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

Masculinity and masculine norms are still relevant in the current social and clinical context (Addis & Hoffman, 2019; American Psychological Association, 2018). Literature and mainstream media have generally compared masculinity, in its gender roles and norms, to femininity, adhering to a strictly binary conceptualization of gender (Kang & Bodenhausen, 2015), and depicting men and women as creatures from two different planets (Gray, 1992). Recently, however, the binary conceptualization of categories considered mutually exclusive has been challenged, and the possible overlap or fluidity of these social categories, including gender, has been recognized (Hyde et al., 2019). The majority of studies on masculinity compare men to women and have been conducted with presumably cisgender samples.

Aware of the complexity of gender categorization (Kang & Bodenhausen, 2015), the construct of essentialism helps understand some relevant processes that influence the current role of masculinity (Kray et al., 2017). Classical social psychology studies have shown how people tend to group stimuli into meaningful entities and base their judgments and inferences not on the individual stimulus but rather on the available knowledge about the group of stimuli (Allport, 1954; Tajfel, 1969). The perceivers, for instance, group people according to how similar they appear on specific attribute dimensions (Hamilton, 1994). Psychological essentialism refers to thinking that social groups are categorized through common qualities that describe them and are deep-seated and represent their true nature (Medin & Ortony, 1989). Social categories are perceived as essentially stable and unchanging, thus simplifying the nature of social groups. When applied to gender (gender essentialism), gender is therefore seen as inherent and immutable (Gelman & Taylor, 2000; Moskos, 2020). This perspective often originates from a biological and genetic understanding of the sources of gender differences, which are deemed biologically determined. A biological determination will allow for generalizations that imply that all men (or women) are and will always be a certain way, and this shall have consequences on attitudes and behaviors (Phillips, 2010). Skewes et al. (2018) have demonstrated that higher levels of gender essentialism are associated with sexist attitudes, specifically with less egalitarian views of sex roles. In the same research, gender essentialism predicted greater support for gender discriminatory practices.

Gender norms are specific to the socio-cultural context and determine the socially acceptable behaviors for men and women, thus the gender roles (Ryle, 2014).

Indeed, culture is a fundamental component of the child’s development and influences how men behave over generations (Rivera & Scholar, 2020). Starting in early childhood social interactions provide a cultural frame of reference through which individuals learn the social expectations associated with their respective gender or adhere to a gender role following the sex assigned at birth (Best & Luvender, 2015). Interestingly, gender norms seem more rigidly prescribed for men than for women (Moss-Racusin, 2014; Salvati et al., 2021).

In the present work, we will focus on conformity to masculine roles and norms, meaning the degree to which individuals endorse personally the requirements of traditional masculine norms (Levant et al., 2020). Different contexts may present cultural gender differences: the levels of rewards and sanctions associated with conformity and nonconformity to masculine norms are not the same for all groups of men (Wong et al., 2012).

A concept that emerged from the first studies investigating masculinity (and its consequent implications on women) is hegemonic masculinity, which is the pattern of actions and practices that allows men’s dominance to continue. It is highly visible and is regarded as exemplary, given a specific cultural setting (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005). Hegemonic masculinity does not represent the most frequent or common manifestation but rather the most dominant and traditional.

The gender role strain paradigm (Pleck, 1995) helps explain the psychological strain created by adhering to traditional masculine norms. There are socially desirable expectations associated with being a man (such as avoiding femininity, aggression, and self-reliance), and violating these norms can negatively affect mental health, since not conforming to traditional masculinity norms is socially sanctioned (Pleck, 1995; Rivera & Scholar, 2020). Gender norm conformity theory (Iwamoto et al., 2018; Levant & Wimer, 2014; Mahalik et al., 2003) expands on this framework, approaching masculinity as a complex construct with multiple dimensions, and provides greater specificity about the degree to which adherence to dominant masculine norms can impact mental health outcomes.

 The two groups were significantly different in age (t (189.51) =  − 4.24, p < 0.001). The mean age of trans masculine individuals (m = 26.23, sd = 8.19) is slightly lower than that of the cisgender group (m = 31.76, sd = 10.02). Sociodemographic characteristics of the sample are outlined in Table 1.

As for the different dimensions of hegemonic masculinity, we found significant differences between cisgender men and trans masculine people for the following subscales: emotional control, heterosexual presentation, power over women, and self-reliance. Trans masculine individuals scored higher in the scales of emotional control and self-reliance, with effect size respectively: Cohen’s d = 0.92; 95% CI: (0.04, 0.67), Cohen’s d = 0.87; 95% CI: (0.33, 0.95). Cisgender men scored higher on the scales power over women and heterosexual presentation, Cohen’s d = 0.77; 95% CI: (−0.68, −0.12), Cohen’s d = 0.1.09 and 95% CI: (−0.78, −0.22). All the mean scores for the different dimensions of masculinity and the t-test results are reported in Table 2.

While adherence to norms of hegemonic masculinity appears to have important implications for (cisgender) men’s psychological health, masculinity has been little studied in trans masculine identities. In the current study, we aimed at investigating differences in endorsement of traditional norms of hegemonic masculinity in cisgender men and trans masculine individuals, using the CMNI-30. The differences that emerged in adherence to norms of masculinity involve four dimensions: emotional control, self-reliance, heterosexual self-presentation, and power over women.

In fact, trans masculine individuals showed higher scores than cisgender men on the dimensions of emotional control and self-reliance. The dimension of emotional control refers to the extent to which people tend to express and share their emotions with others. It has been demonstrated in previous studies that masculinity imposes on men not to show themselves as emotional, in particular by sanctioning the expression of emotions such as sadness, vulnerability, and weakness, in favor of the expression of anger and rage (i.e., Addis, 2011; Fantini-Hauwel et al., 2015; Levant, 2011). Self-reliance refers to the value placed on making it on one’s own and the difficulty or shame in asking others for help. This tendency, furthermore, has important clinical implications. In fact, cisgender men may tend to seek less help, even medically or psychologically, when they find themselves hurt or in distress (i.e., Berger et al., 2013; Rivera & Scholar, 2020). Self-reliance also relates closely to emotional control; asking for help might be judged as a sign of weakness and vulnerability, strongly sanctioned by others.

These findings could be read in light of the gender minority stress model (Hendricks & Testa, 2012). Indeed, trans masculine individuals are more likely to have been exposed to stressful adverse events. We can therefore think that in the case of trans masculine people, it is not a fear of appearing less masculine than their peers, but rather it might be that the exposure to minority stress has made this group more cautious in terms of self-disclosure of emotions and in asking for help when they navigate a social environment that in some cases can be hostile. It must be noted that Italy, the participants’ social environment in this study, is one of the countries in Europe with the highest rate of murders of trans people (Prunas et al., 2015), and where the road to inclusiveness of sexual and gender minorities is still a long way to go. It is not surprising that, in light of these data on social context, before exposing themselves in a request for help or expression of emotions, trans masculine individuals may be hypervigilant of the social environment in which they find themselves, and that their expectation may be of a hostile or rejecting environment. It is worth noting that developing this anxious expectation might lead to consequences concerning mental health. Both the subtle and low-intensity transphobic events, and the lifelong discriminations, may lead the individuals to expect prejudiced events and become hypervigilant (Timmins et al., 2017), which can have a negative impact on their mental health (Bockting et al., 2013; Tebbe & Moradi, 2016; Testa et al., 2017).

Another interesting finding from the results concerns the higher endorsement by cisgender men, compared to trans masculine people, of norms such as heterosexual self-presentation and power over women.

Heterosexual self-presentation, known in the first version of the CMNI as Disdain for Homosexuals (Mahalik et al., 2003), is defined as the desire to be perceived as heterosexual, (and not gay) in social settings, reinforcing a traditionally masculine identity that promotes the presentation as heterosexual irrespective of actual behavior or self-identification (Parent et al., 2012). Power over women is the endorsement of the subordination of women. It relates to antifemininity and to the belief that men should be the dominant group in society, and women should be subservient to men (Le et al., 2020; Mahalik et al., 2003).

The first result could be explained in the light of the limited diversity of sexual identities included in cisgender men, but we can also give an alternative explanation. The superiority of men over women and the belief that men should look “manly” are beliefs that rely heavily on gender stereotypes. Research has extensively studied the content of gender stereotypes in (cisgender) women and men and has shown that these beliefs have significant, often negative, consequences in social interactions (for a review, see Rudman & Glick, 2008). Stereotypes can have a particularly negative impact on individuals who violate traditional gender stereotypes. For example, a cisgender man who expresses stereotypically feminine characteristics is highly socially sanctioned (Rudman & Fairchild, 2004). For the cisgender men in our sample, it appears that the threat of being categorized as feminine seems to be something much more feared than trans masculine individuals. Masculinity threat refers to men’s fear of being categorized as gay or as lacking masculine traits (Willer et al., 2013). The masculinity threat has consequences for men in terms of attitudes and behaviors. For example, a study found men who are told that they are feminine to be more supportive of wars, more homophobic, more interested in purchasing an SUV, and more supportive of dominance hierarchies and male superiority, compared to those who are told that they are masculine (Willer et al., 2013). Trans masculine individuals in our sample do not seem to perceive this threat to the same extent as cisgender men, because they probably do not risk as much in terms of losing their privilege and social power. Trans masculine people’s social position in the social hierarchy, like that of (cisgender and trans) women, is less privileged than the dominant male cisgender heterosexual group. Likewise, maintaining social privilege means endorsing beliefs about the superiority of men over women that justify the unequal system.

Overall, our results show that trans masculine individuals share the same concept of masculinity as cisgender men, although they do not seem to endorse all its dimensions to the same extent. Trans masculine individuals do not put particular emphasis on those dimensions that appear in sharp contrast to basic shared values of the LGBTQIA + community: heterosexual privilege and women’s submission to men.

The results of 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 (Knutson & Goldbach, 2019). However, the same process may lead to negative outcomes. For instance, if visiting a doctor or asking for help is perceived as a violation of masculine gender norms of self-sufficiency, and expressing emotion might undermine the masculine identity, we could argue that some behaviors that are relevant enactment of the construction of gender might lead to health consequences that are worth considering.

Future research might expand in this direction further filling the gap in the literature concerning the role of masculinity in cis and trans men, and developing awareness of similarities and potential differences between these groups. Future studies with this population might include mixed methodologies (e.g. focus groups, interviews), as well as longitudinal designs, for instance, to explore the progression of the role of masculinity during the transition for trans men. Analogous studies may be designed to capture the perception and adherence to masculinity during adolescence and young adulthood. Furthermore, it may be worth repeating this study and verify whether the results replicate across cultures and with a more diverse sample, given that previous studies reported differences between Black and White trans masculine participants. In fact, limitations to this study include lack of diversity in ethnicity of our sample, as well lack of diversity in sexual orientation of the cisgender group. Another limitation to be considered is that the CMNI-30, although created for respondents belonging to the Western culture, has not been tested specifically with Italian respondents.