Transvestism and Gender Identity

Originally published as "The Dual Role Transvestite" in 1991

I used it as the basis of an article which "Counselling" very kindly published for me and, later, for a seminar at GENDYS II, the Gender Dysphoria Conference at Manchester, in September 1992. Enlarged and extended, it was used in The Beaumont Trust's "Transvestism: A Guide." Here, I have gone back to re-examine various points.

 
Why is it that the idea of a man wearing a dress causes such uproar? While female impersonators appear on television and in clubs, it is no longer considered risque for a female entertainer to wear a suit. Most people, especially men, find the idea of transvestism very threatening. They feel that, either it is done to be attractive to other men, or that it is a kinky erotic ritual. Men, particularly, feel that, somehow, transvestites are letting the side down. I once asked an audience of women what was in their minds when they chose their clothes for the day. They looked at me a little oddly. Then one said "Well, I like to look nice." Then another said "I feel good." - all motives for self-expression! If I'd said "Go on! It's so you can grab a fella!" I would have been lucky to escape with a whole skin.

Yet gender shifting has an undeniable fascination, especially for the media. It offends against the last great taboo. No wonder feminists had an uphill struggle. But, though they blamed the patriarchal society, it made change easier for them, since no one really minded what women did, so long as there was supper on the table.

The result is that, if a woman goes about with a short haircut, wearing a suit and a tie, expressing her self in an aggressive way, she may be labelled a radical lesbian feminist, but will be tolerated. If a man wants to experiment with his image, wear earrings, wear pretty clothes, a little makeup perhaps, it is a clinical condition.

In the days of Havelock Ellis and Krafft Ebing, transvestism was seen as effeminate homosexuality. Yet, even before this, Hirschfeld⁽¹⁾ had written in 1910 of people who lived for long periods in the opposite role, either part time or full time. Clearly they didn't find it a permanent turn-on; it was obviously something more than an erotic fetish.

In the 1950's Money and others were writing about gender identity, and describing people who had, all their lives, been totally at odds with the gender role in which they were doomed to live. Hirschfeld's theoretical insight had, in many ways, preceded them by over forty years, but in 1910, the world just didn't want to listen. His work was not, until recently, translated from the German, and its import into other countries was discouraged.

What Money and his colleagues described was a person who had, throughout life, thought of him, or her, self as being in the wrong body. If today's facilities had been available then, one might wonder whether some of Hirschfeld's people would have opted for gender reassignment surgery, as it is called. Several authors have been very critical of the process but, it must be remembered, gender clinics don't make transsexuals - society does. Certainly one would not expect someone to opt for major surgery on a whim.

During the 'sixties, a different group began to make themselves heard, notably members of the Beaumont Society. They said that their cross-dressing did not have sexual motives, it was an expression of their inner femininity. They called themselves heterosexual transvestites, to the fury of the homosexual community. This led to a study by Brierley⁽²⁾in 1979.

Since they always averred that sexual orientation played no part in their cross-dressing, the insistence on heterosexuality seemed to me to be a nonsense. I was not alone - most people paraphrased Shakespeare: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks" However, this monograph explores the idea transvestism is an exploration of self - an expression of personal identity.

The real state of a airs was expressed much more aptly in 1989, when Bancroft⁽³⁾defined the Dual Role Transvestite, - a person who spent part of his life as an, apparently unremarkable, man and part of his life dressing and passing as a woman.

By this time, too, it was apparent that there was a need to review the definition of the word transsexual. Among the people arriving at the gender clinics, there were an increasing number who had lived very successfully for half a lifetime in their original body.

Those who appeared to have followed a feminine role from a very early age, were now called Primary Transsexuals, to describe biologically male people whose gender identities were female from the beginning. I will leave to others the problem of whether such people have ever existed, and how consultants determine the fact in their clients, when usually the only evidence is a personal account. Clearly, though, they could not survive in their socially determined role.

The others had usually pursued stereotypically masculine careers, such as in the Police or the armed forces, often with great success. They were rather arbitrarily defined as Secondary Transexuals. Consultants have given up trying to find out whether they were always transexual, and had buried their feelings, or whether they had become transexual. As a result, the preferred term is now Late Onset Transexual.

What emerged was a series of conditions where the gender identity had always been reversed, or where it had become reversed (possibly), while Brierley was talking about a double gender identity. I do not believe, as some suggest that there is a dual personality. Multiple Personality Disorder is a serious condition where people switch between different behaviour patterns, without being able to control themselves, and sometimes being unaware of the changes. Transvestites are quite aware of portraying two different roles. Nor can personality change in any functional way. However, one can hide one's real self behind the mask one is expected to adopt.

Before looking more closely at this concept, gender identity, there is one more technical term to discuss. The problems involved in gender identity confusion are referred to as Gender dysphoria, which is defined in the Harry Benjamin Standards of Care⁽⁴⁾as ". . . .that psychological state whereby a person demonstrates dissatisfaction with their sex of birth and the sex role as socially defined, which applies to that sex . . . ."

The standards go on to specify those who request hormonal and surgical reassignment, and many consultants restrict the term to what they call genuine transexuals. However, when the Beaumont Society, a social group for transvestites, talked about it, their description fitted many of my feelings.

My dictionary defines dysphoria as "a feeling of unease" and "anxiety, depression and restlessness". It does not speak of the total rejection of one lifestyle, still less of the wholesale adoption of another. It would seem that there are two aspects: gender incongruence, as a feeling of having the wrong gender, and gender discomfort, as a feeling of not being happy with the gender one has. There is a world of difference between believing one is a woman and not being happy as a man.

Moreover, if the definition of a transexual is anyone who does not cross-dress for sexual pleasure, it denies such people the permission to do so. Why shouldn't even a transexual enjoy fetishism if she wants to?

A characteristic of sexual fantasy is that, often, people work through emotional issues, in a safe environment, much as children may do through their play. If there is an element of discomfort with one's gender role, and there is release through the sexual ritual, perhaps we shouldn't knock it. Rather than being a psychological condition, it may, in fact, be self-therapeutic.

For many, many people, however, it is a matter of great guilt and emotional distress. So-called closet transvestites dress in the utmost secrecy, often for many years, taking opportunities when they can. While their sexuality may trigger a session of dressing, the rarely available opportunity increases the arousal. In time the arousal may decrease, which is hardly surprising.

When it does, some will go on to find further erotic scenarios, others will find the change of role more important. They are happy to spend some time being women. Perhaps the time to worry about someone is when he stops finding it an erotic experience. The real problem in this situation is not the dressing itself - how can the clothes you wear hurt you? - but the guilt. A person, in this position, often cannot bring himself to look at a television programme or attend a meeting, or even enter a sex shop. I am trying to circumvent the guilt by getting my books on sale through ordinary everyday outlets.

The closet TV is likely to be very naive. He may believe that the surgeon can transform him overnight, or that someone's lanolin cream can give him breasts, because that is the message he is getting, and his need overcomes any incredulity.

At a conference, once, the very last question in the plenary session was deceptively simple: "What is Gender?" We had spent a whole weekend talking about something without setting out to de ne it, at least, not in so many words. We had made the unwarranted assumption that we all knew what it was and saw it in the same way. Here is my attempt: "The way people describe and portray themselves and each other in terms of being male or female people."

Everyday psychology makes a clear distinction between the development of self and the development of interpersonal relationships. They develop concurrently, but separately.

I can see no objection, therefore, to visualising gender as part of the view one has of oneself as a person, while what I can only describe as sexual identity refers to the way one interacts with people of the same or opposite kind.

"He is a man, therefore I must compete with him. She is a woman, therefore I must protect her, or patronise her" (depending on the onlooker's point of view). It could be said that one has to have an idea of one's self and one's place in the scheme of things before one can go out and relate to others.

When we come to gender identity, the definition is even more confused. Generally, it has the feeling of something we might be born with and carry, fixed and invariable throughout our lives.

Bem⁽⁵⁾ defines gender identity as "The degree to which one regards oneself as male or female". Note, not just the idea that one is a man or a woman. It might be thought that I do not believe in the Primary Transexual. I do believe, but I don't believe that one is born actually wired up with a label saying "man" or "woman", otherwise it wouldn't be possible to change it before the age of three - something that Money asserts is possible.

There is a strong political motivation to show that the origins of gender and sexual identity are inherited, or to describe them in over-simplistic biological terms. The gay and transexual communities feel that they will gain social acceptance if they can show that they are born that way, in spite of the contrary experience of ethnic people. Even those whose genetic makeup is clearly different, XXY, XYY and all the many variations, often find themselves reviled, especially in childhood. Others, whose SRY gene has misfired, becoming XX men and XY women, leading them genuinely to be women in men's bodies and vice versa, often live with it as a guilty secret when the truth becomes known, usually in puberty. Apart from these issues, the basis for any individual's personality, including behaviour which may be labelled masculine or feminine is likely to be dependent on the effects of many gene groups.

There is evidence that the body chemistry and the hormonal balance in the mother's womb has an effect, not only on the genital system of the fetus, but on the development of the brain. However, it is becoming clear that the network of synaptic interconnections grows in a way that is unique to each individual and, according to Edelman,⁽⁶⁾ the result of a diversity of experiential factors, both as a fetus and as an infant. It would seem that not even MZ twins are truly identical; they are psychologically distinct individuals.

In the controversy between nature and nurture, what is inherited, and what is experienced, becomes ever less clear. Psychologists have never argued the general assumption that the core of an individual's personality cannot be changed. Its very fixedness and stability is what has encouraged people to find biological origins. Yet if biological factors influence learning, learning also involves biological change. There may well be those who could never survive in the gender role expected from their bodily appearance.

The study of personality involves the most subtle issues. What do we mean by shyness, assertiveness, introversion, extraversion, aggressiveness? Do others mean exactly the same thing? Among this complexity, it would seem that gender provides a way of identifying clear biological causes and relating them to clearly defined effects. Yet the definition of gender is not itself a biological one, and objective biological observations cannot be made, which use subjective social definitions. Even if genetic or fetal endocrine intervention were possible, we need to be very sure of our definition of transexualism. Isn't there a danger that we could breed out our gentle men, our poets and philosophers, even counsellors and psycho-dynamicists? It is also one thing to intervene in physical ailments, but quite another to do so in response to social values that may themselves be suspect.

Biological reductionism, as it is called, also gives people an excuse to avoid taking responsibility for themselves, and for society to avoid addressing its problems. Certainly anyone who has been seduced by the arguments in Brain Sex,⁽⁷⁾ should also read Not In Our Genes.⁽⁸⁾

Meanwhile, we are told that we live in a democracy, where all should be free to develop and progress in a positive way, in relation to the aspirations and needs of others. If this means living in the opposite role, so long as no one is deceived who could be hurt, then why not? And people, who do so, should have the respect and privacy that is not, at present, accorded to them by the Press or the bureaucratic establishment.

The belief is that a person's sex is determined by his chromosomes, and behavioural characteristics are affected by his endocrine system. Gross variations in these can cause quite marked effects, and such theories, that have been proposed, are based on such severe cases. In reality, every baby is born with a distinctive individual personality, from a complex interaction of genes and environment. The variability inherent in this process produces babies that vary widely in their temperament, even though, perhaps, a little girl is likely to be more compliant, a little boy more restless. Once they are labelled by the doctor, from an inspection of their genital organs, behaviours will be encouraged which are perceived to be appropriate to the label, and others discouraged. Thus the child learns to distinguish what is masculine and what is feminine, and to recognise these behaviours in others.

Thus one can visualise a sexual label and a core personality which a child somehow has to relate to each other, in order to develop a gender identity. What is said to develop in the growing person, built on and modified through the years, are schemas, internalised structures of learning and experience in the mind. They organise memory in such a way that, when presented with a new situation which requires a response, the person can readily find related information. Thus one's gender schema links every piece of information that has male-female connotations.

I admit that I have taken some liberties with the published definitions, yet if one studies the literature closely, one finds subtle differences in the way different authors interpret them. Most writers, when defining gender identity, do not distinguish between the label and the person's interpretation of it. Money, however, speaks of Gender Identity/Role to emphasise the complex negotiation that goes on in the child between his identity as a person and the role he must adopt.

From outside is imposed the Sex (or Gender) Stereotype, which is the sum of the attitudes and behaviours that are considered appropriate for an individual because of his or her sex.⁽⁹⁾. For many people, this is what one ought to feel rather than what one really feels. The more things that are defined as masculine and feminine, the more they will be forced into the gender subset of one's total schema.

Sex (or Gender) Typing,⁽¹⁰⁾ can be defined as the degree to which a person defines a range of attitudes and behaviours in gender specific terms. Everyone is sex-typed to a degree. They must have an idea of their selves and their relationships to function in relation to their masculinity or femininity. Different societies, cultures, classes, sub-groups and families may offer different gender roles and they be offered with different levels of pressure to conform.

In other words, a sex (or gender) typed individual is likely to have a gender schema that forms an over-important subset of his total schemata. Sex typing may be as much a feature of radical feminists as of transvestites.

My feeling is that the word schema, itself, is so much more expressive of everyday reality than the word identity. It emphasises that there is no such thing as perfectly male and perfectly female, but a continuum, based on a diversity of people's heredity, a diversity of growing experiences and a diversity of social attitudes. Moreover, it emphasises something that is flexible, that can change and be built on in response to changing feelings.

Those who have followed my work will know that I have borrowed a concept from psychology called the authoritarian personality⁽¹¹⁾ to express my ideas. The trouble is that the term sex role stereotyped is too emotive. It is one of those features that people are liable to attribute to everyone but themselves. Rather like the old Northern saying "Eh lad! Everyone's mad except thee and me, and I'm not so sure about thee."

My dictionary⁽¹²⁾ defines the word authoritarian as: 1. favouring, denoting or characterised by strict obedience to authority. 2. favouring, denoting or relating to government by a small elite with wide powers.

Actually, the term was used by Adorno as a set of attitudes held, in various degrees, by a group of people, and attempted to relate them to the amount of prejudice the group showed towards a depersonalised and de-individuated target group, called "Jews".

Authoritarian personalities, he suggested, are typically contemptuous of what they perceive as weakness. They tend to be rigid, inflexible and opinionated. Often they are extremely judgmental of others. Because their sense of self depends on other people's attitudes, they rely heavily on comparing themselves to other people in order to gain self-esteem. They rigidly uphold conventional attitudes and ways of life, without question. Because of their insecurity as people, they are often frightened of the complexity of new ideas, becoming heavily dependent for their attitudes on those that they perceive as being better than themselves. They tend to be unwilling to acknowledge feelings. Robert Heinlein,⁽¹³⁾ the science fiction writer, calls them the "Mrs. Grundy's" of this world.

While originally it was seen as a feature of extreme right wing, fascist groups, it has been pointed out that it is also a feature of the extreme left wing. In other words, it is a feature of dogmatism. The source of the authority need not, of course, be simply a government, it may be parents, schoolteachers, peer groups, or cultural groups. What is defined is two dimensional - the application of authoritarian power and the subjection of a person to authoritarian power.

My use of the word, then, is to try to use authoritarianism to express the pressure placed on people to conform and to adopt certain behaviours and attitudes. Perhaps it is important to distinguish between attitudes which are imposed and adopted without any real conscience, and values that are internalised as true and important.

As Willis⁽¹⁴⁾ has pointed out, there must be at least three possible patterns: conformity, anti-conformity and independence. Non-conforming does not necessarily imply independence - it may simply be a reaction to being unable to conform, expressed as anti-conformity. The independent-minded person would comply rather than conform, and would have values rather than attitudes. Could a transexual be recognised as an anti-conformist, while a gay person is an independent? I was not so much interested in how a child learns to live in society, but in what parents or society might impose on it.

Several workers have pointed out that authoritarian individuals need not necessarily display all the attributes described. Indeed, they might be quite liberal under most circumstances. What I am trying to put over is my feeling of how insidious the authoritarian approach is, when expressed in terms of gender, especially if it prevents the boy from being who he is, but forces him into narrow tram tracks of behaviour and feeling. It affects you, me, everyone, to a greater or lesser degree, in the threat we feel when the concepts, that we have grown up with, are brought into question. The authoritarian attitude is not only responsible for the guilt, and the way people cross-dress, it may be responsible for causing the transvestism in the first place.

It may be internalised in the child just as surely as the feeling that his sexual preference is somehow natural, rather than learned. We are learning that exclusive heterosexuality is not as universal as we thought. It might be that the authoritarian attitude makes TV's more rigidly heterosexual than most people. The fact that they are heterosexual is part of who they are, and should be respected. Conversely, it could be that authoritarian attitudes are a factor in exclusive homosexuality; the idea that somebody must be one thing or the other.

Adorno's study did not address gender roles directly. Indeed, most psychologists shy away from addressing gender roles and differences. Some studies⁽¹⁵⁾ assessed preferences for stereotyped behaviours and views about gender roles among school age children. Although it seemed that children in poorer social groups were more stereotyped, I felt that it could be attributed to many other groups - public schools, for instance - although boys' society, in general, enforces gender roles; boys are different, girls are sissy, and one must not be girlish.

While many workers felt that Adorno's theory did not support the idea that attitudes are passed down from parent to child, Gross⁽¹⁶⁾ quotes studies of college students and other adolescents, who were not strongly stereotyped, that came from homes where the parents had a similar attitude. He quotes another study which suggested that traditional stereotyped parents tend to be more firm and authoritative, than more permissive and child-centred parents, and feeling that they made better parents.

To be authoritative, however, is not the same as being authoritarian. Most parents will agree that the ideal is somewhere in between, where the child is an individual in its own right, not some thing to be moulded in the parent's image. Where it has the security of clear boundaries and the encouragement to become its own person.

This, clearly, is not an attribute of the traditional school, with its emphasis on the three R's (Rote, Regimentation and Regurgitation),⁽¹⁷⁾ where rigid standards of conformity are required. While parents of different kinds provide different models for their children, it might be suggested that different social groups do so also. It is likely that the behaviours of the majority, in a rigid social group, will be imposed on those few whose parents have not imposed this behaviour. Either the minority person will try to conform, with a variable degree of success, or reject the group altogether. The authoritarian parent, perhaps, merely equips the child to survive at an such a school, itself in an authoritarian area, and if the child does survive without some sort of emotional upset, he is, himself, likely to become an authoritarian parent.

Most men can remember when they felt the pressure to grow up, when they discarded their Teddy Bear, when they first wore long trousers, or a suit, the first time they fell over and didn't cry. Thus a whole range of feelings may be suppressed, rather than being assigned a suitable place in the personality. The more feelings and attributes that are perceived by the social situation, family or peer group, to be unmanly, the more will be suppressed, as the boy is absorbed into boyish society.

The argument then, is that there are three variables involved in gender problems:

1) The personality, which while being male, is more or less masculine.

2) The gender role, which is the view of those who occupy the environment of the child, from whom it determines its own appropriate behaviour.

This has three variables:

a. What may be considered to be a list of personality and behaviour traits, labelled masculine, feminine or acceptable for either gender.

b. The limitations on the range of acceptable traits.

c. The pressure by which this is enforced by the disapprobation of a particular social group.

3) The development of a perceived appropriate role, as a continuous process of negotiation between personality and role from birth, with the feeling that one should conform in a way which may exclude features that are an important part of the person's emotional structure.

Most people can be themselves and not be worried too much by what people have told them in their infancy. The majority of people are happy to be as they naturally are; they have no problems with their self. They have the flexibility to adapt the role model as they need to. How can some men can be gentle, caring, poetic and all the rest, without identifying themselves as female?

The suggestion is that, as a child the transvestite constructed a gender schema which tried too hard to comply with a gender role, and was unable to achieve a comfortable compromise. He cannot modify his gender schema, because of feelings of need to comply with one, or other, rigidly defined role. Unable to settle in a middle ground, he has to switch from one to the other from time to time.

One could, also, conceive the idea of another man who conforms too rigidly to a role that is too narrow, and becomes a stiff , stern, rather remote person, or a tough man's man, strong as cast iron. I use the analogy deliberately; cast iron is strong, but brittle. Such a person may have problems peculiarly his own, and would certainly create problems for his partner and family.

However, feelings that cannot be expressed take on a whole new urgency. They may be safely tucked away in denial and suppression for years, then surface in times of stress. If the TV cannot have these feelings as a man, he may unthinkingly begin to express them as a woman. When he does, the authoritarian pressures that told him he mustn't have those feelings as a man also tells him he mustn't act them out as a woman.

In the closet, a feedback system may be set up, where feelings of not being a man conflict with the urge to dress, followed by a session of relief dressing, followed by a reaction in becoming over-macho, followed in turn by guilt, in a downward spiral of emotional distress. The need becomes an obsession, distracting from everyday life. Efforts to control, like wardrobe burning, fail repeatedly. The person may attempt other escapes, through alcohol, drugs, tranquillisers, workaholism. He will tell lies and will become less present for his family. Even in the face of direct confrontation he will deny the problem, even the physical fact of the cross-dressing.

The inference is that the feelings, that are the source of the cross-dressing urge, are also the source of the guilt - a classical Catch 22 situation.

In cross-dressing, he is not identifying himself as female, but recognising common attributes that he feels are denied to him as a man. This can produce a great deal of confusion, especially if a growing number of female attributes are attached and a growing number of male ones are rejected. It is hardly surprising if they grow into an alternative female self, initially a fantasy, then becoming more and more real. From being an alternative schema it becomes the more desirable one. The TV may feel "If I were a woman, I could have these feelings all the time and no one would mind", forgetting that women don't have such feelings all the time and that their lives can be very humdrum and boring.

This is why the therapy is to give the TV permission, often to the consternation of his wife and family. Too often, however, the TV newly out has to find his own way. Permission to have feelings implies the need to learn how to have them. To come out too quickly may be as dangerous as not coming out at all. Many TV's, at this early stage, have a macho reaction after their session as a female. The further they go into the role, particularly if pushed, or led on, initially, the more extreme the reaction is likely to be. Somehow, they have to experience this other life that they have permission for, while keeping one foot in reality and not getting swept away in the fantasy.

The authoritarian concept that has been learned so young cannot be easily unlearned. Could the TV, by psychotherapy, counselling or otherwise, merge these two schemas into one?

Just as we don't really know how many TV's there are, we don't know how many have stopped cross-dressing. After all, they aren't going to burn their bridges by saying so publicly.

The TV's everyday life has been built on the male schema, not the female one. If he sets out to change what are, after all, the foundations of his life, does he run the very real risk of jeopardising that lifestyle and even his career by modifying something so fundamental?

Better, perhaps, to build both roles independently, and if he gets the best of both worlds, why not? But, after the initial round of clubbing and pubbing, most TV's retire quietly to dress, from time to time, in their homes, as and when they feel like it.

Freed of the day-long obsession, the TV may approach his working and family life, with a new vitality, tempering his more chauvinistic attitudes within the family, yet not becoming less manly. Those who had negative feelings about themselves may go on to find a new assertiveness, social and relational skills, and an opportunity for real personal growth.

What the TV gains is the power to choose when and where and how he will dress. The freedom to be himself, with the responsibility to avoid distress to others.

In the end, it is people that matter, not labels. It doesn't really matter what clothes one likes to wear or what role one adopts, so long as one is able to gain a positive and forward moving lifestyle.

Things we learn so young cannot be easily unlearned, but if we had a society that could accept people for themselves as valuable individuals, whether they were children or adults, instead of forcing them to be what we think they ought to be, transvestism as we know it might disappear. People would either dress in an innocent role play, as in the superb BBC2 film A Little Bit of Lippy, or, from the start, live in a more gentle way, without being trapped in a lifetime that denied their feelings.

The man of the future could be at once emotional, considerate and nurturing, strong yet empathetic, valuing humanity over money and power; a gentle man yet a fearsome Rugby player. He will play hard and work hard, but will always have a clear idea of himself and his direction in life. Bem proposed an ideal future, which may be expressed as follows: That men and women will always be different from each other, but that each individual will be able to find the best within him, or her, self, regardless of whether we now define it as masculine or feminine.

1. Hirschfeld, Magnus, M.D. Transvestites: The Erotic Drive to Cross-Dress, Translated by Michael A. Lombardi Nash Ph.D.), Prometheus Books (USA) (first publ. 1910)
2. Brierley H, (1979) Transvestism, Oxford: Pergamon Press.
3. Bancroft.J, (1989) Human Sexuality and its Problems. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone.
4. Standards of Care: the hormonal and surgical sex reassignment of gender dysphoric persons. The Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association Inc.
5. In Gross (11): Bem S.L, (1981) Gender Schema Theory: A cognitive account of sex-typing. Psychological Review (88, p354-364)
6. Edelman, G.M, (1987) Topobiology and Neural Darwinism: The theory of neuronal group selection, and The Remembered Present, New York: Basic Books Inc.

   A very readable review of work in this area is: Rose. S, (1993) The Making of Memory: From molecules to mind, Ealing: Bantam Books.

7. Moir.A. and Jessell.D, (1989) Brain Sex, London: Mandarin Books.
8. Rose.S, Lewontin.R.C, Kamin.L.J, (1990) Not In Our Genes: Biology, Ideology and Human Nature. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
9. Atkinson, Atkinson, Smith, Bem and Hilgard. (1990) Introduction to Psychology. Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich. 11, p. 688 (Bem 1981), 12, p. 94
10. Gross.R.D. (1987) Psychology: The Science of Mind and Behaviour p286-7), London: Hodder and Stoughton. (I have adapted these definitions from those given in Gross)
11. In Gross (11): Adorno.T.W, Frenkel-Brunswick.E, Levinson.D.J, Sanford.R.N, (1950) The Authoritarian Personality, New York: Harper and Row.
12. Hanks.P. (ed) (1979) Collins Dictionary of the English Language. Glasgow: William Collins Sons and Co. Ltd.
13. Heinlein R, (1978) Stranger in a Strange Land, Sevenoaks: New England Library.
14. In Gross (11): Willis (1963) uncited reference page 312.
15. In Gross (11), page 571.
16. In Gross. (11) Page 575-7.
17. Shotton.J, (1993) No Master High or Low, Bristol: Libertarian Education.