Third born male of four, so not fitting with the idea which Leah was quoting.
However I found a paper from the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry Vol. 38, No. 5. pp. 543-551. 1997 By Prof. Kenneth Zucker and others titled "Sibling Sex Ratio of Boys with Gender Identity Disorder" with a different conclusion, that
does square up with my own situation.
I'll quote from the abstract:
"
Sibling sex ratio (the ratio of brothers to sisters) was calculated for 444 boys with gender identity disorder (or with behaviors consistent with this diagnosis)." using data "
from several researchers with expertise with this disorder and from the English language case report literature between 1938 and 1995". This suggested that "
Among the probands with at least
one sibling, the results showed that boys with gender identity disorder had a significant excess of brothers to sisters, 131.1:100, when compared with the expected secondary sex ratio of 106:100. The excess of brothers replicated a previous study by Blanchard, Zucker, Bradley, and Hume (1995), in which the sibling sex ratio was 140.6:100. Further analyses showed that the probands were born later relative to their brothers than
they were relative to their sisters."
So.......who is correct? Are these two points of view incompatible? It seems so to me
:2c:
Ann Rosa
p.s Perhaps the "let out clause" in reconciling these two views comes in that Leah's is talking about cross-dressing per se, and the study by Zucker et. al is about those with "Gender Identity Disorder". Maybe someone would clarify if cross dressing
always implies G.I.D or not. I suspect the answer is "not"
Originally Posted by JudithAnnMeadowsweet
Third born male of four, so not fitting with the idea which Leah was quoting.
