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

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

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.