-The femininity→transition arrow is obvious. The sexual orientation→femininity arrow (representing the fact that gay men are more feminine than straight men), besides being stereotypical folk knowledge, has also been extensively documented, for example by [Lippa](/papers/lippa-gender-related_traits_in_gays.pdf) and by [Bailey and Zucker](/papers/bailey-zucker-childhood_sex-typed_behavior_and_sexual_orientation.pdf).
-
-The v-structure between sexual orientation, erotic target location erroneousness, and autogynephilia has been documented by Anne Lawrence:
-
-
-The autogynehilia→transition arrow has
-
-The cultural-factors→transition arrow is obvious if you haven't been living under a rock for the last decade.
-
-
-
-[quantifying the two-type effect:
-Lippa 2000 "Gender-Related Traits in [...]"
-2.70 effect of femininity for gay vs. not-day and 1.07 for "any" vs. "no" attraction to men
-mean GD score for non-lesbian women as 0.31; mean score for gay men was 0.30!
-—oh, maybe I want to be using Study 2, which had a better sample of gays
-GD occupations in study 2
-gay men are at .48 (.14); straight women at .36 (.13); straight men at .68 (.12)
-that's d=–1.61 between gay and straight men
-a gay man only needs to be 1 standard deviation (.48-.36 = 0.12) more feminine than average to be as feminine as a straight women
-whereas a straight man needs to be (.68-.36 = 0.32) 0.32/0.12=2.67 more feminine than average to be as feminine as a straight woman—that's rarer, but not impossible
-
-In percentile terms, 1-norm.cdf(1) = 0.15 of gay men are as feminine as a woman
-whereas 1-norm.cdf(2.67) = 0.003 of straight men are
-that's a likelihood ratio of 50 ... but the prior is not that far from 50:1 in the other direction! They cancel out!!
-
-For concreteness: what does the Bayes net spit out if 3% of men are gay, and 5% are AGP, and whatever other assumptions I need to make this work?
-Suppose gays transition if they're 2-sigma feminine ...
-
-]
+The femininity→transition arrow is obvious. The sexual orientation→femininity arrow (representing the fact that gay men are more feminine than straight men), besides being stereotypical folk knowledge, has also been extensively documented, for example by [Lippa](/papers/lippa-gender-related_traits_in_gays.pdf) and by [Bailey and Zucker](/papers/bailey-zucker-childhood_sex-typed_behavior_and_sexual_orientation.pdf). The v-structure between sexual orientation, erotic target location erroneousness, and autogynephilia has been [documented by Anne Lawrence](/papers/lawrence-etle_an_underappreciated.pdf): furries and amputee-wannabes who want to emulate the objects of their attraction, "look like" "the same thing" as autogynephiles, but pointed at a less conventional erotic than women. The autogynephilia–transition concordance has been documented by many authors, and I claim the direction of causality is obvious. (If you want to argue that it goes the other way—that some underlying "gender identity" causes both autogynephilia and, separately, the desire to transition, then why does it usually not work that way for androphiles?) The cultural-factors→transition arrow is obvious if you haven't been living under a rock for the last decade.