The relationship between fraternal birth order and childhood sex‐atypical behavior among the Istmo Zapotec <i>muxes</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research on male androphilia (i.e., sexual attraction towards adult males) consistently finds that androphilic males tend to have more older biological brothers than males who are gynephilic (i.e., sexually attracted to adult females). This fraternal birth order effect (FBOE) has been well replicated among androphilic males who present publically in a male-typical (cisgender) and a female-typical (transgender) manner. There is some evidence that the FBOE is more pronounced among transgender androphilic males. However, no studies have directly compared both forms of male androphilia within the same culture. This study tested the FBOE, and its association with childhood sex-atypical behavior (CSAB), among the Istmo Zapotec of Oaxaca, Mexico, where both forms of male androphilia are referred to as a third gender, muxes. Our results indicated that both cisgender muxe nguiiu (n = 124) and transgender muxe gunaa (n = 120) were more likely to be later born among brothers than gynephilic men (n = 194). However, the number of older brothers did not differentiate between transgender and cisgender muxes, nor did it predict CSAB among muxes. These findings replicate the FBOE among both cisgender and transgender muxes but show no evidence that it is more pronounced among transgender androphilic males.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".