I don’t know if you’ve looked at the SAGE, but some of those questions aren’t taken so much as a measure of masculine or feminine brain function, but as measures of your sexuality. A lot of the “how do you respond” questions have a choice saying, “It gets me horny.” This is an option for seeing tampon commercials, working with power tools, reading an article on breastfeeding, etc. None of those things get me all hot and bothered, so the test classes me as anallophillic, when I’m in fact all about the dick.
I’m rather perplexed at drawing the conclusion that one is anallophilic based on not being aroused by tampon commercials, breastfeeding articles, or power tools. In fact, I think it’s a little odd to get aroused by any of those things, and being aroused by them seems more symptomatic of a fetish than of any more normal sexual orientation.
I really don’t want to think about the sort of person who gets all hot and bothered at a tampon commercial. Eeeugh.
My thoughts exactly, Kelly. The tampon commercial question also has the option of saying that it makes you sad because you wish you needed tampons. That one perplexes me, too. I mean, I understand why someone would want the things that needing tampons implies, but I also associate needing them with being bloated, crampy, and so moody I can barely stand to be around myself, much less other people. Why anybody would want that, I’ll never know.
Try searching for COGIATI. The site I linked to was down when I tried to go back to it, but it was back up again a little while later. shrug
Thank you. 
Hadn’t thought about it that way, and will take some time to do so.
Actually, yes I have thought that… although being comfortable in my own skin is important to me and most male traits feel distinctly uncomfortable. Still, maybe the answer isn’t one or the other - maybe it is a combination of both. People have asked me IRL what I would do different/how I would act different, and I really didn’t have an answer. Neither traditional gender role has much appeal.
From the sounds of it, although I have not seen this S.A.G.E. test it appears to be quite different from the COGIATI and Moir-Jessel, which seemed to me to have to do mostly with identity and abilities often associated with one sex or the other. Where they seemed to swing most strongly feminine for me was with the questions about music, faces, and sense of direction.
I dunno, that sounds remarkably like the SAGE test, too. There were a lot of questions about math, and verbal ability, and spatial reasoning, and communication styles. Like I said, gender stereotype claptrap, baby. It’s scored on the mistaken assumption that being feminine means being a touchy-feely, frilly, “math is hard” giggler, and that being masculine means being into sports and cars and power tools and being totally removed from your feelings.
I think a lot of the problem is that masculine and feminine are such squishy concepts. There’s not really a hard and fast checklist type definition that everyone can agree with, so it can mean a lot of different things. When I was in high school, my brother told me I was the least feminine girl he’d ever met…and he meant it as a compliment. He was saying that I wasn’t a manipulative, mind-game-playing beeyotch, that I just went on and said what I meant. To his mind, being straightforward was a masculine trait. (To my mind, he needed to hang out with a better class of woman, but that’s really neither here nor there.)
At any rate, I think you and Kelly and I are all saying essentially the same thing about the tests–they measure how well you fit into the 1950’s Leave it to Beaver mindset of what’s masculine and feminine. We’re just phrasing it different ways. That tends to be a major problem in discussions about gender identity, I’ve noticed. Folks operate from different assumptions about what something means and wind up talking past each other, or snarking about mistaken assumptions about what the other person is saying.
As far as I can tell, the SAGE test is the COGIATI restructured somewhat and with a few additional questions (and possibly with a few of the questions that explicitly assume that the subject is a pretransition mtf removed). It seems to suffer from much of the same failings as the COGIATI does.
The real failing of these instruments is that they are totally unvalidated; nowhere will you find any discussion as to how their scoring was developed or how the scoring was validated.
Not only does it appear to be inappropriate for post-transition, it also appears to be inappropriate for anyone without a gender identity issue in the first place, nor a place to list the intensity of your answer. For instance, the question might be:
X) If you were told you had to live the rest of your life as a man or a woman, without being able to go back, what would you pick:
A) Definitely a woman. I’ve known this forever.
B) I think I’d pick a woman. i’ve always wanted to be a woman.
C) Probably a man. You can never be sure without experiencing it first.
D) I’m pretty sure I still want to be a man.
They might forget to list my answer, E) Either a man or a woman would be fine, as long as I looked just as good as either and I didn’t get any periods.
There were also quite a few “when did you stop beating your wife questions,” which were clearly inappropriate for those who never questioned their gender (or those who, like me, if are not male, then are neuter rather than feminine.)
Having taken the COGITATI, I don’t see how it could be helpful. Frankly, even if it was better designed, had more questions, covered more areas, and accepted as valid by the APA, I still don’t see the point. If the results say that somebody questioning their gender is not a transexual, will they just say ‘Well, that clears that up. I guess I’ll just live the rest of my life as a man.’? If somebody who is comfortable with their gender takes the test for a lark and the results indicate that they are a transexual will they say ‘Hmm. Well isn’t that something? I suppose I’ll throw out my wardrobe and call the doctor about hormone therapy.’
Cityboy916 Whether you have stereotypically masculine or feminine traits is irrelevant. Ask yourself, at the core who are you?
It’s the power tools that bother me. I’m frightened by any chain of thought that somehow links “circular saw” with “genitalia,” no matter how tenuously.
I suppose I was hoping that these tests would be - not a replacement for a professional diagnosis, of course - but a predictor of which way a professional is more likely to diagnose. An APA evaluated test might be good at identifying a person’s basic psychological “type”, in much the same way as Myers-Briggs (don’t know if that one’s evaluated or not, just a for example) but of course it shouldn’t be used to hinge a major life decision on.
At the core, my answer is a geek chick*, but not with 100% certainty. Nonetheless, if I feel this strongly about it, then the online tests putting me within range of a stereotypical feminine category is icing on the cake. Probably the best course of action is to experience going out someplace looking as realistically like a woman as possible, to see if it feels right. I have committed to taking the first step next week.
*(Which is also my “type”, hence the uncertainty. Many of the traits I find attractive in other people are traits I myself would like to have or already have and am happy with, and that seems to make it hard to tell what is core identity and what is preference turned fantasy.)
In practice the COGIATI and the other tests of this type mainly confirm what the person taking the test already knows – because (aside from the occasional larker) only people who suspect they are transsexual take the test. Its main function is to give people who think they might be transsexual a supposedly “scientific” basis for their belief. That belief, even when founded in such flimsy “science”, often helps people come to terms with what they know to be true, and so serves some useful purpose (even if not the one that the test author purports to be putting the test forward for).
Where is this SAGE test? I tried the COGIATI, but some of the questions seemed so linked to transgender issues, that they had no meaning for me.
But I think I could imagine how a person could feel in that situation.
:eek:
Having just taken the SAGE test, I find it not only psychologically unsound. I suspect that the program is faulty.
What the hell does androgynous manner mean? If they don’t define the terms and explain how they arrived at that definition, then the terms are meaningless.
OTTOMH I’ve dressed as a woman twice in the past ten years. Once when my girlfriend and her roommate became convinced it would be fun to see what I looked like in drag (I looked like singer Lisa Loebb after years of steroid abuse.) and this Halloween when one of the costumes I wore at the Henri David ball was a gingham Dorothy dress.
This is why I think the program is faulty. My answers were clearly heterosexual and that I have more than average libido. But according to this result, I have no interest in sex.
The explanation page raises a giant red flag
Autogynephilia is crap. It is utter crap. It is bad science. Any test based on a model which includes autogynephilia as a valid model, is so flawed as to be worthless.
An MTF transsexual who is aroused by women is a lesbian. There is no need for a new term or explanation. There is also no reason for one. The DSM is revised and updated when new theories or data require it. Homosexuality is no longer listed as a disorder because there is no scientific reason to consider it as one. Multiple personality disorder is now called disassociative identity disorder based on years or research that have led to a better understanding of the condition. There is no scientific reason to reclassify transsexual lesbians as autogynephilic males. To reclassify them anyway is bad science.
The SAGE gave me a 610… it seems to be even more biased than the COGIATI.
Doc, there would seem to be rather a lot of difference between lesbianism and autogynephilia. Being aroused by women and being aroused by the idea of being a woman yourself are apples and oranges. I mean, I like my girly bits. I like 'em a lot. I find them quite arousing. I do not, however, find other people’s girly bits arousing. The fact that some transexuals are lesbians doesn’t mean there’s no such thing as autogynephilia.
CrazyCatLady I’m sure that there are some autogynephiliacs. The human mind is so strange that for any paraphilia you invent somebody somewhere will be into it. But, Blanchard and the rest haven’t been saying that some vanishingly small percentage of MTF transsexuals are autogynephiliacs. They’ve been saying a very large proportion are. Above, I quote Blanchard as saying that all MTF lesbians are autogynephiliacs.
The autogynephilia crock is basically ‘I think women and vaginas are really hot. I will undergo all the time trouble and expense of gender reassignment in order to become the thing I idolize’. If MTFs (I’m tired o’ typin’ these big words) were really AGs then pretransition female behaviors and identification would take place only for the purposes of sexual arousal. Rather than putting on a dress to express their true selves, AGs would dress as women only as preperation for masturbation before a mirror.
I misunderstood what you were saying then. When you said that autogynephilia was utter crap, I took that to mean that you didn’t think it existed at all. I fully agree that autogynephiliacs do not account for every non-hetero MtF transsexual.
The reason Blanchard created the autogynephilia concept is that he’s spent most of his life studying sex criminals and others with sexual dysfunctions, mainly paraphilias. He therefore sees everything as a paraphilia and thus created a false paraphilia just so he could make transsexualism another paraphilia. “When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.” Well, to Blanchard, everything looks like a paraphilia, whether it is or not.
I don’t deny that there are autogynephiles. Most of them, in fact, are biologically female. What I, and most reasonable people, deny is that autogynephilia has anything to do with transsexuality, except that its presence in a biological male is strong evidence of transsexuality.