Trans Masculinity: Comparing Trans Masculine Individuals’ and Cisgender Men’s Conformity to Hegemonic Masculinity

Introduction Masculinity and masculine norms are still relevant in the current social context. Literature showed that some masculine norms could be considered protective health buffers, while traditional masculinity has negative consequences on men’s behaviors, relationships, and health. Methods In the present study, we aimed at investigating trans masculine and cisgender men’s levels of adherence to different dimensions of hegemonic masculinity. A total of 200 participants (100 trans masculine people and 100 cisgender men) took part in the study. Results Results exhibit that trans masculine individuals showed higher scores than cisgender men on the dimensions of emotional control and self-reliance, whereas cisgender men showed higher endorsement of norms such as heterosexual self-presentation and power over women. Conclusions Results are discussed in light of the minority stress model and masculinity threat theory. Policy Implications The present work should act as a reminder of the pressure that trans masculine people may feel to conform to certain aspects of hegemonic masculinity. This may have the adaptive function of protecting them from the discrimination and threats that they expect from others.

To Provide or Protect? Masculinity, Economic Precarity, and Protective Gun Ownership in the United States

Protection is now the modal motivation for gun ownership, and men continue to outnumber women among gun owners. While research has linked economic precarity (e.g., insecurity and anxiety) to gun ownership and attitudes, separating economic well-being from constructions of masculinity is challenging. In response to blocked economic opportunities, some gun owners prioritize armed protection, symbolically replacing the masculine role of “provider” with one associated with “protection.” Thus, understanding both persistently high rates of gun ownership in the United States (in spite of generally declining crime) alongside the gender gap in gun ownership requires deeper investigations into the meaning of guns in the United States and the role of guns in conceptualizations of American masculinity. We use recently collected crowdsourced survey data to test this provider-to-protector shift, exploring how economic precarity may operate as a cultural-level masculinity threat for some, and may intersect with marital/family status to shape gun attitudes and behaviors for both gun owners and nonowners. Results show that investments in stereotypical masculine ideals, rather than economic precarity, are linked to support for discourses associated with protective gun ownership and empowerment.

A Cognitive Uncoupling: Masculinity Threats and the Rejection of Relationship Interdependence

What happens when a primary resource people draw from in times of need is at odds with maintaining a threatened, yet valued, identity? Four studies ( N total = 806) examined whether men cognitively disengage from romantic relationships following masculinity threats. As hypothesized, romantically attached men reported less closeness, commitment, and interdependence in their romantic relationships (Study 1), and both single and romantically attached men expressed less positive commitment beliefs (Study 2) following masculinity threats. Supporting a strategy of distancing from interdependence to protect masculinity, perceivers evaluated men who used more interdependent language to describe their relationships as less masculine and more feminine (Studies 3a and 3b). However, exhibiting less interdependence did not restore third-party evaluations of masculinity following a public masculinity threat (Study 3b). Thus, subverting relationship interdependence to protect perceptions of masculinity is an ineffective strategy for restoring masculinity in the eyes of others and may cause unnecessary strain on relationships.