001, R 2 = 0.33. They were slower to fixate on individuals with penises than on cisgender women, b = 0.04, 95% CI (0.02, 0.05), SE = 0.01, p < 0.001. However, they were quicker to fixate on feminine trans individuals than on cisgender men, b = ? 0.09, 95% CI (? 0.11, ? 0.06), SE = 0.01, p < 0.001. Their TFFs were similar for feminine trans individuals with breasts and feminine trans individuals without breasts, b = ? 0.04, 95% CI (? 0.07, < 0.01), SE = 0.02, p = 0.058. The confidence intervals for heterosexual men's TFFs on cisgender women, feminine trans individuals with breasts, and feminine trans individuals without breasts overlapped considerably, indicating that all feminine images tended to capture their early attention.
For gay men, there was an effect of human-stimuli category on TFF, F(3, 68) = 5.70, p = 0.002, R 2 = 0.20. Gay men were quicker to fixate on individuals with penises than on cisgender women, b = ? 0.04, 95% CI (? 0.07, ? 0.02), SE Little Rock AR escort girls = 0.01, p = 0.002. 04, 95% CI (< 0.01, 0.08), SE = 0.02, p = 0.026. Gay men's TFFs were similar for feminine trans individuals with breasts and feminine trans individuals without breasts, b = ? 0.04, 95% CI (? 0.11, 0.03), SE = 0.03, p = 0.247.
There was an effect of stimuli category (including control images) on TFF for heterosexual men, F(4, 230) = , p < 0.001, R 2 = 0.54, and gay men, F(4, 85) = , p < 0.001, R 2 = 0.58. Heterosexual men and gay men were slower to fixate on images of bonobos than all other stimuli (all p values < 0.001).
Overall fixation stage
For heterosexual men, there was an effect of human-stimuli category on TFD, F(3, 184) = , p < 0.001, R 2 = 0.65. Heterosexual men fixated on individuals with penises for less time than they fixated on cisgender women, b = ? 0.27, 95% CI (? 0.30, ? 0.24), SE = 0.02, p < 0.001. They fixated on feminine trans individuals longer than they fixated on cisgender men, b = 0.15, 95% CI (0.10, 0.19), SE = 0.02, p < 0.001. Additionally, they fixated on feminine trans individuals with breasts longer than they fixated on feminine trans individuals without breasts, b = 0.12, 95% CI (0.04, 0.19), SE = 0.04, p = 0.003.
For gay men, there was an effect of human-stimuli category on TFD, F(3, 68) = , p < 0.001, R 2 = 0.70. Gay men fixated on individuals with penises longer than they fixated on cisgender women, b = 0.16, 95% CI (0.11, 0.21), SE = 0.02, p < 0.001. They fixated on feminine trans individuals for less time than they fixated on cisgender men, b = ? 0.36, 95% CI (? 0.43, ? 0.30), SE = 0.03, p < 0.001. Additionally, they fixated on feminine trans individuals with breasts and feminine trans individuals without breasts for a similar length of time, b = ? 0.10, 95% CI (? 0.21, 0.02), SE = 0.06, p = 0.114.
There clearly was suggestive research that gay boys was in fact reduced so you can fixate toward feminine trans someone than just to your cisgender guys, b = 0
There was an effect of stimuli category (including control images) on TFD for heterosexual men, F(4, 230) = , p < 0.001, R 2 = 0.62, and gay men, F(4, 85) = , p < 0.001, R 2 = 0.74. Heterosexual men fixated on images of bonobos and cisgender men for a similar length of time, p = 0.946. They fixated on bonobos for less time than all other image categories (all p values < 0.001). Gay men fixated on images of bonobos for less time than all other image categories (all p-values < 0.001).