Evolving research on the evolution of male androphilia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Androphilia refers to sexual attraction and arousal to adult males, whereas gynephilia refers to sexual attraction and arousal to adult females. The manner in which male androphilia is expressed varies cross-culturally. Sex-gender congruent male androphiles occupy the gender role typical of their sex, behave in a relatively masculine manner, and identify as “men.” In contrast, transgendered male androphiles often behave in a highly effeminate manner and identify as neither “men,” nor “women.” Instead, they typically identify as members of a third gender. Despite exhibiting different gender role presentations and gender identities, both forms of male androphilia share numerous biodemographic and developmental correlates, indicating that they have a common etiological basis. Male androphilia represents an evolutionary paradox because it appears to have a genetic component, yet it compromises reproduction. At the same time archaeological and cross-cultural evidence suggest that it has persisted for millennia. The ancestral form of male androphilia was likely the transgendered form. To date, only one population of transgendered male androphiles has been considered when testing hypotheses pertaining to the evolution of male androphilia: the fa'afafine of Samoa. Research indicates that the mothers, paternal grandmothers and maternal grandmothers of fa'afafine produce more offspring than those of male gynephiles, which is consistent with the Sexually Antagonistic Gene Hypothesis. However, definitive support for this hypothesis, in the form of elevated offspring production by the aunts of fa'afafine is lacking at present. Research also indicates that fa'afafine exhibit elevated avuncular tendencies and behaviour compared to women and gynephilic men, which is consistent with the Kin Selection Hypothesis. Also consistent with the Kin Selection Hypothesis is research indicating that the fa'afafine's avuncular cognition exhibits elements of adaptive design.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".