Summary

Psychologist Ray Blanchard tested an idea, drawn from Kurt Freund's work, that male-to-female transsexuals come in two basic types. Using routine questionnaires at a Toronto gender clinic, he grouped 163 patients by attraction to men and women. He asked whether they had ever been sexually aroused while cross-dressing. Two-thirds or more of those attracted to women, to both sexes or to neither said yes, compared with 15% of those attracted to men. Blanchard concluded that the groups not attracted only to men form one family, separate from those attracted to men. The paper became the basis of his later 'autogynephilia' theory and of a label in the main US psychiatric manual (DSM-5). Its evidence is a single self-reported question from one 1980s clinic, with small groups and no comparison group, and critics question whether the types hold up elsewhere.

Key findings

• ملأ 163 مريضاً متحولاً جنسياً من ذكر إلى أنثى في عيادة نفسية في تورنتو استبيانات عن الانجذاب الجنسي. وكان متوسط عمرهم نحو 30.
• أعطت طريقة إحصائية تصنف الناس حسب درجات متشابهة، حُددت مسبقاً للعثور على أربع مجموعات، 100 مريض منجذبين إلى الرجال، و35 منجذبين إلى الجنسين، و16 منجذبين إلى النساء، و12 منجذبين إلى أي منهما.
• أُبلغ عن الإثارة الجنسية أثناء ارتداء ملابس الجنس الآخر لدى 14 من 16 منجذبين إلى النساء (88%)، و9 من 12 منجذبين إلى أي منهما (75%)، و23 من 35 منجذبين إلى كليهما (66%)، مقابل 15 من 100 منجذبين إلى الرجال (15%).
• اختلفت المجموعة المنجذبة إلى الرجال بوضوح عن كل من المجموعات الأخرى، بينما لم تختلف المجموعات الثلاث الأخرى بوضوح فيما بينها.
• خلص بلانشارد إلى أن المنجذبين إلى الجنسين أو إلى أي منهما هم صور مختلفة من المنجذبين إلى النساء، فيصبح هناك نوعان أساسيان: منجذبون إلى الرجال، وغير منجذبين إليهم (سُمّوا لاحقاً «ذاتيي التأنث»).
• كانت الدراسة نقطة انطلاق أنواع بلانشارد وفكرته عن الميل الجنسي الذاتي للتأنث عام 1989، التي استخدمها لاحقاً الدليل النفسي الأمريكي DSM-5 لتسمية ملحقة بتشخيص اضطراب ارتداء ملابس الجنس الآخر.

Abstract

This study tested a prediction derived from the hypothesis that asexual and bisexual transsexualism are actually subtypes of heterosexual transsexualism. Two questionnaire scales measuring erotic attraction to males and females were administered to 163 male-to-female transsexuals. A cluster analysis of their scores divided the subjects into four groups: heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, and asexual. Fisher Exact tests were used to compare the frequency with which subjects in the four clusters reported a history of erotic arousal in association with cross-dressing. As predicted, there were no differences among the asexual, bisexual, and heterosexual transsexuals, and all three groups included a much higher proportion of fetishistic cases than the homosexual group (p less than or equal to .0001, two-tailed). These findings support the view that male transsexuals may be divided into two basic types: heterosexual and homosexual.

Conclusion

The prediction that asexual and bisexual transsexuals would report a history of cross-gender fetishism about as often as heterosexual transsexuals, and much more often than homosexual transsexuals, survived what Blanchard called an objective, 'hands-off' test that could have shown it false. He argued that anyone dissatisfied with his hypothesis must offer an alternative that explains the high rates of cross-gender fetishism in the asexual and bisexual groups and makes a new, testable prediction. He concluded that male transsexuals may be divided into two basic types, heterosexual and homosexual, with the asexual and bisexual forms being variants of the heterosexual type.