Introduction

The devaluing of femininity is a social problem that has serious consequences. Two of the largest massacres in Canada over the last 40 years have been explicitly misogynistic attacks: the Montreal Massacre and the van attack in Toronto inspired by the American Incel, Elliot Rodgers. During the same time period, serial killers Colonel Russell Williams and Bruce McArthur targeted women and the gay men of Toronto’s LGBTQ+ village, respectively. Meanwhile, the highway of tears has become littered with the memories of missing and murdered Indigenous women, and American police investigates the 18th transgender person to be killed in 2019, in what the American Medical Association (2019) describes as an “epidemic” of violence. On the other side of the ocean, a lesbian couple in London is hospitalized after being violently attacked by a group of teenagers, a response to the couple refusing to kiss upon demand for the boys’ amusement (Said-Moorhouse, 2019). Be it the “Incel rebellion,” or the disappearance of Alloura Wells, a transgender woman of color whose body was found in a Toronto ravine, this paper argues that these acts of violence are different symptoms of the same underlying social prejudice: the devaluation or regulation of femininity known as femmephobia.

The cultural meanings attached to femininity underlie experiences of prejudice, as supported by interdisciplinary scholarship (for an overview, see Hoskin, 2017a; Bailey, 1996; Hooberman, 1979; Miller, 2015; Theodore & Basow, 2000). The overarching theme of feminine devaluation runs through terms such as trans-misogyny (Serano, 2007, 2013a), femi-negativity (Bishop, Kiss, Morrison, Rushe, & Specht, 2014), sissyphobia (Bergling, 2002, 2006; Eguchi, 2011), anti-effeminacy (Sanchez & Vilain, 2012), slut-shaming (Tanenbaum, 2015), and misogynoir (Bailey, 2014), even though these terms target specific social groups (e.g., transgender women, gay men, women of color). Feminine devaluation, however it is termed, connects rape myth acceptance to homophobia (Davies, Gilston, & Rogers, 2012); homophobia to misogyny (Kilianski, 2003; Taywaditep, 2001); and misogyny to white supremacy (Anti-Defamation League, 2018). While previous psychosocial research refers to different facets of feminine devaluation and speaks to the interconnectivity between systems of oppression, the underlying causal mechanisms remain underexplored. Moreover, while previous research has explored the connections between homophobia and sexism (Pharr, 1997), little research has explored the preferential treatment afforded to masculinity over femininity, independent of men and women. This preferential treatment suggests a separate, perhaps overlapping phenomenon based on gender, rather than sex or gender/sex. Thus, the current paper examines the intersecting role of femininity and illuminates anti-femininity and femmephobia as they pertain to sexual and gender minorities’ experiences of oppression.

Literature Review

An abundance of research has dissected the ways that the enforcement of gender norms (i.e., patriarchal femininity) has been oppressive to women (Bartky, 1990; Bordo, 1993; Brownmiller, 1984; Daly, 1979; Friedan, 1963; Greer, 1970; Millett, 1977; Wolf, 2002; for an overview of feminist theory’s undertaking of femininity, see Hoskin, 2017b). However, while feminists have a long and continued history of addressing the systemically unequal treatment of women, oftentimes, the blame for such treatment has been placed on femininity itself rather than the ways femininity is devalued and understood within a masculinist–patriarchal framework (i.e., the scapegoating of femininity; Serano, 2007).Footnote 1 In other words, while scholars’ separation of sex and gender (e.g., de Beauvoir, 1949) has resulted in attention being paid to disenfranchisement based on sex (often explained through the enforcement of patriarchal femininity), far less has examined the disenfranchisement based on femininity itself (and separate from sex). Some argue that this myopic view has led to the Othering of femininity within feminist spaces (Hoskin, 2013, 2017b; Mishali, 2014; Stafford, 2010). The lack of attention to the subordinated status of femininity, as separate from woman or female, has led scholars to comment on the need for additional scholarship theorizing this specific intersectional axis (Connell, 1987, 1995; Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005; Schippers, 2007). Additionally, much of feminist scholarship surrounding gender equality has conflated femininity with women and has extensively studied anti-femininity/femmephobia as women’s devaluation. Thus, additional theory refinement is needed in order to advance the literature on the devaluation of femininity.

Masculinities and Critical Femininities

Femininity is the abject and bears a long and continued history of signifying inferiority (Kierski & Blazina, 2009; Stern, 1997). Psychosocial and feminist literature has begun to tease apart the cultural disdain, fear, and automaticity with which femininity is disqualified. Specifically, Critical Femininities is a growing area of study that examines the intersection of femininity, centralizes femininity within gender hegemony, and connects various sites and embodiments of femmephobia (Hoskin, 2013, 2017a, 2019b). Gender theorists use the concept of gender hegemony to describe the relationship between masculinity and femininity as one characterized by complementarity and masculine ascendency (Connell, 1987). However, in their examination of gender hegemony, many in the field of masculinities tend to leave the role of femininity under-examined (Schippers, 2007). Thus, while a considerable amount of empirical and theoretical scholarship has focused on the concept of multiple masculinities (e.g., marginalized masculinities, subordinated masculinities, hegemonic masculinities; Connell, 1987, 1995), far less has focused on building up the idea of multiple femininities, or critical femininities (Hoskin, 2019a; Schippers, 2007). More specifically, few theoretical frameworks explore gender hegemony via femininities, opting instead for a masculine framing, a phenomenon described as femininity’s displacement within gender theory and masculinities (Schippers, 2007).

While there are plenty of overlapping topics and theoretical tenets connecting masculinities and critical femininities, there are particular nuances to each field of inquiry—namely, the centralization of femininity. Additionally, and of particular relevance, critical femininities point to the double standard in how female masculinity and male femininity are termed within the literature. While female masculinity is termed as such (e.g., Halberstam, 1998), male femininity is often termed subordinated masculinities instead of male femininity (e.g., Connell, 1987). This double standard in terminology highlights a mechanism by which femininity is regulated and, more precisely, distanced from men and masculinity (e.g., hegemonic masculinity’s repudiation of femininity; Kimmel, 1997; Pascoe, 2007). In addition, many scholars note how subordinated masculinities are characterized by feminine qualities, given that we do not wield any other metric by which to categorize deviations from masculinity (Halberstam, 1998; Lorber, 1998; Martin, 1998; Schippers, 2007). Thus, centralizing femininity, separate from women or female, offers novel insight into gender hegemony.

Critical Femininities via Femme Theory

A growing body of scholarship has drawn on femme identity and theory to bolster the nascent field of critical femininities (Hoskin, 2019a, 2019b; Hoskin & Taylor, 2019; McCann, 2018a, 2018b). Specifically, the emergent “Femme Theory” has provided scholars with a way of centering “femme” as a means of dislodging normative thinking surrounding femininity and understanding the treatment of femininity (Hoskin, 2017a; Hoskin & Taylor, 2019).

Historically, femme has referred to feminine lesbians within a butch/femme relationship (Kennedy & Davis, 1993; Nestle, 1992). However, while invisible at times, femme has always been more than masculinity’s counterpart and has always been a radical, progressive identity, and gender expression (Brightwell & Taylor, 2019; Carter & Noble, 1996; Levitt & Hiestand, 2005). Building on this complex history, contemporary femme scholarship demonstrates how femme has always been much more than counterpart to a butch; femme is a form of queer femininity that cannot be pinned down to a singular embodiment or relationship (Brushwood Rose & Camilleri, 2002; Hoskin, 2019b; Volcano & Dahl, 2008).

In this school of thought, femme theory operationalizes femme as a deviation from normative rules of femininity and femmephobia as the response to these “deviations,” in addition to the societal devaluing of femininity (Hoskin, 2017a). Specifically, femme theory operationalizes femmephobia as gender policing that regulates the norms of femininity (Hoskin, 2019a). Beyond simply the intersection of homophobia and misogyny, femmephobia is a type of gender policing that targets feminine transgressions against patriarchal norms of femininity (across genders, sexual orientations, and sex) in addition to the general cultural and systemic devaluation of all things feminine. While the term femmephobia has been primarily used within LGBTQ+ communities, scholars have adopted this term as a way of speaking to the treatment of femininity more broadly, separate from woman or female, both within and outside of LGBTQ+ contexts.

In addition to the development of these concepts, femme theory is used as a theoretical framework that makes the intersection of femininity central (Blair & Hoskin, 2016; Hoskin, 2019a, 2019b; Hoskin & Taylor, 2019). Femme theory subsumes the many and multiple manifestations and theoretical framings of feminine devaluation, such as anti-femininity, trans-misogyny, effemania (Serano, 2007), homonegativity, femi-negativity, sissyphobia, anti-effeminacy, femiphobia, slut-shaming/bashing, and misogynoir. Aside from research examining specific modes of feminine devaluation, previous research can also be organized into in-group and out-group discrimination/prejudice.

In-Group Discrimination and Prejudice

In some respects, LGBTQ+ communities serve as a microcosm of the broader social phenomena of femmephobia. LGBTQ+ communities exhibit more fluidity in terms of sex, gender, or gender expression, and these constructs are not always taken as essentialized to the extent they are by dominant culture. Consequently, there is emerging research that allows for comparison of social and mental health outcomes as a function of masculine or feminine presentation. In large part, this research illustrates both masculine privilege and femmephobia.

Recent years have witnessed the proliferation of literature speaking to masculine privilege across LGBTQ+ communities (Blair & Hoskin, 2015, 2016; Serano, 2013a; Taywaditep, 2001). Both gay men and lesbians consider masculinity to be more attractive and place more value on masculinity (Miller, 2015; Taywaditep, 2001). This masculine privileging within LGBTQ+ communities is shown to contribute to feelings of inauthenticity among femme-identified persons, particularly lesbians and gay men (Blair & Hoskin, 2015; Davies, 2020). Feelings of inauthenticity are found to contribute to experiences of isolation, in-group discrimination and prejudice, subsequently impacting the mental well-being of femme-identified people (Blair & Hoskin, 2015, 2016; Levitt, Gerrish, & Hiestand, 2003; Mishali, 2014; VanNewkirk, 2006).

Femme lesbians in particular struggle with invisibility, which contributes to experiences of femmephobia within and outside of LGBTQ+ communities. While it could be argued that this phenomenon is a product of heterosexism, many have argued that femme invisibility is more accurately a product of femmephobia (Blair & Hoskin, 2015, 2016; Nnawulezi, Robin, & Sewell, 2015; Speciale, Gess, & Speedlin, 2015; VanNewkirk, 2006). For example, the invisibility of femme lesbians and their presumed heterosexuality is deeply linked to their femininity, such that this assumption does not map equally onto butch or masculine lesbians. Thus, while femme lesbians are presumed heterosexual, they are presumed as such primarily because of their feminine gender expression.

In-group discrimination and prejudice are also demonstrated within gay male cultures against those perceived as feminine (Davies, 2020; Sanchez & Vilain, 2012). For example, feminine gay men are considered undesirable and are on the receiving end of hostility and contempt from the gay community (Bergling, 2002, 2006; Miller, 2015; Sanchez & Vilain, 2012; Taywaditep, 2001). Consequently, feminine queer women and men both face additional barriers in obtaining romantic or sexual partners. This barrier is also found among transgender women, who are disproportionately excluded as dating partners compared to transgender men (Blair & Hoskin, 2019).

Out-Group Discrimination and Prejudice

An overview of psychosocial literature suggests a tendency to police femininity more than masculinity. For example, repercussions for gender role violations are greater among those assigned male at birth (AMAB) than those assigned female at birth (AFAB) (Kilianski, 2003; Parmenter, Blume, Crowell, & Galliher, 2019; Skočajić, Radosavljević, Okičić, Janković, & Žeželj, 2019; Sullivan, Moss-Racusin, Lopez, & Williams, 2018). When compared to masculine individuals AFAB, those AMAB who express femininity are at greater risk of bullying, ridicule, and rejection from peer activities (Kiebel, Bosson, & Caswell, 2019; Miller & Behm-Morawitz, 2020; Skočajić, Radosavljević, Okičić, Janković, & Žeželj, 2020; Sullivan, Moss-Racusin, Lopez, & Williams, 2018; Taywaditep, 2001). Conversely, while feminine children AMAB face isolation and criticism from peers and teachers alike, masculine children AFAB do not report receiving negative feedback from teachers or peers, and they face less alienation for their gender expression (Bhana & Mayeza, 2019; Fagot, 1977; Harry, 1983; Martino & Cumming-Potvin, 2019; Paechter, 2019; Renold, 2004).

Expressions of femininity by children AMAB are also seen as needing more medical or clinical attention, as exemplified by the higher rates of parents seeking counseling for their feminine children AMAB versus masculine children AFAB (Grossman, D’Augelli, Salter, & Hubbard, 2006; Tosh, 2016). Perhaps as a consequence of these discrepancies, gender nonconformity has a stronger association with later suicidality for those AMAB than those AFAB (Harry, 1983; Kuhl & Martino, 2018; Tosh, 2016), placing feminine children AMAB not only at a greater risk of suicidal ideation, but also depression and anxiety (Taywaditep, 2001).Footnote 2 The mental health disparities found among feminine children AMAB can be found among gay men, who experience elevated psychological distress, a discrepancy Aggarwal and Gerrets (2014) attribute to the cultural privileging of masculinity and the feminization of gay men.

The discrepant, lifelong, and enduring effects of childhood gender policing can also be found among trans-feminine youth, who report experiences of cissexism from earlier ages and more instances of being physically victimized than trans-masculine spectrum youth (Grossman et al., 2006). As adults, transgender women also face a higher risk of “verbal, physical and sexual harassment,” illustrating how this early experience of trans-misogyny follows transgender women across the life span (Jauk, 2013, p. 808). For instance, transgender women account for nearly 100% of those accounted for by the Transgender Day of Remembrance (Namaste, 2005). As sexual violence underscores many of these murders, it is notable that feminine gender presentation has been linked to an elevated risk of adult sexual assault, compared to those who present more androgynously or masculinely (Lehavot, Molina, & Simoni, 2012).

Research on interpersonal violence has found discomfort with male femininity to be a better predictor of whether or not an individual reports having acted upon sexual prejudice violently, over and above previous predictors of aggression (Hoskin, 2018). To this end, research finds greater fear, hostility, and discomfort toward feminine gay men (Glick, Gangl, Gibb, Klimpner, & Weinberg, 2007; Jewell & Morrison, 2012). In large part, feminine gay menFootnote 3 face the brunt of anti-gay attitudes and out-group discrimination and prejudice compared to their masculine counterparts (Glick et al., 2007; Iacoviello, Valsecchi, Berent, Anderson, & Falomir-Pichastor, 2019).

Although crossing the gender binary (i.e., gender nonconformity) is associated with the violence and discrimination experienced by members of the LGBTQ+ community, taken together, this particular body of research suggests another facet that ought to be considered, namely how femininity is devalued and regulated. This is not to suggest that one identity configuration (e.g., gender nonconformity, femme, or femininity) should take precedence over another in making sense of violence. Rather, this framing is to help illuminate a facet of discrimination that has not been fully articulated or addressed.

The Current Study

Despite the continued and accumulating evidence demonstrating the impacts of femmephobia on experiences of marginalization, little empirical research has examined femininity as an intersecting component of prejudice or oppression. While the use of homophobia as a weapon of sexism has been explored (Pharr, 1997), this exploration does not account for the preferential treatment afforded to masculinity over femininity, separate from men and women, as outlined above. For example, this analysis does not account for the treatment of feminine lesbians or feminine gay men by their masculine counterparts, how tomboys are not seen with the same volatility as sissies, or the valuing of tomboyism (Renold, 2008). Rather, this nuance suggests a separate, perhaps overlapping, phenomenon specific to gender (e.g., femininity, masculinity, androgyny, etc.), rather than gender/sex (e.g., woman, man, non-binary, etc.) or sex (e.g., female, male, intersex, etc., van Anders, 2015). Moreover, while psychosocial research has chronicled the difference in cultural responses to masculinity and femininity for over 30 years, the overarching theme of femmephobia has remained conflated or gone unnamed until recently. In other words, previous research has documented the presence of femmephobia but has yet to examine femmephobia as an intersecting mode of oppression within empirical research. Consequently, the current study sought to examine the role and function of femmephobia in experiences of prejudice and oppression among sexual and gender minorities.

Method

Participants

A total of 38 participants took part in an in-depth interview related to their experiences of gender expression and prejudice or discrimination (see Table 1 for participant characteristics). The mean age of participants was 29.7 years (SD = 8). On average, participants had 17 years of formal education (SD = 4, range = 5–25) with 43% falling below $50,000 in household income (N = 16) (see Table 2 for a full breakdown of the sample’s demographics). The sample was intentionally heterogeneous in order to allow for an exploration of femmephobia as a separate construct that cuts across a diverse LGBTQ+ sample. The sample was also diverse in able-bodiedness, with five participants self-disclosing their disability over the course of the interview.Footnote 4 Participants were recruited through online advertisements, e-mail listservs, on-campus announcement, snowballing methods, and invitations sent to previous study participants.

Table 1 Participants’ characteristics
Full size table
Table 2 Sample demographics
Full size table

Procedure

Participants were recruited for interviews through an online survey about gender expression and experiences of prejudice. The survey was conducted by the first author and hosted on Survey Gizmo. Recruitment involved Facebook advertisements, snowball methods, and website listings, each of which targeted LGBTQ+ populations. Additionally, participants were recruited through online advertisements, social media, e-mail listservs, and on-campus announcements (recruitment materials available on the Open Science Framework, https://osf.io/5ywxm/?view_only=f2c31c38d2eb46a4a4a209335d407106). As the goal of this study was to explore the intersection of femininity across diverse LGBTQ+ identities, there were no selection criteria other than self-identification as a sexual or gender minority. Those interested were directed to an information page detailing the study and an informed consent agreement. Consenting participants, 18 years of age or older, were forwarded to an online survey where they completed a series of quantitative measures (not discussed here). Participants were asked whether they wanted to participate in an in-depth interview. Those interested were later contacted by e-mail to arrange a time for the interview. The primary researcher facilitated interviews through Userlike, a text-based encrypted chat software program. Userlike is a particularly useful qualitative method of inquiry when interviewing sexual and gender minorities, as it enables participants to have greater autonomy in constructing their self-actualized identities.

The semi-structure interview was guided by the central research question: “How does gender expression impact experiences of discrimination and oppression?” Twelve open-ended questions were used to guide the interview and to focus the central research question. (For the full interview guide, see the online supplement.) Interviews were conducted by the lead author, who identifies as a disabled/crip, queer, white, femme of Jewish descent. This perspective was vital in order to be sensitive to the data, bolstering the author’s interdisciplinary training in sociology, gender studies, and psychology. A feminist approach was employed, such that interview format and style were informed by reflexivity, acknowledging the self as a tool of research, standpoint theory, and remaining mindful of insider/outsider power dynamics. Also, the interviews were driven by the acquisition of participants’ subjugated knowledge. In order to ensure the strength and credibility of the data, interview protocol observed two credibility checks. The first credibility check invited participants to return to previous questions at any point to clarify as well as asked participants if there was anything else they wished to discuss or revisit upon completion of the interview. As a second credibility check, participants were given the option of downloading the transcript of the interview and elaborating/clarifying any points over the coming weeks. These credibility checks allow participants to “consider their interviews and to provide information to the researchers that may have otherwise been omitted” (Levitt et al., 2018, p. 371). Interviews ranged from 2 to 3 h in length.

Data Analysis

The current study was particularly well suited to qualitative inquiry, given its focus on illuminating and generating a deeper understanding of femmephobia (Golafshani, 2003). Transcripts from the text-based interviews were transferred to the qualitative data analysis software MAXQDA for coding and sorting of data, and to build thematic narratives. The study used thematic analysis, which looks through the data set to find repeated patterns of meaning and helps systematize large amounts of textual data, and thematic networks were used to examine the relationships between themes. This approach aids in identifying, analyzing, and reporting themes within the data (Braun & Clarke, 2006). The thematic analysis was conducted over six phases: (1) familiarization with the data; (2) generation of initial codes; (3) searching for themes; (4) reviewing themes; (5) defining and naming themes; and (6) producing the report (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Dual-coding deductive–inductive thematic analysis was used, which allows themes to be driven by the data and to develop organically, while also paying specific attention to the research question and theoretical interest (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Fereday & Muir-Cochrane, 2006; Pope, Ziebland, & Mays, 2000). To allow for open engagement between data and literature, a flexible and open coding system was used throughout the analytical process (Pickens & Braun, 2018). Throughout the coding process, and to ensure researcher reflexivity, memos were used to record interpretations and develop coding decisions (Levitt et al., 2017, 2018).

Gender hegemony (Connell, 1987; Schippers, 2007) and femme theory (Hoskin, 2017a, 2019b) served as the theoretical frameworks through which to interpret the data. Gender hegemony (Connell, 1987) theorizes “gender relations as operating through the interconnected subordination of femininity that simultaneously uphold hegemonic masculinity” (Hoskin, 2019a, p. 689). Femme theory makes feminine intersections salient within analyses, particularly in relation to social inequality and power (Blair & Hoskin, 2016; Hoskin, 2017a, 2019b). A latent level of analysis was used in order to examine underlying ideas, assumptions, and ideologies, which shape and inform the semantic content of the data (Braun & Clarke, 2006). After developing initial themes, a coding scheme was devised. The themes were then organized into thematic networks.

While thematic analysis is useful to unearth salient themes, thematic networks assist with the organization of themes, aiding not only with the overt structures of the data but also the underlying patterns and relationships between themes (Attride-Stirling, 2001). Thematic networks illustrate the “linkage between stages of analysis” (Smith & Firth, 2011, p.4). As described by Nowell, Norris, White, and Moules (2017), “thematic networks aim to take the researcher deeper into the meaning of the texts, exploring the themes that emerged and identifying the pattern that underlie them” (p. 6). Concretely, thematic networks are used to create web-like networks that organize themes and function to visually illustrate the process of textual interpretation (Nowell et al., 2017).

Constant comparison was used throughout the data analysis process as a means of ensuring relevancy within thematic categories and these codes consistently reflected their interpretations (Pope et al., 2000). Constant comparison was also useful in the facilitation of stable patterns in the data. In addition, the study used analytic induction to develop constructs through reiterative testing of theoretical ideas (Pope et al., 2000). Each response was reviewed to subsequently define and reduce the number of relevant themes (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Finally, this analysis was guided by Deleuze and Guattari’s (1987) concept of “plugging in,” which refers to how qualitative researchers “use theory to think with their data” and “data to think with theory” (Jackson & Mazzei, 2013, p. 261), thus creating a reciprocal exchange between data and literature throughout the results.

Results

Two connected thematic networks were identified (see Fig. 1).Footnote 5 The first network organizes themes of masculinity: “masculine privilege,” “masculinity as protective,” and “masculinity as the norm.” The second thematic network organizes themes of femininity: “feminine inferiority,” “femininity as target,” and “feminine inauthenticity.” Notably, the theme of femininity as target contained many additional subthemes, which are explored in depth in a separate article (Hoskin, 2019a). As will be elaborated upon in the discussion, the connection between these two thematic networks illustrates the role of femmephobia in maintaining the gender binary. In particular, the thematic networks identified in the data, and their interconnectivity, were used to generate a model of femmephobia (see Fig. 2). This model helps to synthesize many of the intersectional axes that work in tandem within structures of power and hegemonic gender relations, producing a gender binary that is maintained by femmephobia.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Thematic network

Full size image
Fig. 2
figure 2

A model of femmephobia

Full size image

Feminine Inferiority: Feminine Signifiers and Symbolism

In this theme, participants described femininity as signaling subordination, and signifiers of femininity are interpreted as a sign of inferiority.Footnote 6 Concepts of femininity and masculinity are not easily defined; both are subjective, transhistorical, as well as culturally and contextually specific. Yet, as Jamie (White, Pansexual, Genderqueer) explains, masculinity and femininity are used to “understand and create meaning of the world and our realities.” Jamie continues to explain that while there is struggle in labeling masculinity and femininity, “we know when the rules are being broken.” In other words, gender is defined through the failure to maintain binary difference and in the moments where gender policing takes place. Gender was also described by Veronica (White, Queer, Transgender Woman) as “the ways we inhabit power and aesthetic.” William (White, Queer, Cisgender Man) echoes this sentiment, explaining that while masculinity signifies “those in positions of power,” femininity signals the aesthetic of subordination. Within a patriarchal economy, femininity is the gender signifier of the subordinate sex, making those who adopt or express in feminine ways “less than” (Sasha, White, Queer, Cisgender Woman).

Femininity is therefore described by Max (White, Asexual, Androgyne) and Dan (White, Queer, Transgender Man) as being “synonymous” or “equated” with “weakness” and vulnerability. While masculinity “acts upon others,” feminine “weakness” is “unable to protect itself” (Jennifer, White, Lesbian, Transgender Woman) and “allows for itself to be acted upon” (Ben, Native, Gay, Transgender Man). Femininity is “on its knees” (Siobhan, White, Bisexual, Cisgender Woman) in “service” of masculinity (Pat). As Harriet (White, Bisexual, Cisgender Woman) describes, femininity is something to be “consumed” by masculinity. Femininity marks individuals as “unintelligent,” incompetent (Sasha), and not to be “taken seriously” (Kristen, White, Bisexual, Cisgender Woman). Femininity’s symbolic inferiority, thus, secures its utility as an insult. As Eli (Indigenous, Two-Spirit) explains, “it’s a put down to have femininity or feminine slurs hurled at you.” William sums up this relationship, stating “I think masculinity is, for most cultures, defined by what is socially acceptable for those in power and femininity is defined by what is socially acceptable for those in subordinate positions.”

Language and meaning are created in the context of social inequality. When we speak, we are speaking a language that is already in conversation; we are limited by language as we are limited by the cultural concepts with which to make sense of the world. When we speak, we draw from a preexisting language and cannot produce meaning without referencing an implicit system of rules and signs (Barthes & Duisit, 1966). While signs denote meaning, the connotation of a sign (i.e., gender, femininity, or masculinity) depends on social situations and the experiences we have with them. In other words, there is no innate inference; meaning is determined by historical, political, and cultural contexts. Systems of meaning and language have been constructed throughout and developed within the context of masculinist patriarchies. Within such a world, femininity as a social and cultural signifier is maintained as ultimately signifying subordination and inferiority.

Masculine Privilege

While femininity was described as signifying subordination, masculinity was described as being privileged. Logan (White, Straight, Transgender Man) outlines how society systematically places valued attributes, such as strength, knowledge, wisdom, and rationality, “exclusively within the masculine camp.” Considering the cultural meaning afforded to masculinity and femininity, whereby systems of meaning privilege masculinity over femininity, the theme of masculine privilege perhaps comes without surprise. Masculinity garners symbolic capital, the acquisition of which is secured by symbolic and physical violence directed toward the feminine (Kimmel, 1997). Within the current study, masculine privilege was demonstrated in the double standard in sexual behavior, the acceptance granted to various body sizes, and access to community space. In addition, masculine privilege was evidenced by the authenticity and validation an individual is afforded by virtue of their masculinity.

An overarching theme among participants was the manifestation of masculine privilege within and outside of LGBTQ+ communities. This theme was expansive and overlapped with the majority of other themes: While femininity was described as a target, masculinity was described as protective. While femininity is seen as deceptive, inauthentic, and artificial, masculinity is authentic, natural, and stands as gender neutral. Feminine sexuality is slutty, while masculine sexuality is heralded as “studly.” While femininity is instructed to reduce in size, to take up less space, masculinity claims ownership over both symbolic and physical space. For example, Hannah (White, Queer, Cisgender Woman) explains how masculine fat is not met with the same contempt and policing as feminine fat. In this way, masculine privilege cuts across multiple dimensions of identity, expressions, space, and embodiment.

Operating within a larger patriarchal culture that values masculinity, LGBTQ+ communities are neither exempt from nor immune to the naturalization of feminine devaluation (Benevedes, 2015). For example, Sasha explains how LGBTQ+ communities mirror dominant culture by affording “masculine people” a “higher status than feminine people,” otherwise known as masculine privilege. Sarah (White, Bisexual, Cisgender Woman) explains how “masculinity is celebrated (in and outside the LGBTQIA+ community)[…while] femininity is not taken seriously or is looked down on.” Similarly, Jennifer states that “In the LGBT [community] femininity seems to be looked down on. I have noticed that females are more accepted for looking what society sees as masculine than males are for looking feminine.” This sentiment was also echoed by other participants:

Masc-presenting folks can typically just walk into queer spaces and feel accepted essentially from the get go…. I haven’t heard my masc friends talk about how they had to struggle to gain a feeling of acceptance/inclusion in queer spaces like I felt like I did. (Tegan, White, Queer, Cisgender Woman)

Sasha characterizes people who are masculine-of-center as having “more currency” and “legitimacy” when compared to femme or feminine women and men. This is echoed by Tegan, who explains that masculinity is “accepted at face value” and allows for easier acceptance and access to queer communities and in society at large. This currency affords masculine-of-center privilege, and on the privileged side of many double standards within and outside LGBTQ+ communities. For example, Hannah describes masculinity as being praised and as the “ultimate prize” (Hannah), while Tegan states that femininity is “questioned by default and hinders one from gaining acceptance into queer communities.” This privilege was depicted as pervasive and spreading across sexual and gender identities:

I think masculine people are idolized in the queer community…. Butch women are seen as the epitome of attractiveness in the queer women spectrum…whereas femmes are seen as less than. Femme men, femme nongender conforming people, and femme women are seen as less than. (Sophia, Mixed-Race, Queer, Cisgender Woman)

More masculine people are more widely accepted in the LGBTQIA+ community. It doesn’t seem like masculine women struggle with invisibility as much, and from my experience it doesn’t appear like masculine men have to continuously prove their queerness. (Harriet)

I know in a lot of cis lesbian communities there’s often an unspoken undercurrent of femmes being inferior. In cis gay communities…well, the same, actually; you always hear about gay guys on Grindr whose profiles have “no femmes” in them. (Ulrika, White, Lesbian, Transgender Woman)

Natalie (White, Queer, Transgender Woman) attributes the privileging of masculinity to its social value and currency and, in particular, masculinity’s hierarchical placing over femininity:

Assigned-female at birth folks who don masculinity do not face the same levels of discrimination. True, trans men and masculine presenting women (and genderqueer folk) who are AFAB face issues and there are isolated incidents of violence and daily microaggressions…. But we live under patriarchy, which means that masculinity/men are privileged and wield power over femininity/women. So, while transgressing gender and sex is treated as an egregious affront to cis-het-folks and the dominant culture, AFAB people who are masculine/men almost have some sympathy—Why wouldn’t anyone want to be a man? They have all the power! I think is the tacit question that society uses to be more permissive with AFAB gender transgression. Contrarily, if women and femininity [are] seen as “less than” or inferior to masculinity (which [they are]), then abandoning masculinity for femininity is treated as a crime. (Natalie)

The cultural value afforded to masculinity over femininity is exemplified by the Freudian notion of penis envy—in other words, “striving for masculinity” fits cognitive schemas and is often a cultural given (Serano, 2013b, p. 231). For example, it is “taken for granted” that someone AFAB would want to become a man, but not vice versa (Serano, 2013b, p. 231). Consequently, not only is masculinity rewarded but, within a hegemonic heterosexist patriarchal culture, those assigned male are punished for desiring or expressing anything deemed feminine.

Natalie recounts her experiences as a sex worker and having clients who want to be “sissified (forced feminized).” Sissification refers to those who “want a dominatrix to force them to don feminine clothing like lingerie” and then punish them for the “sin of wishing to be feminine (even just in fantasy)” (Natalie). Natalie explains “the fetish” as revolving around the idea that “they must be humiliated and punished as atonement for their gender transgression because what’s worse than being the worst man in the world? Being a woman.” Although here Natalie refers to gender/sex categories of man or woman, she illustrates how the ostensible signifiers of these categories operate outside of sexism.

Similar to Natalie, William attributes his experiences of prejudice to the gay community’s deviation from hegemonic masculinity, which he says glorifies destructive behavior, being devoid of emotion, and being immune to vulnerability. William explains how LGBTQ+ communities embrace qualities deemed feminine, such as emotions and self-expression, which push against “cultural norms” of masculinity. William’s experiences relate to the deviation from hegemonic masculinity and the repercussions of demotions into the feminine. In other words, similar to sissification’s atonement for a desire to be feminine, William believes homophobia to be a punishment for the adoption of femininity. Logan also illuminates how LGBTQ+ communities are targeted for their relationship to femininity:

To queer capital F Femininity is to revalue it. Our society doesn’t tolerate a revaluation of something it has already generally accepted as devalued. Therefore, these femininities are shamed. So, lesbian femininity is invisible—or it’s not seen as lesbian enough, or they’re just waiting for the right man. [Effeminacy] is devalued by mainstream society. Gay men are ridiculed, hurt, maimed, etc. Trans femininity is not real. It’s seen as pretend and make-believe. (Logan)

While the rationales differed slightly, there was a resounding response from participants that connected prejudice toward LGBTQ+ communities to their feminization or femininity; all the while LGBTQ+ communities themselves mirror dominant culture’s devaluation of femininity.

For those AFAB, masculinity is a social promotion, insofar as they do not enter the realm of ambiguity and cultural unintelligibility. Additionally, for those AFAB, masculine promotion comes alongside feminine gender policing. Similar to those AMAB who experience a demotion for their entrances into the feminine, those who are unintelligibly gendered face dehumanization for femininity that is not clearly anchored to a body assigned female at birth. Consequently, any femininity presented by an ostensibly male body, or not clearly female body, is grounds for dehumanization, social ridicule, and demotion. Femininity on perceptibly female bodies remains grounds for dehumanization by way of objectification and other tactics of feminine gender policing such as slut-shaming and assumed masculine right of access, but it does not come with the same volatility and social consequences as for those whose femininity is not perceived as being tethered to a body assigned female.

Participants, who described masculinity as immutable and a constant, echoed these mechanisms. For example, Logan explains how “when you mess with [masculinity] is when you get in trouble. You can disavow femininity in favor of masculinity and be okay, but not the other way around.” This was evidence by William and Ben who explain how their sexual orientation made them “subhuman” in the eyes of strangers, specifically linking this dehumanization to gay men’s perceived “effeminacy,” which disqualifies them as “real men.” Effeminacy is a pejorative term used to indicate the failure to behave like men (Alexandrowicz, 2017). Because under patriarchy women and, by extension, femininity are “less than completely human…to be seen as a man who abandons their masculinity to become a woman is to be seen as abandoning our humanity” (Natalie). Thus, masculinity is solidified as privileged within hegemonic gender relations.

Femininity as Target

According to participants in the current study, perceived femininity underscores a fundamental mechanism influencing prejudice toward sexual and gender minorities and is used as justification for sexual or physical violence, sexual prejudice, in-group discrimination, or in Emmett’s (White, Gay, Cisgender Man) experience, to withhold housing options. Femininity was described by William as making individuals “easier targets” and lowering their ranking within social circles. As femininity is a signifier of subordination, entrances into the masculine are taken as a social promotion, while entrances into the feminine are seen as demotions (Alexandrowicz, 2017; Serano, 2007). The adoption of femininity, thus, symbolizes crossing from the “realm of power into the realm of powerlessness;” a choice hook (1992) notes as being worthy of ridicule (p. 215). Moreover, while failed masculinity descends into the realm of the feminine, femininity is already inherently failed (Hoskin, 2017a). Defined by its failure, feminine signifiers function to make target those whose expressions do not adhere to the narrow confines of patriarchal feminine norms. Consequently, femininity is not only heavily policed but also functions as a target across sexual and gender identity (Hoskin, 2019a).Footnote 7

In Carly’s (White, Queer, Cisgender Woman) experience, it is generally “safer for those AFAB to experiment with their gender.” Alex (Mixed-Race, Queer, Genderqueer) explains that while a non-binary person AFAB can “get away with wearing guys’ clothes without most people raising so much as an eyebrow,” a non-binary person AMAB “wearing a skirt is a riot” in both mainstream and queer communities. Similarly, Pat (White, Sexually Fluid, Non-Binary) states that feminine gay men are “treated less [than their] masculine counterpart, as exemplified through the commonly uttered ‘no femmes, or even no fags.’” This might be, in part, a repercussion of what Pascoe (2007) terms “fag discourse.”

The term “faggot” was used against a number of participants, only a few of whom identified as gay men. While “faggot” is thought to specifically target gay men, this slur was used across sexual and gender identities. This term originated in the sixteenth century when it was an abusive term targeting unpleasant older, shrewish, bad-tempered, or otherwise “worthless” women (Oxford English Dictionary, 2018). “Fag” has since evolved into a type of gender policing grounded in the subordinated status of femininity. CJ Pascoe (2007) theorizes contemporary uses of “fag” as a means of asserting masculinity that elevates the user above the “fag,” who is subordinated through ascribed femininity. Several participants’ experiences with “fag” exemplify the feminine gender policing imbedded within “fag” interpellation:

I was biking home from school, and a passing car came super close to me on the curb and screamed faggot at me out the window. [Another time] I was walking down the street in Toronto. Honestly, I think people mistook me for a feminine guy. (Sarah)

I was walking across the road with a friend and wearing a purple backpack. The guys in the car were around college age and started heckling us out the window, making comments about the backpack. I just ignored them. And when they drove by they yelled “faggot.” (Eugene, White, Gay, Cisgender Man)

Eugene reports his appearance as not being “stereotypically gay” (i.e., feminine) and that, while he presents as masculine and tends to pass as straight, the perceived femininity of his purple backpack made him the target of this homophobic street harassment. Similarly, Logan relates having few experiences with overt oppression to his masculinity. However, when he is targeted or “clocked” as being trans, it is because of his perceived femininity; for example, he describes his eyes and eyelashes as remaining feminine (Logan). In this case, perceived femininity or retained feminine signifiers operate as a “target.” William also connects his perceived feminine qualities to experiences of homophobia—even while he was in a mixed-sex relationship. For example, he recalls terms like “Sally” being used against him as an insult, illustrating how his sexual orientation as a queer man is conflated with femininity. In William’s opinion, homophobia is more accurately described as discomfort with male femininity than with men who have sex with men, illustrating the social discomfort with femininities that transgress patriarchal feminine norms.

Feminist and femme scholars have argued that femininity is only acceptable, not necessarily valued, in one model: white, cisgender, thin, able-bodied, heterosexually available, and negotiating the Madonna/Whore dichotomy (Bordo, 1993; Brownmiller, 1984; Hoskin, 2017b). Those who deviate from this model, or who transgress patriarchal femininity by way of any intersecting component, face gender policing known as femmephobia (Hoskin, 2019a).Footnote 8 For example, Logan explains that while many in the LGBTQ+ community “mess with gender…we only police the ones that try to revalue femininity.” Hannah illustrates Logan’s perspective, describing how “as a chubby woman, and at one point in [her] life considered ugly, [she] was very mistreated by both men and women in society.” Similarly, Sophia stated:

Cissexism and transphobia were thrown at me later on in high school when (because I was less than the ideal of femininity) people would call me a man…. My idea of what femininity at that time was to be more like the skinny and white girls…. I was not like that, I was not feminine enough. (Sophia)

When questioning whether they were “feminine enough,” participants measured their proximity to a patriarchal feminine ideal and weighed their social world in relation to their feminine transgressions (Dahl, 2017). Whether via fatness, masculinity, or racialization, participants’ deviations from patriarchal feminine norms made them susceptible to bullying, street harassment, prejudice, and discrimination. In particular, Eli notes how, as a child, they were called “pussy” and “squaw.” Yet, these slurs were at odds with their lived gender expression, which they distinguish as never including femininity. Eli attributes these slurs to the operationalization of femininity as inherently subordinate, its utility as a “put down,” and its racialization. Specifically, they elaborate to explain that “[it’s about] how white masculinity is centered” (Eli).

Eli and Sophia’s narratives demonstrate how feminine gender policing hinges on subordination, objectification, fetishization, and exoticism, particularly for participants of color for whom femininity is measured against a white norm. Even in black gay drag ball culture, femininity is theorized as the personification of whiteness (hooks, 1992). For queers of color, experiences of gender policing and femmephobia tended to relate to their deviations from a white feminine norm. Other participants felt their gender transgressions to be anchored in other aspects of their identity that did not adhere to normative patriarchal femininity, such as their androgyny, perceived masculinity, or embodiment.

Masculinity as Protective

While femininity serves as a target across gender and sexuality, participants characterized masculinity as a protective factor.Footnote 9 For example, masculinity was described as protecting cisgender and transgender men from prejudice and discrimination; non-binary folks from ridicule, sexual harassment, and further dehumanization; and both cisgender and transgender women from sexual harassment and in-group discrimination.Footnote 10 Moreover, a number of participants disclosed that they had not experienced much discrimination or prejudice; the majority of which attributed this ostensible privilege to their masculinity. For example, Ben stated “You know because I am a masculine gay man I’ve never had the threat of violence used against me.” Others explained:

I probably have to deal with [discrimination] a lot less [because I am masculine]. I imagine that someone more feminine or “flaming” has to put up with more of that shit not only from the straight community, but the LGBT+ community as well. (Eugene)

I know of a few other gay men who are viewed [as] more masculine and they don’t get as much attention and harassment. Even those who are out sometimes are treated less harshly than those who are closeted but fit the expectation of the feminine gay…. I know several other guys in the theater who are straight but get called anti-gay slurs far more frequently than some members of our basketball team who are out. (William)

Similar to the conscious adoption of masculinity as a means of demonstrating self-acceptance and maturity (Manley, Levitt, & MCoun, 2007), participants in the current study adopted masculinity for both protection and social capital. In contrast to the protection offered by masculinity, femininity functioned as a target, which made cisgender gay men feel pressured to closet their feminine expressions in the hope of securing support and community inclusion:

I know that some of the gay community aren’t very fond of effeminate people so I usually tailor how I act around some people…I guess, it’s perhaps a small bit of fear of rejection. (Jeff, White, Gay, Cisgender Man)

The need to suppress one’s femininity can be traced throughout the literature, across sexual and gender identities (Blair & Hoskin, 2016; Levitt et al., 2018). In particular, feminine and femme queer women echoed this pressure to closet their femininity. For example, to combat closeting and invisibility, feminine and femme queer women adopted “feminine failure” or utilized masculinity to gain credibility. One participant termed it a “masculine femininity” or “fem(me)ininity” (Logan). Natalie explained how her “hard femme” expression via the incorporation of punk and goth fashions, such as combat boots, “protected” her on the streets from cisgender men who would otherwise see her as a target and “rapable.” Participants across sexual and gender identities illustrated how the adoption of masculinity helped them to acquire validation and in-group acceptance, as well as affording a certain level of safety in the public realm. For example, by not shaving her armpits and legs, Tamara (White, Queer, Cisgender Woman) felt she gained “street cred” in queer women’s spaces, which has helped her to feel included and fit in. Others, like Tegan, found that cutting their hair short helped them to gain “acceptance and legitimacy as a queer person” and shielded them from their prior experiences of invisibility and exclusion.

While feminine clothing is charged with “asking for it” and inviting oppression, participants classified masculine clothing as symbolizing “aggression” (Amelia, White, Lesbian, Cisgender Woman), which offered a level of protection. As a result, participants illuminated a double standard in how masculine butch women are treated for their gender transgressions compared to feminine gay men. As Logan explains, “Butch lesbians are usually okay, but [feminine] gay men are physically battered.” The protection offered by masculinity was not exclusively found among queer men and women, but also among non-binary folks. Alex commented, “Somehow my androgynous clothing and accessory choices seem to shield me from much of the street type of discrimination. [They simply see] tomboy.”

Max recounts their experiences as a non-binary person and how society constantly attempts to police them to either side of the binary. After Max tried both masculinity and femininity, they concluded that both sides of the binary were “equally difficult,” but the differential treatment (which they labeled as “respect”) afforded to those perceived as masculine influenced the ways Max presents their gender. Max notes how being misgendered as feminine no longer elicits the same magnitude of feelings of failure as it once did but rather serves as a “reminder about how people see feminine folk” and how femininity robs them of the voice they gain when perceived as masculine. Pat shares this experience:

As a “woman” I was constantly disrespected, and I absolutely hated that—and now as someone of an ambiguous gender I don’t feel that disrespect anymore…. But it’s strange, I find that my transition to a gender nonconforming human just made the disrespect stop happening. (Pat)

Pat goes on to recount how the respect they receive has differed since they moved away from their assigned femininity. In particular, they notice how they are no longer “sexualized and objectified” by strangers (Pat). Pat’s experience is echoed by scholars who define feminine embodiment as experiencing one’s body “primarily as things/objects” and the feminine as not quite wielding human status (Dahl, 2017).

Pat describes their strategic adoption of masculinity and femininity, and how people will shy away from them when they are performing masculinity, due to masculinity’s association with being “stoic, strong, [and] assertive.” When made to feel uncomfortable, Pat “puffs out [their] chest” to highlight their masculinity. Similarly, Logan masculinizes as a means of protecting himself in public. He walks with more “swagger,” squaring his jaw, flexing his muscles, pushing his voice down lower, and speaking in shorter sentences. Of course, this performance helps Logan to pass, but it also speaks to how masculinity and femininity are viewed, and the utility of particular gender expressions in negotiating aggression and vulnerability. Similar to how femininity or fear of femininity is used to maintain masculinity, in Logan’s case, hypermasculinity is used to counter perceived signifiers of femininity.

Femininity as Inauthentic

Feminist theory has described femininity as self-objectifying and a deceptive mask that obscures self-actualization (Hoskin, 2017b). Femininity has been described as a desperate disguise (Bartky, 2010), a “masquerade” (Warnke, 2011, p. 67), a form of concealment (Rice, 2004), and a “theatre of [women’s] enslavement” (Sontag, 2004, p. 278). In sum, femininity is constructed as both deceptive and artificial. These sentiments are echoed by Eugene, who explains that to be masculine is to be “physically strong,” while “feminine strength” is “cunning.” In other words, patriarchal feminine strength lies in its ability to deceive and manipulate. The ideology of femininity as inherently deceptive is propped up by femininity’s assumed inauthenticity. Connotations such as “artificial,” “contrived,” and “frivolous” are deeply ingrained in our cultural understanding of femininity (Serano, 2013a, p. 52). These connotations are rooted in Western binaries and allow masculinity to “invariably come off as ‘natural,’ ‘sincere,’ and ‘practical’ in comparison” (Serano, 2013a, p. 52).

The relegation of femininity to the conceptual Other continues to inform the current mystification of feminine identities or expressions. For example, Serano (2007) argues that the focus and construction of femininity as “artificial” works to reinforce femininity’s “binary opposite,” masculinity, as natural. Feminine artificiality contributes to the objectification of femininity. As argued by feminist theorists, objectification is the first step toward dehumanization (Kilbourne, 1979). The conceptual relegation of femininity to an artifice can be understood through Hoskin’s (2017a) femme mystification, a process that begins with feminine objectification or artificialization and ends with dehumanization and subsequent violence. The shift from subject to object revokes bodily integrity, contributing to a greater risk of violence and dehumanization.

As masculinity stands as gender neutral, femininity is relegated to an artifice. This relegation lends itself to femininity being coded as inauthentic, deceptive and therefore excluded. Participants illuminated how femininity is disqualified in the workplace, public space, and community space (e.g., in-group discrimination). Feminine exclusions are stratified within and outside LGBTQ+ communities, such that feminine and femme women, men, and non-binary persons all described facing exclusion related to their perceived femininity. In particular, many feminine and femme queer women expressed that their femininity posed a barrier to accessing community or feminist spaces, assuming their sexuality was somehow less authentic than masculine or androgynous queer women. Sophia described how femmes “aren’t always treated like they belong. Or [that they are] somehow they are faking it.” Similarly, Sasha described being “hyper sexualized and comments [being] made about being a real lesbian because [she] is femme.” From an outside perspective, Amelia concurs, stating that “a lot of very feminine-looking lesbians [she knows] are often not taken seriously when it comes to their sexuality.” Others echoed this sentiment:

Within feminist spaces…there is a distrust that “you don’t really get it” somehow, that you’re selling out, conforming, trying to pass…. It’s a barrier initially when experiencing those spaces. (Sasha)

[I felt] left out of social groups…for not being butch. [There] seemed to be a bias against transgender women than men…. It was against feminine more than masculine. (Richard, Queer/Cross-Dresser, Cisgender Man)

Within both LGBTQ+ and feminist spaces, femininity was described as placing limitations on subjecthood (Dahl, 2017) and was seen as grounds for calling an individual’s presence and authenticity into question. Consequently, femininity manifests as a barrier to authenticity and self-actualization across sexual and gender identities. For example, Hugo (White, Bisexual, Transgender Man) states that feminine people are “treated with somewhat less seriousness than masculine people,” while Carly describes how lesbians and feminists alike are condescending when speaking “about feminine people.” Ulrika notes that she feels most vulnerable among LGB+ and feminist folks who are still stuck in the “old days of Janice Raymond.” Raymond’s (1994) trans-exclusionary work argued that transgender women objectify women in their purportedly sexist, artificial mimicries of femininity—an ideology that continues to inform the prejudice and oppression facing many transgender women.

Indeed, transgender women are forced to walk a tightrope between validation and accusations of “mockery.” For example, Lloyd and Finn (2017) articulate how authenticity negotiates conceptual spaces of “realness and falsity” by claiming membership to the former while participating in the normative ascriptions of feminine artifice. While transgender women are disqualified as women if they are not feminine enough (Natalie) and simultaneously charged with reproducing patriarchal norms of femininity (Ulrika), transgender men are questioned (and question) whether they are “trans enough” if they do not entirely reject all characteristics associated with femininity (Dan).

The authenticity of participants’ manhood (whether transgender and cisgender) was called into question if they were perceived as feminine. For example, Ben explains how being gay means having a “limp wrist,” and that this perceived femininity disqualified him from ever being a “real man.” He goes on to describe how gay men are seen as feminine, which is “not what men are supposed to be,” and that they are seen as “people who are of lesser value.” The discourse of authentic manhood and femininity being used as a disqualifier of both manhood and subjecthood is found among transgender men (Blair & Hoskin, 2015, 2016). Femininity is questioned, disregarded, trivialized, and labeled suspect across communities: “certainly transgender communities (e.g., transmisogyny) and gay men’s communities (e.g., feminine gay men are often mocked/scored)” (Tegan).

While inauthenticity manifests as symbolic violence and experiences of exclusion for some sexual and gender minorities, Natalie explains how feminine inauthenticity also contributes to the depiction of transgender women as being “sexual predators,” “perverts,” or as luring men with their feminine wiles and façade. Transmisogynistic crafting of femininity as predatory reflects the amalgamation of two key femmephobic discourses: 1. Feminine inauthenticity/artificiality and 2. the assumption that femininity is performed for a male gaze. For example, Jennifer recalls the term “trap” being used against her. Trap, she explains, is a derogatory term used to describe a transgender woman who “tricks [men] into sexual activities.” Elaborating upon the construction of trans-femininity as trickery, Jennifer describes a time where she was “escorted out of the building by police because [a stranger] was telling other patrons that he just prevented a man from molesting their wives and girlfriends in the bathroom.” Ulrika echoes this experience, recalling a time where she read a political advertisement that she described as “flat-out [claiming] this ordinance will lead men into women’s restrooms [to molest] your children.”

Consequently, constructions of femininity as both inauthentic and deceptive prop up the discourse that transgender women are sexual predators. Ulrika describes her uncle’s reaction to her coming out as transgender, stating “he wasn’t comfortable having me at the reunion at all and specifically said it was because he wasn’t comfortable having me around his young children.” Similarly, Rebecca (White, Asexual, Transgender Woman) recalls comparisons being drawn between her and Michael Jackson, implying that her identity meant that she was a “pedophile.” Many participants specified this phenomenon as unique to trans-femininity and that the construction of trans as inherently deceptive and sexually predatory is rarely found in constructions of trans-masculinity. As Ulrika states:

America has this huge thing with being a “manly man.”…So when “men” (as they of course see us) put on dresses and makeup they see us as broken deviants who clearly there must be something wrong with, and what better way to convey “wrongness” to the masses than by equating it with pedophilia. Meanwhile, trans guys are moving up in the world by going from the feminine (although not all trans guys were pre-transition, of course) to the masculine, which America celebrates. (Ulrika)

Patriarchal culture makes the desire to become feminine (i.e., subordinate) unthinkable. It is unfathomable that “someone would give up male privilege and power in order to become a relatively disempowered female” (Serano, 2013b, p. 231), which leads to the assumption that transgender women garner their power through the only mechanistic tool of patriarchal femininity: the ability to attract men. Moreover, this “rhetoric of deception” targeting transgender women relies on hyper-femininity to disqualify their womanhood (Bettcher, 2013, p. 278). The trope of transgender women “deceivers” also influences passing (Bettcher, 2013). In other words, if they “pass,” they are “deceptive,” but if they “fail” (to pass or to perform patriarchal femininity), their womanhood is deemed inauthentic. Feminine apparel and cosmetics are used against transgender women as devices for dominant culture to highlight presumed “fakeness” or artificiality, while the absence of feminine apparel and cosmetics is used to invalidate their womanhood. Representations of transwomen as “deceptive,” “inauthentic,” or otherwise “fraudulent” have a long history (e.g., Christine Jorgensen) and continue to surface in the news, particularly surrounding transphobic violence. Bettcher (2006) argues that representations of transgender women as both “inauthentic” and “deceivers” operate as a tactic to justify and promote transphobic violence.

In part, Ulrika attributes this to media portrayals of trans-femininity as “(1) punch lines; (2) villains (or people the audience were supposed to feel are villains).” These depictions draw on and reinforce cultural beliefs that “femininity itself is artificial” (Serano, 2013b, p. 230). For example, Ben described how Disney films draw on implied homosexuality via signifiers of femininity to construct a villain’s deceptive persona. Ben provides the examples of Hades from Hercules as the “sassy gay friend” stereotype, “clever and quippy,” and the character Jeff as a “slimy snake” who “whisps his words.” Disney’s Ursula can be seen as a drag queen and functions to demonstrate the threat of femininity with power: feminine subjects who seek power for themselves. Becky (White, Lesbian, Cisgender Woman) characterizes hegemonic masculinity as threatened by “women who aren’t perceived or who don’t present themselves as submissive or ‘less than’ their male counterparts.” Subsequently, femininity is not only used in the construction of a “evil,” but empowered femininity itself is also vilified and policed in ways that normalize femininity as passive and powerless. When taken together, Ben explains how these popular cultural representations work as a cautionary tale of femininity “gone wrong,” “done wrong” or the risk of power falling into the hands of the feminine, which is achieved by systematically “demonizing” femininity. Further, these constructions reify cultural meaning that associate femininity with deception (Hoskin et al., 2019).

Masculinity as the Norm

Through femininity’s artificialization, masculinity is preserved as both natural and the norm. Hannah outlines how the idea that femininity “taints” masculinity upholds masculinity as gender neutral.Footnote 11 Femininity is the “crack in a seamless armour” that is masculinity (Dahl, 2017, p. 42), marking “effeminacy” as “penetrated masculinity,” thus abdicating its ascribed power (Alexandrowicz, 2017, p. 10). Deviations from masculinity are feminized, given that deviations/femininity contaminates or erodes the ideals of hegemonic masculinity and ultimately dismantle hegemonic systems of gender. Thus, as Logan recounts his experiences, it can be easy to gain acceptance as a “masculine female, but never as a masculine male.” In Ben’s experience, hegemonic masculinity disqualifies masculinity with a tint of femininity; it becomes “effeminacy” and receives scrutiny of “not [being] a real man.” However, those AFAB are able to make entrances into the masculine realm, insofar as they remain intelligible as women.Footnote 12 In part, the neutrality of masculinity is a product of femmephobic abjection: the cultural imperative that maintains masculinity through the repudiation of the feminine:

[Feminine gender policing] is the historical shadow of the way our society constructed and still constructs the concepts of male and female. Male is constructed through the exclusion of femininity. Anyone that is ‘identified by others’ as male has to protect their masculinity by shunning femininity and everything we associate with it. (Alex)

Abjection refers to the “vague sense of horror that permeates the boundary between the self and the other” (Phillips, 2014, p. 19). The permeability of this boundary facilitates an identity process whereby the self is constructed through the casting off or expelling characteristics of the “Other.” For example, hegemonic masculinity is maintained through the repudiation of femininity (Kimmel, 1997). In Eugene’s experience, a “masculine/butch person looking down on a ‘femme’ comes out of a place of discomfort with associating oneself as that.” In this way, femmephobia and the societal devaluation of femininity function as a process of abjection.

As a result of femmephobic abjection, gender neutral, androgynous, and non-binary gender expressions are typically comprised of masculine signifiers for the adoption of any markers of femininity would disqualify individuals from simultaneously accessing masculinity. As Jamie explains, “we are taught in society that neutral or fluid is masculine.” The neutrality of masculinity functions to dehumanize non-binary identities through processes of Othering. One can be masculine, feminine, or a neutral gender comprised mostly (if not entirely) of masculinity. However, the coexistence of masculinity and femininity on unintelligibly sexed bodies relegates non-binary folks to femininity or the “effeminate realm.” If intelligible as AFAB, this coexistence can be a promotion (i.e., tomboy). If AMAB or not intelligible as a binary sex, non-binary folks’ expressions are categorized, dehumanized, and policed as effeminacy. According to Max, the dehumanization of non-binary folks through Othering is exemplified by the terms “it” or “thing” used against them. As Max describes, “non-binary [people] are not like [cisgender binary people], which puts [non-binary people] in an Other category. Anything Other is [seen as] wrong.” Occupying both or neither, perceived femininity disqualifies non-binary folks from accessing masculinity, an often-necessary component of their identities. For example, Jamie explains how people “refuse to believe in fluid gender expression because [they’re] not masculine enough.” In this way, any perceived femininity of non-binary people works as target and a source of invalidation.Footnote 13

Benevedes (2015) describes how, “in a culture premised on the superiority of male values, the feminine bears the shadow of the masculine and comes to define what is rejected and inferior” (p. 15). Femininity occupies the shadow of a masculine norm. Masculinity is the standard or norm against which those who deviate are feminized. Just as men stand as the human “norm,” and normative whiteness allows whiteness to appear “raceless,” femmephobia upholds masculinity as genderless. Just as women are the “sex which is not one” (Irigaray, 1985), femininity remains the gender which is not one, standing as other to the masculine norm. Moreover, it is precisely in masculinity and femininity’s bifurcated relationship whereby the latter is associated with artificiality and deception that masculinity stands as “natural,” “practical,” and “sincere” (Serano, 2013b, p. 230). In contrast, femininity is always seen as “drag, no matter who is wearing it,” which lends itself to the caricaturing of femininity and the upholding of masculinity as both natural and universal (Torr & Bottoms, 2010, p. 269).

Discussion

Individually, the participants’ stories demonstrate the pervasive manifestation of femmephobia and feminine gender policing. Together, the overarching themes and thematic networks generate two key findings. The first is generated by the dichotomous relationship between and across thematic networks. This thematic duality illustrates how for every masculine privilege, there is an equivalent manifestation of feminine subordination (see Fig. 1). Not only does this thematic duality demonstrate the naturalization of feminine inferiority and Othering, but it also demonstrates the function of gender binaries in maintaining feminine subordination.

The relationship between themes demonstrates how femmephobia reinforces Cartesian dualism of gender. Within Western systems of thought, cultural intelligibility relies on dichotomous pairings. These dichotomies are largely the framework through which Western society derives meaning. One of many social expressions of discursive dualities is that while some groups have been awarded subject status and protections, others have regularly and systematically been denied those protections, stripped of their “dignifying, and humanizing subjectivity” (Bordo, 1993, p. 73). As this study suggests, femmephobia is a means through which this division is produced and maintained. Thus, the relationship between themes illustrates how the gender binary is not simply a binary; it is also characterized by masculine ascendency over femininity (Connell, 1987; Schippers, 2007).

The data also generate insight into a number of points at which femininity is policed (Fig. 2). The first point is the overall subordination of femininity whereby masculinity is always hierarchically placed over femininity. This point was driven by themes of masculine privilege versus feminine inferiority. A second point is among those who are AFAB (or perceived as such). They are policed for femininity that strays from patriarchal models (race, able-bodiedness, Madonna/Whore, class, and so on). This point was largely driven by the theme of femininity as a target. Those who stray from patriarchal femininity—along with those who conform—face slut-shaming, body-shaming, racism, objectification, disqualification as a self-actualized, authentic, and active subject.Footnote 14 Because masculinity is seen as a promotion, those AFAB are rewarded for masculinity, inasmuch as they retain cultural intelligibility as a “woman.” This is the third point at which femininity is policed and is driven by the theme of masculine protection. In this promotion, however, tensions remain from the previous point of feminine gender policing, whereby the subject is awarded for their masculinity but simultaneously criticized for their failure to express patriarchal femininity. Moreover, if expressions of masculinity stray too far, and those AFAB are no longer intelligibly “female,” any perceived femininity is no longer afforded protection. In other words, being intelligible as AFAB provides a buffering for feminine signifiers. Feminine signifiers are not valued, and femininity remains synonymous with inferiority, but they are not policed with the level of volatility as those who are perceived as AMAB or gender-ambiguous.

The “effeminate realm” is the fourth point in the model. Here, effeminacy refers to femininity not tethered to a body intelligible as AFAB and is the “danger zone” of gender policing, dehumanization, and violence. If no longer intelligible as AFAB, feminine expressions fall within the realm of effeminacy and subsequent dehumanization. Individuals can be cast into the effeminate realm through points four and five. A fifth and final point at which femininity is policed is for those AMAB. Any deviations from hegemonic masculinity descend into the effeminate realm whereby the individual faces dehumanization.Footnote 15 This point is driven by the themes of masculinity as the norm and femininity as inauthentic. Therefore, masculine domination is maintained through the exclusion and repudiation of the feminine (Benevedes, 2015; Kimmel, 1997). Specifically, this “fear of the feminine” acts as a type of censor that prevents people AMAB (and, arguably, also transgender men) from transgressing the gender binary (Kierski & Blazina, 2009). Femmephobia polices the gender binary, maintaining the confines of “proper” femininity while instilling a fear of feminization that calcifies the boundaries of hegemonic masculinity.

An outer-ring surrounds hegemonic masculinity: marginalized masculinities. Hegemonic masculinity secures masculine dominance, while ensuring that individuals benefit from masculinity, even if they do not embody hegemonic masculinity (Connell, 1995). In other words, some masculinity is hegemonic, and some is not; but to a certain extent, all masculine people benefit from the power garnered by hegemonic masculinity. Thus, as hegemonic masculinity is also underscored by whiteness, scholars such as Connell (1995) distinguish masculinities through the concept of marginalized masculinities, which refers to masculinities of those who are of subordinated classes and/or racial/ethnic groups. In turn, marginalized masculinities are distinguished from subordinate masculinities, which are conflated with femininity and, in the current model, would likely be placed within the effeminate realm. Although the current study did not yield evidence to support marginalized masculinities within the model of femmephobia, its scholarly significance warrants inclusion.

Limitations and Future Research Directions

As noted above, the current paper was not able to illuminate the experiences of femmephobia among those whose gender expressions might be classified as marginalized masculinity (e.g., the intersection of race/class and masculinity; Connell, 1995). In addition, the current paper found masculinity to function as a protective factor. Although the current sample did not yield such an analysis, the intersection of race and whiteness must be addressed. Considering Black masculinity as it pertains to incarceration and police brutality, masculinity may not be protective for Black men. However, it may be that feminine Black men face additional, compounding layers of dehumanization. Further research is needed on the intersection of Blackness and femmephobia, as well as subordinate and marginalized masculinities more broadly.

Similarly, while intersections of class and race/ethnicity always play a role informing experiences of prejudice and oppression (or buffer the magnitude of said experiences), data obtained from the current study were insufficient to attend to these intersections in detail. That is, participants’ experiences were informed by intersections of class and race, whether noted by the participants or not. However, given previous scholarship attending to these central tenets of power and privilege, as well as their omnipresent nature, both are deserving of inclusion within the model (Albrecht-Samarasinha, 1997; Tiffe, 2014). Future research should consider in greater detail the impact of class and race/ethnicity on experiences of femmephobia. Additionally, given that many participants’ experiences of prejudice were described within particular geolocations and spatial environments, future research should consider the intersection of femmephobia and prejudice as they are experienced in urban or rural contexts, as well as in different social settings, relationships, and social institutions (media, work, family, sport, military, etc.).

Qualitative research is not intended to yield a generalizable, universal truth but is, rather, intended to “inspire social change” and to “encourage readers to consider issues of power and privilege” (Chatfield, 2018, p. 125). Yet, Chatfield (2018) notes how, as qualitative researchers, “we believe our findings might be extended beyond one specific person in one certain context” (p. 134). Given the sample’s geographical spread and the inclusion of diverse LGBTQ+ participants, these findings do indicate a trend that should be explored and tested by future quantitative studies. Thus, rather than positing a universal truth indicated by the findings, this research reveals potentially testable circumstances for future research. Additionally, despite having a geographically spread sample, participants in the current study were limited to Western countries and almost exclusively North American. Future research should not only consider urban and rural distinctions, but also consider femmephobia outside of Western LGBTQ+ experiences.

Femininity, woman, and female are conceptually and empirically distinct (see van Anders, 2015). However, historically, femininity has been used in reference to a collection of attributes that purportedly signify woman, and as a patriarchal tool that facilitates the process by which females “become” women (e.g., Brownmiller, 1984; de Beauvoir, 1949). Thus, femmephobia, as an ostensible outgrowth of misogyny/sexism, cannot so easily be disentangled from sexism/misogyny within lived experiences. While this paper lays the foundation to begin thinking about femmephobia as distinct, additional work is needed to understand the Venn diagram that is sexism/misogyny and femmephobia.

Implications

The current study illuminates the complexities of both femmephobia and the gender binary. The gender binary is often oversimplified as merely the dichotomous division of all things deemed feminine or masculine. However, in line with previous scholarship, this study illustrates how the gender binary is also hierarchical and complementary (Connell, 1987; Schippers, 2007). Moreover, the current paper identifies femmephobia as a regulatory power used in the maintenance of the gender binary. This finding is important for researchers, particularly those studying gender, power, and sexuality. Along with activists, social scientists are increasingly turning their attention toward the gender binary as the root of gender-based prejudice and discrimination. Yet, this study suggests that key characteristics may have gone overlooked. Thus, the current study is useful for activists, researchers, and clinicians to look more complexly at the gender binary, understand the role of femmephobia in regulating the gender binary, and attend to perceptions of femininity.

Conclusion

As it is with gender, femmephobia is discursively produced through language and ideology. Much of this ideology is propelled and maintained through the binary division of masculinity and femininity—or, more specifically, hegemonic masculinity and patriarchal femininity. Accordingly, hegemonic systems of gender not only divide but also hierarchically place masculinity above femininity, using femmephobia to maintain and police the gender divide. This symbiotic relationship between femmephobia and the gender binary requires the individual to cast off the parts of themself deemed feminine in order to claim group membership, competency, sexual autonomy, or even subjecthood. Working in tandem, these two systems systematically divide and hierarchically allocate groups of people. Consequently, the imperative to sever the feminine distances individuals from themselves and from each other. Therefore, in attempting to address the systemic devaluation of femininity, researchers need to deconstruct the dichotomous and hierarchical way in which gender, independent of gender/sex or sex, is organized. The current paper also provides key points of entry to examine the inner workings of femmephobia and the process of feminine devaluation, each of which yields potential to begin remedying the automaticity with which femininity is devalued.