This project was realized during the course of "Sociology in Gender Inequalities" of Paris Saclay University (Level M2).
In the masculinities studies, we aim to talk about masculinities not as the neutral characteristic facing femininity, but as also gendered. R. Connell offers a typology of masculinities. The idea is that patriarchy is not only the domination of men over women but also the domination between men. Therefore, each form of masculinity interacts and coexists, whose hegemonic masculinity. Hegemony is a "cultural dynamic by which a group claims and sustains a leading position in social life". So, hegemonic masculinity is the form of masculinity that is accepted as dominant in the patriarchal society.
In this work, we will try to understand the place of trans men in this masculine hierarchy. Indeed, Connell considers gay men as often in the category "subordinated" masculinity: they are political targets and encounter socioeconomic discrimination. Is it the same for trans men? Firstly, we will define what is a trans man : a trans man is a person who was assigned female at birth and became socially a man (i.e. they are perceived as a man). This definition works quite well but is not effective in all cases: indeed, some of our studies consider a transmasculine person as a person who identifies himself as transmasculine even if he's not perceived as a man in everyday life.
On the one hand, trans men rarely come out during childhood (The median age of transition of trans men is around 25 years old, so they are socialized as girls. Therefore, they can learn the way to act in preschool: young girls are not supposed to relax too much their body and the body is disciplined by gendering it as "feminine". This process contributes to the "naturalization" of women's behaviors later. Therefore, we can think that this primary socialization can impact trans men's masculinity. Moreover, they encounter more discrimination and this can lead, for example, to more mental disorders, that can make them far from hegemonic masculinity. On the other hand, trans men can be perceived as men and hence encounter the same social benefits.
In this essay, we will try to answer this question: can trans men be "alpha" males? To express it in a more sociological way: can trans masculinities be in hegemonic masculinity?
Firstly, we will analyze the interaction of trans men to see if they perform a form of hegemonic masculinity and are recognized in it. Then, we will analyze the structural aspect to see if trans men have a particular place in society: cultural beliefs, the role of institutions... Finally, we will try to have an intersectional approach to think about potential differences between trans men, especially if they are racialized or not.
Trans men in interaction
Firstly, we will analyze how trans men interact in their everyday lives, and how these interactions can lead them or not in a form of hegemonic masculinity. Anzani compares how transmasculine and cisgender men may conform to hegemonic masculinity. They recruited 100 trans men and 100 cis men and then made them feel the "Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory" (CMNI 30), a tool to measure conformity to masculine norms. It regroups a few factors: emotional control, winning, heterosexual self-presentation, and so on... They establish that both categories of men share the same conception of masculinity, but don't endorse the same dimensions "to the same extent". On the one hand, transmasculine people have a higher score on emotional control and self-reliance, but a lower in the scales of power and heterosexual presentation. We can see there's a form of particular compatibility of trans men with hegemonic masculinity.
However, this study doesn't explain clearly how trans men interact: it's just a measure of a test but not valued in a social context. To see it, we need to analyze interactions of trans men: their actions, how are they perceived, and various strategies...
We will analyze it through the interactionist "doing gender" theory. The idea is that gender inequalities are reproduced in everyday interactions, where people play dominant social roles. Do trans men reproduce these roles? Schilt highlights that a lot of men in the workplace encounter some privileges when they are perceived as men: they are seen as more competent, and they have economic opportunities. Also, we can have a part of the response in the analysis provided by Connell in the workplace. To do it, she interviewed 19 trans people. She distinguishes the case of stealth and out people. Stealth people are often doing gender. For example, Mark, a 64-year-old stealth trans man, is afraid of discrimination. Therefore, he learned to act in an "appropriately" masculine way, so as to avoid coworkers' suspicion. Nevertheless, out people are often undoing and redoing gender: it means that interaction can be also a dynamic factor where it's possible to change social norms and not only reproduce them. Indeed, Connell talks about Jared, a transmasculine genderqueer who likes to have a confusing gendered presentation and avoid being perceived in a binary way. Then, we can imagine that in zir interactions, ze doesn't reproduce hegemonic masculinity.
Furthermore, trans men experience a shift in the perception of their human capital. Indeed, their skills are more valuated and they more often encounter social rewards. Nevertheless, this promotion is not necessarily well-lived. The FtM (Female to Male) that Beaubatie interviewed often feel uncomfortable with the fact they are perceived as men and can be complicit with sexism and domination. Therefore, they do gender in another way to be perceived as "gay", or "young boy", for example, in order to limit the social rewards of transition. A lot of transmasculine people are "undoing" or "redoing" gender: they perform it in a "transformative way".
However, all trans men can't be perceived as a dominant man. Indeed, the author highlights some barriers to reaching hegemonic masculinity: those who don't take testosterone are often perceived as women, they lose authority because they look younger, and they are often smaller than cis men.
All of these elements show us that trans men can mainly do gender, but not always choose to. Therefore, they can more or less be near the hegemonic masculinity in their interactions.
What is the refereeing between defensive or transformative masculinity in their interactions? We will define defensive and transformative masculinities in the following way: defensive masculinities are patterns of gendered normative practice so as to preserve safety. Whereas transformative masculinities are patterns of behavior that aim to not reproduce gender hierarchies. In Abelson view, the fear of discrimination and the will to be safe are the main factors that explain that a trans man will perform defensive or transformative masculinities.
Also, another question we can ask is the role of being a stealth or an out trans man in this refereeing. Indeed, Connell highlights that stealth people are often doing gender, whereas it's not the case for the out ones. The fear of discrimination is the argument showcased by stealth men. However, she highlights that stealth and out trans men obtain social rewards thanks to the fact that they are perceived as men.
Even so, one element hasn't been analyzed yet. Indeed, we see that trans men often encounter privilege and opportunities when they do a transition. We say that they can be normative only to be protected from discrimination. Nevertheless, we can think that they just can use the new tools and opportunities that offer their new social status without considering fear of discrimination.
Can trans men be complicit to hegemonic masculinity ? Firstly, we need to think about the choice to come out. Indeed, we can't reduce it to danger. Kade shows that coming out is a strategic aspect of the life of a man. For example, a lot of trans men don't come out to strangers because they are already perceived as men and not because they are afraid of discrimination. The coming out is done to compensate for the fact that the passing is not enough in some strategies. Therefore, we can't reduce the debate between stealth trans men who want to avoid discrimination and out transmasculine people who want to transform masculinities. Coming out is also a strategic choice to optimize between social advantages and being identified as a man according to circumstances.
Moreover, the results we saw before can be biased by the samples. For example, Schilt's sample was recruited in militant and support groups. Therefore, we can suppose a selection bias can be here, because Beaubatie explains that not all trans people are militant. Indeed, he does a typology of trans people: the "conform" ones that are far from trans associations and agree with gender norms, the "strategist" that identify as man or woman but less agree with gender norms; they use information of association but don't campaign and the "non-binary" that are often militant and don't identify to man or woman. The case of "conform trans" far from association makes them hard to interview, so searchers can have selection biases in sampling.
Therefore, it's possible to choose to act like a normative man not only by fear of discrimination but also by the will to be like other men. Indeed, they may do "manhood acts", behaviors that aim to be recognized as a man. It's an essential element of brotherhood. If cis men and trans men can do manhood acts, trans men can do compensatory manhood acts to compensate a supposed inability of trans men to reach hegemonic masculinity. Thus, these manhood acts highlight that trans men can reproduce sexism or hegemonic masculinity to be like other men and benefit from masculine networks.
From an interactionist perspective, we see that trans men can be more or less far from hegemonic masculinities. On the one hand, they are often perceived as men in interactions, and they can be complicit in patriarchal structures by fear of discrimination or concord with hegemonic masculinity. On the other hand, some of them perform transformative masculinities and try to not reproduce the social sexist structure. By the way, some of them are not perceived as men (without hormonal treatment, young, or small) so they just can't encounter masculine privilege.
Therefore, it would be interesting to understand in detail structural factors. Why trans men can be perceived as men? What are the barriers for others? Why do some of them conform to masculinity and others discuss it?
Trans men in structures
Why do trans men, by being perceived as men, encounter social rewards? The framework constructed by Ridgeway and Correll can be an answer. They highlight the role of hegemonic cultural beliefs: beliefs that everyone knows and in the case of gender associate it with men and women. Therefore, in interaction, people will categorize the other person and will wait for a behavior compatible with these beliefs. Furthermore, people will also try to act in their gender role. These beliefs change the perception of a similar attitude: for example, skills or men are taken more seriously. It can be an answer to the impact of primary socialization of trans men. Even if it remains, the perception will change. Some trans men conserve feminine knowledge that can change how they are perceived. For example, Dozier interviews some trans men who explain that, by knowing how to choose clothes for their girlfriends, they were seen as exceptional men by sales assistants. Even so, we can also see it as proof of the fact that trans men are seen as men because feminine competence is valued, and we can suppose that it wouldn't be the case before the transition thanks to Ridgeway and Correll's framework. Moreover, this element can help us to think that feminine childhood is not against masculine privilege because these skills may be positively perceived as a man during adulthood. These cultural beliefs are also rewarded economically, for example in the workplace. A lot of trans men, after their transition, obtained economic rewards thanks to the better perception of their skills.
Trans men face transphobia, and it can limit their access to hegemonic masculinity. Firstly, having masculine privileges implies being perceived as a man, and therefore having the possibility to transition. And it's not always easy because political lobbies fight against transgender rights. For example, The anti-transgender mobilizations in the United Kingdom may affect them. Trans-exclusionary feminists and traditional Christians fought in 2018 against an edit of the Gender Recognition Act that facilitates administrative change of sex in official papers. However, access to hormonal treatment is essential to "pass" as a man. Also, the incongruity between papers and social can imply administrative problems: for trans people, it can be hard to present at work in these conditions or to receive mail. Thus, transitions can have a clear negative economic impact. Moreover, these economic impacts can also be linked to a family that rejects their child.
The discrimination against trans people can be very violent. For example, in Florida, with the legislation SB254 provided by Ron deSantis, 80% of the gender-affirming care become unavailable because care offered by nurses is forbidden. Then, transitioning is extremely hard in Florida.
However, we have to qualify the part of transphobia that trans men encounter. Even if they are a victim of transphobia, the main target of these movements is trans women. Indeed, in the UK, there was particularly an obsession with trans women in women's public bathrooms. Moreover, trans men are less often given up by their families than trans women. Therefore, they encounter less economic discrimination. Then, when we talk about the impact of transphobia on trans men, we have to be aware of the fact that the impact of transphobia is different by gender.
One important aspect of hegemonic masculinity is heterosexuality. Indeed,heterosexuality is a key status to attend a form of hegemonic masculinity. However, a lot of trans men are not heterosexual. In Anzani's sample, 96% of cis men were heterosexual, whereas sexual orientations vary within trans men. Also, we can observe a "gayification" of the FtM. For example, 85,6 % of FtM before transition declared to be mainly or only attracted by women, this number falls to 56,2% after their transition course. Then, we see that more trans men than cis men might have romantic or sexual relationships with other men. However, it would be reductive to analyze the relations of trans men with heterosexuality just by seeing their sexual orientations.
Indeed, can a trans man attracted by women or in relationships with a woman be considered heterosexual? On the one hand, Mize explains that masculine heterosexuality is a precarious status. Indeed, one homosexual relationship is enough for a man to be categorized as non-heterosexual. We can think that being a trans man, with a projection of a particular body or sexuality, can be too far from heterosexuality. On the other hand, Pferrer interviewed 50 cis women who had romantic relationships with trans men, and some of these women, by having this relationship, were excluded from queer or lesbian spaces. It shows that they are perceived as heterosexual in these relationships, heterosexuality that can be wanted by the man partner but rejected by the woman who wants to keep her queer identity. Even so, we just see the perception that lesbians can have on these relationships, and it doesn't represent society. It would be interesting to analyze other situations that are maybe more common : for example, with the family or the medics.
With these elements, I suppose that a heterosexual trans man can obtain heterosexual status in a lot of contexts, even if more lectures or studies should be necessary to test it.
In Connell's opinion, a lot of trans men are undoing or redoing gender in a different form than normative masculinities, and Abelson explains that a lot of trans men perform transformative masculinities to avoid the reproduction of gender hierarchy. Nevertheless, are these masculinities challenging the patriarchal hierarchy?
Bridges mentions hybrid masculinities, a form of masculinities that incorporate some elements of marginalized and subordinated masculinities, and femininities. For example, a lot of codes of the gay male culture are used. This study focuses on young, white, and heterosexual white men who "perform" these hybrid masculinities. By comparing some studies and articles, they see that the majority analyzed hybrid masculinities as an adaptation of masculinity without questioning the gendered power system. Indeed, by taking elements from subordinated groups, these men place themselves as victim, and it masks inequalities because the boundaries between groups are more unclear. For example, the "new fathering" with a father more emotionally implicated in the education of their children can be seen as feminist: but this fathering espouses a "biblical" notion of "the family", that encourages submission of women to their husbands. Hybrid masculinities are just a transformation and adaptation that allows to keep dominance, just in a smoother way.
Therefore, trans men who perform transformative masculinities may not challenge the patriarchal hierarchy or all forms of social domination. Beaubatie's typology highlights that the non-binary category is often more graduated than other trans people and less resort to medical or administrative transition processes. Then, they encounter less institutional transphobia. Moreover, there's a distinction logic in claiming to be far from men and women categories, and prefer the terms "non-binary", "trans" or "queer". These categories are often taken by FtM who obtain social recognition in queer studies by "subverting" gender. All of these elements allow us to think that non-binary people, or transformative men, can benefit from masculine because their hybridism does not question their masculinity but gives them a valuated one in some context, and they can distinguish themselves from "conform" men. Then, we can suppose that these trans men can be part of men who perform hybrid masculinity and keep social rewards and domination thanks to it, even if they want to sincerely question patriarchy. Therefore, they are not truly far from hegemonic masculinity. However, we have to lightly qualify this analysis, the "non-binary" in the Beaubatie's study less often use medical treatment, so we are not sure that they are perceived as men (even if we can suppose to regarding the FtM's definition of Beaubatie in the introduction).
This structural analysis suggests that trans masculinities can be in hegemonic masculinities. Indeed, they are perceived as men, so the hegemonic cultural beliefs that structure masculine domination also concern them. They live an upward social mobility. Then, we thought about potential barriers to access to hegemonic masculinities: institutional transphobia, transgression of heterosexuality, and transformative masculinities. On the one hand, trans men are often in non-heterosexual relationships and they encounter institutionalized transphobia. On the other hand, transphobia is maybe less violent for trans men than those of trans women, and transformative masculinities may not challenge the gender hierarchy but only reconfigure it. These elements suppose that trans men are men who have a particular life with transphobia. Moreover, transphobia is mainly effective during the transition but can stop when the medical and administrative process is complete.
Nevertheless, we need to go further in our analysis. Indeed, race and age influence cultural beliefs in interactions. However, we have probably race-biased and age-biased samples. Therefore, we have to consider these characteristics and not trans men as a uniform group. This invites us to provide an intersectional approach.
An intersectional approach of trans masculinities
There were some weaknesses of our previous analysis. Indeed, queer theory in sociology is white-centered and suffers a lot of biases. Sociology, using queer theory, focused on gender and sexualities but forgot to consider other axes of power, especially race, and transnationalism (for example, we neglect colonial contexts). However, we saw it with our studies, Whites were over-represented. Moreover, we only analyzed trans people in the Occident (USA, Canada, UK, France...). Then, to precise our analysis, we should think about other power relationships and not think that results on "white" LGBT are neutral.
Nevertheless, we have to be careful with LGBT labels applied to non-occidental societies. Indeed, Batteux highlights that the men/woman gender system is occidental. Some other gender categorizations exist in other societies (especially non-occidental). Therefore, it would be a colonial approach to classify other gender identities/categories from non-occidental cultures as "trans" or "non-binary".
Then, we will clarify our analysis in the following way. We won't analyze non-occidental cases due to a lack of literature and also to avoid colonial classifications that wouldn't correspond to the society. It doesn't mean that transgenders don't exist in non-occidental societies, but we're not sure to be able to classify correctly these people. Even so, focusing on Occidental societies, we will try to be more intersectional by considering the influence of race or other domination systems that can attenuate proximity between trans masculinities and hegemonic masculinities in some situations.
We should analyze the case of racialized trans men. Indeed, race is important to determine cultural beliefs that influence social interactions. Moreover, the benefit of a FtM transition for Afro-American men can be lowered because there's less differentiation between men and women in their community. Furthermore, we observe the impact of race in various studies about trans men. In Schilt's study, two examples highlight it. Firstly, Christopher, an Asian trans man, thinks he didn't obtain any gendered advantage because he's perceived as a "passive Asian guy". Keith, a black trans man, explains that he has to control his anger because it's perceived as more threatening than for whites, whereas a main result of sociology is that anger is more accepted for men than women. It's coherent with general stereotypes about black men: they are criminal and violent. To go further, we can also assume that these trans men don't benefit from social mobility. Indeed, black people are already perceived as gendered-deviant. Moreover, racism limits men's privilege in public spaces: they are the main target of police control. Therefore, Gabriel talks not about upward social mobility but a reconfiguration of racism in a gendered way. Trans men suffered racism as women, with transition, they lived it as men. These men didn't obtain the same benefits as white trans men. Thus, we can think that they are perceived similarly as cis men of the same racial category. Nevertheless, we'll need to clarify this analysis with further sociological research.
What are the other potential barriers for men to reach hegemonic masculinity? Firstly, social class can impact the transition process, and also the masculinities performed. Indeed, economic resources are important: the satisfaction of the private medical process is higher than in the public, but it's also much more expensive. Moreover, having a stable job is also essential. For example, Sophie, A MtF (Male to Female) from Beaubatie's study, gives up her transition because she needs to work. Of course, this case is more often frequent for MtF, but it suggests that social class is important. More generally, proletarian masculinities may be perceived as "beauf" and is less refined than the bourgeoisie's masculinity. Indeed, other social relationships can structure masculinity, especially race. We can think it's also the case for class. So, maybe some trans masculinities of lower-class trans men can't be hegemonic, even if the worker virility can be valued by physical strength. However, we won't have the possibility to detail these debates, and it would be necessary to analyze better proletarian masculinities and their links with trans ones.
One aspect we didn't talk about before was the link between disability and masculinity. Indeed, there's a contradiction between hegemonic masculinity and disability: masculinity is linked to strength, stamina, and so on... and impairments can be a barrier to it. Thus, there's a clear link between masculinity and disability. Nevertheless, masculinities and disabilities are various, so the intersection can be truly different. Precisely, the authors highlight a matrix of dominance: disabilities don't offer the same disadvantages. We see that physical disabilities that are perceived as "fixable" can allow avoiding the "emasculating discourse of disability", but this solution is only available for those already "ethnically, socio-economically and geographically favored". It's the case for example of the figure of the "cyborgian athletist" who can accomplish feats to get back his masculinity. For mental impairments, their place is still stark in the matrix of dominance. Cognitive difficulties and also ableist structure of society limit the possibility for these men to develop their masculinities. Therefore, disability can truly structure the masculine hierarchy. We can also think that being disabled can be an obstacle to transition, especially for psychiatric patients. By the way, we can assume that disabled people are often medicalized, so adding some medical treatments can be very hard. Even so, it doesn't tell us if disabled masculinities are different for trans men.
Conclusion
Whether in interactions or social structures, the question is "Is this trans man perceived as a man ?". If so, he will be associated with men of the same social category. Indeed, white trans men encounter the same rewards as white cis men in interactions because they are associated with hegemonic cultural beliefs associated with men. Our intersectional approach didn't change this assessment: racialized trans men encounter the same difficulties as their cisgender "sidekicks". However, we lack information to check if this analysis is common about class or ability.
The challenge that trans men face is the possibility of transition despite transphobia: they may encounter political, medical, administrative, and economic barriers. If they manage to transition, they can be in the social group of men.
Can trans masculinities be in hegemonic masculinities? It's the case: if the trans man is heterosexual, white, and has economic resources, he can truly benefit from patriarchy and social domination, because he will be perceived as the man in the majority of social situations. I agree with the thesis of Beaubatie, that trans men encounter upward social mobility (if they are white). The fact that they may perform transformative masculinities may not change our analysis looking at the effect of hybrid masculinities. Nevertheless, a lot of trans men are not heterosexual, so they may be associated with subordinated masculinities. Then, it's less frequent that trans men are in hegemonic masculinities than cis men.
Nonetheless, this work has many limitations. Firstly, the majority of our studies have small samples of 20 people. Only Anzani repertories 200 men whose 100 trans ones and Beaubatie base a part of this argumentation about transgender health on an INSERM's survey. Then, it would be interesting to test our hypothesis with a larger sample and econometric methods, even if it would require attention because it would necessitate the collection of personal and sensitive data. Moreover, we didn't analyze the role of trans men in patriarchal exploitation because we didn't have data about their role in the distribution of free domestic work, which structures the economic inequalities between men and women. Finally, we focused only on an occidental context, so we lack some elements of other cultural and social contexts about potential trans masculinities.
Comments