My first thought was straight up surprise. Academic publications are noted for (in my opinion) ridiculous jargon. I'm astonished they'd use normal terms at all, let alone derogatory ones. Was this, perhaps, an old publication - from 30+ years back? Maybe a foreign journal?

Anyway, trying to put the best possible face on a paper I've not read, I'll assume they were trying to divide transgender people into various buckets based on motivations, and were using colloquial labels for those buckets. Is that acceptable? Well, leaving the specific labels aside, I'd say that alone is reasonable. Not everyone does have the same motives, and while groupings might still be too broad, it's at least a rational approach to many problems.

The specific labels, though...

Sissy is a highly negative label, and it would seem to me to cast a pall over the paper. It's got highly negative connotations throughout, and can't help but apply a negative cast to the people in that bucket. I assume many of the people using the term here do so ironically, and there is some strength in that.

Tomboy is more interesting, in that it is far from entirely negative. I've used it about one of my nieces, intending it as a positive. In the positive use, it carries connotations of athleticism and competitiveness.

I'd have to see the paper you're talking about to go further. But at least as normally used, I would not typically consider either of these terms appropriate for a TG categorization. That could be alleviated if the writer uses the terms, but tries to define them more strongly as applied.

So, impressions without reading the paper are at least mostly negative...

The word sissy bothers my male sensibilities but my female ones couldn't give a stuff about it. :)

I do find it strange how one word has no negative connotations (but almost certainly did in times before WW2) where the other is almost exclusively negative.

Having friends in all kinds of communities I've learned just how divisive and limiting traditional labels are, but I also know how much your average person relies on them as a kind of crutch for their understanding of the world.

Hugs
Cat

Academia is just as full of IQ bright but Socially stupid people as the normally bright segment of society. Entire lifetimes of work were disposed of, "including the people, when one side had a smidgeon more proof than another faction had. Being smart does not keep you from saying stupid and doing stupid things.

But it is very disturbing to find people who are educated labeling other humans in such an inaccurate and crass way. IMHO many of those who subscribe to such bunk are those who's credentials are at risk when the public at large grasp just how many chemicals and medications have and do effect fetal development, creating more than the naturally occurring percentages of our population who are gender fence sitters. The effects of DES has been studied to death and still medical professionals refuse to give proper treatment to us survivors. So sticking a nasty label gives them cover for them NOT doing there jobs properly, by acknowledging harm has been done and recompense is deserved.
Even after Thalidomide was proven to have horrible affects on fetal developing , there was a very short period when a new and improved version was used on people with the same stunning effects.

So no I am not surprised that these people show us there Baboon colored bottoms, to dehumanize us, I am just sickened and disgusted. .