T ans
masculini ies:
embodimen s,
pe o mances and he
ma e iali y o gende
in imes o change
So ia Aboim
Ped o Vasconcelos
Sa a Me lini
14.
334 ambiguous inclusions: inside ou , ou side in
in oduc ion
In ecen yea s, he inc eased isibili y o he ca ego y, ansgende – o simply
ans1 – has b ough new challenges o ligh and, mos impo an ly, led o
he o ma ion o a new lexicon o he naming o p i ilege and opp ession
(Boells o e al. 2014; Ma ciano 2014). While women and eminini y emain
subal e n in con empo a y socie ies, he a i ma ion o he igh s o gende
mino i ies and he expansion o plu al gende iden i ies beyond no ma i e
de ini ions o hegemonic masculini y and eminini y (Plumme 1996) can be
seen as one o he mos challenging o ms o esis ance o he limi s imposed
by bina y sys ems o gende ha oppose men and women.
A p esen , acco ding o hegemonic p inciples o co espondence be ween
“sex” and “gende ”, hose whose gende ed bodies and minds a e “in con o mi y”
(cis-people)2 con as wi h he unp i ileged mino i y whose gende iden i y
“con adic s” he sexed body each pe son is assigned a bi h. I , in 1949,
Simone de Beau oi b oke new g ound when a guing ha one is no bo n
a woman, bu a he becomes one, (de Beau oi 1949) oday embodying a
gende seems a mo e complex p ocess as new possibili ies o naming onesel
widen and gain inc eased ecogni ion in he social and poli ical ealm. As Joe
Biden, o me usa ice-p esiden , ecen ly said, “ ansgende equali y is he
ci il igh s issue o ou ime” (The Independen 2017).
Agains his backd op, we a gue ha he ca ego ies o naming gende –
whe he eminini y, masculini y o o he o ms o de ini ion ha ejec o
bend hese bina y e ms – mus be analysed and add essed om a c i ical
s andpoin . S emming om he “ ansgende momen ” o he ea ly 1990s
(S yke 2014; Namas e 2005), he “gende e olu ion” o he p esen -day
implies no only a cha ac e isa ion o he o ms o inclusion o an al eady
la ge and a ied gende mino i y – ga he ed unde he p e ix ans – bu also
1 T ans people is a p o isional umb ella e m o name hose who, in a a ie y o ways, challenge he
na u alness o gende as emana ing om he sexed codi ica ion o bodies, whe he hey a e anssexual
(bo h male o emale, and emale o male), ansgende , ans es i es and c oss-d esse s, “ a es is” o
o he o ms o gende a iance, such as gende quee , non-bina y, gende luid, and ogynous, among
o he designa ions. In a nu shell, T ans is a wide- anging designa ion ha includes all indi iduals who
do no iden i y wi h he gende hey we e assigned a bi h. Fo an o e iew, see S yke (2008).
2 The e ms cisgende and cissexual a e used o e e o indi iduals who iden i y wi h he sex/gende
hey we e assigned a bi h. Cisgende eplaced he nowadays pejo a i e no ion o “gende no mals”,
commonly used in he social sciences since Ga inkel (1967).
ans masculini ies 335
a e lec ion on how new names o a i ming gende gene a e new opposi ions
and p ocesses o exclusion.
Howe e , wo king wi h g owing axes o opp ession and subal e ni y
challenges us o disman le hie a chies o p i ilege (being non- ans, whi e,
wes e n) ha migh ob usca e he p e alen inequali y be ween he masculine
and he eminine in a ou o o he di e ences ha c ea e new designa ions
o ed essing he adi ional o de o gende . Ye , while he cu en poli ics
o ans-naming is i al (Aboim 2018), he ma e iali y o gende ed inequali y
canno be igno ed and educed o one-dimensional opposi ions. I he angled
web o gende di e si y b ings new challenges o in e p e ing p i ileges
and opp essions ( Connell 1987; Bou dieu 2001), we a gue ha inequali ies
be ween eminine and masculine also ma k he in e nal di isions wi hin he
ans collec i e. Fo ha eason, in his chap e we ocus on he cons uc ion
o masculini y enac ed by ans indi iduals,3 seeking o add ess bo h he
in e nal plu ali y o ans masculini ies and he ways in which such appa en
subal e n o ms o “doing masculini y” (C omwell 1999) migh , e en i
unwillingly, bene i om he p i ilege his o ically associa ed wi h manhood
when compa ed o he mo e e iden exclusion and disc imina ion o ans
eminini ies (Connell 2012).
D awing on ieldwo k wi h ans men in Po ugal and he Uni ed Kingdom,
wo lines o a gumen will be de eloped. Fi s ly, om a heo e ical s andpoin ,
he impo ance o building b idges be ween di e en a eas o c i ical gende
s udies, namely C i ical S udies on Men and Masculini ies (hence o h csmm)
3 The sub-sample analysed in his chap e was d awn om a much la ge empi ical da a-se c ea ed
o e he cou se o he pas h ee yea s, aiming o compa e i e Eu opean coun ies om Sou h o
No h: Po ugal, F ance, he Uni ed Kingdom, he Ne he lands and Sweden. Un il he mid o Augus
2018, nea ly 160 in-dep h in e iews ha e been ca ied ou wi h bo h ans people and heal hca e
p ac i ione s alongside e hnog aphic wo k ( anging om poli ical, medical and ac i is enues o s ee
ans sex wo k), which is ep esen a i e o ye ano he 40 cases. In addi ion, an ex ensi e his o ical
and documen analysis has been done (including all majo legal and social de elopmen s ac oss he
globe, including bo h he cen es in he global no h, such as he usa, and he global sou h) and media
analysis is ongoing a a apid pace, wi h he cons uc ion o a da abase con aining mo e han 8,000 i ems
published be ween 2014 and 2017. These da a-se s enable us o e lec upon gende and ci izenship by
ocusing on ans people (namely, anssexuals, ansgende , c ossd esse s and o he o ms o gende
iden i ica ions) as subjec s whose ecogni ion cons i u es one o he mos challenging bounda ies o
aming con empo a y deba es abou human and gende igh s. I also enables us o cha ac e ise he
ins i u ional appa a uses (whe he legal, medical, poli ical o e en social-scien i ic) ha ame ans
li es. We in e p e ou empi ical da a as a p i ileged locus om which o in es iga e, a la ge, he doings
o gende and gende poli ics.
336 ambiguous inclusions: inside ou , ou side in
and T ans S udies is ad oca ed. Following Connell’s p oposal (Connell 1987,
1995), i is sugges ed ha ed essing he concep ual p emises o masculini y is
a undamen al s ep o unde s and he plu ali y o ans embodimen s, bodily
ma e iali y and he possibili ies o doing masculini y wi hou men (P osse
1998).
Secondly, om an empi ical angle, such a pe spec i e will enable us o
ackle masculini ies by explo ing ans men’s subjec i i ies and doings o
gende . The s o ies o ans men migh ell us mo e abou wha masculini y(ies)
is(a e). When no na u alised as emana ing om he (p e-exis ing) body,
wha de ines masculini y can become clea e . Howe e , as will be pu o wa d,
masculini y canno be unde s ood wi hou aking in o accoun he ma e iali y
o bodies ega dless o hei di e si y and ans o ma ions. In he end, when
he meanings o masculini y and eminini y a e inc easingly di use and
changeable, he body esis s, in spi e o all changes, as an impo an ocal
poin o gende pe o ma i i y, whe he sel - ecognised o , pe haps also e y
impo an ly, as pe cei ed by o he s. I we li e in a legal and poli ical wo ld
whe e, despi e eg essi e backlashes, he language o sel -de e mina ion and
degende isa ion o he body is becoming una oidable,4 he in e ac ional and
no ma i e o de s o gende esis when bodies and bodily pe o mances a e
displayed unde he public eye and in e p e ed in acco dance wi h his o ically
a ailable ca ego ies. Hence, he ela i e p i ilege awa ded o bodies and
pe o mances ecognised as masculine.
In he sec ion ha ollows, we a gue in a ou o a sociological analysis o ans
masculini ies ha migh b idge he gap be ween ans men and masculini y
s udies. In a second momen , we b ie ly explo e ans men’s li e s o ies and,
while accoun ing o hei empi ical di e si y, bodies and embodimen will be
shown o be o pa amoun impo ance. Bodily capi al (Wacquan 2004, 2005)
eme ged as a (i no he) cen al ea u e o masculini y. Finally, we con end
4 Rega ding gende iden i y laws, we a e, in ac , wi nessing he eme gence o p inciples o sel -
de e mina ion, au onomy and indi idual so e eign y in a numbe o na ional poli ies. O e all, hese
p inciples p oduce he indi idual’s igh o legally de ine hei legal gende iden i y/ca ego y in almos
any ci cums ance, namely wi hou p io medical con ol o in e en ions, and wi hou he need o
judicial au ho isa ion. Such legal and poli ical shi s can be ound, o ins ance, in he gende iden i y
laws o A gen ina (2012), Denma k (2014), I eland (2015), Mal a (2015), Colombia (2015), No way
(2016), Boli ia (2016), Ecuado (2016) and Belgium (2017). In Po ugal, he Assembly o he Republic
pu o wa d a new gende iden i y law along p inciples o sel -de e mina ion. The law (Lei n.º 38/2018)
has been in e ec since Augus 7 h 2018, a e i was p omulga ed by he P esiden o he Republic. Fo
an analysis o hese ins i u ional changes, see Vasconcelos, 2018 ( o hcoming).
ans masculini ies 337
ha unde he name T ans, p ocesses o inclusion and exclusion a e aking
place, while o e ing a p i ileged lens o unde s and – om ma gins o cen e
– he wo kings o gende as a p e ailing powe mechanism o bina isa ion
– o go e nance – o di e si y, in which he gende ed body is cen e-s age
(Foucaul 1979).
ans masculini ies and masculini y s udies:
b idging he gap
C i ical S udies abou Men and Masculini ies (csmm) ha e o en been pe cei ed
as mainly ocusing on s aigh cisgende masculini ies, lea ing aside he
masculini ies o ans men (G een 2005). This is an excessi e c i icism inso a
as he e ono ma i i y has been ha shly iewed as a disc imina o y p inciple.
Gay men ha e been unde sc u iny, wi h many con ibu ions explo ing o ms
o masculini y o he han he hegemonic (Connell 1995; Donaldson 1993;
Whi ehead 2002). Howe e , i is ue ha anssexual and ansgende men
ha e been gi en less a en ion. On he one hand, ans men ha e been seen
as loca ed in a “no man’s land”: hey seem nei he ele an o ansg essing
he bounda ies o male p i ilege, hus no con ibu ing o changing he o de
o masculine domina ion, no impo an o assess he appings o ha same
male p i ilege.
On he o he hand, ans men ha e also ecei ed less a en ion om ans-
s udies (Hausman 2001), when compa ed o hei emale coun e pa s. I is
as i ans men ha e jus been seen as wan ing o “pass” and, o ha eason,
ha e been unno iced. In addi ion, when he in e es alls on he emancipa o y
po en ial o ansg ession as common in quee o ien ed s udies, ans men
can be easily pu aside inso a as hey bea he bu den o ep oducing male
p i ilege and e en hegemonic masculini y. Fo many eminis s ands, hey a e
be aye s o he cause. A e all, hey became men. Fo o he key de elopmen s
in lgb q+ schola ship, he ensions be ween he pe cei ed sub e si e po en ial
o lesbians – and pa icula ly bu ch lesbians – and he alleged con o mi y o
ans masculini ies ha e con ibu ed o main aining ans men a he ma gins
o he ields o gende and sexuali y (Beasley 2005).
I is ou con en ion ha heo e ical connec ions be ween di e en a eas o
gende c i ical s udies should be os e ed, no only as o a oid he ghe oisa ion
and closu e o pe spec i es bu also because objec s pe aining o pa icula

338 ambiguous inclusions: inside ou , ou side in
ields o sub- ields migh in o m de elopmen s in neighbou ing a eas o
esea ch. In his sense, hough he e a e al eady a numbe o s udies abou ans
men (G een 2005), no many ha e discussed he p oblem o masculini ies as
cons uc ed by csmm. We know ha ans men’s masculini ies may be seen
as con ingen ( Blackwood 2009), de ensi e o cons ained (Abelson 2014),
hype -masculine, women-ha ing and aspi ing o he pa ia chal hegemonic
pa e n (qui e e iden in ans exclusiona y eminis s; see Raymond 1979; and
Je eys 2014) o , con e sely, eminis (Hines 2002). Howe e , ega dless o
all he plu ali y o masculini ies enac ed by ans men (and non- ans men),
which has been po ayed in he s udies o De o (1997), Rubin (2003), Vidal-
O iz (2002) o G een (2005), among o he s (Aboim 2016), he e is s ill a
gap o be b idged. The concep ual connec ions be ween csmm and s udies o
ans men ha e ye o come o age. One example o such ui ul linkages has
been he impo ance o Halbe s am’s wo k on Female Masculini ies (1998) o
ed essing deba es a ound wha men and masculini y eally a e. In pa icula ,
Connell’s (1995) heo e ical edi ice has su e ed om c i icisms ha poin
ou , ollowing Halbe s am, he p oblems o igidly equa ing masculini y wi h
men’s p ac ices o e en jus men hemsel es.
I is possible o a gue ha by ocusing on men a he han masculini ies,
we could pe haps mo e easily a oid he ap o ei ica ion, in o which
we can easily all whene e we couple gene al p inciples o powe wi h
pa icula g oupings o men. On he o he hand, we could also be a isk
o igno ing he plu ali y o men and masculini ies, a plu ali y ha makes i
di icul o ope a e ei he wi h he no ion o masculini ies o he ca ego y
o men. Howe e , e en i masculini ies may be di e se and one single
dominan o m o masculini y is di icul o imagine (Je e son, 2002), men
emain a he cen e o powe . B i an, who has app oached masculini y
om a pos s uc u alis s andpoin , also makes an in e es ing poin when
conside ing his ques ion (B i an 1989, 2): “While i is appa en ha s yles
o masculini y al e in ela i ely sho ime-spans, he subs ance o male
powe does no ”, he s a es.
An addi ional di icul y he e o e eme ges whene e we aim o ace he
main ai s o masculini y, wi hou eally disposing o a concep ual appa a us
ha allows hem o be iden i ied in di e en con ex s and his o ical se ings.
How should we look a he mul iplici y o men and masculini ies? Should we
iden i y di e en g oups a p io i, only hen o cha ac e ise hei p ac ices,
which may in he end esul in an a ay o subca ego ies o a majo g oup,
ans masculini ies 339
o should we ollow he e e se pa hway? This is a di icul ques ion, bu i s
in icacy mus no p e en us om asking i . In a way, Connell does no p esen
us wi h a solu ion, and ends o juggle be ween a p ac ice-based app oach
and ce ain a p io i de ini ions o g oupings, a p oblem ha she ecognises in
he a icle co-au ho ed wi h Messe schmid in 2005 (see also Messe schmid
2015).
In a way, masculini ies may be mo e plu al han men, bu he in e se
can also be ue (Hea n 2004). The complex ela ionship be ween men and
masculini ies has se ed as he backd op o a wide ange o c i icism o he
no ion o masculini y i sel , based on he common acknowledgemen ha he
li es o “ eal men” would ha e di icul y i ing in o he model o a hegemonic
masculini y. In acco dance wi h he iew o masculini y as p ac ice, all o ms
o p ac ice a e cons i u i e o masculini y and i is h ough p ac ice, om daily
in e ac ion o ins i u ional amewo ks, ha masculini y comes o o ganise
social li e, upholding a pa ia chal gende o de . F om his pe spec i e,
masculini y could ce ainly be de ined as simul aneously p ac ice, place and
e ec (Connell 1995). Indi iduals embody masculini y om a pa icula
place, enac masculini y as i is embodied and li e wi h he e ec s o he
masculini y hey con ibu e o ep oducing and shaping a he in e ac ional
and s uc u al le els o socie y. Howe e , as p oposed, he in e se connec ion
can also be o analy ical in e es and pe haps mo e heu is ic when i comes o
a oiding alling in o he ap o loca ions as he igge s o all p ac ice. We can,
p o isionally, see loca ion as he inal des ina ion – o a jou ney as in he case
o ans men – and no necessa ily as he beginning.
Howe e , e en i we a gue in a ou o making he connec ions be ween
“place” and “p ac ice” mo e lexible, o e en in e ing hem, i is s ill
heo e ically use ul o wo k wi h he dis inc ion be ween masculini y and men.
I is ue ha masculini y is wha men do, in he sense Wes and Zimme man
(1987) ga e o he no ion o “doing gende ” in and h ough in e ac ion.
Ne e heless, by holding o such a de ini ion we may end up wi h he simple
ac ha masculini y and men (and eminini y and women, o ha ma e )
o e lap, wi h wo p obable and opposi e au ological ou comes: a si ua ion o
en enchmen in o ca ego ical (and po en ially essen ialis ) de ini ions o men
o , on he o he hand, he dilu ion o he ca ego y o men.
The o me assump ion may gene a e ei ica ion and educ ionism and lead
us o see black men as pe o ming black masculini y, gay men as enac o s o
gay masculini y, whi e men as bea e s o he dominan whi e masculini y, and
340 ambiguous inclusions: inside ou , ou side in
so on. In his espec , he wo k o Judi h/Jack Halbe s am, Female Masculini y
(1998), b oke new g ound and p esen ed a challenging and compelling hesis
ha dissocia es men om masculini y, while also omen ing he links be ween
eminism and quee heo y. Ra he han assuming ha whi e masculini y is
ounda ional, Halbe s am pu s o wa d he signi ican p oposi ion ha i is
possible o s udy masculini y wi hou men. In ac , Halbe s am concludes,
masculini y is mos complica ed and ansg essi e when i is no ied o he
male body, especially he s aigh , whi e male body. Bea ing in mind he will
“ o make my own emale masculini y plausible, c edible, and eal” (1998,
xi), Halbe s am a gues ha emale masculini y – ha she ound among a
a ie y o women om bu ch lesbians and omboys o he d ag kings she
s udied e hnog aphically – is no me ely a pe e se supplemen o dominan
con igu a ions o gende . Ra he , masculini y i sel canno be ully unde s ood
unless emale masculini y is aken in o accoun . Likewise, Connell and
Messe schmid (2005) also ecognise ha p o essional “bou geois women”
a e nowadays app op ia ing masculini y.
In his line o easoning, masculini y and men become di e en hings,
which is a compelling hesis. Masculini y is no , a e all, wha men do. Ins ead,
no ms and ideologies become mo e impo an , an idea which ul ima ely
i s he G amscian no ion o hegemony (G amsci 1979 [1947]) om which
Connell d ew he heo isa ion. Once again, howe e , we encoun e he same
p oblem. Wha ideologies a e dominan in a gi en con ex and how a e hey
ela ed o and c ea ed by men’s p ac ices?
An answe o his ques ion can be ound in pos s uc u alis app oaches
o masculini y, whe e discou ses a e powe and he emphasis is placed upon
he complexi y and plas ici y o masculini ies, when de ined as discu si e
p ac ices (We he ell and Edley 1999). Following Foucaul , he embodying
subjec , as he cen e o p oduc i e powe , now becomes he key p oblem
and objec o heo isa ion. The main conce n is placed on he plu ali y o
meanings associa ed wi h he masculini y ha men can manage, enac and
assemble acco ding o hei in e ac ional needs. Men canno be con la ed wi h
masculini y inso a as he e is no essen ial subjec (Je e son 2002; We he ell
and Edley 1999).
Deba ing such cen al p oblems and ope a ing wi h such a pe spec i e
will enable us o ackle he de ini ion o masculini y. By explo ing ans men’s
subjec i i ies and doings o gende , hei ansi ion s o ies, we migh be able
o b ing a deg ee o cla i y o Connell’s canonical de ini ion o masculini y as
ans masculini ies 341
“simul aneously a place in gende ela ions, he p ac ices h ough which men
and women engage ha place in gende , and he e ec s o hese p ac ices in
bodily expe ience, pe sonali y and cul u e” (Connell 1995, 71).
doing esea ch wi h ans people
Ou analysis builds upon he concep ual pe plexi ies aised by he li e
s o ies and ansi ional jou neys o ans men and indi iduals pe o ming
masculini y. In-dep h in e iews we e ca ied ou wi h a a ie y o ans men
and masculine de ined indi iduals along he spec um o ans masculini ies
in Po ugal and he Uni ed Kingdom.5 Some pa icipan s, especially in
Po ugal, sel -de ined as anssexual, while ansgende is a mo e common
e m in he Uni ed Kingdom. O he s, howe e , ha e also explici ly de ined
hemsel es as ansgende , gende quee , non-bina y F M, gende luid o
and ogynous, among o he designa ions. Only a ely was a single de ini ion
enough o accoun o gende iden i y ac oss hei li e cou ses. Fo ins ance,
ca ego ies such as c oss-d esse o lesbian we e o en associa ed wi h o me
li e s ages.
In bo h coun ies, ou samples can be seen as o con enience (Gi en
2008) as hey we e cons uc ed wi h he aim o showcasing he di e si y o
ajec o ies and modes o sel -de ini ion ga he ed benea h he ans masculine
umb ella. Howe e , e en i we canno claim o know all p ocesses o becoming
ans masculine, we conside , no wi hs anding, ha we we e able o achie e
ou ini ial pu pose and, e en, a conside able sa u a ion o he mos common
p ocesses. Ou assump ion is suppo ed by he compa ison wi h o me
s udies in he ield.
Pa icipan s we e ec ui ed by a ious means (pe sonal con ac s,
pa icipa ion in e en s, ne wo ks associa ed wi h ans igh s o ganisa ions)
and a snowball me hod was used. E hical app o al had been p e iously
g an ed by he Ins i u o de Ciências Sociais, Uni e sidade de Lisboa and he
Eu opean Resea ch Council Execu i e Agency. Clea ance was also gi en by
he Po uguese Na ional Commission o Da a P o ec ion. All pa icipan s
we e p o ided wi h de ailed in o ma ion abou he aims and p ocedu es o
5 Fo a compa a i e o e iew o legal amewo ks and ans ac i ism in Po ugal and he Uni ed
Kingdom, see San os and Hines (2017).
348 ambiguous inclusions: inside ou , ou side in
gende iden i y and ies o jus i y his choices as non-con en ional in e ms o
gende . Fo him, masculini y is li ed a a om any hegemonic conno a ion,
as he emphasises.
In e es ingly hough, he seems qui e awa e o he ecen p i ileges o
masculini y and does no e use hem. Being seen as a man is be e , he says.
Diniz e lexi ely s a es he s uc u al gains o being a man as deeply oo ed in
he me e ac o looking like one. Once again, and con a y o i s imp essions,
he body gains ascendancy.
In he same ein, Ash (34, B i ish, Mas e ’s deg ee, sel -employed) conside s
ha his de ini ion as “mo e owa ds he male end o he spec um (…) la gely
s ems om a physical hing o me mo e han any hing else”. Howe e , e en
i he clea ly s a es ha he does no “and ne e will iden i y as ully male”, he
me e possibili y o being pe cei ed as emale is e y uncom o able o him.
Abo e all, ejec ing eminini y, Ash hinks o his body as a mix, which mi o s
his sel -de ined gende iden i y as non-bina y – a e m he has come o use in
he las i e yea s.
The changes in Ash’s sel -designa ion e lec s he de elopmen s in e minology
wi hin he T ans communi y. An ac i is himsel , Ash wan s o aise awa eness
among he gene al popula ion ega ding ans’ claims and issues. Namely, he
need o con es “ adi ional” medical na a i es abou ans people as well as he
opp ession ha a ec s he ans popula ion. He sees hese public media ions as
ways o coun e ing he endency o dis ega d some ans’ iden i ies o e o he s
as no mally endo sed by he media and e en some ans people o g oups.
Fo him, he dec eased isibili y o non-bina y people s ems om a s ong
media ised ocus on physical ansi ions ha omi s he social, philosophical and
psychological ansi ions, conside ed by Ash o be mo e di icul .
Fo Ash, his iden i y is no pe manen . On he con a y, i luc ua ed and
luc ua es s ill wi hin he “ ealm o he masculine”. He sees his u u e as open
bu , despi e all doub s, does no ehemen ly ejec he “ ou e o su ge y”. Ash
hinks he will, mos likely, no need geni al su ge y as ho mones and ches
su ge y we e jus enough o make him happie . The eeling o bodily disc epancy
was o e a e s a ing ho mones, and now his body is “jus unc ional o
wha I wan i o be unc ional o , i does i s job and i eels ine.” Ash belie es
he was con iden enough o deal wi h doc o s and use he sys em o his own
bene i . O he han wi h he endoc inologis , Ash did no eel p essu e o
decide on geni al su ge y o pe o m his gende in a mo e masculine manne .
Ye , he was ini ially denied ches su ge y, go wo appoin men s cancelled

ans masculini ies 349
and had o “ igh ” o be included in he sys em. Despi e his s uggles wi h he
es ablishmen , he na a es he whole p ocess as ela i ely “simple” and sees
he access o medical in e en ion as jus a way “ o change he physical side o
hings ha I needed o change”.
Bo h Ash and Diniz a e mos o en seen as masculine, as men. In spi e
o he e usal o he sys em, hei ans o med bodies, lea ing aside all
aspi a ions and ambi alences, gene a ed a new gende loca ion. And wi h he
new loca ion in he “land o masculini y” came a deg ee o p i ilege, e en i
unwan ed. Recogni ion is, in ac (F ase and Honne h 2003), a undamen al
momen ha canno be dialec ically sepa a ed om body ma e iali y and he
his o y o gende as a bina y sys em o di e ence.
No can i be disassocia ed om ce ain o ms o p i ilege ha mould he
p esen day dynamics o inclusion o exclusion. A key example ha mus be
aken in o conside a ion conce ns iolence. T ansgende people expe ience
mul iple o ms o iolence (Valen ine 2007). Howe e , ans men’s and ans
women’s expe iences di e signi ican ly. A he in e sec ion o gende , ace,
e hnici y, na ionali y o class, he iolence agains anssexual, ansgende and
o he gende non-con o ming indi iduals is s iking, wi h he acknowledged
a es o homicide ising isibly. Acco ding o he T ans Mu de Moni o ing
p ojec conduc ed by T ansgende Eu ope ( geu), since 2008, nea ly 2,000
ans people ha e been epo ed killed. These o icial numbe s co e 64
coun ies and a ec mainly ans women – 99 pe cen o he epo ed ic ims –
and sex wo ke s – 65 pe cen ( geu 2015). This wo ldwide pa e n is a om
andom and a ge s he mos ulne able segmen s o he ans popula ion,
coupling ansphophia wi h he pa icula iolence o emmephobia.
Mo ing om he mac oscopic o he mic oscopic angle, he awa eness o
he p i ileges o masculini y, whe he wan ed o unwan ed, a e qui e p esen
in he discou se o ans men, e en when hey pe o m a non-bina y o m
o masculini y a a dis ance om hegemonic gende no ma i i y and e en
ca ego ies.
Diniz clea ly s a es how being seen as a man gene a ed a compe i i e
ad an age in he labou ma ke :
Some imes I apply o jobs, and I was looking o a job be o e changing my name. I ha e
a LinkedIn p o ile, and he only hing I did was o change my name, my gende … I didn’
e en change my pic u e, i ’s e y and ogynous. And I no iced ha i be o e I had only
ecei ed one o e a e a yea and a hal , om he momen I changed my name and my
350 ambiguous inclusions: inside ou , ou side in
gende , in a mon h I ecei ed wo job o e s. I was hinking: Wow, his is… I ’s sad, e y
sad, because I’m he same pe son wi h he same quali ica ions. Bu now ha I’ e changed
my gende and name, employe s come looking o me… [Laughs]
conclusion
In spi e o hei signi ican di e ences, all hese ans men/masculine indi iduals
sha e one common ea u e, e en i in di e en o ms and deg ees: he desi e o
a male bodily appea ance. E en i a penis is no always necessa y, a masculine
appea ance is key o mos o hem. Almos all pa icipan s we e unde
ho monal ea men and he majo i y had also unde gone mas ec omies, which
a e na a ed as a sou ce o joy and accomplishmen . I no all, mos desi e a
deg ee o maleness, which o en leads o being pe cei ed as a man, e en i he e
is no speci ic s yle o ype o masculini y ha o e all p e ails. Nei he he macho
no he gende quee image ies a e dominan , hough a ques o “ ecogni ion”
is o en men ioned, pa icula ly when he opic is social in e ac ion.
In e es ingly hough, he “ ecogni ion” o masculini y is no necessa ily he
same hing o any o hem. In o he wo ds, while masculini y as ideology can
ha e qui e di e en meanings, being/becoming iewed as a man o as masculine
ends up being de ined h ough he ma e iali y o he body, whe he his was he
plan o no . In sum, i masculini y encompasses a wide numbe o de ini ions,
maleness ( ha is, bodily masculini y as “ lesh”) seems qui e monoli hic. S yles
and clo hes a y, bu wha is benea h seems o need mo e s abili y as a key
capi al o masculini y. Howe e , i masculini y can exis wi hou s e eo ypical
ull bodily maleness, a ce ain deg ee o maleness seems o be a condi ion
o masculini y o subsis and sedimen o e ime. The e o e, pe cep ions o
di e ence and o gende bina ies appea much mo e ied o no ions o bodily
maleness han o masculini y. While ha bodily maleness seems qui e clea -
cu , masculini y (as eminini y) is qui e uzzy and ha d o de ine.
Maybe he linkages be ween loca ion, p ac ice and e ec s as pu o wa d by
Connell a e imp ecise and o e ly con la ed, a leas o analy ical pu poses. In
he case o ans men, we con end, he e migh be a concep ual in e sion o his
scheme, wi h bodies being mo e han an e ec bu a he a i al cons i uen
o he loca ion and, h ough embodimen , he co e o all gende p axis, ha is
o say, p ac ices can build up he loca ion, including, in he case o ans men,
he bodily loca ion. Ou pe spec i e does no all in o a ci a ional e sion o
ans masculini ies 351
masculini y inasmuch as ma e iali y as phenomenology is e e -p esen . Doing
masculini y canno be educed o a ex , a eci a ion, o e en o pe o ma i e
exagge a ion as a gued in some e sions o quee con ibu ions (G een 2007).
I is a he ha , and playing wi h Judi h Bu le ’s (1993) amous i le, bodies
ma e . No only because hey a e can as whe e s o ies a e w i en and ead,
bu also because hey ha e a ma e ial eali y, a shape de ining sel -pe cep ion
and he pe cep ion o o he s.
Doing masculini y can ake a ied o ms, bu wha e e i s “doings”, i is
h ough bodies ha i gains a palpable o m and becomes mo e han a me e
disembodied discou se. De idian ci a ional i e abili y (De ida 1988), which
Bu le (2004) akes as key o he pe o ma i i y heo y, canno hen be e ec i e
i we dismiss all he ma e ial dimensions o he body, wi hou ob iously alling
in o any o m o essen ialism o dismissing Connell’s con ibu ions. A e all,
bodies a e pa amoun and ul ima e capi als o masculini y because hey a e
in e p e ed h ough he his o ical and cul u al lens o he gende o de . No
because hei alue exis s pe se.
Howe e , wi hou bodily masculini ies, he doings o masculini y all sho
and end o li e hea ically, i e e , ou side he appa en (bu s ill po en ially
sub e si e) no mali y o e e yday li e. Also in line wi h Bou dieu’s iews, he e
is no gende wi hou loca ions, composing a ield and ma ke o s uggles, o a
gende o de . None heless, when a body – o e en jus a hexis – is ans o med,
he e is a change in i s loca ion. I is his nuanced e sion o gende , and
pa icula ly o masculini y, ha can be u he ed by b inging ans men o he
on line o he analysis. In a way, we can a gue ha , concep ually, masculini y
may p ecede men – being o becoming a man – bu wi hou men masculini y
loses i s bea ings. I becomes no mo e han a masque ade; ansg essi e i
may be (o no ). T ans men hen a e men only o he ex en ha hey a e
bodily pe cei ed as men, na iga ing along hei jou neys be ween a ailable
ca ego ies and sys ems o ca ego isa ion. None heless, as e iden om he
analysed cases, bodies do ma e in a e y ma e ial sense. In sum, nei he
Connell no Halbe s am a e qui e igh . In he o me ’s case, we canno say
ha men ( he loca ion) always p ecede masculini y. Masculini y makes he
man. In he la e case, we can nei he ag ee ha emale masculini ies can be
he equi alen o male masculini ies.
Ce ainly, when no na u alised as emana ing om he male body, wha
de ines masculini y can become clea e . Howe e , as pu o wa d, masculini y
canno be unde s ood wi hou aking in o accoun he ma e iali y o bodies
352 ambiguous inclusions: inside ou , ou side in
ega dless o hei di e si y and ans o ma ions. In he end, when he meanings
o masculini y and eminini y a e inc easingly di use and changeable, he body
esis s as he ocal poin o gende pe o ma i i y, whe he sel - ecognised o
pe cei ed by o he s.
Indeed, ou esea ch wi h ans men and ans masculine indi iduals
in Po ugal and he Uni ed Kingdom has shown ha hose pe o ming
masculini y (whe he hey sel -de ine as men, F M anssexuals, non-bina y
masculinised indi iduals o o he ) gained some ad an ages. The di idends
ha came wi h he ac o being pe cei ed by o he s as men a e acknowledged,
e en i hey a e unwan ed o iewed wi h c i icism (Schil , 2010). Tha is no
he case o ans women, ega dless o hei g ea e isibili y in public spaces
and he media. Gende ma e s, a e all.
acknowledgemen s
This chap e d aws on da a collec ed du ing he Eu opean Resea ch Council unded
p ojec ans igh s: Gende ci izenship and sexual igh s in Eu ope: T ansgende li es in
ansna ional pe spec i e ( ans igh seu ope.wo dp ess.com/). The p ojec e lec s only he
iews o he au ho s, and he Eu opean Union canno be held esponsible o any use which
may be made o he in o ma ion con ained he ein. The esea ch leading o hese esul s has
ecei ed unding om he Eu opean Resea ch Council unde he Eu opean Union’s Se en h
F amewo k P og amme ( p7/2007-2013)/e c g an ag eemen n.° 615594.
____________________________________
so ia aboim
Ins i u o de Ciências Sociais, Uni e sidade de Lisboa
A . P o . Aníbal Be encou 9 — 1600-036 Lisboa, Po ugal
[email p o ec ed]
o cid.o g/0000-0002-6605-8614
____________________________________
ped o asconcelos
isc e-iul, Ins i u o Uni e si á io de Lisboa
Ped o.V[email p o ec ed]
o cid.o g/0000-0002-1806-1843
____________________________________
sa a me lini
Ins i u o de Ciências Sociais, Uni e sidade de Lisboa
me lini.sa [email protected]
o cid.o g/0000-0001-7729-1908
____________________________________
ans masculini ies 353
e e ences
abelson mi iam. J. 2014. “Dange ous p i ilege: T ans men, masculini ies, and changing
pe cep ions o sa e y”. Sociological Fo um, 29: 549-570.
aboim, S. 2016. Plu al Masculini ies: The Remaking o he Sel in P i a e Li e. London:
Rou ledge.
aboim, S. 2018 ( o hcoming). “On iden i y poli ics and i s discon en s: be ween gende
ecogni ion and disembodied communi ies”. In Géne o, Di ei os Humanos e Desigualdades,
cieg-iscsp, ulisboa.
beasley, C. 2005. Gende & Sexuali y – C i ical Theo ies, C i ical Thinke s. London: Sage.
blackwood, E. 2009. “T ans iden i ies and con ingen masculini ies: Being omboys in
e e yday p ac ice”. Feminis S udies, 35 (31): 454-80.
boells o , T., e al. 2014. “Decolonizing ansgende – a ound able discussion”. sq:
T ansgende S udies Qua e ly, 1 (3): 419-439.
bou dieu, P. 2001. Masculine Domina ion. S an o d: S an o d Uni e si y P ess.
b i an, A. 1989. Masculini y and Powe . Ox o d: Basil Blackwell.
bu le , J. 1993. Bodies Tha Ma e . New Yo k: Rou ledge.
bu le , J. 2004. Undoing Gende . New Yo k: Rou ledge.
connell, R. W. 1987. Gende and Powe : Socie y, he Pe son and Sexual Poli ics. Camb idge:
Poli y P ess.
connell, R. W. 1995. Masculini ies. Camb idge: Poli y P ess.
connell, R. 2012. “T anssexual women and eminis hough ”. Signs, 37 (4): 857-881.
connell, R. W., J. W. Messe schmid . 2005. “Hegemonic masculini y: Re hinking he
concep ”. Gende and Socie y, 19 (6): 829-859.
co win, A. I. 2017. “Eme ging gende s: semio ic agency and he pe o mance o gende
among gende quee indi iduals”. G&L:Gende and Language, 11 (2): 255-277.
c omwell, J. 1999. T ansmen and ms: Iden i ies, Bodies, Gende s and Sexuali ies. U bana,
il: Uni e si y o Illinois P ess.
de beau oi , S. 1949. Le deuxième sexe. Pa is: Gallima d.
de ida, J. 1988. Limi ed Inc. E ans on, il: No hwes e n Uni e si y P ess.
de o , H. 1997. m: Female- o-Male T anssexuals in Socie y. Blooming on: Indiana
Uni e si y P ess.
donaldson, M. 1993. “Wha is hegemonic masculini y?” Theo y and Socie y, 22 (5): 643–657.
oucaul , M. 1979. The His o y o Sexuali y, Volume 1: An In oduc ion. New Yo k:
Vin age.
ase , N., A. Honne h. 2003. Redis ibu ion o Recogni ion? London: Ve so.
ga inkel, H. 1967. S udies in E hnome hodology. Malden, ma: Blackwell Publishe s.
gi en, L. 2008. Con enience Sample. The sage Encyclopedia o Quali a i e Resea ch Me hods.
London: Sage.
g amsci, A. 1979 [1947]. Le e s om P ison. London: Qua e .
g een, A. I. 2007. “Quee heo y and sociology: Loca ing he subjec and he sel in sexuali y
s udies”. Sociological Theo y, 25 (1): 26-45.
g een, J. 2005. “Pa o he package: ideas o masculini y among male-iden i ied anspeople”.
Men and Masculini ies, 7 (3): 291-99.
halbe s am, J. J. 1998. Female Masculini y. Du ham: Duke Uni e si y P ess.
hausman, B. L. 2001. “Recen ansgende heo y”. Feminis S udies, 27 (2): 465-490.

354 ambiguous inclusions: inside ou , ou side in
hea n, J. 2004. “F om hegemonic masculini y o he hegemony o men”. Feminis Theo y,
5 (1): 97-120.
hines, S. 2002. “Absen subjec s: Feminis discou se and ans masculini ies”, pape p esen ed
a Gendys 2002: The Se en h Gende Dyspho ia Con e ence. Manches e : Uni e si y o
Manches e .
je e son, T. 2002. “Subo dina ing hegemonic masculini y”. Theo e ical C iminology, 6 (1):
63-88.
je eys, S. 2014. Gende Hu s: A Feminis Analysis o he Poli ics o T ansgende ism.
Abingdon: Rou ledge.
ma ciano, A. 2014. “Li ing he i u eal: nego ia ing ansgende iden i y in cybe space”.
Jou nal o Compu e -Media ed Communica ion, 19: 824-838.
messe schmid , J. W. 2015. Masculini ies in he Making. F om he Local o he Global. London:
Rowman & Li le ield.
namas e, V. K. 2005. Sex Change, Social Change. To on o: Women’s P ess.
plumme , K. 1996. “Fo ewo d: gende s in ques ion”. In Blending Gende s, eds. R. Ekins and
D. King. London: Rou ledge, xiii–x i.
p osse , J. 1998. Second Skins. The Body Na a i es o T anssexuali y. New Yo k: Columbia
Uni e si y P ess.
aymond, J. G. 1979. The T anssexual Empi e. London: The Women’s P ess.
ubin, H. 2003. Sel -Made Men: Iden i y and Embodimen Among T anssexual Men. Nash ille:
Vande bil Uni e si y P ess.
san os, A. C., S. Hines. 2017. “T ans* policy, poli ics and esea ch: The uk and Po ugal”.
C i ical Social Policy, 38 (1): 1-22.
schil , K. 2010. Jus One o he Guys? T ansgende Men and he Pe sis ence o Gende
Inequali y. Chicago, il: Uni e si y o Chicago P ess.
s yke , S. 2008. T ansgende His o y. Be keley: Seal P ess.
s yke , S. 2014. “T ansgende s udies oday: an in e iew wi h Susan S yke ”. A ailable a :
h ps://www.bounda y2.o g/2014/08/ ansgende -s udies- oday-an-in e iew-wi h-su
san-s yke /.
ansgende eu ope ( geu). 2016. esea ch p ojec (2015) T ans mu de moni o ing,
“T ans espec e sus ansphobia wo ldwide”, ( ) p ojec websi e: h p:// ans espec .
o g/en/ esea ch/ ans-mu de -moni o ing/.
alen ine, D. 2007. Imagining T ansgende : An E hnog aphy o a Ca ego y. Du ham, nc:
Duke Uni e si y P ess.
asconcelos, P. 2018. ( o hcoming), “O dens de géne o e ei indicações ans: a
desgeni alização polí ica do géne o?”. In Géne o, Di ei os Humanos e Desigualdades, cieg-
iscsp, ulisboa.
idal-o iz, S. 2002. “Quee ing sexuali y and doing gende : T ansgende men’s iden i ica ion
wi h gende and sexuali y”. Gende ed sexuali ies, 6: 181-233.
wacquan , L. 2004. Body & Soul: No ebooks o an App en ice Boxe . New Yo k: Ox o d
Uni e si y P ess.
wacquan , L. 2005. “Ca nal connec ions: On embodimen , app en iceship, and membe ship”.
Quali a i e Sociology, 28 (4): 445-474.
wes , C. and D. Zimme man. 1987. “Doing gende ”. Gende & Socie y, 1 (2): 125-151.
we he ell, M. and N. Edley. 1999. “Nego ia ing hegemonic masculini y: imagina y posi ions
and psycho-discu si e p ac ices”. Feminism & Psychology, 9 (3): 335-356.
ans masculini ies 355
whi ehead, S. 2002. Men and Masculini ies. Key Themes and New Di ec ions. Camb idge:
Poli y P ess.
he independen . 2017. “Joe Biden says ansgende equali y is ‘ci il igh s issue o ou
ime’ in o wa d o ac i is ’s memoi ”, 4 Oc obe . A ailable a : h p://www.independen .
co.uk/news/wo ld/ame icas/us-poli ics/joe-biden- ansgende -memoi - o ewo d-sa ah-
mcb ide-book-a7983386.h ml.
ci e his chap e as:
aboim, S., P. Vasconcelos, and S. Me lini. 2018. “T ans masculini ies: embodimen s, pe o mances and
he ma e iali y o gende in imes o change”. In Changing Socie ies: Legacies and Challenges. Vol. i.
Ambiguous Inclusions: Inside Ou , Inside In, eds. S. Aboim, P. G anjo, A. Ramos. Lisbon: Imp ensa de
Ciências Sociais, 333-355.
h ps://doi.o g/10.31447/ics9789726715030.14