Sexual and Gender Diversity in Thailand: Associations with Recalled Childhood Sex-Typed Behavior and Adulthood Occupational Preferences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Same-sex attracted individuals report greater levels of sex-atypical childhood behaviors and adulthood occupational preferences when compared with their heterosexual counterparts. While these sexual orientation differences are well established, the extent to which gender-role presentation relates to such differences is unclear. The present study examined recalled childhood sex-(a)typical behaviors (CSAB) and adulthood occupational preferences in a diverse Thai sample (N = 1294) of cisgender heterosexual men (n = 270) and women (n = 280), gay men (n = 199), lesbian women (n = 56), and unique Thai sexual orientation/gender categories: sao praphet song (i.e., feminine-presenting same-sex attracted males; n = 166), toms (i.e., masculine-presenting same-sex attracted females; n = 174), and dees (i.e., feminine-presenting females sexually attracted to toms; n = 149). Gay men and sao praphet song reported more CSAB and sex-atypical adulthood occupational preferences than heterosexual men, and sao praphet song were more sex-atypical than gay men. Toms reported more CSAB and sex-atypical adulthood occupational preferences than heterosexual women, lesbian women, and dees, whereas lesbian women were more sex-atypical than heterosexual women and dees in childhood but not adulthood. CSAB was associated with sex-atypical adulthood occupational preferences among heterosexual men and all same-sex attracted groups, indicating continuity in gender-role expression development. Overall, this study replicates previous findings indicating greater sex-atypical behaviors and interests during childhood and adulthood among same-sex attracted individuals. It also expands upon prior literature by showing how gender-role presentation relates to these sexual orientation differences among males and females.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".