising, Conventional) vocational interest scales. Factor analyses of RIASEC scores consistently showed evidence for D.J. Prediger's (1982) People-Things and Ideas-Data dimensions, and participants' factor scores on these dimensions were computed. In all studies Big Five Openness was related to Ideas-Data but not to People-Things. Gender was strongly related to People-Things but not to Ideas-Data. Within each sex, GD correlated strongly with People-Things but not with Ideas-Data. M, F, and Big Five measures other than Openness tended not to correlate strongly with RIASEC scales or dimensions. The results suggest that gender and gender-related individual differences within the sexes are strongly linked to the People-Things dimension of vocational interests.

The display of masculinity, femininity, and gender diagnosticity in self-descriptive photo essays.

Thirty-seven college men and 57 college women assessed on Gender Diagnosticity (GD), Masculinity (M), and Femininity (F) created self-descriptive photo essays, which were then rated by six judges on 38 personality characteristics, including masculinity and femininity. Lay judges reliably rated men and women's masculinity and femininity from photo essay information. Men's GD strongly correlated with their judged masculinity and femininity, M with judged extraversion, and F with judged warmth and nurturance. However, women's GD correlated most strongly with their judged maladjustment and athleticism, M with dominance and extraversion, and F with adjustment and physical attractiveness. Naive judgments of men and women's masculinity-femininity were strongly linked to other judged personality characteristics, and physical attractiveness was correlated with judgments of women's but not men's masculinity and femininity. The results show that masculinity and femininity make sense to laypeople, are readily judged from multidimensional information, and that for men, GD predicts lay judgments of masculinity and femininity better than M and F do.

Some psychometric characteristics of gender diagnosticity measures: reliability, validity, consistency across domains, and relationship to the big five.

Preferences for various occupations, school subjects, everyday activities, and hobbies and amusements were rated by 119 male and 145 female Ss. Discriminant analyses were conducted to compute gender diagnostic probabilities. Ss also rated themselves on Big Five traits and completed the Bem Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI) and the Personal Attributes Questionnaire (PAQ). Results indicated that (a) gender diagnosticity measures showed high reliability, (b) gender diagnosticity predicted sex of S and self-ascribed masculinity (M) and femininity (F) better than contrasted-groups M-F scales, (c) gender diagnosticity measures displayed substantial consistency across domains both within and across the sexes, and (d) gender diagnosticity measures were independent of the Big Five and PAQ and BSRI scales both within and across the sexes, whereas PAQ and BSRI scales loaded highly on Big Five dimensions.

Sex typing and the perception of body outlines.

Does sex typing influence one's direct perception of gender from physical body cues? To answer this question, a study was conducted in which 47 female and 39 male subjects, after filling out the Bem Sex Role Inventory, viewed 24 body outlines varying in waist and shoulder width. Subjects were asked to indicate whether each body was female or male, or whether they were uncertain about its gender. Subjects also selected what they judged to be the most attractive and most typical female and male bodies from among the 24 body outlines. Finally, the actual shoulder, waist, and hip widths of 66 subjects were measured as a normative comparison to subjects' judgments of "typical" and "attractive" body proportions. Analyses indicated that sex-typed subjects used the "uncertain" rating less than did non-sex-typed subjects, and that males used that rating less than females did. Thus, sex-typed subjects and males showed a stronger tendency to classify stimuli by gender. Sex-typed subjects also tended to nominate more physically divergent male and female bodies as attractive than did non-sex-typed subjects; however, there were no effects of assessed masculinity or femininity on nominations of typical male and female bodies. In addition, the data provide evidence that subjects judged there to be greater physical differences between the sexes than actually exist. The results are discussed in terms of recent research on gender schemas and prototypes in person perception.