Psychological Self-Perception in 
   Male Transsexuals, Homosexuals, and Heterosexuals1 
    Candice Skrapec, MSc.,2 and 
    K. R. MacKenzie, M.D., F.R.C.P.(C)2,3 

   Gender-related aspects of self-perception were explored for 24 anatomical 
males consisting of three matched groups of transsexuals, heterosexuals, and 
homosexuals.  MacKenzie's Diagnostic Criteria Scale ratings were used to 
confirm group membership.  Instruments used were the Repertory Grid Technique, 
the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, Bem Self Role Inventory, Maferr Inventory of 
Masculine Values, and Derogatis Sexual Functioning Inventory.  Results for 
transsexual subjects reflected lowest self-esteem.  Of the three groups, they 
perceived themselves to be the most like females and the most unlike other 
males.  Transsexual subjects tended to describe themselves in nonmasculine 
terms and valued their gender role orientation.  Homosexual subjects, on the 
other hand, reported the highest self-esteem.  Additionally, they saw 
themselves as the most similar to males and the most dissimilar to females.  
As a group, homosexual subjects described themselves in comparatively strong 
masculine-stereotyped fashion and valued this posture.  However, they believed 
that women do not value the self-orientation which these subjects endorsed for 
themselves.  Heterosexual subjects scored moderately high in terms of global 
self-esteem.  They described themselves as somewhat masculine to androgynous 
and reported valuing their gender role orientation.  Results on the Repertory 
Grid and the Derogatis Sexual Functioning Inventory showed heterosexual 
subjects to be the least polarized in their gender-related self-descriptions.  
This group generally appeared to be least concerned with traditional gender 
role referents.  The importance of a cognitive approach to clinical assessment 
of the transsexual individual is stressed. 
   KEY WORDS: transsexualism; identification (psychological); gender identity; 
self-concept; self-perception; self-assessment; gender role; sexual identity. 
   1Some of the material in this article was presented at the 28th Annual 
Meeting of the Canadian Psychiatric Association, Halifax, 1978 and the Sixth 
International Symposium on Gender Dysphoria, San Diego, 1979. 
   2Department of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Calgary, 
Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2N IN4.  
   3To whom correspondence should be addressed. 
   The University of Calgary has an established Gender Dysphoria Clinic with a 
sizable caseload of applicants for sex reassignment surgery.  The general 
approach of the clinic, along with results of its assessment and treatment 
procedures, has been presented elsewhere (MacKenzie, 1973; MacKenzie et al., 
1977).  This investigation measures selected gender-related variables forming 
part of the complex network of self-referent dimensions subsumed under the 
general heading of self-concept.  The theoretical orientation of this study 
views self-concept as a composite of hierarchically organized interacting 
subsystems (Epstein, 1973).  A core of self-esteem is taken as the focus of 
one primary subsystem (MacKenzie, 1979).  That is, a basic sense of self-
evaluation both affects and is affected by interaction of the self with 
specific others in various contexts.  The outcome of this interaction, what 
one observes as behavior, will depend on the particular situation.  Core self-
esteem is thus a global conception providing higher order organization.  With 
cognitive dissonance overriding the interaction, core self-esteem tends to 
have a peremptory quality in evaluation of contextual meaning.  Similarly, 
core gender identity is considered the focal point of another primary 
subsystem (Stoller, 1968; Green, 1974; Money and Ehrhardt, 1972).  It 
interacts with gender-related dimensions such as gender role orientation, sex 
object choice, and the sexual implications of physical characteristics and 
psychological constitution.  The resultant gender-related behaviors observed 
are thus a product of boundary resolution between the higher order sense of 
core gender identity and the lower order specific manifestations. 
   It is assumed that individuals who are clear about their gender 
identification draw referents from an organized system of beliefs as to the 
psychosexual meaning of being a male or female.  That is, being a male or 
female implies a set of beliefs about appropriate gender roles, sexual 
preference, psychological makeup, and physical appearance.  As a developmental 
process, individuals incorporate the resultant composite into their sense of 
self.  Evaluative processes accompany this integration.  The transsexual 
individual perceives his or her gender identity to be incongruous with the 
apparent anatomical reality, thus giving rise to boundary stress between core 
gender identity and physical characteristics.  The purpose of this study was 
to explore how gender issues impact on several dimensions of self-perception 
   Eight male transsexuals requesting sex reassignment surgery to female were 
selected from the Gender Dysphoria Clinic of the University of Calgary.  
Histories and assessment summaries were reviewed in order to rule out clear 
indications of psychopathology.  Specifically, information was derived from 
available psychological testing reports (including the MMPI and social and 
psychiatric history questionnaires) and clinical interview summaries.  Eight 
volunteer heterosexual and eight volunteer homosexual males matched for age 
and socioeconomic status with the transsexuals were also studied.  Sample 
characteristics are summarized in Table I. 
   Table I.  Sample Characteristics 
                       Transsexual   Heterosexual    Homosexual 
   Age range                 22-32          21-30         25-35 
   Mean age                  26.8           23.6          29.6 
   Social classa 
           I                  1              2             1 
           II                 0              0             1 
           III                3              1             3 
           IV                 2              4             2 
           V                  2              1             1 
   aFrom Hollingshead's Two Factor Index of Social Position (Hollingshead, 
1957); a brief class description is as follows: 
           I.      High social prestige (wealth). 
           II.     High managerial positions ("well-to-do"). 
           III.    White-collar status. 
           IV.     Semi-skilled positions. 
           V.      Unskilled labor (poor). 
   None of the 24 subjects gave a history of involvement with organizations 
which might be expected to render a major selection bias to this study (e.g., 
homophile societies).  Additionally, all appeared to be responsible members of 
the community, maintaining stable employment without attracting political or 
personal notoriety.  It should be noted that data for one homosexual subject 
were incomplete.  Analyses were adjusted accordingly. 
   Instruments and Techniques 
   1.  MacKenzie's (1978) Diagnostic Criteria Scales are based on clinical 
histories.  They are used to quantify aspects of sexual history along the 
following dimensions: (1) childhood cross-gender behavior; (2) adult cross-
gender behavior; (3) homophile association; (4) heterophile association; (5) 
genital erotic focus; and (6) transvestite behavior. 
   2.  Repertory Grid Technique offers an intriguing approach to the 
operationalization of gender identification as an aspect of self-
identification.  The technique is derived from Kelly's (1955) theory of 
personal constructs.  The element components used are summarized in Table II.  
These comprise names of actual people from the subject's life as well as 10 
idealized figures.  There were 25 constructs obtained in the usual fashion by 
eliciting descriptors used to differentiate triads of element figures.  Each 
element was then rated along a 5-point scale on each construct.  The resultant 
grid was analyzed in terms of the interelement distances.  This calculation 
constitutes a measure of similarity between elements (Lederman, 1954; Giles 
and Rychlak, 1965; Ryle, 1975). 
   Table II.  Nature of Grid Elements 
           1  \ 
           2    \ 
                    (7 significant males from subject's personal life) 
                    (7 significant females from subject's personal life) 
           13    / 
           14  /   
           15       ideal example of a woman 
           16       poor example of a woman 
           17       ideal example of a man 
           18       poor example of a man 
           19       actual self 
           20       ideal self 
           21       women's perception of self as female 
           22       men's perception of self as female 
           23       men's perception of self as male 
           24       women's perception of self as male 
   3.  The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale is a 10-item Guttman scale to measure 
self-evaluation in global terms (Rosenberg, 1965). 
   4.  The Bem Sex Role Inventory was administered to determine subjects' 
self-perceptions according to gender role stereotypes.  This scale measures an 
individual's affinity for various constellations of gender role attributes.  
Masculinity and femininity are treated as independent dimensions.  This 
permits characterization of individuals as masculine- or feminine-gender 
typed; androgynous (representing coexistence of masculine and feminine 
attributes), or undifferentiated (implying gender role postures low in both 
masculinity and femininity) (Bem, 1974, 1977). 
   5.  The Maferr Inventory of Masculine Values was used as a means of 
quantifying attitudes toward masculine roles (Steinmann et al., 1968).  
Subjects described "self" and "ideal man" perceptions according to family-
versus self-oriented values.  For the family-oriented man, family 
responsibilities take precedence over personal endeavors.  A self-oriented 
man, on the other hand, considers personal satisfactions as more important 
than those of family.  The family- versus self-orientation distinction 
parallels an expressive/instrumental dimension which is generally taken to 
distinguish gender role stereotypes. 
   6.  The Derogatis Sexual Functioning Inventory provides a composite 
psychological profile with particular relevance for sexual behavior 
(Derogatis, 1976).  This instrument has specific subscales related to sexual 
information, experience, drive, attitudes, psychological symptoms, affect, 
gender role definition, sexual fantasy, body image, and general sexual 
   All subjects were seen individually on two occasions separated by 
approximately three weeks.  They were told at the outset that the purpose of 
the study was to explore attitudes about sexuality and how these might be 
incorporated into a perception of self.  Confidentiality of information was 
stressed.  It was made clear to members of the transsexual group that results 
would in no way influence gender program decisions.  Except for Repertory Grid 
Technique administration, which occupied both sessions, the order in which 
instruments were presented across the two sessions was randomly determined. 
   Results of the Diagnostic Criteria Scale ratings are presented in Table 
III.  Pairwise comparisons revealed statistically significant differences 
across subject groups in expected directions. 
   Repertory Grids for each subject were analyzed using Slater's INGRID 72 
program (Slater, 1977).  The output includes distances between elements in 
terms of their similarity or dissimilarity to each other, according to the 
elicited constructs.  A comparison was made between a subject's description of 
himself and mean descriptions for both males and females.  That is, did he 
describe himself more like "a man" or more like "a woman"?  Table IV presents 
these results.  Heterosexual subjects saw themselves as equally similar to 
males and females.  According to the subjects' own descriptions of males and 
females, transsexual subjects describe themselves as more like females, 
whereas, homosexual subjects saw themselves most like males. 
   Table III.  Comparison of Diagnostic Criteria Scale Ratings 
   across Groups: Obtained Student's t Values 
           Crossgender     Homo-   Hetero- Genital Trans-
           behavior                phile   phile   Erotic  vestite 
           Child   Adult   index   index   focus   behavior 
   Transsexual vs. 
   Heterosexual    3.97b   13.05b  3.13b   3.31b   2.15a   1.89a 
   Transsexual vs 
   Homosexual      2.71b   10.21b  - 1.74a -1.06   -6.63b  1.89a 
   Homosexual vs. 
   heterosexual    2.14a   1.34    7.94b    2.05a  3.26b   0 
   ap < 0.05.  bp < 0.01. 
   Table IV.  Distance between Elementsa 
                                   (Student's t, 
           Self vs Females Self vs Males   within groups) 
   subjects        0.898   1.002   -> p < 0.05 
   Heterosexual                                    \ 
   subjects        0.908   0.985   N.S.    -> p < 0.05b 
   Homosexual                                      / 
   subjects        1.012   0.910   -> p < 0.01 
   aResults are expressed as mean standardized element-element distances.  
Values less than 1.0 imply similarity between elements, and values greater 
than 1.0 reflect dissimilarity.  
   bBetween groups.  
   Table V.  Self-Evaluation Indices 
           Mean Rosenberg Scorea   Actual-ideal distanceb 
   subjects                /        1.38   \               /        0.650 
           p < 0.01                         \      N.S. 
   Homosexual              \                 \             \ 
   subjects                /       1.13       p < 0.01             /       
0.683 N.S. 
           p < 0.01                (0.86)    /     N.S.            (t-test) 
   Heterosexual            \                /              \ 
   subjects                        0.75    /                        0.765 
   aLow scores reflect high global self-esteem.  
   bStandardized element-element distances; values less than 1.0 imply 
similarity between elements. 
   An index of self-evaluation was obtained in two ways: (1) using the 
Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale as a global measure; (2) using the concepts of 
actual versus ideal self-descriptions relative to the self-generated construct 
systems of the Repertory Grid.  Results are shown in Table V.  Scores on the 
Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale clearly discriminated transsexual subjects from 
heterosexual and homosexual ones.  Homosexuals thought highest of themselves 
in global terms, and transsexuals scored lowest; heterosexuals fell in the 
middle.  All comparisons reached statistical significance.  However, sample 
size was small, and one heterosexual individual scored near maximum in terms 
of self-dissatisfaction on the Rosenberg Scale.  If his score is removed (as 
indicated in parentheses in Table V), then heterosexual and homosexual groups 
are not significantly different from each other.  No significant differences 
were found between actual - ideal self - ratings on the Repertory Grid.  Thus, 
these two measures, both purporting to tap self-evaluation, appeared to give 
different results.  To analyze this discrepancy, Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale 
scores were correlated with actual-ideal-self grid ratings.  When scores for 
all three groups were collapsed, a Pearson product moment correlation 
coefficient of 0.46 was obtained.  This indicated that 80% of the total 
variance between the two sets of scores could not be accounted for by a linear 
relationship.  Each subject group was then looked at through separate 
comparisons.  For heterosexual subjects, a significant correlation was found 
between Rosenberg scores and actual-ideal-self distances (r = 0.88, p < 0.01).  
This difference remained even when data for the extreme scores on the 
Rosenberg Scale were omitted from analysis.  No such relationship was revealed 
for transsexual (r = 0.10) or homosexual (r = 0.06) subjects.  That is, 
transsexual and homosexual self-descriptions on the Repertory Grid tended not 
to match their more global self-evaluations on the Rosenberg Self-Esteem 
   Both the original t-ratio scoring and the more recently recommended median-
split procedures were used to determine Bem Sex Role Inventory results (Bem, 
1974, 1977).  Using t-ratio scoring, transsexual subjects described themselves 
either as gender typed in a feminine direction or as androgynous (mean = 0.58, 
standard deviation = 1.18).  Only one of these subject's scores implied slight 
masculinity.  The mean of the heterosexual group was in the androgynous range 
(mean = 0.65, standard deviation = 2.08).  One heterosexual subject scored in 
a highly feminine direction.  More than half of the homosexual subjects scored 
in a masculine direction, with two describing themselves in more feminine 
terms (mean = 1.53, standard deviation = 3.82).  Scores for homosexual 
subjects revealed the greatest variability. 
   When the same data were analyzed using a median-split procedure, 
heterosexual subjects tended to score low in both masculine and feminine 
characteristics (undifferentiated) relative to the overall sample.  In 
contrast, five of the eight transsexual subjects scored high on both masculine 
and feminine characteristics, implying androgyny.  Only one transsexual 
individual could be classified as undifferentiated.  Homosexual subjects' 
results revealed even more marked polarity, with six of the seven scoring in a 
masculine-gender-typed direction and the seventh subject high in both 
directions.  Table VI shows the classification of subjects by gender role 
endorsement according to the median-split procedure. 
   Subjects' attitudes toward masculine roles were examined by analyzing the 
data from the Maferr Inventory of Masculine Values.  The same questions based 
on family- versus self-oriented values were answered for (1) self-description; 
(2) subject's perception of the values held by the ideal man; and (3) 
subject's perception of the values women associate with the ideal man.  
Subjects were first compared on the basis of their own personal values.  
Homosexuals were more self-oriented than heterosexuals, who, in turn, were 
more self-oriented than transsexual subjects.  Using the same instrument, 
subjects described their conceptions of the ideal man.  Homosexual subjects 
felt that the ideal man values self-orientation more than did heterosexual or 
transsexual subjects.  Finally, subjects were asked how they thought women 
would describe values of the ideal man.  Transsexuals again presented the 
ideal man in a family-oriented direction.  Heterosexuals rated him as 
moderately self-oriented.  However, results for homosexuals were markedly 
different; they perceived women's ideal man to be highly family oriented.  
Group means are presented in Table VII. 
   Table VI.  Bem Sex Role Inventory Results: 
   Median-Split Procedure (Number of Subjects) 
                   Masculine   Feminine  Androgynous  Undifferentiated 
   Transsexuals    0           2         5            1 
   Heterosexuals   3           1         0            4 
   Homosexuals     3           3         1            0 
   Table VII.  Maferr Inventory of Masculine Values Results, 
   Mean Role-Value Scoresa 
           Self-description        Subjects'       Subjects' 
                   ideal   perception of 
                   man     women's ideal man 
   Transsexuals    +0.13           - 0.63   - 7.00 
   Heterosexuals   +5.25   p < 0.05        +1.38   +1.25 
   (t-test)                p < 0.05 
   Homosexuals     +9.43           +7.43   -10.43  (t-test) 
   at-Test significance probabilities for transsexual compared to homosexual 
   Table VIII.  Derogatis Sexual Functioning Inventory: 
   Mean T-Scores 
            Subscale                Transsexuals   Heterosexuals   Homosexuals 
        I.  Information               48              43             47 
        II.  Experience               42              41             47 
        III.  Drive                   42              51             64 
        IV.  Attitude                 39              48             54 
        V.  Symptoms                  64              64             69 
        VI.  Affect balance           49              48             42 
        VII.  Gender role definition  36              49             56 
        VIII.  Fantasy                46              54             61 
        IX.  Body image               29              43             38 
        X.  Satisfaction              44              45             49 
   Maferr Inventory of Masculine Values self-description results were 
consistent with Bem Sex Role Inventory data.  The Pearson product moment 
correlation coefficient for transsexual subjects was -0.65 (p < 0.05), for 
heterosexual subjects, -0.50 (N.S.), and for homosexual subjects, -0.63 (p < 
   Results for subject groups on the Derogatis Sexual Functioning Inventory 
are presented in Table VIII.  On seven of the ten subscales, heterosexual 
subjects scored between transsexual and homosexual subjects.  Summarizing 
these data, homosexual subjects reported higher sexual drive levels than did 
transsexual subjects, with heterosexuals in the middle.  Homosexual subjects 
were most liberal-minded, and transsexuals, least.  Homosexuals most strongly 
endorsed masculine traits for themselves, in contrast with transsexuals who 
revealed the most femininity in terms of gender role definition.  Homosexual 
subjects reported entertaining the widest range of fantasy activities, and 
transsexual subjects, the most limited.  Body images of transsexuals were 
poorest.  This group also scored lowest on general sexual satisfaction. 
   By clinical history and the Diagnostic Criteria Scales, the three groups 
appeared to be relatively uncontaminated with each other.  Differences between 
groups across all six scales were consistent with clinical expectations.  In 
particular, profiles for transsexual subjects were compatible with a classic 
transsexual history.  This group is therefore representative only of one 
subcategory of patient presenting at gender dysphoria clinics (Bentler, 1976). 
   In looking at the results across instruments, it becomes apparent that 
there was a considerable degree of consistency for each of the subject groups.  
From Repertory Grid data, it was found that transsexual subjects saw 
themselves as more like females than males.  It may be that they have 
incorporated a female set of attitudes regarding themselves.  On the Rosenberg 
Self-Esteem Scale, these individuals reported having the lowest global self-
esteem.  However, there was no linear relationship between Rosenberg Scale 
scores and actual-ideal-self distances on the grid.  Thus, transsexuals 
globally evaluated themselves more critically than would be predicted from 
their self-ratings.  This suggests that in seeking sex reassignment surgery, 
they are responding to an abstract idea of gender, more than to actual self-
perception.  The presenting problem of the transsexual is one of sexual 
dysphoria more than of a particular self-description.  Results suggest that 
the basis for transsexualism is a higher order, abstracted sense of gender, 
rather than a function of actual behavioral descriptions.  This is compatible 
with Stoller's conceptualization of core gender identity which goes beyond 
behavioral characteristics.  Such an abstract sense of maleness/femaleness may 
serve as the self-evaluative determinant for the transsexual.  Moreover, 
Maferr instrument results reflected that transsexuals subjects valued their 
chosen gender role orientation.  On the Bem Sex Role Inventory, these subjects 
used extremes in their endorsement of masculine and/or feminine 
characteristics for themselves.  On the Derogatis Sexual Functioning 
Inventory, they scored as the least liberal-minded group.  Their endorsement 
of rather polarized conservative values is in keeping with their endorsement 
of traditional gender role referents.  In general, the level of involvement in 
and satisfaction with sexual behavior tended to be lowest for this group.  As 
would be expected, transsexuals had the poorest body image. 
   Results for heterosexuals tended to contrast with those for transsexuals, 
and homosexuals.  Referring to Repertory Grid distances, these subjects saw 
themselves as equally similar to male and female others.  They reported 
moderately high global self-esteem.  Further, their global self-evaluations 
were congruent with actual versus ideal self-ratings on the Grid.  For these 
individuals, responses to the two measures of self-evaluation would seem to 
have been derived from a single cognitive impression of self.  The correlation 
between Rosenberg Scale scores and actual-ideal-self Grid ratings for this 
group approximates that determined by Silber and Tippett (1965) for college 
students.  Relative to transsexual and homosexual subjects, heterosexuals 
described themselves in comparatively less polarized terms according to 
androgyny scores.  The consistency of value ratings between self and ideal-man 
perceptions would indicate that heterosexual subjects valued their own gender 
role orientation.  Results on the Derogatis instrument presented these 
individuals as the least polarized on seven of the ten subscales.  Overall, 
general sexual satisfaction was highest in this group.  Heterosexual subjects 
appeared to be moderately liberal in attitude.  Therefore, the fact that they 
presented as androgynous and not "masculine" on the Bem Scale scores should 
not evoke psychosexual conflict. 
   As a group, homosexuals sketched an interesting but puzzling picture of 
themselves.  In terms of self versus other grid distances, it was expected 
that they would see themselves somewhat further removed from their 
descriptions of other males than would heterosexual subjects, particularly 
since a considerable proportion of the male elements rated by homosexual 
subjects were heterosexual figures.  Instead, homosexual subjects described 
themselves as being more like other males than heterosexual subjects did.  
Homosexual subjects reported feeling better about themselves in a global sense 
than their self-ratings from the grid would suggest.  They seem to have 
described themselves using different referents than they used in evaluating 
themselves.  As for gender role orientation, homosexual androgyny scores were 
the most polarized and displayed the greatest variability.  They reported 
valuing self- over family-orientation and felt this was also true of the ideal 
man.  However, they perceived women's ideal man to strongly value a family 
orientation.  This contrasted sharply with the self-oriented terms endorsed in 
describing their own values and those of their ideal man.  As such, there was 
a discrepancy between the gender role behavior they acknowledged and valued 
for themselves, and those they believed were valued by women.  This suggests a 
major incongruity in their perception of male versus female expectations 
regarding male behavior.  Cognitive dissonance could be evoked in situations 
where social expectations challenge self-perception.  In particular, such 
incongruity could conceivably have negative implications for psychosexual 
stability.  It certainly could shape the behavior of the homosexual male as he 
interacts with women.  In terms of sexual functioning, homosexual subjects 
presented a profile suggestive of considerable involvement and satisfaction.  
They were the most liberal-minded regarding sexual attitudes.  By adopting a 
liberal attitudinal set, they may be able to reduce any cognitive dissonance 
generated by their gender role orientation and sex object choice. 
   Certainly, the sample size of 24 imposes important restrictions on the 
generalizability of results to other members of the three populations 
represented in this study.  Nonetheless, the three groups were matched for 
age, sex of birth, and socioeconomic status, and statistically significant 
differences were found.  One might also note that groups did not differ in 
terms of affect balance or psychological symptoms on the Derogatis Scales.  
Moreover, patterns of obtained results were compatible with logical extensions 
to psychosexual stability. 
   To summarize, the results indicated that transsexuals tend to describe 
themselves in nonmasculine terms and value their gender role orientation.  As 
sex-reassigned females, it would be reasonable to expect smooth psychosexual 
adjustment.  Indeed, sex reassignment surgery may be viewed as a means of 
enhancing the consistency of the gender component of self-concept.  
Heterosexuals were least polarized in terms of gender-related measures.  They 
appeared least concerned with traditional frames of reference and, further, 
endorsed substantial balance in their gender role.  For them, integration of 
gender component elements into the self-concept system is not likely to meet 
with great conflict.  Homosexuals described themselves in more rigidly 
stereotypic fashion.  One might suspect that the gender identification 
component of self-concept was most fragile in this group of individuals.  The 
data suggests that they introduced a systematic distortion into their 
perceptions of maleness and male roles.  One possible explanation could be the 
systematic use of denial and reaction formation.  The results could be 
explained by using the idea of compensatory masculine responding, where 
masculinity is defensively exaggerated in the face of gender role "threat" 
(Babl, 1979).  Such a response would be understandable in situations where the 
homosexual's wish for enduring interpersonal relationships is met by a reality 
of brief, more superficial encounters.  In a sense then, his global self-
evaluation is "over-determined," with some kind of compensation operating at a 
cognitive level.  If further research supports these results, gender dysphoria 
clinics may derive additional means for discriminating between effeminate 
homosexual and transsexual candidates.  It should be noted that, to our 
knowledge, the Repertory Grid Technique has not been systematically used to 
assess gender issues.  Our results, in which comparison is made with three 
established instruments, may be taken as supporting the construct validity of 
this approach. 
   To conclude, it is felt that the importance of cognitive mediating 
variables in relation to the interpersonal construct system used for 
describing and evaluating self and others must be stressed.  In terms of a 
self-concept system, the presenting problem of the transsexual may be 
appreciated as a symptom of the need for boundary resolution within this 
system.  The theoretical framework underlying this research would suggest that 
psychosexual stability is determined by the efficacy of such resolutions. 
   We thank Dr. Patrick Slater and the British Medical Research Council for 
services in providing the INGRID 72 program.  We are particularly grateful to 
Dr. Slater for his helpful correspondence. 
   Babl, J. D. (1979). Compensatory masculine responding as a function of sex 
role. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 47: 252-257. 
   Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. J. Consult. 
Clin. Psychol 42: 155-162. 
   Bem, S. L., and Watson, C. (1976). Revised Scoring Packet: Bem Sex Role 
Inventory. Available from first author. 
   Bem, S. L. (1977). On the utility of alternative procedures for assessing 
psychological androgyny. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. (1976). 45: 196-205. 
   Bender, M. P. (1976). Does construing people as similar involve similar 
behavior towards them?: A subjective and objective replication. Brit. J. Soc. 
Clin. Psychol. 15: 93-95. 
   Bentler, P. M. (1976). A typology of transsexualism: gender identity theory 
and data. Arch. Sex. Behav. 5: 567-584. 
   Derogatis, L. R. (1976). Psychological assessment of the sexual 
disabilities. In Meyer, J. K. (ed.), Clinical Management of Sexual Disorders, 
Baltimore, Williams & Wilkins. 
   Derogatis, L. R., Meyer, J. K., and Vazquez, N. (1978). A psychological 
profile of the transsexual: I. The male. J. Nerv. Ment. Dis. 166: 234-254. 
   Epstein, S. (1973). The self-concept revised: Or a theory of a theory. 
Amer. Psychol. May: 28: 404-416. 
   Giles, P. G., and Rychlak, J. R. (1965). The validity of the role construct 
repertory test as a measure of sexual identification. J. Proj. Tech. 29: 7-11. 
   Green, R. (1974). Sexual Identity Conflict in Children and Adults. New 
York, Basic Books. London, Gerald Duckworth. 
   Hollingshead, A. B. (1957). Two Factor Index of Social Position. New Haven, 
Connecticut, August B. Hollingshead. 
   Kelly, G. A. (1955). The Psychology of Personal Constructs. New York, W. W. 
   Lederman, D. G. (1954). Sexual identification on the role construct 
repertory test. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Ohio State University. 
   MacKenzie, K. R. (1973). The family context of a case of gender dysphoria. 
Paper presented at the Third International Symposium on Gender Identity, 
Dubrovnik, Yugoslavia. 
   MacKenzie, K. R. (1978). Gender dysphoria syndrome: Toward standardized 
diagnostic criteria. Arch. Sex. Behav. 7: 251-262. 
   MacKenzie, K. R. (1979). The measurement of self concept in psychiatric 
outpatients: A factor analytic study of the Tennessee Self Concept Scale. 
Paper presented at the American Group Psychotherapy Association Conference, 
New York. 
   MacKenzie, K. R., Bala, M., Angus, D., and Love, E. (1977). Endocrine 
abnormalities in gender dysphoric patients. Paper presented at the Fifth 
International Symposium on Gender Dysphoria, Norfolk. 
   Money, J., and Ehrhardt, A. A. (1972). Man and Woman, Boy and Girl: The 
Differentiation and Dimorphism of Gender Identity from Conception to Maturity, 
Baltimore, The Johns Hopkins University Press. 
   Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the Adolescent Self Image, Princeton, 
Princeton University Press. 
   Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the Self, New York, Basic Books. 
   Ryle, A. (1975). Frames and Cages: The Repertory Grid Approach to Human 
Under standing, New York, International Universities Press. 
   Silber, E., and Tippett, J. S. (1965). Self-esteem: Clinical assessment and 
measurement validation. Psychol. Rep. 16: 1017-1071. 
   Slater, P. (ed.). (1977). The Measurement of Intrapersonal Space by Grid 
Technique, Volume 2, Dimensions of Intrapersonal Space, New York, John Wiley. 
   Steinmann, A., Fox, D., and Farkas, R. L. (1968). Male and female 
perceptions of male sex roles. Proceedings of the 76th Annual American 
Psychological Association Convention, San Francisco, American Psychological 
   Stoller, R. J. (1968). Sex and Gender (Vol. 1), New York, Science House. 
   Wylie, R. C. (1974). The Self-Concept: A Review of Methodological 
Considerations and Measuring Instruments (Vol. 1, rev. ed.), Lincoln, 
University of Nebraska Press. 

Return to Psyc Page Return to Top
Return to Main Menu