Archives of Sexual Behavior

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-022-02334-3

ORIGINAL PAPER

Femme/Butch/Androgyne Identity and Preferences for Femininity

Across Face, Voice, and Personality Traits in Chinese Lesbian
and Bisexual Women
Jing Zhang1

Received: 9 October 2021 / Revised: 31 March 2022 / Accepted: 31 March 2022

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2022

Abstract
Studies indicate that individuals preferring masculinity/femininity in one domain also prefer it in other domains. Heterosexual
men and women and gay men have reported consistent preferences for masculinity/femininity across the faces and voices of
their preferred sex. This study explored the femininity preferences of 417 Chinese lesbian and bisexual women in terms of
face, voice pitch, vocal tract length, and personality traits and explored the effect of sexual self-labels (femme, butch, and
androgyne) on these preferences. We found that lesbian and bisexual women showed a stronger preference for feminized faces,
voice pitch, vocal tract length, and personality traits than masculinized versions, and these preferences were highly consist-
ent across the four domains. Moreover, femininity preference was moderated by sexual self-labels, with butches preferring
more feminine voice pitch, vocal tract length, and personality traits than femmes and androgynes. However, no significant
difference was found for facial femininity preferences among different sexual self-labels. These findings present evidence of
consistent femininity preference across visual, auditory, and personality traits and suggest that, regardless of sexual orientation,
multiple cues may be used together when determining the attractiveness of individuals. Furthermore, these results support
the hypothesis that the partner preference of lesbian and bisexual women mirrors that of heterosexual men.

Keywords Femininity · Attractiveness · Sexual self-label · Partner preference · Lesbian and bisexual woman · Sexual
orientation

Introduction to integrate research from broader fields of study. Recent

Many studies have focused on human physical attractiveness
as well as its social and evolutionary implications. Appear-
ance plays an important role in mate selection, and there
are significant gender differences regrading preferences for
different traits that tend to be more pronounced across dif-
ferent cultures (Andersson & Iwasa, 1996). Previous studies
on sex-typical traits have mainly focused on the partner pref-
erences of heterosexual individuals and gay men (Rhodes,
2006; Roberts & Little, 2008; Zhang et al., 2018); compara-
tively little is known about the partner preferences of lesbian
and bisexual women. Progress in the study of female sexual
orientation has been partially hampered by a lack of attempt
* Jing Zhang
zhangj@sicnu.edu.cn
1
School of Psychology, Sichuan Normal University,
Chengdu 610068, China
research has provided the systematic study of the causal
mechanisms, physiology, and ontogenetic and phylogenetic
aspects of the various manifestations of female sexual orien-
tation (Breedlove, 2017; Luoto et al., 2019). Therefore, it is
of great significance to further explore the partner preference
of lesbian and bisexual women.
Femininity Preference in Lesbian and Bisexual
Women
Increasing evidence indicates that lesbian women possess
more masculinized self-identity and personality traits than
heterosexual women (Grimbos et al., 2010; Hiraishi et al.,
2012; Rieger et al., 2016; Schmitt, 2007). Non-heterosexual
women scored lower (i.e., higher masculinity) than heter-
osexual women on the gender-role scale (Schmitt, 2007).
Moreover, lesbian women from China were more inclined
toward preferring masculine occupations and hobbies (Zheng
et al., 2011). Further, Bailey et al. (1997) indicated that

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

lesbian women’ partner preferences mirror that of heterosex-
ual men. In previous studies, feminine faces (Burriss et al.,
2011), voices (Fraccaro et al., 2010), and bodies (Little et al.,
2011) were more preferred by heterosexual men compared to
their respective masculine versions. Similarly, some studies
found that lesbian women preferred feminine characteris-
tics of their potential partners (Bailey et al., 1997; Welling
et al., 2013). Further, Glassenberg et al. (2010) found that
lesbian women preferred feminized female and male faces,
and Rieger et al. (2011) indicated that lesbian women rated
the feminine women as more attractive.
Lesbian women generally prefer feminine partners, which
is consistent with the “exotic becomes erotic” (EBE) the-
ory of sexual orientation (Bem, 1996). Lesbian women are
often gender-atypical compared to their same-sex peers dur-
ing childhood; as children, they were attracted to childhood
peers whom they perceived to be the most different from
them. According to EBE theory, the sex typicality of same-
sex peers makes pre-homosexual children discover the exotic
and that leads them to become erotic targets. Growing up,
lesbian women will be most attracted to sex-typical adults
(e.g., feminine women). Another hypothesis was proposed by
Bailey et al. (1997), who suggested that homosexual females’
partner preferences mirrored those of heterosexual males;
this was supported by Glassenberg et al. (2010).
However, the femininity preferences of lesbian and bisex-
ual women are context dependent. Partner preference may be
based on certain conditions or self-perception of one’s value
as a mate. For heterosexual women, preferences for mas-
culine male faces were modulated by state hormone levels
(Jones et al., 2005; Welling et al., 2007), hormonal contracep-
tives (Feinberg et al., 2008), and self-perceived attractiveness
(Little & Mannion, 2006; Little et al., 2001); however, recent
studies indicated that there is no compelling evidence about
the relationship between facial masculine preference and
women’s salivary steroid hormone levels (Jones et al., 2018;
Marcinkowska et al., 2019). For lesbian and bisexual women,
Lippa’s (2006, 2007) research indicated that self-reported
sexual desire will modulate their preferences for exagger-
ated sexually dimorphic traits in both men’s and women’s
faces. Glassenberg et al. (2010) found that socio-sexuality
was not related to preference for female facial femininity.
Other influencing factors have not yet been studied in lesbian
and bisexual women.
Consistency in Preference for Femininity
Preferences for gender representative characteristics across
different domains (i.e., face and voice) are consistent. For het-
erosexual women, their masculinity preferences were consist-
ent across faces, bodies, voices, and smells; these preferences
were stronger when considering short-term relationships
13
Archives of Sexual Behavior
(Little et al., 2011). Heterosexual men’s preference for
feminized characteristics in women’s faces and voices was
significantly correlated (Fraccaro et al., 2010; Little et al.,
2011). For gay men, their masculinity preference across dif-
ferent physical domains is also consistent. Zheng and Zheng
(2016b) found that gay men’s masculinity preferences across
faces, bodies, and personality traits are significantly corre-
lated each other. Zhang et al. (2018) also indicated that gay
men’s masculinity preferences are consistent across faces,
bodies, voices, and personality traits. Moreover, the effect
of sexual self-labels on gay men’s masculinity preferences
was consistent across different domains (Zhang et al., 2018;
Zheng & Zheng, 2016b).
There is, however, very limited research focused on les-
bian and bisexual women’s partner preferences. Femininity is
an important characteristic of lesbian women’s partner pref-
erences (Levitt et al., 2003). Past research suggested that les-
bian women preferred partners with a more feminine appear-
ance (Bailey et al., 1997) and preferred feminine traits in both
female and male faces (Glassenberg et al., 2010). However,
to our knowledge, there are no studies exploring lesbian and
bisexual women’s preferences across other domains such as
voices or personality traits. Moreover, whether these pref-
erences are consistent across faces, voices, and personality
traits in lesbian and bisexual women has not yet been exam-
ined. These may be important considerations in the domain
of partner preference, as preferences for femininity remain
consistent across multiple biological domains in lesbian and
bisexual women.
Preference for Femininity by Sexual Self‑Labels
Sexual self-labels refer to self-identifications associated
with sexual role preferences (Zheng & Zheng, 2013, 2016a).
Several past studies have discussed butch–femme identities
among lesbian women without reaching much agreement on
their precise definition (Rosario et al., 2009). The lesbian
erotic butch–femme classification is commonly used in many
countries (Whitam et al., 1998). Sexual self-labels (butch,
femme, and androgyne) of lesbian and bisexual women are
also commonly used in China, denoted by English letters T, P,
and H, respectively (Zheng & Zheng, 2011). “T” represents
the abbreviation of the English word “Tomboy,” “P” is the
abbreviation of the Chinese word “Po” (婆, which means wife
in English), and “H” is the abbreviation of the English word
“Half” (Yan et al., 2014; Zhao, 2001). Those who prefer the
active role self-label as “T,” those who prefer the receptive
role self-label as “P,” and those who self-label as “H” are
willing to perform either role (Zeng et al., 2009).
Previous studies indicate that the sexual self-labels among
lesbian and bisexual women parallel the traditional male and
female roles among heterosexual men and women (Singh
Archives of Sexual Behavior
et al., 1999; Zheng, 2012). The butch–femme identities of
lesbian women have been found to be related to characteris-
tics of sexual differentiation and self-assessment of mascu-
linity (Singh et al., 1999; Zheng & Zheng, 2011). For exam-
ple, lesbian women who self-label as femme tend to judge
themselves as more feminine while those who self-label as
butch tend to judge themselves as more masculine, aggres-
sive, and dominant (Loulan, 1990; Zheng & Zheng, 2011).
Another study indicated that butches self-reported more
instrumentality and masculinity than femmes, and femmes
self-reported more expressiveness than butches (Zheng &
Zheng, 2011). In terms of personality traits, butches have
been found to be more conscientious and emotionally sta-
ble than femmes (Zheng & Zheng, 2011). Regarding gen-
der representative behavior, butches exhibit more gender
representative behavior than femmes and are not interested
in gender-typical behaviors such as wearing jewelry (Singh
et al., 1999). In addition, femmes were more likely to value
financial resources of potential partners and be more jealous
of individuals who were attractive while butches were more
jealous of wealthy individuals (Bassett et al., 2001). In gen-
eral, butches exhibit a more masculine profile while femmes
exhibit a more feminine profile.
Regarding partner preference, butches are similar to het-
erosexual men while femmes are similar to heterosexual
women (Brown et al., 2002; Singh et al., 1999). Previous
studies indicate that the active (T) and the passive (P) role
requirements of same-sex partners can be divided into two
types: complementary and both (Zheng, 2012). Further, they
found that 70% of role-based (T and P) lesbian women had
complementary role requirements of their partner, while 30%
had no specific role requirements, which is also consistent
with the study of Zheng and Zheng (2009). Perhaps the
majority of lesbian and bisexual women are still influenced
by the heterosexual model and require complementarity in
their choice of same-sex partners. This may also be because
the sexual behavior of lesbian and bisexual women living
together in complementary roles is more harmonious, giving
them both physical and emotional satisfaction. Therefore,
the butch may prefer partners with feminine characteristics
and the femme may prefer partners with masculine charac-
teristics. However, no studies have examined the effect of
sexual self-labels on femininity preferences across different
physical domains (e.g., face, voice). In this study, we examine
the consistency of femininity preferences of lesbian women
across different domains (visual, auditory, and personality
traits) and explore whether they differ with sexual self-labels.
The Present Study
In this study, we examined lesbian and bisexual women’s
femininity preferences across faces, voices, and personality
traits. For voice, we adopted two vocal indicators, voice
pitch, and vocal tract length (VTL). Voice pitch and formant
frequencies (the resonant frequencies of the supralaryngeal
vocal tract) are both acoustic features which affect masculine
perception (Feinberg et al., 2005). Additionally, we extended
femininity preferences to include personality traits, which
also affect partner selection. Previous studies have indicated
that gay men’s masculine preferences are significantly cor-
related between faces and personality traits (Zheng & Zheng,
2016b), and heterosexual women’s preferences for masculine
faces were associated with their preference for masculine
traits in their actual partners (Burriss et al., 2011; DeBruine
et al., 2006). Therefore, our first aim is to explore lesbian
and bisexual women’s femininity preferences across faces,
voice pitch, VTL, and personality traits, and subsequently to
explore whether lesbian and bisexual women demonstrate a
consistent preference for femininity across these domains.
Moreover, sexual self-labels may moderate lesbian and
bisexual women’s preferences for femininity across differ-
ent physical domains. As such, we further explored whether
femininity preferences across these domains were consistent
within sexual self-labels.
Method
Participants
Using G*Power 3 software (Faul et al., 2007), we assessed
that we need a sample of least 186 participants for this study
with a power of 0.95, a moderate effect size (Cohen’s f) of
0.25 and α of 0.05. For the other statistical analyses, the mini-
mum number of participants required was below 186. As
such, we recruited 417 lesbian and bisexual women aged
16–47 years (M = 22.27, SD = 5.83) from Chinese websites
that cater to lesbian women, including lesbian forums (e.g.,
douban, zhihu) and QQ groups (popular social and chat soft-
ware in China). When asked about their sexual self-labels,
180 (43.16%) self-identified as femmes, 160 (38.37%)
self-identified as butches, and 77 (18.47%) self-identified
as androgynous. This research was approved by the Ethics
Committee of Southwest University. Demographic data of
participants are presented in Table 1.
Measures
Sexual Orientation
Three items were used to assess participants’ sexual orienta-
tion, as in previous studies (Zheng & Zheng, 2011, 2013).
First, participants were asked to select their sexual orien-
tation from three options: heterosexual, homosexual, and
13
 Archives of Sexual Behavior

Table 1  Demographic variables Butches (n = 160) Androgynous (n = 77) Femmes (n = 180)

of participants by sexual self-
labels Age (in years) M (SD) 23.6(6.4) 22.0(5.5) 21.3(5.3)
Education level N (%)
Junior high school or less 9(5.6) 4(5.2) 10(5.6)
Senior high school 37(23.1) 22(28.6) 50(27.8)
College 97(60.6) 38(49.4) 100(55.6)
Postgraduate or higher 17(10.6) 13(16.9) 20(11.1)
Occupation N (%)
Students 81(50.6) 42(54.5) 119(66.1)
Employed 70(43.8) 28(36.4) 50(27.8)
Job-seeking 1(0.6) 5(6.5) 7(3.9)
Other 8(5.0) 2(2.6) 4(2.2)
Monthly income N (%)
No 69(43.1) 35(45.5) 102(56.7)
Less than 2000 10(6.3) 7(9.1) 15(8.3)
2000–4000 15(9.4) 8(10.4) 18(10)
4000–6000 17(10.6) 12(15.6) 11(6.1)
6000–10,000 23(14.4) 5(6.5) 20(11.1)
More than 10,000 26(16.3) 10(13) 14(7.8)
Relationship N (%) (multiple choices)
Single 107(66.9) 48(62.3) 123(68.3)
Married 2(1.3) 2(2.6) 1(0.6)
Have same-sex partner 49(30.6) 22(28.6) 48(26.7)
Have opposite-sex partner 4(2.5) 6(7.8) 9(5.0)
Divorced 1(0.6) 1(1.3) 3(1.7)
Sexual orientation N (%)
Homosexual 133(83.1) 62(80.5) 133(73.9)
Bisexual 27(16.9) 15(19.5) 47(26.1)
Attraction to men 3.01(1.85) 3.56(2.19) 4.05(2.08)
Attraction to women 7.44(1.49) 7.51(1.58) 6.88(1.64)

bisexual. Then, they were asked, “How sexually attracted
are you to men?” and “How sexually attracted are you to
women?” based on a 9-point Likert-type scale (1 = not at all
attracted, 9 = very attracted). Participants who were classi-
fied as “homosexual” had to describe themselves as homo-
sexual and self-report as being more attracted to women than
men on the other two items. Those who were classified as
“bisexual” had to describe themselves as bisexual on the first
item and had to report at least some attraction to both men
and women. Those who provided inconsistent responses to
the three items (e.g., participants who described themselves
as homosexual but self-reported as being more attracted to
men than women) were excluded from the study.
Butch–Femme Self‑Label
Participants reported their butch–femme identity by select-
ing from T (butch), P (femme), and H (androgynous). This
method was successfully used in past research (Zheng &
Zheng, 2011, 2013).
Voice Stimuli
Six Chinese female undergraduates were recruited to speak
Chinese words: nan bei (南北 “north and south”), zuo you
­­(左右 “right and left”), ming ci (名词 “noun”), li kai (离
开 “get away”), and guan bi (关闭 “turn off”; Zhang et al.,
2018). Voice stimuli were recorded in a quiet room with an
Audio-Technica ATR-2500 microphone and recording soft-
ware (Cool Edit Pro) at a sampling rate of 44.1 kHz with
16-bit amplitude quantization.
We conducted voice manipulation using Praat software
(Boersma & Weenink, 2013). The original pitch was raised
and lowered by 0.5 equivalent rectangular bandwidths
(ERBs) to create higher and lower pitch versions using the
Pitch-Synchronous Overlap Add (PSOLA, France Telecom)
method in Praat (Apicella & Feinberg, 2009; Jones et al.,
2010). This method selectively manipulated the fundamen-
tal frequency and related harmonics, leaving other features
of the voice constant (Feinberg et al., 2005). Changes in
VTL are mainly realized by raising or lowering the whole

13
Archives of Sexual Behavior

spectrum by 10% and manipulating the formant position of

voice to approximately 90% or 110% of its original position
(Pisanski et al., 2014). Ultimately, we created 24 items with
new voices: 6 female voices with higher voice pitch, 6 female
voices with lower voice pitch, 6 female voices with longer
VTL, and 6 female voices with shorter VTL. The descriptive
statistics (means and SDs) for the original voices before the
pitch and VTL manipulations and also the mean after the
manipulations in our study are shown in Table 2.

Trait Items Stimuli

The personality trait materials used in this study were
selected from the new Sex Role Inventory in China (CSRI-
50) with a 50-item self-reported questionnaire comprising
two subscales: instrumentality (masculine-dominant) and
expressiveness (feminine-dominant; Liu et al., 2011). This
scale comprises 16 instrumentality traits, 16 expressive-
ness traits, and 18 neutral traits; of these, the instrumen-
tality and expressiveness traits were used in this study.
Participants selected seven traits they considered most
important in romantic relationships. We then calculated
the scores based on the number of expressiveness traits
among the seven traits selected by the participants (rang-
ing from 0 to 7).
Face Stimuli
The masculine and feminine faces we used were sourced
from Zheng and Zheng (2016b). The facial masculinity and
femininity of two-dimensional (2-D) digital facial images
were manipulated with prototype-based image transforma-
tions. Twenty young adult Chinese male faces and 20 young
adult Chinese female faces were created by averaging shape,
color, and texture information. Then, 10 Chinese female face
images were masculinized and feminized by subtracting
or raising 50% of the linear differences between the male
and female average versions. Using this methodology, we
obtained 10 masculinized female faces and 10 feminized
female faces. Examples of these face stimuli are presented
in Fig. 1.
Fig. 1  Examples of masculinized (left) and feminized (right) versions
of a female face image
Procedure
The study was conducted online via a Chinese survey website
(www.​wjx.​cn). The questionnaire consisted of five sections:
sociodemographic characteristics (age, sex, sexual orienta-
tion, education level, professional condition, and relationship
status), voice pitch preference, face preference, personality
trait item preference, and VTL preference. Only after com-
pleting one section, participants were allowed to move on to
the next section.
The face and voice stimuli were presented using a forced-
choice paradigm, and all participants were asked to evaluate
the female stimuli. For the general preference for femininity
in voices and faces, we rated the stimuli using the attractive-
ness ratings that have been widely used in previous studies
(Fraccaro et al., 2010; Little et al., 2011). First, participants
completed the sociodemographic characteristics. Second,
in the voice pitch preference test, each participant was
sequentially presented with six pairs of voices manipulated
by voice pitch (each pair comprising a masculinized and a
feminized version of the same individual). Participants then
had to select one from each pair of voices, in response to
the question “Which voice is more attractive?” Third, for
the facial preference test, 10 pairs of faces were presented
sequentially; participants had to select one from each pair of
faces, based on the question “Which face is more attractive?”

Table 2  Descriptive statistics F0 F1 F2 F3 F4 Formant

(Means and SD) for female disper-
voice stimuli sion

Original voices 212 (16.7) 524 (23.1) 1797 (136.9) 2911 (146.7) 3999 (167.8) 1158
Lowered voice pitch 190 (15.0) 522 (30.3) 1789 (130.0) 2899 (160.0) 3991 (170.3) 1156
Raised voice pitch 235 (15.7) 522 (24.2) 1788 (125.6) 2902 (146.7) 3996 (158.5) 1158
Vocal tract lengthened 212 (17.1) 552 (75.0) 1795 (124.2) 2859 (158.3) 3838 (164.4) 1095
Vocal tract shortened 213 (16.2) 564 (45.3) 1832 (179.5) 2987 (217.6) 4077 (228.5) 1171

13
 Archives of Sexual Behavior

Following the face preference test, participants were made
to select seven trait items that they valued most in romantic
relationships out of a list of 32 traits. Then, for the VTL pref-
erence section, six pairs of voices manipulated by VTL were
shown sequentially and the procedure remained similar to the
voice pitch preference test. Finally, because there were many
voice items, one item was used to test participants’ response
attitudes. Participants were asked if they had listened to all
the sound items seriously. Only those who answered “yes”
were included in this study. The masculinized and feminized
versions of faces and voices in each pair were shown in a
random order.
Results
Generalized Preferences
The general preferences of the study’s participants for
faces, voice pitch, VTL, and personality traits were calcu-
lated separately. Regarding faces, participants selected the
feminized versions significantly more often than average
(M = 0.85, SD = 0.17); one-sample t-tests revealed that par-
ticipants significantly preferred feminized over masculinized
faces, t(416) = 42.24, p < 0.001, d = 2.06 (compared with
0.5). Regarding voice pitch, participants selected the raised
versions significantly more often than average (M = 0.55,
SD = 0.31); one-sample t tests revealed that participants
significantly preferred raised voice pitch, t(416) = 3.62,
p < 0.001, d = 0.16. Regarding VTL, participants select the
shortened versions significantly more often than average
(M = 0.61, SD = 0.31); one-sample t tests revealed that partic-
ipants significantly preferred shortened VTL, t(416) = 7.47,
p < 0.001, d = 0.35. Regarding personality traits, partici-
pants chose the feminized characteristics significantly more
often than chance (M = 4.06, SD = 1.51); one-sample t tests
revealed that participants significantly preferred feminized
personality traits, t(416) = 7.55, p < 0.001, d = 0.34 (com-
pared with 3.5). These results reveal that the lesbian women
in this study generally exhibit a stronger preference for
feminine faces, voice pitch, VTL, and personality traits than
the masculine versions.
Preference for Femininity by Sexual Self‑Labels
This study investigated whether lesbian women’s prefer-
ences for feminine characteristics differed between self-
labels (femmes, butches, androgynes). The results indi-
cate that butches significantly preferred feminized faces,
voice pitch, VTL, and personality traits. Androgynes sig-
nificantly preferred feminized faces, VTL, and personality
traits to their masculinized versions; however, in terms of
voice pitch, they preferred neither. Femmes significantly
preferred feminized faces, but preferred masculinized voice
pitch; and for VTL or personality traits, femmes preferred
neither. The results are presented in Table 3.
We conducted the principal component analysis (PCA)
using voice pitch, VTL, faces, and personality traits as
measures for a “new” dependent variable. The primary
PCA results suggested the extraction of one factor, which
accounted for 46.07% of the variance. The result indi-
cated that the domains of voices, faces, and personality
traits result in a single component regardless of the sex-
ual self-labels. Then, multivariate analysis of covariance
(MANCOVA) was used to explore femininity preferences
between self-label groups. The main effect of self-labels
on faces, voice pitch, VTL, and personality traits was sig-
nificant, F(3, 413) = 13.57, p < 0.001, partial η 2 = 0.12.
There were significant differences among the three self-
label groups for voice pitch preference, F(2, 414) = 43.95,
p < 0.001, partial η2 = 0.18. Bonferroni post hoc analysis
indicated that butches (d = 1.04, p < 0.001) and androgynes
(d = 0.47, p < 0.001) preferred feminized voice pitch more
than femmes, and butches preferred feminized voice pitch
more than androgynes (d = 0.51, p = 0.001). There were
significant differences among the three self-label groups
in terms of VTL preference, F(2, 414) = 24.99, p < 0.001,
partial η 2 = 0.11. Bonferroni post hoc analysis indicated
that butches preferred feminized VTL more than femmes
(d = 0.77, p < 0.001) and androgynes (d = 0.60, p < 0.001),

Table 3  Mean of choosing feminine stimuli and one-sample t tests compared with chance on preferences for femininity by self-labels
Femmes Androgynous Butches
M SD t p d M SD t p d M SD t p d

Pitcha 0.42 0.30 − 3.72 < 0.001 − 0.27 0.56 0.30 1.92 0.059 0.22 0.70 0.25 10.16 < 0.001 0.82
VTLa 0.52 0.33 0.75 0.454 0.06 0.57 0.31 2.08 0.041 0.24 0.74 0.24 12.70 < 0.001 1.00
Facesa 0.83 0.18 24.58 < 0.001 1.84 0.86 0.16 19.67 < 0.001 2.23 0.86 0.16 29.25 < 0.001 2.24
Traitsb 3.71 1.48 1.86 0.064 0.14 3.97 1.41 2.94 0.004 0.33 4.49 1.48 8.50 < 0.001 0.67
a
Absolute range 0–1, compared with 0.5
b
Absolute range 0–7, compared with 3.5

13
Archives of Sexual Behavior

Other Variables and Sexual Self‑Labels

MANCOVA was conducted to test whether sexual self-labels

Fig. 2  Differences among sexual self-label group preference for voice
pitch, VTL, faces and personality traits. ***p < 0.001, *p < 0.05
Table 4  Correlations among preferences for femininity across multi-
ple domains
were related to attraction to men/women. The main effect of
self-labels on all variables was significant, F(3, 413) = 7.14,
p < 0.001, partial η2 = 0.03. Significant differences were found
between self-labels for attraction to men, F(2, 414) = 11.38,
p < 0.001, partial η2 = 0.05. Bonferroni post hoc analysis
indicated that femmes reported more attraction to men than
butches (d = 0.53, p < 0.001). No significant differences were
found between androgynes and femmes. Significant differ-
ences were found between self-labels for attraction to women,
F(2, 414) = 7.06, p = 0.001, partial η2 = 0.03. Bonferroni post
hoc analysis indicated that androgynes (d = 0.39, p = 0.011)
and butches (d = 0.36, p = 0.003) reported more attraction to
women than femmes. No significant difference was found
between androgynes and butches. The results are presented
in Table 1.

All Femmes Androgynous Butches

Discussion
Pitch and faces 0.23*** 0.25*** 0.24* 0.18*
VTL and faces 0.25*** 0.28*** 0.28* 0.17*
This study found that Chinese lesbian and bisexual women
Pitch and traits 0.35*** 0.27*** 0.37*** 0.26***
indicate a significant preference for femininity in their poten-
VTL and traits 0.29*** 0.22** 0.27* 0.22**
tial female partners across different domains. Lesbian and
Pitch and VTL 0.38*** 0.40*** 0.06 0.26***
bisexual women demonstrated a stronger preference for femi-
Faces and traits 0.15** 0.13 0.29* 0.09
nized female faces, voices (higher voice pitch and shorter
*
p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001 VTL), and personality traits over masculinized versions,
which is consistent with past research demonstrating that
lesbian women prefer partners with a more feminine appear-
but there were no significant differences between femmes ance (Bailey et al., 1997; Bassett et al., 2001; Glassenberg
and androgynes. There were significant differences among et al., 2010; Shiramizu et al., 2021; Welling et al., 2013).
the three self-label groups for personality traits preferences, Lesbian and bisexual women showed stronger preferences for
F(2, 414) = 12.35, p < 0.001, partial η2 = 0.06. Bonferroni feminine rather than masculine cues in faces, voices, and per-
post hoc analysis indicated that butches preferred feminized sonality traits of females, which also supports the hypothesis
personality traits more than femmes (d = 0.53, p < 0.001) proposed by Bailey et al. (1997) that lesbian women’s part-
and androgynes (d = 0.36, p = 0.033), and there were no ner preferences mirror those of heterosexual males. Taken
significant differences between femmes and androgynes. together, it is possible to assert that lesbian and bisexual
However, we did not find significant differences among women prefer more feminine traits across multiple domains,
the three self-label groups in terms of facial preferences, including both physical features and personality traits.
F(2, 414) = 1.35, p = 0.26, partial η2 = 0.006. Preference for As we predicted, lesbian and bisexual women consistently
femininity by sexual self-labels is summarized in Fig. 2. preferred feminized traits across faces, voice pitch, VTL, and
personality traits, which implies that lesbian women who
Consistency in Preferences for Femininity preferred feminized features in one domain also tended to
prefer feminized features in other domains. These results
We then conducted correlation analysis of femininity prefer- complement previous research in which heterosexual men’s
ences across voice pitch, VTL, faces, and personality traits. preferences for feminine characteristics in women’s faces and
Preferences for femininity across the four domains were sig- voices were positively correlated (Fraccaro et al., 2010), and
nificantly correlated (rs = 0.15–0.38, ps < 0.002). The cor- suggest that, regardless of sexual orientation, those who pre-
relations across these four domains in the different sexual ferred feminized features in one domain also tended to pre-
self-label groups are presented in Table 4. fer feminized features in other domains. Masculine/feminine
perceptions can be affected by modifying voices (Fraccaro
et al., 2011; Hughes et al., 2010) and faces (Campbell et al.,

13

1999) in social interactions to gain preference from the oppo-
site sex. In this study, we found consistency in femininity
preferences across different domains, which suggests that
receivers can use multiple cues to increase the reliability of
their partner-choice decisions when selecting a partner.
The femininity preferences of lesbian and bisexual women
across these four domains were moderated by different sexual
self-labels. This study indicated that butches had a stronger
preference for feminine traits in voices and personality traits
compared to femmes and androgynes, which is consistent
with previous studies that a butch was similar to a hetero-
sexual man and a femme was similar to a heterosexual woman
(Brown et al., 2002; Hall & Schaeff, 2008; Singh et al., 1999).
Similarly, we found that butches preferred feminine traits in
all domains while femmes preferred a masculinized voice
pitch. Butches preferred feminine traits more than femmes
did, which also indicates that there is some coordination of
sexual appraisal of masculine versus feminine traits in a tar-
get. Lesbian and bisexual women’s preferences for masculine
versus feminine partners are related to their own levels of
masculinity or femininity. Butches were found to be more
masculine than femmes (Zheng & Zheng, 2011), and accord-
ing to the principle of complementarity in mate selection
(Zheng, 2012), butches may prefer feminine traits more than
femmes may prefer. In addition, some studies have found that
butches reach puberty earlier than femmes, which may be a
difference in development and sexual differentiation between
butches and femmes, thereby leading to differences in their
partner preferences. Future studies should pay more atten-
tion on this.
However, we did not find a significant difference among
different sexual self-labels regarding their feminine prefer-
ence for faces, that is, both butches and femmes preferred
feminine faces. This result concurs with past research that
young women exhibit stronger preference for feminine faces
in China (Liu & Wu, 2016), and in our study the lesbian
women are also young (Mage = 22.27). There are several pos-
sible reasons for this. First, the development of mass media
has significantly affected the public’s esthetic appreciation.
For example, “little fresh meat” (young men and women lack-
ing masculinity), portrayed as being gentler and more car-
ing, is becoming a popular trend, thus resulting in a change
in individuals’ preferences. Second, feminine faces usually
convey other attributes such as warmth, honesty, coopera-
tiveness, lower status or dominance, and youthfulness that
lesbian and bisexual women evaluate as being most important
in romantic relationships (Law Smith et al., 2006; Perrett
et al., 1998). Visual cues are more intuitive than vocal cues,
although feminine voice may also convey this information.
Therefore, our study found that lesbian and bisexual women
(including femme) all preferred feminine faces among males.
However, more research is needed to explore Chinese lesbian
13
Archives of Sexual Behavior
and bisexual women’s feminine preferences in different sex-
ual self-labels in greater depth.
In addition, we examined voice preferences using two
vocal indicators: voice pitch and VTL. Few studies have
examined the femininity preferences of lesbian women in
the auditory domain. In this study, lesbian women who pre-
ferred a masculine voice pitch also preferred masculine VTL,
which means these preferences are consistent. Human VTL is
significantly correlated with body size (Fitch & Giedd, 1999),
and height is a sexually dimorphic variable that significantly
predicts reproductive success (Pawlowski et al., 2000). Fur-
thermore, Feinberg et al. (2005) found that decreased appar-
ent VTL was perceived as more feminine and younger. In
addition, VTL was related to sexual maturity (Fitch & Giedd,
1999). Thus, like voice pitch, VTL is also a sexual dimor-
phism vocal characteristic that affects people’s perception of
femininity. Previous studies focused on VTL mainly in terms
of perceptions of trust (Montano et al., 2017) and cooperation
(Knowles & Little, 2016), but few studies have examined it
in the domain of sexual relationships. Future research should
pay more attention to this characteristic.
The sexual preferences of lesbian women were moderated
by self-labels. This study found that butches and androgynes
reported stronger attraction to women than femmes, which
was consistent with previous findings (Zheng & Zheng,
2016a).
Conclusion and Limitations
Generally, this study indicated that Chinese lesbian and
bisexual women preferred feminine traits in faces, voice
pitch, VTL, and personality traits; furthermore, these prefer-
ences were consistent across these domains. Femininity pref-
erences across these domains were significantly moderated
by sexual self-labels, with butches preferring more feminine
partners than femmes and androgynes. These results suggest
that femininity in multiple domains might convey underly-
ing common qualities amounting to attractiveness, such as
perceived femininity, and may further help us understand
different lesbian subgroups’ partner preferences.
Some limitations should be considered in this study. First,
the participants were mainly recruited online and were rela-
tively young; hence, they may not represent all lesbian and
bisexual women in China. Future studies should replicate
this study with a larger sample and a greater range of ages
and nationalities. Second, this study discusses the consist-
ency of femininity preferences across visual, auditory, and
personality trait domains; future research should extend it
to other domains, such as olfaction. Third, masculine/femi-
nine preferences are context dependent. For example, con-
traceptive use (Feinberg et al., 2008), relationship context
(Fraccaro et al., 2010), and menstrual cycle phase (Feinberg
et al., 2006) are all important factors influencing preferences
Archives of Sexual Behavior
for sexual dimorphic traits, although some recent studies
indicate that heterosexual women’s masculine preferences
in different physical domains is not affected by menstrual
cycle shifts (e.g., Jones et al., 2018; Marcinkowska et al.,
2019; Stern et al., 2020). Future studies should examine
whether these factors affect lesbian women’s femininity
preferences in different domains. Fourth, sexual self-labels
were assessed based on self-reports. It is possible that some
lesbian women are unsure of their sexual self-labels, leading
to their choice of identity being inaccurate. Future studies
should adopt more measures to identify sexual self-labels.
Fifth, in our study, we use the two-factor gender scale with
“instrumentality” and “expressiveness” to measure personal-
ity trait preferences; this method is based on outdated ver-
sions of masculinity-femininity (Pedhazur & Tetenbaum,
1979). Future studies should use more standard methods to
measure and verify this preference. Sixth, this study used
artificial stimuli, which lacks ecological validity. In real life,
many qualities are mixed together and indistinguishable. It
is not just one trait that affects partner preferences; perhaps a
variety of dimorphic traits may be at work together, making
it hard to identify which trait is dominant. It is necessary for
future studies to discuss which trait (e.g., voices and faces)
had a greater effect on the individual’s partner preferences.
Finally, the present study examined the attraction patterns of
lesbian and bisexual women; however, a systematic compari-
son of this group to heterosexual women and heterosexual
and gay men is lacking. Therefore, it will be of significance to
compare the partner preferences of people of different sexual
orientations in China.
Funding This research is sponsored by The Influence of left-behind
experience on female College Students' Sexual Attitude and its coun-
termeasures (Grant no. SXJYB2113).
Declarations
Conflict of interest The author(s) declare no potential conflicts of inter-
est with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article. This manuscript has not been published or presented elsewhere
in part or in entirety and is not under consideration by another journal.
Ethics Approval All study participants provided informed consent, and
the study design was approved by the appropriate ethics review board.
References
Andersson, M., & Iwasa, Y. (1996). Sexual selection. Trends in Ecology
and Evolution, 11, 53–58.
Apicella, C. L., & Feinberg, D. R. (2009). Voice pitch alters mate
choice—Relevant perception in hunter–gatherers. Proceedings of
the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, 276, 1077–1082.
Bailey, J. M., Kim, P. Y., Hills, A., & Linsenmeier, J. A. W. (1997).
Butch, femme, or straight acting? Partner preferences of gay men
and lesbians. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73,
960–973.
Bassett, J., Pearcey, S., & Dabbs, J. M. (2001). Jealousy and partner
preference among butch and femme lesbians. Psychology, Evolu-
tion, & Gender, 3, 155–165.
Bem, D. J. (1996). Exotic becomes erotic: A developmental theory
of sexual orientation. Psychological Review, 103(2), 320–335.
Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2013). Praat: doing phonetics by com-
puter [Computer program]. Version 5.3.51. Online: http://​www.​
praat.​org
Breedlove, S. M. (2017). prenatal influences on human sexual orien-
tation: Expectations versus data. Archives of Sexual Behavior,
46(6), 1583–1592.
Brown, W. M., Finn, C. J., Cooke, B. M., & Breedlove, S. M. (2002).
Differences in finger length ratios between self-identified
‘“butch”’ and ‘“femme”’ lesbians. Archives of Sexual Behav-
ior, 31, 123–127.
Burriss, R. P., Welling, L. L. M., & Puts, D. A. (2011). Mate-preference
drives mate-choice: Men’s self-rated masculinity predicts their
female partner’s preference for masculinity. Personality & Indi-
vidual Differences, 51(8), 1023–1027.
Campbell, R., Benson, P. J., Wallace, S. B., Doesbergh, S., & Coleman,
M. (1999). More about brows: How poses that change brow posi-
tion affect perceptions of gender. Perception, 28, 489–504.
DeBruine, L. M., Jones, B. C., Little, A. C., Boothroyd, L. G., Perrett,
D. I., Penton-Voak, I. S., & Tiddeman, B. P. (2006). Correlated
preferences for facial masculinity and ideal or actual partner’s mas-
culinity. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences,
273(1592), 1355–1360.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3:
A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behav-
ioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2),
175–191.
Feinberg, D. R., DeBruine, L. M., Jones, B. C., & Little, A. C. (2008).
Correlated preferences for men’s facial and vocal masculinity. Evo-
lution and Human Behavior, 29(4), 233–241.
Feinberg, D. R., Jones, B. C., Law Smith, M. J., Moore, F. R., DeBru-
ine, L. M., Cornwell, R. E., Hillier, S. G., & Perrett, D. I. (2006).
Menstrual cycle, trait estrogen level, and masculinity in the human
voice. Hormones and Behavior, 49, 215–222.
Feinberg, D. R., Jones, B. C., Little, A. C., Burt, D. M., & Perrett, D.
I. (2005). Manipulations of fundamental and formant frequencies
influence the attractiveness of human male voices. Animal Behav-
iour, 69(3), 561–568.
Fitch, W. T., & Giedd, J. (1999). Morphology and development of the
human vocal tract: A study using magnetic resonance imaging.
Acoustical Society of America Journal, 106(3), 1511–1522.
Fraccaro, P. J., Feinberg, D. R., Debruine, L. M., Little, A. C., Wat-
kins, C. D., & Jones, B. C. (2010). Correlated male preferences for
femininity in female faces and voices. Evolutionary Psychology,
8(3), 447–461.
Fraccaro, P. J., Jones, B. C., Vukovic, J., Smith, F. G., Watkins, C. D.,
Feinberg, D. R., & Debruine, L. M. (2011). Experimental evidence
that women speak in a higher voice pitch to men they find attrac-
tive. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 9(1), 57–67.
Glassenberg, A. N., Feinberg, D. R., Jones, B. C., Little, A. C., &
DeBruine, L. M. (2010). Sex-dimorphic face shape preference in
heterosexual and homosexual men and women. Archives of Sexual
Behavior, 39, 1289–1296.
Grimbos, T., Dawood, K., Burriss, R. P., Zucker, K. J., & Puts, D. A.
(2010). Sexual orientation and the second to fourth finger length
ratio: A meta-analysis in men and women. Behavioral Neurosci-
ence, 124(2), 278–287.
13

Hall, P. A., & Schaeff, C. M. (2008). Sexual orientation and fluctuating
asymmetry in women and men. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 37,
158–165.
Hiraishi, K., Sasaki, S., Shikishima, C., & Ando, J. (2012). The sec-
ond to fourth digit ratio (2D:4D) in a Japanese twin sample:
Heritability, prenatal hormone transfer, and association with
sexual orientation. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41(3), 711–724.
Hughes, S. M., Farley, S. D., & Rhodes, B. C. (2010). Vocal and
physiological changes in response to the physical attractiveness
of conversational partners. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior,
34(3), 155–167.
Jones, B. C., Feinberg, D. R., Debruine, L. M., Little, A. C., & Vuko-
vic, J. (2010). A domain-specific opposite-sex bias in human
preferences for manipulated voice pitch. Animal Behaviour,
79(1), 57–62.
Jones, B. C., Hahn, A. C., Fisher, C. I., Wang, H., Kandrik, M., Han,
C., & DeBruine, L. M. (2018). No compelling evidence that
preferences for facial masculinity track changes in women’s hor-
monal status. Psychological Science, 29(6), 996–1005.
Jones, B. C., Little, A. C., Boothroyd, L., DeBruine, L. M., Feinberg,
D. R., Smith, M. J. L., & Perrett, D. I. (2005). Commitment to
relationships and preferences for femininity and apparent health
in faces are strongest on days of the menstrual cycle when pro-
gesterone level is high. Hormones and Behavior, 48(3), 283–290.
Knowles, K. K., & Little, A. C. (2016). Vocal fundamental and for-
mant frequencies affect perceptions of speaker cooperative-
ness. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(9),
1657–1675.
Law Smith, M. J., Perrett, D. I., Jones, B. C., Cornwell, R. E., Moore,
F. R., Feinberg, D. R., Boothroyd, L. G., Durrani, S. J., Stirrat,
M. R., Whiten, S., Pitman, R. M., & Hillier, S. G. (2006). Facial
appearance is a cue to oestrogen levels in women. Proceedings
of the Royal Society B, 273, 135–140.
Levitt, H. M., Gerrish, E. A., & Hiestand, K. R. (2003). The misun-
derstood gender: A model of modern femme identity. Sex Roles,
48, 99–113.
Lippa, R. A. (2006). Is high sex drive associated with increased sexual
attraction to both sexes? It depends on whether you are male or
female. Psychological Science, 17, 46–52.
Lippa, R. A. (2007). The relation between sex drive and sexual attrac-
tion to men and women: A cross-national study of heterosexual,
bisexual, and homosexual men and women. Archives of Sexual
Behavior, 36, 209–222.
Little, A. C., Burt, D. M., Penton-Voak, I. S., & Perrett, D. I. (2001).
Self-perceived attractiveness influences human female prefer-
ences for sexual dimorphism and symmetry in male faces. Pro-
ceedings Biological Sciences, 268, 39–44.
Little, A. C., Connely, J., Feinberg, D. R., Jones, B. C., & Roberts, S.
C. (2011). Human preference for masculinity differs according
to context in faces, bodies, voices, and smell. Behavioral Ecol-
ogy, 22(4), 862–868.
Little, A. C., & Mannion, H. (2006). Viewing attractive or unattrac-
tive same-sex individuals changes self-rated attractiveness and
face preferences in women. Animal Behaviour, 72(5), 981–987.
Liu, D. Z., Huang, H. X., Jia, F. Q., Gong, Q., Huang, Q., & Li, X.
(2011). A new Sex-Role Inventory (CSRI-50) indicates changes
of sex role among Chinese college students. Acta Psychologica
Sinica, 43, 639–649.
Liu, J., & Wu, Z. (2016). Preferences for sexual dimorphic faces
among university students (in Chinese). The Guide of Science
& Education, 1, 166–167.
Loulan, J. (1990). The lesbian erotic dance. Butch, femme, androgyny
and other rhythms. Minneapolis, MN: Spinsters Ink.
Luoto, S., Krams, I., & Rantala, M. J. (2019). A life history
approach to the female sexual orientation spectrum: Evolution,
13
Archives of Sexual Behavior
development, causal mechanisms, and health. Archives of Sexual
Behavior, 48, 1273–1308.
Marcinkowska, U. M., Hahn, A. C., Little, A. C., DeBruine, L. M., &
Jones, B. C. (2019). No evidence that women using oral contra-
ceptives have weaker preferences for masculine characteristics
in men’s faces. PLoS ONE, 14(1), e0210162.
Montano, K. J., Tigue, C. C., Isenstein, S. G., Barclay, P., & Feinberg, D.
R. (2017). Men’s voice pitch influences women’s trusting behavior.
Evolution and Human Behavior, 38(3), 293–297.
Pawlowski, B., Dunbar, R. I. M., & Lipowicz, A. (2000). Tall men have
more reproductive success. Nature, 403(6766), 156.
Pedhazur, E. J., & Tetenbaum, T. J. (1979). Bem sex role inventory: A
theoretical and methodological critique. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 37(6), 996–1016.
Perrett, D. I., Lee, K. J., Penton-Voak, I. S., Rowland, D. R., Yoshikawa,
S., Burt, D. M., & Akamatsu, S. (1998). Effects of sexual dimor-
phism on facial attractiveness. Nature, 394, 884–887.
Pisanski, K., Hahn, A. C., Fisher, C. I., DeBruine, L. M., Feinberg, D.
R., & Jones, B. C. (2014). Changes in salivary estradiol predict
changes in women’s preferences for vocal masculinity. Hormones
and Behavior, 66(3), 493–497.
Rhodes, G. (2006). The evolutionary psychology of facial beauty.
Annual Review of Psychology, 57(1), 199–226.
Rieger, G., Gygax, L., Linsenmeier, J., Siler-Knogl, A., Moskowitz, D.,
& Bailey, J. M. (2011). Sex typicality and attractiveness in child-
hood and adulthood: Assessing their relationships from videos.
Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40(1), 143–154.
Rieger, G., Savin-Williams, R. C., Chivers, M. L., & Bailey, J. M.
(2016). Sexual arousal and masculinity-femininity of women.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(2), 265–283.
Roberts, S. C., & Little, A. C. (2008). Good genes, complementary
genes and human mate preferences. Genetica, 134(1), 31–43.
Rosario, M., Schrimshaw, E. W., Hunter, J., & Levy-Warren, A. (2009).
The coming-out process of young lesbian and bisexual women: Are
there butch/femme differences in sexual identity development?
Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38, 34–49.
Schmitt, D. P. (2007). Sexual strategies across sexual orientations: How
personality traits and culture relate to sociosexuality among gays,
lesbians, bisexuals, and heterosexuals. Journal of Psychology &
Human Sexuality, 18, 183–214.
Shiramizu, V. M., DeBruine, L. M., Feinberg, D. R., & Jones, B. C.
(2021). Sexual orientation predicts women's preferences for sexu-
ally dimorphic face-shape characteristics. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
31234/​osf.​io/​qn7pt
Singh, D., Vidaurri, M., Zambarano, R. J., & Dabbs, J. M. (1999).
Lesbian erotic role identification: Behavioral, morphological, and
hormonal correlates. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 76, 1035–1049.
Stern, J., Gerlach, T. M., & Penke, L. (2020). Probing ovulatory-cycle
shifts in women’s preferences for men’s behaviors. Psychological
Science, 31, 424–426.
Welling, L. L. M., Jones, B. C., DeBruine, L. M., Conway, C. A., Law
Smith, M. J., Little, A. C., & Al-Dujaili, E. A. S. (2007). Raised
salivary testosterone in women is associated with increased attrac-
tion to masculine faces. Hormones and Behavior, 52(2), 156–161.
Welling, L. L. M., Singh, K., Puts, D. A., Jones, B. C., & Burriss, R. P.
(2013). Self-reported sexual desire in homosexual men and women
predicts preferences for sexually dimorphic facial cues. Archives
of Sexual Behavior, 42, 785–791.
Whitam, F. L., Daskalos, C., Sobolewski, C. G., & Padilla, P. (1998).
The emergence of lesbian sexuality and identity cross-culturally:
Brazil, Peru, the Philippines, and the United States. Archives of
Sexual Behavior, 27, 31–56.
Yan, X., Xuan, B., & Yuan, Y. (2014). Factors related to butch-identified
lesbians. Social Psychological Science, 29, 29–35.
Archives of Sexual Behavior
Zeng, X., Zhang, L., Liu, H., Guo, W., & Ren, Y. (2009). A study on
sexual behavior traits and social-psychological stress among lesbi-
ans in Shenzhen [In Chinese]. Chinese Journal of Family Planning,
17(9), 529–531.
Zhang, J., Zheng, L., & Zheng, Y. (2018). Consistency in preferences for
masculinity in faces, bodies, voices, and personality traits among
homosexual men in China. Personality and Individual Differences,
134, 137–142.
Zhao, Y. (2001). Wearing a straw hat to travel around—Sex/gender,
power, and nation. Taiwan: Juliu Book Company.
Zheng, L. (2012). Self-labels among gay and lesbians in China. Unpub-
lished doctoral dissertation, Department of Psychology, Southwest
University, Chongqing.
Zheng, L., Lippa, R. A., & Zheng, Y. (2011). Sex and sexual orientation
differences in personality in China. Archives of Sexual Behavior,
40, 533–541.
Zheng, L., & Zheng, Y. (2009). Self-labels among gay and lesbians and
role requirements for partners. Chinese Journal of Mental Health,
23, 192–195.
Zheng, L., & Zheng, Y. (2013). Butch-femme self-label and empathiz-
ing-systemizing cognitive traits in Chinese lesbians and bisexual
women. Personality and Individual Differences, 54, 951–956.
Zheng, L., & Zheng, Y. (2016a). Gender nonconformity and butch-
femme identity among lesbians in china. Journal of Sex Research,
53(2), 186–193.
Zheng, L., & Zheng, Y. (2016b). Preferences for masculinity across
faces, bodies, and personality traits in homosexual and bisexual
Chinese men: Relationship to sexual self-labels and attitudes
toward masculinity. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 45(3), 725–733.
Zheng, Y., & Zheng, L. (2011). Sexual self-labels and personality dif-
ferences among Chinese lesbians. Social Behavior and Personality,
39, 955–961.
Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
13