Masculine Gender Identity Scale for Females

1. Abstract

The Masculine Gender Identity Scale for Females (MGIS) is a psychometric questionnaire developed by Ray Blanchard and Kurt Freund in 1983 at the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry (now part of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, Canada). Conceived as a counterpart to the Feminine Gender Identity Scale for Males (FGIS), the MGIS operationalizes masculine gender identity in natal females as a continuous psychometric dimension. The instrument was designed to capture departures from normative female behavioral trajectories toward patterns historically characterized in clinical literature on female-to-male transsexualism (transgender men) and female homosexuality. The full instrument consists of 29 multiple-choice items organized into two distinct subscales: Part A and Part B.

Part A comprises 20 items suitable for any female aged 17 or older, assessing retrospective recall of childhood cross-gender preferences between ages 6 and 12, gender-typed toy and activity engagement, playmate preferences, masculine household chore participation, fantasy roles (e.g., heroic defenders, mechanics, racing drivers), adult vocational aspirations, and overt wishes to have been born male across childhood, adolescence, and adulthood. Part B includes 9 items administered exclusively to homosexual females (both non-transsexual homosexual women and female-to-male transvestic/transsexual individuals), assessing cross-dressing behaviors across developmental epochs, feelings associated with wearing female versus male clothing, body dissatisfaction, erotic role preferences, and partner characteristics. Psychometric evaluations demonstrate robust internal consistency, yielding Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of .89 for Part A and .92 for Part B. Exploratory factor analyses isolated a dominant primary general factor accounting for 31% of the total variance (and 70% of the common variance) in Part A, alongside a single-factor structure accounting for 57% of the total variance in Part B. The scale displays strong criterion-related and construct validity, reliably discriminating between heterosexual females, homosexual females without gender dysphoria, and female-to-male transsexuals in an ascending hierarchy of scored cross-gender identity.

2. Keywords

Masculine Gender Identity Scale for Females, MGIS, Ray Blanchard, Kurt Freund, gender identity assessment, gender dysphoria, cross-gender behavior, childhood gender nonconformity, psychometrics, sexology, female homosexuality, transsexualism

3. Authors

The Masculine Gender Identity Scale for Females was conceptualized, developed, and validated by:

• Ray Blanchard, Ph.D.: Renowned clinical sexologist, research psychologist, and former Head of Clinical Sexology Services at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) (formerly the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry) in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Blanchard served on the American Psychiatric Association’s DSM-IV and DSM-5 Sub-Workgroups on Gender Identity Disorders and Paraphilias. Contact address: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, 250 College Street, Toronto, Ontario M5T 1R8, Canada; E-mail: [email protected].
• Kurt Freund, M.D., D.Sc. (1914–1996): Pioneer of quantitative sexology, psychophysiological assessment (including penile plethysmography), and former Head of the Department of Behavioral Sexology at the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry. Freund contributed foundational methodologies to the psychometric differentiation of sexual orientation and gender identity.

4. Purpose

The primary clinical and psychometric impetus behind the development of the Masculine Gender Identity Scale for Females was the need for an objective, standardized, and empirically validated instrument capable of assessing cross-gender identification along a quantitative continuum in biological females. During the late 1970s and early 1980s, empirical sexology faced a distinct methodological asymmetry: while several psychometric instruments existed to measure feminine gender identity in natal males—most notably the Feminine Gender Identity Scale for Males developed by Freund, Langevin, Satterberg, and Steiner (1977)—comparable dimensional instruments for females were largely nonexistent. Existing assessment protocols relied either on unstructured psychiatric interviews or conventional, bipolar masculinity-femininity personality inventories (such as the Bem Sex-Role Inventory or Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory Mf scale), which failed to distinguish nonconformity in normative gender expression from true core cross-gender identification and somatic dysphoria.

Blanchard and Freund (1983) sought to resolve this psychometric deficit by establishing a psychometrically rigorous scale tailored specifically to natal female populations. The scale addresses three interrelated objectives across clinical and research environments:

• Quantitative Stratification in Clinical Evaluations: To furnish clinicians evaluating adults presenting with gender dysphoria or requests for gender-affirming medical interventions (e.g., hormone replacement therapy, mastectomy, phalloplasty) with a standardized baseline index of cross-gender identity that quantifies both the chronicity and intensity of cross-gender development from early childhood through adulthood.
• Delineation of Homosexuality and Transsexualism: In sexological research and differential diagnosis, to provide empirical resolution between non-transsexual homosexual women (historically designated as “simple homosexuals”) who exhibit masculine gender expression, and individuals undergoing profound female-to-male gender transition. Part B specifically isolates behavioral markers, body image dynamics, and erotic scripts that differentiate these subgroups.
• Developmental and Etiological Research: To facilitate longitudinal and retrospective investigations examining the developmental precursors of adult sexual orientation and gender identity, establishing the degree to which childhood cross-gender role preferences predict adult psychosexual differentiation.

By measuring masculine gender identity as a continuous variable rather than a categorical dichotomy, the MGIS conceptualizes feminine and masculine behavioral repertoires as developmental progressions. It operationalizes masculinity in females through an individual’s degree of behavioral departure from traditional female socialization patterns toward the phenotypic behavioral patterns exhibited by female-to-male transsexual individuals.

5. Psychological Construct

The core construct evaluated by the MGIS is masculine gender identity manifested in individuals assigned female at birth (AFAB). Blanchard and Freund (1983) carefully distinguished gender identity from conventional cultural masculinity or sex-role adherence. Whereas standard personality measures capture socially defined masculine traits (e.g., assertiveness, competitiveness, instrumentality), the MGIS evaluates an individual’s fundamental cognitive, emotional, and behavioral self-location within the male sex class across the lifespan.

The construct is operationalized across two structural dimensions corresponding to the scale’s subscales:

Subscale A: Childhood and Lifespan Cross-Gender Nonconformity

Part A measures the retrospective recall of childhood cross-gender behaviors, social preferences, and overt wishes for sex reassignment across the life span. This dimension reflects childhood gender nonconformity (CGN), recognized in contemporary developmental psychology as a potent correlate of both homosexual orientation and adult transgender identity. Specific behavioral domains include:

• Peer Affiliation: Preference for male versus female playmates between the ages of 6 and 12, reflecting early sex-segregated socialization patterns.
• Recreational and Play Typology: Preference for stereotypically masculine toys, games, rough-and-tumble play, and outdoor activities (e.g., toy soldiers, football) compared to feminine-typed toys (e.g., dolls, domestic role-play).
• Domestic and Vocational Roles: Self-initiated engagement in household tasks culturally demarcated as male labor, accompanied by early interests in mechanical, technical, and high-risk occupations (e.g., garage mechanic, automotive racing driver, aviation pilot).
• Heroic and Protective Fantasy Scripts: Internal narrative fantasies involving adventurous male protagonists, acts of physical bravery, defending others against danger or malevolent entities, and aspiring toward significant physical strength.
• Explicit Cross-Gender Desires: Persistent, overt cognitive wishes to have been born male, tracked longitudinally across three developmental stages: childhood (ages 6–12), adolescence (ages 13–16), and adulthood (age 17 and older).

Subscale B: Cross-Dressing, Erotic Scripts, and Somatic Gender Identity

Part B is dedicated to homosexual natal females and probes deeper somatic and erotic facets of masculine identity that emerge predominantly during and following puberty:

• Cross-Dressing Behaviors and Affective Response: The frequency, onset, and chronicity of wearing male clothing and underwear across developmental milestones, coupled with somatic and emotional dysphoria (such as anxiety or severe distress) induced by wearing standard female attire.
• Subjective Somatic Experience: The persistent internal feeling of possessing a male psychological or physical identity, including whether this internal state requires external male clothing cues or remains pervasive and independent of physical attire.
• Somatic Gender Ideation: Motivations regarding the desire for a male body, differentiating purely personal bodily dysphoria from erotic motives aimed at pleasing female sexual partners.
• Erotic Modes and Interaction Styles: Specific erotic practices within female same-sex interactions, assessing preferences for exclusive active genital stimulation of female partners versus partner reciprocal touch, partner femininity preferences, and interpersonal dominance or leadership roles.

6. Theoretical Framework

The theoretical framework underpinning the MGIS integrates twentieth-century clinical sexology, developmental psychometrics, and early biobehavioral models of psychosexual differentiation. In formulating the instrument, Blanchard and Freund built upon foundational concepts introduced by psychoanalysts, behavioral sexologists, and endocrinological theorists, including John Money, Richard Green, and Robert Stoller.

The foundational tenets governing the construction of the MGIS include:

• The Continuous Spectrum Hypothesis: Blanchard and Freund conceptualized gender identity not as a binary biological mandate, but as a quantitative psychometric continuum. At one pole lies normative female identification (characteristic of the majority of heterosexual females), progressing through intermediate stages of gender nonconformity (frequently observed in non-transsexual homosexual females), and terminating at the opposite pole in complete cross-gender identification (typical of female-to-male transsexuals).
• Developmental Canalization of Sex-Typed Behaviors: Drawing on behavioral observations in clinical cohorts, the authors hypothesized that core gender identity crystallizes early in ontogeny. Rather than emerging abruptly during post-pubertal identity crises, masculine identification in females unfolds sequentially: starting with playmate and play preferences in early childhood (ages 3–6), solidifying into masculine peer alignment and vocational fantasies in middle childhood (ages 6–12), and culminating in physical body dysphoria and cross-gender erotic scripts during adolescence and adulthood.
• Separation of Gender Identity from Stereotypical Sex-Role Compliance: A central theoretical distinction emphasized by Freund and Blanchard is the divergence between socialized sex-role stereotypes and cross-gender identity. While traditional sex-role inventories measure compliance with sociological gender norms, the MGIS was expressly designed to measure the clinical syndrome of gender dysphoria—the subjective, somatic, and behavioral conviction of belonging to the opposite biological sex.
• Dichotomy of Homosexual Transsexualism: The instrument’s bifurcation into Part A (general) and Part B (homosexual-specific) reflects the sexological taxonomy developed at the Clarke Institute. Blanchard conceptualized female-to-male transsexualism as an extreme developmental manifestation occurring overwhelmingly within an androphilic or gynephilic framework (almost universally gynephilic in natal females). Hence, Part B isolates the erotic and bodily manifestations that separate masculine-identified homosexual women who remain comfortable in female bodies from transsexual men who experience profound physical dysphoria.

7. Validity

The empirical validity of the MGIS was established through comprehensive validation procedures conducted by Blanchard and Freund (1983) utilizing clinical and non-clinical cohorts at the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry. The validation protocol evaluated construct, criterion, and discriminant validity across distinct criterion groups.

Criterion-Related and Construct Validity

To evaluate whether the MGIS accurately measures the continuous construct of masculine gender identity, the authors administered Part A to three rigorously categorized female samples:

• Heterosexual control females (n = 236)
• Non-transsexual homosexual females (designated “simple homosexuals”) who reported no desire for sex reassignment surgery (n = 44)
• Female-to-male transsexual patients seeking clinical evaluation, hormone therapy, and sex reassignment surgery (n = 50)

Analysis of variance (ANOVA) conducted on Part A total scores demonstrated highly significant group differences (p < .001). Planned pairwise comparisons confirmed an orderly, ascending hierarchical distribution:

1. Heterosexual females scored lowest on masculine gender identity.
2. Homosexual females scored significantly higher than heterosexual females.
3. Female-to-male transsexuals scored significantly higher than homosexual females.

For Part B (administered solely to the 94 homosexual participants, comprising 44 non-transsexual homosexuals and 50 female-to-male transsexuals), independent-samples t-tests demonstrated that female-to-male transsexuals scored significantly higher than non-transsexual homosexual females (p < .001). This confirmed the specific utility of Part B in isolating somatic dysphoria, chronic masculine attire adoption, and erotic partner role expectations characteristic of transsexual identity.

Item-Total and Discriminant Validity

Item selection was governed by item-remainder (corrected item-total) correlations. In the development of Part A, an initial pool of 25 candidate items was administered across the full clinical and control cohort; only the 20 items exhibiting corrected item-total correlations greater than or equal to r = .30 were retained. For Part B, all 9 initial candidate items demonstrated item-remainder correlations exceeding .30 within the homosexual sample and were consequently preserved.

Discriminant validity was established against major demographic covariates:

• Age: Age showed no statistically significant correlation with Part A scores across heterosexuals, homosexuals, or transsexuals. Similarly, Part B scores demonstrated no significant association with age in either homosexual cohort, confirming temporal stability and demonstrating that elevated scores reflect enduring developmental patterns rather than cohort or aging effects.
• Education: Correlations between educational attainment and Part A scores ranged between r = .12 and r = .15 across groups, indicating that educational level accounts for only approximately 2% of the variance. Part B scores showed no significant correlation with educational status.

8. Reliability

The MGIS exhibits high internal consistency across both clinical and non-clinical cohorts, confirming that its items reliably operationalize a unified developmental and behavioral construct.

Internal Consistency

In the original psychometric investigation by Blanchard and Freund (1983):

• Part A (20 items): Yielded a standardized Cronbach’s alpha of .89 when evaluated across the combined sample of heterosexual females, non-transsexual homosexual females, and female-to-male transsexuals (N = 330). This alpha demonstrates high measurement precision and item coherence across broad spectrums of gender identity.
• Part B (9 items): Yielded a standardized Cronbach’s alpha of .92 within the sample of homosexual females (N = 94). Despite containing fewer than half the items of Part A, Part B achieved superior internal consistency, reflecting the tight behavioral and psychological covariance among cross-dressing chronicity, genital aversion, and masculine social positioning in female-to-male clinical candidates.

Item Homogeneity

During the item analysis phase, all retained items met the retention threshold of corrected item-total correlations r ≥ .30. In Part A, most items exhibited loadings and correlations substantially above .40, demonstrating minimal measurement error. In Part B, every single candidate item demonstrated high homogeneity with the underlying latent variable, indicating that each item makes an independent, statistically non-redundant contribution to the measurement model.

9. Factor Analysis

Blanchard and Freund (1983) conducted exploratory factor analyses (EFA) to clarify the latent dimensional architecture of both subscales, establishing empirical evidence for the structural validity of the MGIS.

Factor Structure of Part A

An exploratory factor analysis of the 20 items of Part A revealed four factors with eigenvalues exceeding unity:

• General Masculine Identity Factor (Factor 1): A dominant primary factor accounted for 31% of the total variance and fully 70% of the common variance. All 20 items loaded positively onto this central factor. The highest loading items represented core retrospective cross-gender desires (e.g., wishing to have been born a boy at ages 6–12, ages 13–16, and post-17), childhood game and toy preferences, and fantasy identification with male protagonists.
• Minor Residual Factors (Factors 2, 3, and 4): Three additional weak factors were identified, each accounting for less than 6% of the total variance. These minor dimensions captured idiosyncratic clusters, such as specific technical vocations (e.g., interest in mechanics magazines, auto repair) and aggressive-protective fantasies. Because these subsidiary factors accounted for minimal unique variance, the authors concluded that Part A operates predominantly as a unidimensional scale suitable for composite sum scoring.

Factor Structure of Part B

When subjected to exploratory factor analysis within the sample of homosexual females (N = 94), Part B exhibited an unmistakably unidimensional profile:

• Single Factor Solution: Analysis extracted only one major factor, which accounted for 57% of the total variance.
• Item Loadings: All 9 items loaded strongly onto this single dimension. Items evaluating the frequency and chronicity of wearing male clothing across developmental epochs (childhood, adolescence, adulthood), somatic dysphoria triggered by wearing female attire, and the absolute desire to possess a male body loaded highest, confirming that Part B measures a unified, robust clinical syndrome of somatic cross-gender identity in natal females.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Masculine Gender Identity Scale for Females (MGIS) is structured as an objective, self-administered questionnaire. Its administrative and psychometric specifications are outlined below:

• Test Type: Paper-and-pencil or digital self-report psychological rating scale.
• Target Population: Part A is designed for any individual assigned female at birth aged 17 or older. Part B is administered exclusively to homosexual females (both non-transsexual lesbian women and female-to-male transsexual/transgender individuals).
• Total Item Count: 29 items (Part A = 20 items; Part B = 9 items).
• Completion Time: Part A requires approximately 8 to 10 minutes; Part B requires approximately 3 to 5 minutes. The full 29-item instrument can be completed in under 15 minutes.
• Response Mode: Multiple-choice format. Respondents are explicitly instructed to select one and only one response option per item.
• Scoring Architecture: Each response option carries a pre-assigned scoring weight ranging from 0 to 2 points:
• Subscale Scoring:
  • Part A Score: Calculated as the unweighted arithmetic sum of weights across items 1 through 20 (theoretical range: 0 to 35 points).
  • Part B Score: Calculated as the unweighted arithmetic sum of weights across items 21 through 29 (theoretical range: 0 to 17 points).
  • Full Scale Score: Sum of Part A and Part B scores (theoretical range: 0 to 52 points; applicable only to homosexual/transsexual cohorts).
• Score Interpretation: Higher cumulative scores reflect a greater degree of masculine gender identity, marked by extensive childhood cross-gender behavioral nonconformity, persistent cross-gender wishes, male-typical erotic scripts, and somatic gender dysphoria.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Masculine Gender Identity Scale for Females was published in 1983 in the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology by the American Psychological Association (APA). The intellectual property resides with the original authors (Ray Blanchard and the estate of Kurt Freund) and the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry / Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH).

The instrument was placed in the public scientific domain for non-commercial academic research and clinical evaluation purposes. Researchers and clinicians may utilize the scale without royalty fees, provided full academic attribution is cited in accordance with APA guidelines. Commercial redistribution, computerized packaging within fee-based electronic health record platforms, or modifications to scoring weighting schemes require explicit formal authorization from the copyright holders and the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, Canada.

12. References

The foundational and related psychometric literature concerning the development and validation of the MGIS includes:

• Blanchard, R., & Freund, K. (1983). Measuring masculine gender identity in females. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51(2), 205–214. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.51.2.205
• Freund, K., Langevin, R., Satterberg, J., & Steiner, B. W. (1977). Extension of the Gender Identity Scale for Males. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 6(6), 507–519. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01541153
• Freund, K., Nagler, E., Langevin, R., Zajac, A., & Steiner, B. W. (1974). Measuring feminine gender identity in homosexual males. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 3(3), 249–260. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01541480
• Freund, K., & Blanchard, R. (1988). Measurement of gender identity. In B. W. Steiner (Ed.), Gender Dysphoria: Development, Research, Management (pp. 129–148). Plenum Press.
• Zucker, K. J., & Bradley, S. J. (1995). Gender Identity Disorder and Psychosexual Problems in Children and Adolescents. Guilford Press.

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)