Handedness is a biomarker of variation in anal sex role behavior and Recalled Childhood Gender Nonconformity among gay men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Developmental theories of the biological basis of sexual orientation suggest that sexually differentiated psychological and behavioural traits should be linked with sexual orientation. Subgroups of gay men delineated by anal sex roles differ according to at least one such trait: gender expression. The present study assessed the hypothesis that handedness, a biologically determined sexually differentiated trait, corresponds to differences in subgroups of gay men based on anal sex role. Furthermore, it assessed whether handedness mediates the association between gender nonconformity and male sexual orientation. Straight and gay men (N = 333) completed the Edinburgh Inventory of Handedness and the Recalled Childhood Gender Nonconformity Scale. Gay men also completed measures of anal sex role preference. As in previous studies, gay men showed greater non-right-handedness and gender nonconformity than straight men. Also, among gay men, bottoms/versatiles (i.e., gay men who take a receptive anal sex role, or who take on both a receptive and insertive anal sex role) were more gender-nonconforming than tops (i.e., gay men who take an insertive anal sex role). In support of the hypothesis, bottoms/versatiles were more non-right-handed than tops and handedness mediated the male sexual orientation and anal sex role differences in Recalled Childhood Gender Nonconformity. Together, these findings suggest that developmental processes linked to handedness underpin variation among men in sexual orientation and gender nonconformity as well as variation among subgroups of gay men that are delineated by anal sex roles.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".