Skip to main content
NCBI home page
The International Journal of Transgenderism logoLink to The International Journal of Transgenderism
. 2018 Apr 9;20(4):459–470. doi: 10.1080/15532739.2018.1445573

Views of individuals with gender dysphoria and disorders of sex development on sexism: An Iranian study

Behzad S Khorashad 1, Ghasem M Roshan 1, Ali Talaei 1,✉, Sanaz Arezoomandan 1, Mostafa Sadr 1
PMCID: PMC6913643  PMID: 32999630

ABSTRACT

Background: Ambivalent sexist attitudes have been previously measured regarding several factors such as sex, race and religion.

Aims: In this study, we evaluated the ambivalent sexism among Iranian individuals with gender dysphoria with or without disorders of sex development (DSD).

Methods: Attitudes towards gender stereotypes were investigated using Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI) among three groups of participants with varying psychosexual outcome. These groups were transpeople (N = 152, M = 25.44, SD = 6.52), people with DSD (N = 40, M = 21.2, SD = 2.24) and cisgender people (N = 195, M = 25.9, SD = 5.59).

Results: Significant differences in both types of sexism, benevolent (F (2,383) = 134.217, p < .001) and hostile (F (2,383) = 93.765, p < .001), were found between transpeople, participants with DSD and controls. While scores of transpeople and people with DSD were not significantly different from each other (p = 0.191, Cohen's d = 0.38), both groups were significantly more sexist than controls on hostile sexism (p < 0.001, Cohen's d = 1.4 and 1.1). In benevolent sexism, there were significant differences between the scores of the trans, DSD and control groups, with individuals with DSD being most sexist followed by transgender people (p < 0.001) and controls showing the least degree of sexism (p < 0.001).

Conclusion: Using the Gender Self-Socialization Model (GSSM), we propose that increased scores of ASI among individuals whose gender identity is incongruent with all or some of their physical features are attempts to attain gender typicality. This may lead to a higher degree of sexist beliefs than when all sex and gender characteristics are congruent.

KEYWORDS: Ambivalent sexism inventory, disorders of sex development, gender dysphoria, gender self-socialization model, gender stereotypes

Introduction

Sexism, as defined by the Ambivalent Sexism Theory (Glick & Fiske, 2011), consists of three elements characterizing social dynamics between men and women: 1) patriarchy, stating that men are more powerful than women; 2) gender differentiation, stating that men and women are and should be ascribed different traits and social roles; and 3) sexual reproduction, stating that there are dependencies and intimacies between the sexes (Glick & Fiske, 2001; Glick & Fiske, 2011). According to the theory, these three factors together are the components of traditional attitudes towards the sexes and shape both hostile and benevolent attitudes towards women. Referring to women, hostile sexism explicitly communicates antipathy (“women seek to gain power by getting control over men”), whereas benevolent sexism conveys an apparently positive portrait of women, although, similarly to hostile sexism, it relies on gender stereotypes and contributes to perpetuate gender inequalities (“a good woman should be set on a pedestal by her man”).

It has been shown that socialization processes, especially coming from the media (Altenburger, Carotta, Bonomi, & Snyder, 2017; England, Descartes, & Collier-Meek, 2011), religion (Mikołajczak& Pietrzak, 2014), socioeconomic status (Vargas-Salfate, 2017) and advertisements influence the development of gender stereotypes considerably. However, an interpretation completely based on socialization factors may not be satisfactory (Halim et al., 2014). It has been suggested, that such stereotypical attitudes to gender might emanate, at least in part, from factors other than external socialization, such as cognitive, developmental and motivational processes, often referred to as self-socialization.

Cognitive theories of gender development

Based on Gender Self-Socialization Model (GSSM), three key elements through three different mechanisms shape the development of gender cognition. The three elements are gender identity, gender stereotypes, and self-perception of gender-typed attributes (Tobin et al., 2010). In this conceptualization, gender identity is defined as the cognitive connections a child makes between the self and a gender category (e.g., “I am a boy”). Gender identity is known to have five dimensions; (a) membership knowledge (knowledge of one's membership in a gender category); (b) gender contentedness (satisfaction with one's gender); (c) felt pressure for gender conformity (felt pressure from self and others for adhering to gender stereotypes); (d) gender typicality (perceived similarity to the same-gender collective); and (e) gender centrality (the importance of gender relative to one's other identities, e.g., ethnic or racial identity). Gender stereotypes are cultural beliefs about the attributes that characterize male and female persons as groups (e.g., “On the playground, boys do X and girls do Y”). These beliefs can be descriptive (how the sexes are) or prescriptive (how they should be). Finally, self-perceptions of gender-typed attributes are attributes that are perceived to characterize male persons and female persons as groups (e.g., “I do X” where X is a gender typed act) (Martin, Ruble, & Szkrybalo, 2002).

Basic gender identity, or children's knowledge of their gender (answering the question “are you a girl or boy?”), is developed at around age 2–3 years. By this age, most children have become aware of gender stereotypes in characteristics such as activities and toy preferences, clothing and parental roles (Ruble et al., 2007). When children first learn stereotypes, they regard them as rigid moral imperatives, but by age 6 or 7 years, understanding of stereotypes becomes more flexible in most children (Ruble et al., 2007). By the beginning of adolescence and rise of heterosexual desires, the previously hostile bias often turns into an ambivalent attitude representing a compromise between a fundamentally disparaging attitude toward, and the need for romantic contact with, the other sex (e.g., the man's patriarchal support of his girlfriend in addition to expectation of obedience from her) (Glick & Hilt, 2000; Tobin et al., 2010). As Glick and Hilt (2000) pointed out, this model is designed presuming heterosexuality and may not apply well to the attitudes of homosexual individuals.

GSSM, incorporating previous cognitive-developmental theories into a single theoretical framework, suggests three causal mechanisms for the development of gender cognition: (1) The Stereotype Emulation hypothesis, that assumes children's gender identity motivates them to incorporate same-gender stereotypes into their self-concepts (‘I am a girl, girls do X, thus I do X’) (Tobin et al., 2010); (2) Stereotype Construction Hypothesis, that assumes that children's gender identity and self-perceptions may influence the gender stereotypes (‘I am a boy, I do Y, thus boys do Y’); and (3) The Identity Construction Hypothesis, that assumes that children's gender stereotypes and self-perceptions may influence their gender identity (‘Girls do X, I do X, thus I am a girl’). Theorists have tried to formulate an inclusive model for understanding the structure and content of gender cognition, using all these trajectories (Tobin et al., 2010).

Goals and hypotheses of the present study

The development of gender stereotypes and gender prejudice among cisgender people with typical sex development has previously been studied (Brown & Stone, 2016; Glick & Hilt, 2000; Carol Lynn Martin & Ruble, 2010;Tobin et al., 2010). However, there is little known about the influence of gender dysphoria and atypical sex development on gender stereotypes and gender prejudice (Fast & Olson, 2017). In gender dysphoria (GD), a person feels discomfort or distress that is caused by a discrepancy between the gender identity and that person's birth-assigned sex (and the associated gender role and/or primary and secondary sex characteristics) (Coleman et al., 2012). Disorders of Sex Development (DSD) or intersex conditions refer to somatic conditions with atypical development of the reproductive tract in which there can be an incongruence between sex characteristics (e.g., sex chromosomes and external genitalia; some neonates with DSD are born with varying degrees of ambiguous genitalia) (Hughes, Houk, Ahmed, & Lee, 2006). The prevalence of GD among individuals with DSD is considerably higher than in the general population although there are substantial differences between various DSD conditions; in those with 5 alpha- reductase type 2 deficiency (5α-RD-2) and 17beta-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase-3 (17β-HSD-3) prevalence of GD can be as high as 60% (Cohen-Kettenis, 2005; Khorashad et al., 2016), while in individuals with congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) the prevalence has been reported to be 5.2% (Dessens, Slijper, & Drop, 2005) and in complete androgen insensitivity syndrome (CAIS) GD is extremely rare (T'Sjoen et al., 2011). It should also be noted that despite their similarities in diagnosis and treatment, GD in people with DSD conditions differs from GD in people without DSD conditions in its phenomenological presentation, epidemiology, life trajectories, and etiology (Meyer-Bahlburg, 2009).

In this study we aimed to (1) examine ambivalent sexism among transmen and transwomen; (2) investigate ambivalent sexism among people with DSD who are either gender dysphoric or gender conforming; and (3) explore possible associations between GD and ambivalent sexism.

Based on the theoretical framework of GSSM, we expect that those identifying more strongly with a gender category (Tobin et al., 2010) will incorporate gender stereotypes into their self-concept to a greater extent and will have more extreme gender attitudes than those whose categorization of gender is less rigid. Individuals not only develop gender typicality, as one component of gender identity, by comparing their attributes with a prototype, but also by their drive to internalize messages communicated by significant others. In a culture where gender nonconformity is neither acknowledged nor tolerated, children with GD may be driven to incorporate gender roles typical of that gender category with a greater effort, so that the surrounding significant others consider them more congruent with their gender identity and thus accept them.

We therefore hypothesize that individuals with gender dysphoria with or without DSD conditions will score higher on a sexism inventory compared to both cisgender DSD people, who identify with the gender assigned at birth, and cisgender controls. It has been previously demonstrated that there are sex differences in sexist attitudes among cisgender individuals both in western (Ibabe, Arnoso, & Elgorriaga, 2016) and Iranian cultures (Sarvghad, 2013). Also most people with gender dysphoria have a strong and ongoing cross-gender identification, and desire to live and be accepted as a member of the other gender (Becking, Tuinzing, Hage, & Gooren, 2007). Considering the fact that the physical features of transpeople are not congruent with their gender identity, it is plausible that they would pursue the gender stereotypes more intensely compared to typical members of a gender, through plastic surgeries, makeup and attitudes, in a desire to be socially accepted as members of the gender identity group they feel they belong to, especially in a society that criminalizes homosexuality. In line with the attempt to increase the gender typicality, therefore, we also hypothesize that Iranian transwomen would be more benevolent toward women than cisgender females, and transmen would be more hostile toward women than cisgender males.

Method

Participants

A total number of 387 participants, individuals with GD including 64 transwomen and 88 transmen (N = 152, Mean age = 25.44, SD = 6.52), people with DSD (N = 40, Mean age = 21.2, SD = 2.24) and cisgender people (N = 195, Mean age = 25.9, SD = 5.59) participated in the study. The exclusion criteria that applied to all three groups were: 1) illiteracy (n = 4); 2) having a major psychiatric condition such as psychosis (n = 6); 3) age under 18 (n = 23).

Participants with GD were collected from those who visited our gender clinic during 2015 and 2016. During this period 190 individuals visited our clinic, among them 176 were invited and 152 consented to participate in our study. The diagnostic and work-up processes were largely based on what has been described in the Standards of Care, version 7 of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (Coleman et al., 2012). All transpeople had been interviewed by at least two experienced psychiatrists according to the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) – version 5 criteria. They had at least six months of individual and group psychotherapy (which is a legal pre-requisite for gender affirming treatment in Iran; in this period people are legally allowed to socially pass as a member of their experienced gender), and had made a part-time or full-time social transition. All transgender participants had been clinically and legally given the permission to start hormone therapy and surgery. According to the local treatment protocols, those who have been diagnosed with GD during an at least six months period of psychological assessment and psychotherapy, and had received the legal permission (which is issued by a judge after consultation with professional centres) for gender affirming treatment can apply for any part of gender affirming treatment although they are mostly recommended to progress step by step (first cross-sex hormones, then gender affirming surgery).

Because of the rarity of the DSD conditions, people with various forms of DSD were recruited form the entire database of Mashhad University of Medical Sciences in Iran. Epidemiologically, conditions of DSD in which the affected individual receives a male gender assignment at birth, develops gender dysphoria later in life, and requests gender affirming treatment are universally rare (Hughes et al., 2006; Lee et al., 2016; Meyer-Bahlburg, 2009). Therefore, we only recruited individuals with DSD who were assigned female at birth. The first twenty participants with DSD who also had gender dysphoria (gdDSD) and had applied for a masculinizing treatment, and the first twenty participants with DSD who had no GD (ngdDSD) who accepted to participate in our study and had none of the exclusion criteria, entered the study. Five individuals from gdDSD group and twelve from ngdDSD refused to participate in our study. Regarding the age, educational level and socioeconomic status they were not different from the participants. The gdDSD participants included 14 individuals with 5α-RD-2, 5 with 17β-HSD-3, and 1 with CAH. The ngdDSD participants included 14 with CAH and 6 with CAIS.

Since most of our clients were accompanied during their visit to our clinic by family or friends, the control group was recruited from those accompanying the participants with GD or DSD. This could be any of the following: siblings, relatives, friends, sexual/romantic partners. Those who had a history of gender incongruence, GD or DSD were excluded.

Sample characteristics

Three groups of people varying in the assigned gender at birth, gender identity and gender expression were included in our study. These three groups were people diagnosed with GD, people with DSD and controls. Each group consisted of two subgroups. Participants with gender dysphoria were divided into transwomen who had been assigned as male at birth but have a female gender identity and transmen who had been assigned as female at birth but have a male gender identity. Individuals with DSD were divided into those with GD (gdDSD) and those without GD (ngdDSD). Controls were divided into assigned males at birth (cisgender men) and assigned females at birth (cisgender women).

Materials

Demographic Data. All participants were interviewed using a semi-structure interview for obtaining their demographic information such as age, educational level, socioeconomic status, past medical history and past psychiatric history.

Ambivalent Sexism Inventory. The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI) (Glick & Fiske, 2011) was administered to participants in order to evaluate their sexist beliefs. There are also other measures for evaluation the sexist beliefs and attitude as well, such as Modern Sexism Scale (MS) (Ekehammar, Akrami, & Araya, 2000) and Attitude toward Women Scale (AWS) (Spence, Helmreich, & Stapp, 1973). The ASI, however, has been shown to reveal more subtle demonstrations of sexism compared to other measures (Swim, Mallett, Russo-Devosa, & Stangor, 2005). This scale has shown strong reliability and validity in assessing attitudes towards three distinct aspects of gender in relationships: (1) power relations; (2) gender roles and stereotypes; and (3) intimate heterosexual relations (sex and romance). The ASI consists of two variables: (a) hostile sexism, which assesses sexist antipathy toward women (e.g., “Feminists really want women to have more power than men”), and (b) benevolent sexism, which assesses sexist positivity toward women (e.g., “A good woman should be set on a pedestal by her man”). Each subscale is assessed through 11 items with responses on a six-point scale (0-5) indicating to what extend one agrees or disagrees; giving a score of 0–55 for each subscale. The ASI scale comprises a total score and two subscale scores (Hostile and Benevolent Sexism); the total score and both subscale scores were included as dependent variables. ASI has been previously standardized in an Iranian population of 400 college students (109 male and 291 female) who were sampled using multi-stage cluster sampling (Sarvghad, 2013). The Cronbach's alpha's were calculated for our sample (BS: .72, HS: .75) as well as each subsample. The Cronbach's alpha's for BS and HS among our transpeople were 0.68 and 0.76, among typical participants were .40 and .60, and among those with DSD were .43 and .64. In the previous validation study of Persian ASI, the Cronbach's alpha was .64 for BS and .72 for HS. The ASI was labeled as a survey about “relationships between men and women.”

Procedure

After obtaining written consent of participants, they were invited to the Psychiatric and Behavioral Sciences Research Center lab in Ibn-e-Sina Psychiatric hospital. First, participants were all interviewed to obtain their demographic and medical backgrounds. Then, they were administered the ASI. They were instructed to choose the answer they believe best described their views and to be sure that their answers will not affect their treatment. In case of any questions, a clinical psychologist could assist the participants. All answered the questionnaires in the same location and under the same situation (alone in a quiet room) with no time limit. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Mashhad University of Medical Sciences in Iran.

Statistical Analysis

The ASI scores (with hostile and benevolent subscales) were compared between our six subgroups (Table 1). Age was used as a covariate. First, we used ANOVA to compare the mean age between the two subgroups of each group and then among the three groups. Then, a one-way ANCOVA was conducted to determine differences between groups and subgroups of participants on sexism score controlling for age. In case of a significant finding, a post-hoc Tukey analysis was used. Effect sizes for each variable were calculated using to Cohen's d. All analyses were conducted using SPSS version 16.0.1 for Windows.

Table 1.

Distribution of age among participants.

                Economic Status %
 Educational Background %
Groups N Mean SD Subgroup N Mean SD Low Medium High Diploma or lower Bachelor Master or higher
Transpeople 152 25.44 6.52 Transwomen 64 25.55 6.91 21.1 57.9 21.1 42.1 39.5 18.4
        Transmen 88 25.38 6.35            
Female assigned people with DSDs 40 21.2 2.24 Gender Dysphoric 20 20.9 2.38 22.5 67.5 10 47.5 42.5 10
        Non-gender dysphoric 20 21.5 2.11            
Controls 195 25.9 5.59 Male 103 26.35 5.76 27.2 49.7 23.1 43.1 39.5 17.4
        Female 92 25.39 5.37            
Total 387 25.31 5.91         24.3 54.8 20.9 43.2 39.8 17.1
Open in a new tab

Results

Reliability

The internal consistency of ASI was analyzed in our sample using Cronbach's Alpha (α). The Cronbach's alpha for benevolent sexism was .72, and for hostile sexism was .75 in our sample.

Socio-demographic data

Table 1 describes the sociodemographic characteristics of participants. There was a significant difference in age among the groups (F (2, 384) = 11.258, p < 0.001). Although transpeople and control participants were not different in their mean age (p = 0.747), DSD participants were significantly younger than the other two groups (p < 0.001). No significant differences were found in the economic status (Χ2 (4) = 6.45, p = .16) and educational background (Χ2 (4) = 1.65, p = .8) of participants between the three studied groups.

ASI scores

As can be seen in Table 2, there was significant difference in both types of sexism, benevolent (F (2,383) = 134.217, p < .001) and hostile (F (2,383) = 93.765, p < .001), between transpeople, people with DSD and controls. In benevolent sexism, there were significant differences between the scores of the trans, DSD and control groups, with individuals with DSD having the highest score followed by transgender people (p < 0.001) and controls having the lowest score (p < 0.001). Scores of transpeople and people with DSD, in hostile sexism however, were not significantly different from each other (p = 0.191, Cohen's d = 0.38), both groups scored significantly higher than controls on hostile sexism (p < 0.001, Cohen's d = 1.4 and 1.1). Effect sizes between groups were: d = 1.4 (transgender people and controls), d = 1.03 (transgender people and DSD) and d = 2.5 (control and DSD).

Table 2.

Hostile and Benevolent sexism score in each group and subgroup.

  BS1 HS2   B.S H.S
Groups M (SD) M (SD)   M (SD) M (SD)
Transpeople 33.82 (6.4) 33.74 (7.9) Transwomen 35.2 (5.7) 31.4 (8.4)
      Transmen 32.8 (6.8) 35.4 (7.1)
Female assigned people with DSDs 39.97 (5.4) 30.95 (6.7) Gender Dysphoric 43.25 (3.7) 30.75 (7.04)
      Non-gender Dysphoric 36.7 (4.9) 31.15 (6.5)
Controls 23.56 (7.8) 22.33 (7.9) Men 23.63 (7.8) 23.07 (8.07)
      Women 23.5 (7.8) 21.5 (7.8)
Open in a new tab
1

Benevolent Sexism;

2

Hostile Sexism

In benevolent sexism, the differences between subgroups were significant as well (F (5,380) = 57.694, p < .001). The highest scores were from gdDSD participants who scored significantly higher than all the other groups, indicating that assigned women with DSD who were unhappy about their female gender assignment were most (benevolent) sexist in their attitude. Male and female controls both scored the lowest with statistically significant differences from the other subgroups. Transmen, transwomen and ngdDSD individuals did not significantly differ in their benevolent sexism score.

Regarding hostile sexism, male and female controls scored lowest among all participants (F (5,380) = 40.704, p < .001) (Table 3). Among transmen, transwomen, gdDSD and ngdDSD participants, the difference between transmen and transwomen was the only significant one. Transmen had higher hostile sexism scores than transwomen. Figure 1 and 2 demonstrate scores of each subgroup in benevolent and hostile sexism, respectively.

Table 3.

P values and Effect sizes of Benevolent1 and Hostile2 Sexism scores of Subgroups.

Mean PSAI score (SD) Transmen 32.8 (6.8) Transwomen 35.2 (5.7) Men 23.63 (7.8) Women 23.5 (7.8) gdDSD 43.25 (3.7) ngdDSD 36.7 (4.9)
Compared to:  
 
 p
 d
 p
 d
 p
 d
 p
 d
 p
 d
 p
 d
Transmen 35.4 (7.1) NA NA 0.299 0.38 <0.001 1.25 <0.001 1.27 <0.001 1.90 0.963 0.65
Transwomen 31.4 (8.4) 0.023 0.51 NA NA <0.001 1.69 <0.001 1.71 <0.001 1.67 1 0.28
Men 23.07 (8.07) <0.001 1.62 <0.001 1.01 NA NA 1 0.01 <0.001 3.21 <0.001 2.00
Women 21.5 (7.8) <0.001 1.86 <0.001 1.22 0.717 0.19 NA NA <0.001 3.23 <0.001 2.02
gdDSD 30.75 (7.04) 0.149 0.65 0. 9 0.08 0.001 1.01 <0.001 1.24 NA NA 0.039 1.50
ngdDSD 31.15 (6.5) 0.23 0.62 1.0 0.03 <0.001 1.10 <0.001 1.34 1 0.05 NA NA
Open in a new tab
1

,

2

Figures written in the white boxes regard Benevolent Sexism and those written in colored boxes regard Hostile sexism

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Mean Benevolent Sexism Scores of transpeople, participants with Disorders of Sex Development and controls (gdDSD, people with DSD who are gender dysphoric; ngdDSD, people with DSD who are gender conforming)

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Open in a new tab

Mean Hostile Sexism Scores of Transpeople, participants with Disorders of Sex Development and controls (gdDSD, people with DSD who have gender dysphoria; ngdDSD, people with DSD who are gender conforming).

Age did not influence the differences between groups in benevolent sexism (F (1, 380) < 1, p = .802) nor hostile sexism (F (1, 380) < 1, p = .68).

Item analysis

One of the GSSM research suggestions is to investigate what attributes are associated with gender identity and the strength of this association. In other words, it suggests to investigate how gender identity affects emulation of a given gender stereotype. In order to do so, we assessed the performance of each subgroup across various items to see which of them has been most important in their judgment. We also compared the performance of subgroups on each item. As shown in Table 4, items 5, 9, 12 and 17 received highest scores from transwomen and transmen.

Table 4.

Mean score of each subgroup in each item.

  Item* Transwomen Transmen gdDSD1 ngdDSD2 Typ.M3 Typ.F4
1 No matter how accomplished he is, a man is not truly complete as a person unless he has the love of a woman 3.77 3.98 4.25 3.25 2.20 1.98
2 Many women are actually seeking special favors, such as hiring policies that favor them over men, under the guise of asking for “equality.” 2.55 3.01 2.75 2.85 1.89 1.42
3 In a disaster, women ought not necessarily to be rescued before men. 3.16 3 2.05 2.05 2.67 3.22
4 Most women interpret innocent remarks or acts as being sexist. 2.05 2.93 2.20 2.45 1.87 1.95
5 Women are too easily offended. 4.02 3.98 4.23 4.25 2.29 2.14
6 People are often truly happy in life without being romantically involved with a member of the other sex. 3.62 3.12 1.65 2.45 2.55 2.70
7 Feminists are not seeking for women to have more power than men. 1.55 2.02 3.25 2.90 3.26 3.40
8 Many women have a quality of purity that few men possess. 3.61 2.28 3.80 3.05 1.83 1.73
9 Women should be cherished and protected by men. 4.53 4.41 4.70 4.75 2.28 2.59
10 Most women fail to appreciate fully all that men do for them 2.55 3.57 3.40 3.45 2.31 2.16
11 Women seek to gain power by getting control over men. 2.31 2.98 3.20 3 1.96 1.93
12 Every man ought to have a woman whom he adores. 4.11 4.01 4.6 3.4 2.27 2.35
13 Men are complete without women. 3.75 3.64 1.40 1.75 3.05 2.48
14 Women exaggerate problems they have at work. 2.45 3.24 2.95 2.80 2.48 2.07
15 Once a woman gets a man to commit to her, she usually tries to put him on a tight leash. 3.06 3.43 3.20 3 2.18 2.37
16 When women lose to men in a fair competition, they typically complain about being discriminated against 2.55 3.41 3.40 2.9 2.16 2.15
17 A good woman should be set on a pedestal by her man. 4.7 4.58 4.8 4.8 2.32 2.92
18 There are actually very few women who get a kick out of teasing men by seeming sexually available and then refusing male advances. 2.23 2.09 3.55 2.45 3.02 3.09
19 Women, compared to men, tend to have a superior moral sensibility. 3.78 2.84 3.7 3.35 2.34 2.33
20 Men should be willing to sacrifice their own well-being in order to provide financially for the women in their lives. 2.23 2.42 3.8 2.7 1.72 1.03
21 Feminists are making entirely reasonable demands of men. 1.31 2.01 2.8 3.7 2.79 3.21
22 Women, as compared to men, tend to have a more refined sense of culture and good taste. 4.02 3.06 3.7 3.1 1.93 1.97
Open in a new tab
*

Highlighted items are those that had received highest mean score from participant of each subgroup

1

,

2

,

3

,

4

 

Typ.M, Typical Male; Typ.F, Typical Female; gdDSD, patients with gender dysphoria with disorders of sex development who were assigned as female at birth; ngdDSD, gender conforming patient with Disorders of Sex Development who were assigned as female at birth.

Generalizability of our cisgender participants

Although this was not a hypothesis, we ran analyses to evaluate the generalizability of our sample because we wanted to know whether our cisgender participants could be considered representative or not. A one-sample t-test was run to determine whether the HS and BS scores of our cisgender participants were different to scores of cisgender participants from another study of ASI in an Iranian sample (BS: M = 25, SD = 4.62; HS: M = 28.4, SD = 8.42;) (Sarvghad, 2013). The mean BS score (M = 23.56, SD = 7.83) in our study was lower than the BS mean score of 25 in the other study, a statistically significant mean difference of 1.43, 95% CI [0.32 to 2.53], t (194) = 2.550, p = .012. The mean HS score (M = 22.33, SD = 7.98) was lower than the HS mean score of 28.45 of the other study, a statistically significant mean difference of 6.11, 95% CI [4.98 to 7.24], t (194) = 10.7, p < .0001. We also checked whether our participants with GD and DSD differ with cisgender participants from the previous study; both of them scored significantly higher in both benevolent (GD: t (151) = 16.818, p < .0001; DSD: t (39) = 17.255, p < .0001) and hostile (GD: t (151) = 8.293, p < .0001; DSD: t (39) = 2.398, p< .021) sexism.

Discussion

As one of the first reports of its kind, we have investigated the beliefs regarding aspects of gender, as measured by the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory among individuals with different forms of gender incongruence and compare them with controls. We did not replicate the previously reported difference in sexism between control men and women (without gender dysphoria and without DSD) (Ferragut, Blanca, Ortiz-Tallo, & Bendayan, 2017; Glick & Fiske, 2011; Montañés, Megías, De Lemus, & Moya, 2015; Sarvghad, 2013). This may reflect the relatively small sample size of our controls but it may also be that the controls who participated in our study were somewhat different from participants in other studies. They had experience and familiarity with individuals who do not conform to cultural norms of gender roles and gender stereotypes. Men in particular with gender incongruent relatives might have been less sexist than men who never have been confronted with the phenomenon of gender incongruence. The effect of contact with other minority groups on sexist attitudes has also been observed in a Western culture (Dierckx, Meier, & Motmans, 2017). This is in line with our findings that our cisgender participants scored significantly lower in both BS and HS scores compared to results of another study of ASI in an Iranian large sample (Sarvghad, 2013). Another implication of our cisgender participants being less stereotypical than general population is that the difference between our participants with GD and DSD with controls might be smaller if the comparison were made with cisgender people who had no familiarity with GD and DSD.

However, despite the fact that individuals with GD and DSD are themselves well aware of the phenomenon of gender incongruence, they reported to have significantly more sexist (both hostile and benevolent) attitudes compared to controls. This was in concordance with our hypothesis: according to GSSM, the self-perception of gender attributes develops through the interaction of gender identity and the gender stereotypes and roles that exist in society (Tobin et al., 2010). Based on the GSSM we expected that if an individual's gender identity is incongruent with all or some of his/her physical features, it can be expected that he/she will try to attain gender typicality by expressing, emphasizing, perhaps even exaggerating gender stereotypes and will have attitudes that are consistent with these behaviors. This may lead to a higher degree of sexist beliefs than when all sex and gender characteristics were congruent. Relevant literature points out that a threat to the group membership can elicit avoidance from out-group preferences and attitudes and embracing in-group ones. For instance, previous studies suggest that men actively respond to a masculinity threat by employing masculine stereotypes (being aggressive, committing crimes, or harassing female partners) or distancing themselves from feminine stereotypes (such as spa shopping and attending lively art performances)(Cheryan, Cameron, Katagiri, & Monin, 2015). In other words, when an important identity is threatened people may react with demonstrating their membership in that identity group through exaggerating the shared values of that group (Willer, Rogalin, Conlon, & Wojnowicz, 2013).

We also found that both transmen and transwomen score significantly higher than both female and male controls in benevolent sexism. Iranian transwomen, who have to put much effort into transitioning and living in the female gender role (Rahbari, 2016), may have a more idealized picture of women's stereotypical roles than others have. This attitude may be oppressing for women's social status and may work against attempts to obtain gender equality. Yet, gender equality is likely not a first priority for transwomen who are struggling for acceptance as women in their society. This is also clear from the items they scored highest: items 5, 9, 12 and 17 are all about protection and support of women (e.g. item 9 reads: “Women should be cherished and protected by men”), and also from the finding that they were scoring lower than transmen in hostile sexism. This struggle for acceptance as a woman is also observed in the results of a study that found most transgender women indicated that changing their face was most essential (Ginsberg, Calderon, Seminara, & Day, 2016).

Less clear is why transmen scored higher on benevolent sexism compared to control men as well. It has been shown that women find benevolently sexist men sexually attractive (Bohner, Ahlborn, & Steiner, 2010). Concordantly it has been shown that when involved in romantic relationships people score higher in benevolent sexism (Montañés et al., 2015). Considering the fact that most of our transmen are in their twenties and they lack certain male physical features that might be perceived as attractive by women, their increased benevolent sexism may be related to their desire to attract women. In other words, they may try to compensate their lack of physical masculinity by attitudes –benevolent sexism– that are perceived as attractive by women. A recent study on sexual and romantic experiences of transgender youth demonstrated that transmen have significantly more sexual experiences than their age-matched transwomen (Bungener, Steensma, Cohen-Kettenis, & de Vries, 2017). This is in line with our own observation that transmen were engaged more often in romantic relations. Their belief in benevolent sexism may partly explain their success in building romantic relationships.

Participants with DSD scored significantly higher on the benevolent sexism scale, not only compared to controls, but also to transpeople. This difference was even stronger for participants with gdDSD who had sought gender affirming treatment (which means they were currently living in the male role) than for the ngdDSD group. In fact, gdDSD individuals endorsed benevolent sexism more than any other subgroup of participants. A study on sexist beliefs among parents of people with a rare DSD condition (5α-Reductase type 2 Deficiency, 5α-RD-2) in which the occurrence of GD is very high, showed that parents of persons with gender dysphoria in this group who actually chose to change gender scored significantly higher in benevolent sexism compared to parents of participants who were content with their assigned female gender (Khorashad et al., 2016). That could be explained as a parental attempt to maintain their child with 5α-RD-2 in her birth assigned female gender in a “nice” and not hostile way, which, however, might have been experienced as suffocating by the child and had facilitated gender changes (Khorashad et al., 2016). Yet, the benevolent sexist attitudes of the parents may have remained part of the beliefs of the children, even though they have experienced this as unpleasant when growing up.

The scores on hostile sexism showed a slightly different picture. Trans people and participants with DSD (both with and without GD) scored equally high on hostile sexism and, as mentioned above, higher than the controls. Although it is understandable why adherence to sex stereotypes is important for people who may feel uncertain about their masculinity or femininity, it is difficult to understand why they would consider women's role in society as less valuable.

As expected, transmen scored higher on hostile sexism compared to transwomen: in a sexually segregated, patriarchal culture, such as Iran's, where masculinity is strongly associated with subordinating and hostile attitudes toward women (Bahman & Rahimi, 2010; Kaivanara, 2016; WEF, 2014), those who want to be accepted as a member of the male community (in order to increase the felt gender typicality) may follow the mainstream, and even exceed that. In a study on gender roles among Iranian individuals diagnosed with GD, 12 transwomen and 27 transmen were compared to 81 cisgender males and 89 cisgender females using Gender-Masculine (GM) and Gender-Feminine (GF) scales derived from the Minnesota Multiphasic Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) and Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI) (Alavi, Eftekhar, & Jalali Nadoushan, 2015). It was found that transwomen were more feminine than cisgender females and transmen were more masculine and less feminine compared to cisgender males (Alavi et al., 2015).

A recent study on gender development of American transgender preschool children found that young transgender children were similar to gender-typical children in (a) showing preferences for peers, toys, and clothing that are associated with their expressed gender, (b) dressing in a stereotypically gendered outfit, (c) endorsing flexibility in gender stereotypes, and (d) saying they are more similar to children of their gender than to children of the other gender (Fast & Olson, 2017). Similarly, a Belgian study on adults showed that there is no difference between transgender and cisgender respondents in their scores in sexism scale (Dierckx, Meier, & Motmans, 2017). The difference between their findings and ours may support our hypothesis: when gender nonconformity of transgender children is acknowledged, they would not have to exaggerate their belief in gender stereotypes to gain gender typicality.

Noteworthy is the fact that our participants with gender dysphoria were collected from clinics where they receive medical care, legal assistance (which in case of cross-dressing is particularly crucial considering the strict legislations for suitable dressings for men and women in Iran), and psychiatric consultancy. Thus, to gain and keep this support, they may try to maintain a convincing narrative of their gender dysphoria for the medical staff, resulting in strong presentation of gender stereotypes. This can provide another explanation for the high rates of sexism in our transmen and women and gdDSD participants. However, it cannot account for the increased gender stereotypes in ngdDSD people. We tried to lower this bias in the participants by assuring them that their answers will not influence their course of treatment and care.

Another issue that should be noted is the conceptualization of homosexuality among our participants. Legally homosexuality–in contrast to being transgender is forbidden in Iran and culturally it is highly stigmatized; a significant difference from a Western society such as Belgium where transphobia is more prevalent compared to homophobia (Dierckx, Meier, & Motmans, 2017). According to our own clinical experience, when clients with GD are confronted with the possibility that they might be a homosexual and not a transgender person, and that they can live without needing any medical/surgical intervention, they mostly strongly deny this possibility during the clinical interviews. One repeated answer of our transpeople, when confronted with this possibility, is that “homosexual people do not have a problem with their bodies, but I have”. This avoidance of homosexuality can also contribute to the higher sexist attitudes among our participants: they may imitate the stereotypes of typical men and women in order to mitigate the shame and stress of being a sexual minority (McDermott, Roen, & Scourfield, 2008; Mereish & Poteat, 2015).

Additionally, religious backgrounds of our participants may play a role. A qualitative study on religious beliefs among a group of Iranian transgender people showed that they have had religious and spiritual experiences particularly after the gender affirming surgeries (Safavifar et al., 2016). Also, religious beliefs have been shown to be associated with sexist beliefs (Mikolajczak & Pietrzak, 2014), although the effects can be stronger in females than males (Dierckx, Meier, & Motmans, 2017). However, considering the similar socioeconomic and educational backgrounds of our participants and the notion that religiosity is associated with socioeconomic status (Paul, 2010), it can be argued unlikely that religious beliefs can explain the observed differences between our groups.

One of the limitations of our study is that our transgender participants were not categorized according to the level of transition. Although all of them had been diagnosed with GD, the amount of gender affirming treatment that they had received was diverse. Some of them were socially transitioning, some were receiving hormone treatment in addition to social transitioning and some had completed a full social and medical transition. Views on gender roles and gender equality may change as one passes through various stages of transition. Further studies will be needed to accurately address this question. Similarly, our DSD participants were not classified according to their endocrinologic conditions. It is likely that attitudes towards gender are different for people with different conditions, for instance because their conditions affect their physical appearance, the visibility of their condition, and/or upbringing differently. Moreover, the low Cronbach's alpha, particularly among cisgender participants and participants with DSD limit the generalizability of our findings.

Future studies should investigate whether physical or other aspects of the DSD (e.g. the knowledge about one's not very visible physical characteristics that are not in line with the gender assignment) are crucial for self-perception and views on gender stereotypes.

In a highly gendered social and cultural atmosphere such as Iran's with legislations which only acknowledge two sexes, people with GD and DSD apparently endorse and exaggerate sex stereotypes in order to be accepted as men or women. Investigating beliefs on gender stereotypes among transpeople and people with DSD from other cultures with a narrower gender gap might help us to gain insight in the role of these beliefs in their psychosexual development and the decision to change gender.

Acknowledgment

We are grateful to Professor Peggy Cohen-Kettenis, from VU University of Medical Center, Amsterdam; and Dr. Kristina Olson from University of Washington for their helpful comments with regard to organizing and writing this paper.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Alavi K., Eftekhar M., & Jalali Nadoushan A. H. (2015). Comparison of masculine and feminine gender roles in Iranian patients with gender identity disorder. Sexual Medicine, 3, 261–268. doi: 10.1002/sm2.79 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Altenburger L. E., Carotta C. L., Bonomi A. E., & Snyder A. (2017). Sexist attitudes among emerging adult women readers of fifty shades fiction. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46, 455–464. doi: 10.1007/s10508-016-0724-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bahman M., & Rahimi A. (2010). Gender representation in EFL materials: An analysis of English textbooks of Iranian high schools. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9, 273–277. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.12.149 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Becking A. G., Tuinzing D. B., Hage J. J., & Gooren L. J. (2007). Transgender feminization of the facial skeleton. Clinics in Plastic Surgery, 34, 557–564. doi: 10.1016/j.cps.2007.04.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bohner G., Ahlborn K., & Steiner R. (2010). How sexy are sexist men? Women's perception of male response profiles in the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory. Sex Roles, 62, 568–582. doi: 10.1007/s11199-009-9665-x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Brown C. S., & Stone E. A. (2016). Gender stereotypes and discrimination: How sexism impacts development. Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 50, 105–133. doi: 10.1016/bs.acdb.2015.11.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Bungener S. L., Steensma T. D., Cohen-Kettenis P. T., & de Vries A. L. C. (2017). Sexual and romantic experiences of transgender youth before gender-affirmative treatment. Pediatrics, 139(3), . doi: 10.1542/peds.2016-2283 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Cheryan S., Cameron J. S., Katagiri Z., & Monin B. (2015). Manning Up. Social Psychology, 46, 218–227. doi: 10.1027/1864-9335/a000239 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Cohen-Kettenis P. T. (2005). Gender change in 46,XY persons with 5alpha-reductase-2 deficiency and 17beta-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase-3 deficiency. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 34, 399–410. doi: 10.1007/s10508-005-4339-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Coleman E., Bockting W., Botzer M., Cohen-Kettenis P., DeCuypere G., Feldman J., … Zucker K. (2012). Standards of care for the health of transsexual, transgender, and gender-nonconforming people, version 7. International Journal of Transgenderism, 13(4), 165–232. doi: 10.1080/15532739.2011.700873 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. Dessens A. B., Slijper F. M., & Drop S. L. (2005). Gender dysphoria and gender change in chromosomal females with congenital adrenal hyperplasia. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 34, 389–397. doi: 10.1007/s10508-005-4338-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Dierckx M., Meier P., & Motmans J. (2017). Beyond the box: A comprehensive study of sexist, homophobic, and transphobic attitudes among the Belgian population. Digest. Journal of Diversity and Gender Studies, 4(2), 5–34. doi: 10.11116/DiGeSt.4.1.1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Ekehammar B., Akrami N., & Araya T. (2000). Development and validation of Swedish classical and modern sexism scales. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 41(4), 307–314. doi: 10.1111/1467-9450.00203 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. England D. E., Descartes L., & Collier-Meek M. A. (2011). Gender role portrayal and the Disney princesses. Sex Roles, 64, 555–567. doi: 10.1007/s11199-011-9930-7 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Fast A. A., & Olson K. R. (2017). Gender development in transgender preschool children. Child Development. doi: 10.1111/cdev.12758 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Ferragut M., Blanca M. J., Ortiz-Tallo M., & Bendayan R. (2017). Sexist attitudes and beliefs during adolescence: A longitudinal study of gender differences. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 14, 32–43. doi: 10.1080/17405629.2016.1144508 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. Ginsberg B. A., Calderon M., Seminara N. M., & Day D. (2016). A potential role for the dermatologist in the physical transformation of transgender people: A survey of attitudes and practices within the transgender community. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 74, 303–308. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2015.10.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Glick P., & Fiske S. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance. Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56(2), 109–118. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.56.2.109 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Glick P., & Fiske S. T. (2011). Ambivalent sexism revisited. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 35, 530–535. doi: 10.1177/0361684311414832 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Glick P., & Hilt L. (2000). Combative children to ambivalent adults: The development of gender prejudice. The Developmental Social Psychology of Gender. (pp. 243–272). Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. [Google Scholar]
  21. Halim M. L., Ruble D. N., Tamis-LeMonda C. S., Zosuls K. M., Lurye L. E., & Greulich F. K. (2014). Pink frilly dresses and the avoidance of all things “girly”: Children's appearance rigidity and cognitive theories of gender development. Developmental Psychology, 50, 1091–1101. doi: 10.1037/a0034906 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Hughes I. A., Houk C., Ahmed S. F., & Lee P. A. (2006). Consensus statement on management of intersex disorders. Archives of Disease in Childhood, 91, 554–563. doi: 10.1136/adc.2006.098319 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Ibabe I., Arnoso A., & Elgorriaga E. (2016). Ambivalent sexism inventory: Adaptation to Basque population and sexism as a risk factor of dating violence. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 19, E78. doi: 10.1017/sjp.2016.80 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Kaivanara M. (2016). Virginity dilemma: Re-creating virginity through hymenoplasty in Iran. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 18, 71–83. doi: 10.1080/13691058.2015.1060532 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Khorashad  , Aghili Z., Kreukels B. P., Hiradfar M., Roshan G. M., Afkhamizadeh M., … Cohen-Kettenis P. T. (2016). Psychosexual outcome among Iranian individuals with 5alpha-reductase deficiency type 2 and its relationship with parental sexism. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 13, 1629–1641. doi: 10.1016/j.jsxm.2016.09.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Lee P. A., Nordenstrom A., Houk C. P., Ahmed S. F., Auchus R., Baratz A., … Witchel S. (2016). Global disorders of sex development update since 2006: Perceptions, approach and care. Hormone Research in Paediatrics, 85(3), 158–180. doi: 10.1159/000442975 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Martin C. L., & Ruble D. N. (2010). Patterns of gender development. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 353–381. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100511 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Martin C. L., Ruble D. N., & Szkrybalo J. (2002). Cognitive theories of early gender development. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 903–933. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.128.6.903 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. McDermott E., Roen K., & Scourfield J. (2008). Avoiding shame: Young LGBT people, homophobia and self-destructive behaviours. Culture, Health and Sexuality, 10, 815–829. doi: 10.1080/13691050802380974 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Mereish E. H., & Poteat V. P. (2015). A relational model of sexual minority mental and physical health: The negative effects of shame on relationships, loneliness, and health. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 62, 425–437. doi: 10.1037/cou0000088 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Meyer-Bahlburg H. F. L. (2009). Variants of gender differentiation in somatic disorders of sex development: Recommendations for Version 7 of the world professional association for transgender health's standards of care. International Journal of Transgenderism, 11, 226–237. doi: 10.1080/15532730903439476 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. Mikołajczak M., & Pietrzak J. (2014). Ambivalent sexism and religion: Connected through values. Sex Roles, 70, 387–399. doi: 10.1007/s11199-014-0379-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Montañés P., Megías J. L., De Lemus S., & Moya M. (2015). Influence of early romantic relationships on adolescents’ sexism / Sexismo en la adolescencia: Influencia de lasprimerasrelaciones de pareja. Revista de Psicología Social, 30(2), 219–240. doi: 10.1080/21711976.2015.1016756 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  34. Paul G. S. (2010). Religiosity tied to socioeconomic status. Science, 327, 642. doi: 10.1126/science.327.5966.642-b [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Rahbari L. (2016). Sexuality in Iran. Encyclopedia of Family Studies: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. [Google Scholar]
  36. Ruble D. N., Taylor L. J., Cyphers L., Greulich F. K., Lurye L. E., & Shrout P. E. (2007). The role of gender constancy in early gender development. Child Development, 78, 1121–1136. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01056.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Safavifar F., Eftekhar M., Alavi K., Negarandeh R., Jalali A. H., & Eftekhar M. (2016). Religious experiences of Iranian transgenders: A qualitative study. Medical Journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran, 30, 385–385. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Sarvghad S. (2013). Psychometric properties of the ambivalent sexism inventory for college students. Journal of Psychological Models and Methods, 3(12), 16. [Google Scholar]
  39. Spence J. T., Helmreich R., & Stapp J. (1973). A short version of the Attitudes toward Women Scale (AWS). Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 2, 219–220. doi: 10.3758/bf03329252 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  40. Swim J. K., Mallett R., Russo-Devosa Y., & Stangor C. (2005). Judgments of sexism: A comparison of the subtlety of sexism measures and sources of variability in judgments of sexism. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 406–411. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.2005.00240.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. T'Sjoen G., De Cuypere G., Monstrey S., Hoebeke P., Freedman F. K., Appari M., … Cools M. (2011). Male gender identity in complete androgen insensitivity syndrome. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 635–638. doi: 10.1007/s10508-010-9624-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Tobin D. D., Menon M., Menon M., Spatta B. C., Hodges E. V., & Perry D. G. (2010). The intrapsychics of gender: A model of self-socialization. Psychological Review, 117, 601–622. doi: 10.1037/a0018936 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Vargas-Salfate S. (2017). The palliative function of hostile sexism among high and low-status Chilean students. Frontiers in Psychology, 8. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01733 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. WEF (2014). The global gender gap report. from World Economic Forum http://reports.weforum.org/global-gender-gap-report-2014/
  45. Willer R., Rogalin C. L., Conlon B., & Wojnowicz M. T. (2013). Overdoing gender: A test of the masculine overcompensation thesis. American Journal of Sociology, 118, 980–1022. doi: 10.1086/668417 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Articles from The international Journal of Transgenderism are provided here courtesy of Taylor & Francis

RESOURCES