1974
DOI: 10.1007/bf01541488
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Measuring feminine gender identity in homosexual males

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
8
0
1

Year Published

1974
1974
2010
2010

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 51 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
2
8
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…We, therefore, expected the five scales of Section E and the four scales of Section F to differentiate between HET, non-HET, and GDYS participants. These expectations were based on demonstrated differences between these groups in other gender domains, as illustrated by the data from our RCGQ-R Gender scale (Table 2): HET men < HET women, HET men < non-HET men < GDYS men, and HET women > non-HET women > GDYS women, which are in line with published data by others that demonstrate for either natal sex a (crude) continuum of gender typicality-atypicality from HETs, to homosexuals, to transsexuals (Blanchard & Freund, 1983; Freund, Nagler, Langevin, Zajac, & Steiner, 1974; Wallien & Cohen-Kettenis, 2008). (Note that the RCGQ-R robustly correlates with scales of current gender-related behavior for adults, as shown by Meyer-Bahlburg et al, 2006).…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 90%
“…We, therefore, expected the five scales of Section E and the four scales of Section F to differentiate between HET, non-HET, and GDYS participants. These expectations were based on demonstrated differences between these groups in other gender domains, as illustrated by the data from our RCGQ-R Gender scale (Table 2): HET men < HET women, HET men < non-HET men < GDYS men, and HET women > non-HET women > GDYS women, which are in line with published data by others that demonstrate for either natal sex a (crude) continuum of gender typicality-atypicality from HETs, to homosexuals, to transsexuals (Blanchard & Freund, 1983; Freund, Nagler, Langevin, Zajac, & Steiner, 1974; Wallien & Cohen-Kettenis, 2008). (Note that the RCGQ-R robustly correlates with scales of current gender-related behavior for adults, as shown by Meyer-Bahlburg et al, 2006).…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 90%
“…If Blum and Pfetzing (1997) are correct in asserting that the childhood of protogay children is traumatic, partly because of negative reactions to their marked CGNC, then the association of CGNC with later suicidality might be even stronger for LGB compared to heterosexual individuals. In a sample of homosexual and bisexual adult men, childhood femininity, as measured with Part A of the Feminine Gender Identity scale (Freund, Nagler, Langevin, Zajac, & Steiner, 1974), correlated with current depression/dejection: r = .23 (Weinrich, Hampton, McCutchan, Grant, & the HNRC Group, 1995). Skidmore, Linsenmeier, and Bailey (2006) found that the association of CGNC with psychological distress was substantial among gay men (r = .38), but not as strong among lesbians (r = .18).…”
Section: Childhood Gender Nonconformity As Precursor Of Later Suicidamentioning
confidence: 96%
“…English Dictionary defines "masculine" as "having qualities or appearance traditionally associated with men." Past definitions have suggested narrow and categorical meanings of masculinity and gender identity, and, as such, these definitions were often limited to behavioral patterns (i.e., sexual preference) or one's physical appearance (Freund, Nagler, Lagevin, Zajac, & Steiner, 1974;McConaghy & Armstrong, 1983;Money & Hampson, 1955). According to these tenets, a man was considered masculine if he behaved like a man, engaged in sexual relations with females, and dressed in a masculine way.…”
Section: Masculine Identitymentioning
confidence: 99%