Birth order and recalled childhood gender nonconformity in Samoan men and fa'afafine

Abstract

Having a greater than average number of older biological brothers is a robust correlate of male androphilia (i.e., sexual attraction and arousal to adult males). Previous investigations have sought to understand whether this fraternal birth order (FBO) effect is also systematically related to recalled indicators of childhood gender nonconformity (CGN). However, these investigations have relied on data from low-fertility Western populations in which expressions of femininity in male children are routinely stigmatized and consequently, suppressed. The present study examined the FBO effect (among other sibship characteristics) and recalled indicators of CGN in Samoa, a high-fertility population, whose members are relatively tolerant of male femininity. Indeed, Samoans identify feminine androphilic males as belonging to an alternative gender category, known locally as fa'afafine. The present study compared the sibship characteristics of 231 fa'afafine and 231 opposite-sex attracted men from Samoa, as well as how these characteristics related to recalled CGN. Results replicated the well-established FBO effect for predicting male sexual orientation, with each older brother increasing the odds of being androphilic by 21%. However, no relationship was found between the number of older brothers (or other siblings) a participant had and their recalled CGN. Although fa'afafine reported significantly more CGN than Samoan men, CGN did not mediate the FBO effect, nor did the FBO effect and CGN interact to predict male sexual orientation. These findings are consistent with previous studies suggesting that the FBO effect is associated with male sexual orientation, but not childhood female-typical gender expression among androphilic males.

A method yielding comparable estimates of the fraternal birth order and female fecundity effects in male homosexuality

“…Blanchard & Bogaert [13] study or subgroup [15] Blanchard et al [16] Ellis & Blanchard [22] Khorashad et al [23] Krupp (H) (J Krupp 2014, unpublished data) Krupp (P) (J Krupp 2014, unpublished data) Schagen et al [25] VanderLaan & Vasey [12] VanderLaan et al [26] total (95% Cl) total events test for overall effect: Z = 0.00 (p = 1.00) heterogeneity: t 2 = 0.04; c 2 = 18.52, d.f. = 13 (p = 0.14); I 2 = 30% first sons events total events total weight only sons odds ratio IV, random, 95% CI odds ratio IV, random, 95% CI 0.05 0.2 1 5 20 higher in only sons higher in first sons 46 40 32 16 11 15 69 28 5 7 6 23 13 75 140 80 59 127 45 204 105 221 12 21 12 201 57 127 97 147 87 16 24 19 152 55 11 14 11 27 13 140 231 265 146 197 65 273 266 408 17 61 26 446 53 The 95% confidence interval around our estimate, 1.14-1.66, contains 11 of the 13 odds ratio estimates reported by previous studies that calculated their estimates using logistic regression set-ups: 1.08 [34], 1.15 [35], 1.16 [36], 1.21 [37], 1.28 [22], 1.33 [13], 1.34 [12], 1.37 [38], 1.40 [39], 1.43 [40], 1.47 [25], 1.48 [16] and 1.68…”

The Perioperative Care of the Transgender Patient

“…In contrast, gender is a social construct, rooted in cultural expectations that drive an individual’s outward appearance and behavior. While some cultures celebrate the existence of >2 genders (eg, Indigenous North American “two-spirit” and Samoan “fa’afafine”), 4,5 the conceptualization of gender as binary (a person is either a man or woman) has dominated Western societies. However, this discourse is shifting to an approach that appreciates gender as a continuum, 6 along which a person’s gender may fall anywhere, everywhere, or nowhere.…”

The relationship between fraternal birth order and childhood sex‐atypical behavior among the Istmo Zapotec muxes

“…Among cisgender androphilic males, evidence for the FBOE has been found in Canada (Blanchard, 2004; Blanchard & Bogaert, 1996a; Blanchard, Cantor, Bogaert, Breedlove, & Ellis, 2006), China (Li & Wong, 2018), Greece (Apostolou, 2020), Indonesia (Nila, Barthes, Crochet, Suryobroto, & Raymond, 2018; Nila et al., 2019), 1 Italy (Camperio Ciani, Corna, & Capiluppi, 2004), the United Kingdom (King et al., 2005; Kishida & Rahman, 2015; Rahman, Clarke, & Morera, 2009; Xu, Norton, & Rahman, 2019), and the United States (Blanchard & Bogaert, 1996b, 1998; Wampold, 2018; Blanchard & Zucker, 1994; Zucker & Blanchard, 1994). Among transgender or highly femininized androphilic males, evidence for the FBOE has also been found in Brazil (VanderLaan et al., 2016), Canada (Blanchard & Sheridan, 1992; Blanchard, Zucker, Bradley, & Hume, 1995; VanderLaan, Blanchard, Wood, & Zucker, 2014), Samoa (Semenyna, VanderLaan, & Vasey, 2017; VanderLaan & Vasey, 2011; Vasey & VanderLaan, 2007), Iran (Khorashad et al., 2020), the Netherlands (Blanchard, Zucker, Cohen‐Kettenis, Gooren, & Bailey, 1996; Schagen, Delemarre‐van de Waal, Blanchard, & Cohen‐Kettenis, 2012), Spain (Gómez‐Gil et al, 2010), Turkey (Bozkurt, Bozkurt, & Sonmez, 2015), and the United Kingdom (Green, 2000).…”

“…Although both CSAB and the FBOE are robust correlates of male androphilia, three studies have failed to find any direct association between birth order and markers of femininity among cisgender androphilic males (Bogaert, 2003, 2005; Kishida & Rahman, 2015). Semenyna, VanderLaan, & Vasey, 2017) also failed to find such an association among Samoan transgender androphilic males. An additional study found no association between facial femininity among Indonesian androphilic males and their number of older brothers (Nila et al., 2019).…”

“…Although robust evidence for the FBOE has been found cross‐culturally, research demonstrates that only 14%–29% of androphilic males owe their sexual orientation to the FBOE (Blanchard & Bogaert, 2004; Cantor, Blanchard, Paterson, & Bogaert, 2002; Swift‐Gallant, Coome, Aitken, Monks, & VanderLaan, 2019). Nonetheless, each biological older brother a male has increases the odds of being androphilic by around 34% (range: 8%–68%) over the baseline rate of male androphilia (Apostolou, 2020; Blanchard & Bogaert, 1996a; Blanchard & Lippa, 2007; Blanchard, Zucker, Siegelman, Dickey, & Klassen, 1998; Ellis & Blanchard, 2001; Green, 2000; Khorashad et al., 2020; King et al., 2005; Kishida & Rahman, 2015; Schagen et al., 2012; Schwartz, Kim, Kolundzija, Rieger, & Sanders, 2010; Semenyna, VanderLaan, & Vasey, 2017; VanderLaan & Vasey, 2011), which is around 2%–5% of the male population (e.g., Gates, 2011; Gómez, Semenyna, Court, & Vasey, 2018; Leser, 1961; Semenyna, VanderLaan, Petterson, & Vasey, 2017; VanderLaan, Forrester, Petterson, & Vasey, 2013; Whitam & Mathy, 1986). In other words, assuming that each older brother increases the odds of male androphilia by approximately 34% (the average of 13 studies) and that a random male without older brothers has at least 2% chance of being androphilic, having one older brother would increase the probability of male androphilia to 2.66%, whereas having two older brothers would increase the probability to 3.53% (for further discussion, see Blanchard, 2001).…”