For heterosexual men, there was an effect of human-stimuli category on TFF, F(3, 184) = , p 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 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 = 0.01, p = 0.002. 04, 95% CI ( There was an effect of stimuli category (including control images) on TFF for heterosexual men, F(4, 230) = , p Full fixation cycle For heterosexual men, there was an effect of human-stimuli category on TFD, F(3, 184) = , p For gay men, there was an effect of human-stimuli category on TFD, F(3, 68) = , p There was effective facts one to gay males was much slower in order to fixate into women trans somebody than simply to the cisgender men, b = 0 There was an effect of stimuli category (including control images) on TFD for heterosexual men, F(4, 230) = , p
For heterosexual men, there was an effect of human-stimuli category on TFF, F(3, 184) = , p < 0 001, 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 …
