Trans masculinities: embodiments, performances and the materiality of gender in times of change

Trans masculinities: embodiments, performances and the materiality of gender in times of change Sofia Aboim Pedro Vasconcelos Sara Merlini 14. 334 ambiguous inclusions: inside out, outside in introduction In recent years, the increased visibility of the category, transgender – or simply trans1 – has brought new challenges to light and, most importantly, led to the formation of a new lexicon for the naming of privilege and oppression (Boellstorf et al. 2014; Marciano 2014). While women and femininity remain subaltern in contemporary societies, the affirmation of the rights of gender minorities and the expansion of plural gender identities beyond normative definitions of hegemonic masculinity and femininity (Plummer 1996) can be seen as one of the most challenging forms of resistance to the limits imposed by binary systems of gender that oppose men and women. At present, according to hegemonic principles of correspondence between “sex” and “gender”, those whose gendered bodies and minds are “in conformity” (cis-people)2 contrast with the unprivileged minority whose gender identity “contradicts” the sexed body each person is assigned at birth. If, in 1949, Simone de Beauvoir broke new ground when arguing that one is not born a woman, but rather becomes one, (de Beauvoir 1949) today embodying a gender seems a more complex process as new possibilities for naming oneself widen and gain increased recognition in the social and political realm. As Joe Biden, former usa vice-president, recently said, “transgender equality is the civil rights issue of our time” (The Independent 2017). Against this backdrop, we argue that the categories for naming gender – whether femininity, masculinity or other forms of definition that reject or bend these binary terms – must be analysed and addressed from a critical standpoint. Stemming from the “transgender moment” of the early 1990s (Stryker 2014; Namaste 2005), the “gender revolution” of the present-day implies not only a characterisation of the forms of inclusion of an already large and varied gender minority – gathered under the prefix trans – but also 1 Trans people is a provisional umbrella term to name those who, in a variety of ways, challenge the naturalness of gender as emanating from the sexed codification of bodies, whether they are transsexual (both male to female, and female to male), transgender, transvestites and cross-dressers, “travestis” or other forms of gender variance, such as genderqueer, non-binary, gender fluid, androgynous, among other designations. In a nutshell, Trans is a wide-ranging designation that includes all individuals who do not identify with the gender they were assigned at birth. For an overview, see Stryker (2008). 2 The terms cisgender and cissexual are used to refer to individuals who identify with the sex/gender they were assigned at birth. Cisgender replaced the nowadays pejorative notion of “gender normals”, commonly used in the social sciences since Garfinkel (1967). trans masculinities 335 a reflection on how new names for affirming gender generate new oppositions and processes of exclusion. However, working with growing axes of oppression and subalternity challenges us to dismantle hierarchies of privilege (being non-trans, white, western) that might obfuscate the prevalent inequality between the masculine and the feminine in favour of other differences that create new designations for redressing the traditional order of gender. Yet, while the current politics of trans-naming is vital (Aboim 2018), the materiality of gendered inequality cannot be ignored and reduced to one-dimensional oppositions. If the tangled web of gender diversity brings new challenges for interpreting privileges and oppressions ( Connell 1987; Bourdieu 2001), we argue that inequalities between feminine and masculine also mark the internal divisions within the trans collective. For that reason, in this chapter we focus on the construction of masculinity enacted by trans individuals,3 seeking to address both the internal plurality of trans masculinities and the ways in which such apparent subaltern forms of “doing masculinity” (Cromwell 1999) might, even if unwillingly, benefit from the privilege historically associated with manhood when compared to the more evident exclusion and discrimination of trans femininities (Connell 2012). Drawing on fieldwork with trans men in Portugal and the United Kingdom, two lines of argument will be developed. Firstly, from a theoretical standpoint, the importance of building bridges between different areas of critical gender studies, namely Critical Studies on Men and Masculinities (henceforth csmm) 3 The sub-sample analysed in this chapter was drawn from a much larger empirical data-set created over the course of the past three years, aiming to compare five European countries from South to North: Portugal, France, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Sweden. Until the mid of August 2018, nearly 160 in-depth interviews have been carried out with both trans people and healthcare practitioners alongside ethnographic work (ranging from political, medical and activist venues to street trans sex work), which is representative of yet another 40 cases. In addition, an extensive historical and document analysis has been done (including all major legal and social developments across the globe, including both the centres in the global north, such as the usa, and the global south) and media analysis is ongoing at a rapid pace, with the construction of a database containing more than 8,000 items published between 2014 and 2017. These data-sets enable us to reflect upon gender and citizenship by focusing on trans people (namely, transsexuals, transgender, crossdressers and other forms of gender identifications) as subjects whose recognition constitutes one of the most challenging boundaries for framing contemporary debates about human and gender rights. It also enables us to characterise the institutional apparatuses (whether legal, medical, political or even social-scientific) that frame trans lives. We interpret our empirical data as a privileged locus from which to investigate, at large, the doings of gender and gender politics. 336 ambiguous inclusions: inside out, outside in and Trans Studies is advocated. Following Connell’s proposal (Connell 1987, 1995), it is suggested that redressing the conceptual premises of masculinity is a fundamental step to understand the plurality of trans embodiments, bodily materiality and the possibilities of doing masculinity without men (Prosser 1998). Secondly, from an empirical angle, such a perspective will enable us to tackle masculinities by exploring trans men’s subjectivities and doings of gender. The stories of trans men might tell us more about what masculinity(ies) is(are). When not naturalised as emanating from the (pre-existing) body, what defines masculinity can become clearer. However, as will be put forward, masculinity cannot be understood without taking into account the materiality of bodies regardless of their diversity and transformations. In the end, when the meanings of masculinity and femininity are increasingly diffuse and changeable, the body resists, in spite of all changes, as an important focal point of gender performativity, whether self-recognised or, perhaps also very importantly, as perceived by others. If we live in a legal and political world where, despite regressive backlashes, the language of self-determination and degenderisation of the body is becoming unavoidable,4 the interactional and normative orders of gender resist when bodies and bodily performances are displayed under the public eye and interpreted in accordance with historically available categories. Hence, the relative privilege awarded to bodies and performances recognised as masculine. In the section that follows, we argue in favour of a sociological analysis of trans masculinities that might bridge the gap between trans men and masculinity studies. In a second moment, we briefly explore trans men’s life stories and, while accounting for their empirical diversity, bodies and embodiment will be shown to be of paramount importance. Bodily capital (Wacquant 2004, 2005) emerged as a (if not the) central feature of masculinity. Finally, we contend 4 Regarding gender identity laws, we are, in fact, witnessing the emergence of principles of selfdetermination, autonomy and individual sovereignty in a number of national polities. Overall, these principles produce the individual’s right to legally define their legal gender identity/category in almost any circumstance, namely without prior medical control or interventions, and without the need for judicial authorisation. Such legal and political shifts can be found, for instance, in the gender identity laws of Argentina (2012), Denmark (2014), Ireland (2015), Malta (2015), Colombia (2015), Norway (2016), Bolivia (2016), Ecuador (2016) and Belgium (2017). In Portugal, the Assembly of the Republic put forward a new gender identity law along principles of self-determination. The law (Lei n.º 38/2018) has been in effect since August 7th 2018, after it was promulgated by the President of the Republic. For an analysis of these institutional changes, see Vasconcelos, 2018 (forthcoming). trans masculinities 337 that under the name Trans, processes of inclusion and exclusion are taking place, while offering a privileged lens to understand – from margins to centre –the workings of gender as a prevailing power mechanism of binarisation – or governance – of diversity, in which the gendered body is centre-stage (Foucault 1979). trans masculinities and masculinity studies: bridging the gap Critical Studies about Men and Masculinities (csmm) have often been perceived as mainly focusing on straight cisgender masculinities, leaving aside the masculinities of trans men (Green 2005). This is an excessive criticism insofar as heteronormativity has been harshly viewed as a discriminatory principle. Gay men have been under scrutiny, with many contributions exploring forms of masculinity other than the hegemonic (Connell 1995; Donaldson 1993; Whitehead 2002). However, it is true that transsexual and transgender men have been given less attention. On the one hand, trans men have been seen as located in a “no man’s land”: they seem neither relevant for transgressing the boundaries of male privilege, thus not contributing to changing the order of masculine domination, nor important to assess the trappings of that same male privilege. On the other hand, trans men have also received less attention from transstudies (Hausman 2001), when compared to their female counterparts. It is as if trans men have just been seen as wanting to “pass” and, for that reason, have been unnoticed. In addition, when the interest falls on the emancipatory potential of transgression as common in queer oriented studies, trans men can be easily put aside insofar as they bear the burden of reproducing male privilege and even hegemonic masculinity. For many feminist strands, they are betrayers of the cause. After all, they became men. For other key developments in lgbtq+ scholarship, the tensions between the perceived subversive potential of lesbians – and particularly butch lesbians – and the alleged conformity of trans masculinities have contributed to maintaining trans men at the margins of the fields of gender and sexuality (Beasley 2005). It is our contention that theoretical connections between different areas of gender critical studies should be fostered, not only as to avoid the ghettoisation and closure of perspectives but also because objects pertaining to particular 338 ambiguous inclusions: inside out, outside in fields or sub-fields might inform developments in neighbouring areas of research. In this sense, though there are already a number of studies about trans men (Green 2005), not many have discussed the problem of masculinities as constructed by csmm. We know that trans men’s masculinities may be seen as contingent ( Blackwood 2009), defensive or constrained (Abelson 2014), hyper-masculine, women-hating and aspiring to the patriarchal hegemonic pattern (quite evident in trans exclusionary feminists; see Raymond 1979; and Jeffreys 2014) or, conversely, feminist (Hines 2002). However, regardless of all the plurality of masculinities enacted by trans men (and non-trans men), which has been portrayed in the studies of Devor (1997), Rubin (2003), VidalOrtiz (2002) or Green (2005), among others (Aboim 2016), there is still a gap to be bridged. The conceptual connections between csmm and studies of trans men have yet to come of age. One example of such fruitful linkages has been the importance of Halberstam’s work on Female Masculinities (1998) for redressing debates around what men and masculinity really are. In particular, Connell’s (1995) theoretical edifice has suffered from criticisms that point out, following Halberstam, the problems of rigidly equating masculinity with men’s practices or even just men themselves. It is possible to argue that by focusing on men rather than masculinities, we could perhaps more easily avoid the trap of reification, into which we can easily fall whenever we couple general principles of power with particular groupings of men. On the other hand, we could also be at risk of ignoring the plurality of men and masculinities, a plurality that makes it difficult to operate either with the notion of masculinities or the category of men. However, even if masculinities may be diverse and one single dominant form of masculinity is difficult to imagine (Jefferson, 2002), men remain at the centre of power. Brittan, who has approached masculinity from a poststructuralist standpoint, also makes an interesting point when considering this question (Brittan 1989, 2): “While it is apparent that styles of masculinity alter in relatively short time-spans, the substance of male power does not”, he states. An additional difficulty therefore emerges whenever we aim to trace the main traits of masculinity, without really disposing of a conceptual apparatus that allows them to be identified in different contexts and historical settings. How should we look at the multiplicity of men and masculinities? Should we identify different groups a priori, only then to characterise their practices, which may in the end result in an array of subcategories of a major group, trans masculinities 339 or should we follow the reverse pathway? This is a difficult question, but its intricacy must not prevent us from asking it. In a way, Connell does not present us with a solution, and tends to juggle between a practice-based approach and certain a priori definitions of groupings, a problem that she recognises in the article co-authored with Messerschmidt in 2005 (see also Messerschmidt 2015). In a way, masculinities may be more plural than men, but the inverse can also be true (Hearn 2004). The complex relationship between men and masculinities has served as the backdrop for a wide range of criticism of the notion of masculinity itself, based on the common acknowledgement that the lives of “real men” would have difficulty fitting into the model of a hegemonic masculinity. In accordance with the view of masculinity as practice, all forms of practice are constitutive of masculinity and it is through practice, from daily interaction to institutional frameworks, that masculinity comes to organise social life, upholding a patriarchal gender order. From this perspective, masculinity could certainly be defined as simultaneously practice, place and effect (Connell 1995). Individuals embody masculinity from a particular place, enact masculinity as it is embodied and live with the effects of the masculinity they contribute to reproducing and shaping at the interactional and structural levels of society. However, as proposed, the inverse connection can also be of analytical interest and perhaps more heuristic when it comes to avoiding falling into the trap of locations as the triggers of all practice. We can, provisionally, see location as the final destination – of a journey as in the case of trans men – and not necessarily as the beginning. However, even if we argue in favour of making the connections between “place” and “practice” more flexible, or even inverting them, it is still theoretically useful to work with the distinction between masculinity and men. It is true that masculinity is what men do, in the sense West and Zimmerman (1987) gave to the notion of “doing gender” in and through interaction. Nevertheless, by holding to such a definition we may end up with the simple fact that masculinity and men (and femininity and women, for that matter) overlap, with two probable and opposite tautological outcomes: a situation of entrenchment into categorical (and potentially essentialist) definitions of men or, on the other hand, the dilution of the category of men. The former assumption may generate reification and reductionism and lead us to see black men as performing black masculinity, gay men as enactors of gay masculinity, white men as bearers of the dominant white masculinity, and 340 ambiguous inclusions: inside out, outside in so on. In this respect, the work of Judith/Jack Halberstam, Female Masculinity (1998), broke new ground and presented a challenging and compelling thesis that dissociates men from masculinity, while also fomenting the links between feminism and queer theory. Rather than assuming that white masculinity is foundational, Halberstam puts forward the significant proposition that it is possible to study masculinity without men. In fact, Halberstam concludes, masculinity is most complicated and transgressive when it is not tied to the male body, especially the straight, white male body. Bearing in mind the will “to make my own female masculinity plausible, credible, and real” (1998, xi), Halberstam argues that female masculinity – that she found among a variety of women from butch lesbians and tomboys to the drag kings she studied ethnographically – is not merely a perverse supplement to dominant configurations of gender. Rather, masculinity itself cannot be fully understood unless female masculinity is taken into account. Likewise, Connell and Messerschmidt (2005) also recognise that professional “bourgeois women” are nowadays appropriating masculinity. In this line of reasoning, masculinity and men become different things, which is a compelling thesis. Masculinity is not, after all, what men do. Instead, norms and ideologies become more important, an idea which ultimately fits the Gramscian notion of hegemony (Gramsci 1979 [1947]) from which Connell drew her theorisation. Once again, however, we encounter the same problem. What ideologies are dominant in a given context and how are they related to and created by men’s practices? An answer to this question can be found in poststructuralist approaches to masculinity, where discourses are power and the emphasis is placed upon the complexity and plasticity of masculinities, when defined as discursive practices (Wetherell and Edley 1999). Following Foucault, the embodying subject, as the centre of productive power, now becomes the key problem and object of theorisation. The main concern is placed on the plurality of meanings associated with the masculinity that men can manage, enact and assemble according to their interactional needs. Men cannot be conflated with masculinity insofar as there is no essential subject (Jefferson 2002; Wetherell and Edley 1999). Debating such central problems and operating with such a perspective will enable us to tackle the definition of masculinity. By exploring trans men’s subjectivities and doings of gender, their transition stories, we might be able to bring a degree of clarity to Connell’s canonical definition of masculinity as trans masculinities 341 “simultaneously a place in gender relations, the practices through which men and women engage that place in gender, and the effects of these practices in bodily experience, personality and culture” (Connell 1995, 71). doing research with trans people Our analysis builds upon the conceptual perplexities raised by the life stories and transitional journeys of trans men and individuals performing masculinity. In-depth interviews were carried out with a variety of trans men and masculine defined individuals along the spectrum of trans masculinities in Portugal and the United Kingdom.5 Some participants, especially in Portugal, self-defined as transsexual, while transgender is a more common term in the United Kingdom. Others, however, have also explicitly defined themselves as transgender, genderqueer, non-binary FtM, gender fluid or androgynous, among other designations. Only rarely was a single definition enough to account for gender identity across their life courses. For instance, categories such as cross-dresser or lesbian were often associated with former life stages. In both countries, our samples can be seen as of convenience (Given 2008) as they were constructed with the aim of showcasing the diversity of trajectories and modes of self-definition gathered beneath the trans masculine umbrella. However, even if we cannot claim to know all processes of becoming trans masculine, we consider, notwithstanding, that we were able to achieve our initial purpose and, even, a considerable saturation of the most common processes. Our assumption is supported by the comparison with former studies in the field. Participants were recruited by various means (personal contacts, participation in events, networks associated with trans rights organisations) and a snowball method was used. Ethical approval had been previously granted by the Instituto de Ciências Sociais, Universidade de Lisboa and the European Research Council Executive Agency. Clearance was also given by the Portuguese National Commission for Data Protection. All participants were provided with detailed information about the aims and procedures of 5 For a comparative overview of legal frameworks and trans activism in Portugal and the United Kingdom, see Santos and Hines (2017). 348 ambiguous inclusions: inside out, outside in gender identity and tries to justify his choices as non-conventional in terms of gender. For him, masculinity is lived afar from any hegemonic connotation, as he emphasises. Interestingly though, he seems quite aware of the recent privileges of masculinity and does not refuse them. Being seen as a man is better, he says. Diniz reflexively states the structural gains of being a man as deeply rooted in the mere fact of looking like one. Once again, and contrary to first impressions, the body gains ascendancy. In the same vein, Ash (34, British, Master’s degree, self-employed) considers that his definition as “more towards the male end of the spectrum (…) largely stems from a physical thing for me more than anything else”. However, even if he clearly states that he does not “and never will identify as fully male”, the mere possibility of being perceived as female is very uncomfortable for him. Above all, rejecting femininity, Ash thinks of his body as a mix, which mirrors his self-defined gender identity as non-binary – a term he has come to use in the last five years. The changes in Ash’s self-designation reflects the developments in terminology within the Trans community. An activist himself, Ash wants to raise awareness among the general population regarding trans’ claims and issues. Namely, the need to contest “traditional” medical narratives about trans people as well as the oppression that affects the trans population. He sees these public mediations as ways of countering the tendency to disregard some trans’ identities over others as normally endorsed by the media and even some trans people or groups. For him, the decreased visibility of non-binary people stems from a strong mediatised focus on physical transitions that omits the social, philosophical and psychological transitions, considered by Ash to be more difficult. For Ash, his identity is not permanent. On the contrary, it fluctuated and fluctuates still within the “realm of the masculine”. He sees his future as open but, despite all doubts, does not vehemently reject the “route of surgery”. Ash thinks he will, most likely, not need genital surgery as hormones and chest surgery were just enough to make him happier. The feeling of bodily discrepancy was over after starting hormones, and now his body is “just functional for what I want it to be functional for, it does its job and it feels fine.” Ash believes he was confident enough to deal with doctors and use the system to his own benefit. Other than with the endocrinologist, Ash did not feel pressure to decide on genital surgery or perform his gender in a more masculine manner. Yet, he was initially denied chest surgery, got two appointments cancelled trans masculinities 349 and had to “fight” to be included in the system. Despite his struggles with the establishment, he narrates the whole process as relatively “simple” and sees the access to medical intervention as just a way “to change the physical side of things that I needed to change”. Both Ash and Diniz are most often seen as masculine, as men. In spite of the refusal of the system, their transformed bodies, leaving aside all aspirations and ambivalences, generated a new gender location. And with the new location in the “land of masculinity” came a degree of privilege, even if unwanted. Recognition is, in fact (Fraser and Honneth 2003), a fundamental moment that cannot be dialectically separated from body materiality and the history of gender as a binary system of difference. Nor can it be disassociated from certain forms of privilege that mould the present day dynamics of inclusion or exclusion. A key example that must be taken into consideration concerns violence. Transgender people experience multiple forms of violence (Valentine 2007). However, trans men’s and trans women’s experiences differ significantly. At the intersection of gender, race, ethnicity, nationality or class, the violence against transsexual, transgender and other gender non-conforming individuals is striking, with the acknowledged rates of homicide rising visibly. According to the Trans Murder Monitoring project conducted by Transgender Europe (tgeu), since 2008, nearly 2,000 trans people have been reported killed. These official numbers cover 64 countries and affect mainly trans women – 99 per cent of the reported victims – and sex workers – 65 per cent (tgeu 2015). This worldwide pattern is far from random and targets the most vulnerable segments of the trans population, coupling transphophia with the particular violence of femmephobia. Moving from the macroscopic to the microscopic angle, the awareness of the privileges of masculinity, whether wanted or unwanted, are quite present in the discourse of trans men, even when they perform a non-binary form of masculinity at a distance from hegemonic gender normativity and even categories. Diniz clearly states how being seen as a man generated a competitive advantage in the labour market: Sometimes I apply for jobs, and I was looking for a job before changing my name. I have a LinkedIn profile, and the only thing I did was to change my name, my gender… I didn’t even change my picture, it’s very androgynous. And I noticed that if before I had only received one offer after a year and a half, from the moment I changed my name and my 350 ambiguous inclusions: inside out, outside in gender, in a month I received two job offers. I was thinking: Wow, this is… It’s sad, very sad, because I’m the same person with the same qualifications. But now that I’ve changed my gender and name, employers come looking for me… [Laughs] conclusion In spite of their significant differences, all these trans men/masculine individuals share one common feature, even if in different forms and degrees: the desire for a male bodily appearance. Even if a penis is not always necessary, a masculine appearance is key for most of them. Almost all participants were under hormonal treatment and the majority had also undergone mastectomies, which are narrated as a source of joy and accomplishment. If not all, most desire a degree of maleness, which often leads to being perceived as a man, even if there is no specific style or type of masculinity that overall prevails. Neither the macho nor the genderqueer imageries are dominant, though a quest for “recognition” is often mentioned, particularly when the topic is social interaction. Interestingly though, the “recognition” of masculinity is not necessarily the same thing for any of them. In other words, while masculinity as ideology can have quite different meanings, being/becoming viewed as a man or as masculine ends up being defined through the materiality of the body, whether this was the plan or not. In sum, if masculinity encompasses a wide number of definitions, maleness (that is, bodily masculinity as “flesh”) seems quite monolithic. Styles and clothes vary, but what is beneath seems to need more stability as a key capital of masculinity. However, if masculinity can exist without stereotypical full bodily maleness, a certain degree of maleness seems to be a condition for masculinity to subsist and sediment over time. Therefore, perceptions of difference and of gender binaries appear much more tied to notions of bodily maleness than of masculinity. While that bodily maleness seems quite clearcut, masculinity (as femininity) is quite fuzzy and hard to define. Maybe the linkages between location, practice and effects as put forward by Connell are imprecise and overly conflated, at least for analytical purposes. In the case of trans men, we contend, there might be a conceptual inversion of this scheme, with bodies being more than an effect but rather a vital constituent of the location and, through embodiment, the core of all gender praxis, that is to say, practices can build up the location, including, in the case of trans men, the bodily location. Our perspective does not fall into a citational version of trans masculinities 351 masculinity inasmuch as materiality as phenomenology is ever-present. Doing masculinity cannot be reduced to a text, a recitation, or even to performative exaggeration as argued in some versions of queer contributions (Green 2007). It is rather that, and playing with Judith Butler’s (1993) famous title, bodies matter. Not only because they are canvas where stories are written and read, but also because they have a material reality, a shape defining self-perception and the perception of others. Doing masculinity can take varied forms, but whatever its “doings”, it is through bodies that it gains a palpable form and becomes more than a mere disembodied discourse. Derridian citational iterability (Derrida 1988), which Butler (2004) takes as key for her performativity theory, cannot then be effective if we dismiss all the material dimensions of the body, without obviously falling into any form of essentialism or dismissing Connell’s contributions. After all, bodies are paramount and ultimate capitals of masculinity because they are interpreted through the historical and cultural lens of the gender order. Not because their value exists per se. However, without bodily masculinities, the doings of masculinity fall short and tend to live theatrically, if ever, outside the apparent (but still potentially subversive) normality of everyday life. Also in line with Bourdieu’s views, there is no gender without locations, composing a field and market of struggles, or a gender order. Nonetheless, when a body – or even just a hexis – is transformed, there is a change in its location. It is this nuanced version of gender, and particularly of masculinity, that can be furthered by bringing trans men to the frontline of the analysis. In a way, we can argue that, conceptually, masculinity may precede men – being or becoming a man – but without men masculinity loses its bearings. It becomes no more than a masquerade; transgressive it may be (or not). Trans men then are men only to the extent that they are bodily perceived as men, navigating along their journeys between available categories and systems of categorisation. Nonetheless, as evident from the analysed cases, bodies do matter in a very material sense. In sum, neither Connell nor Halberstam are quite right. In the former’s case, we cannot say that men (the location) always precede masculinity. Masculinity makes the man. In the latter case, we can neither agree that female masculinities can be the equivalent of male masculinities. Certainly, when not naturalised as emanating from the male body, what defines masculinity can become clearer. However, as put forward, masculinity cannot be understood without taking into account the materiality of bodies 352 ambiguous inclusions: inside out, outside in regardless of their diversity and transformations. In the end, when the meanings of masculinity and femininity are increasingly diffuse and changeable, the body resists as the focal point of gender performativity, whether self-recognised or perceived by others. Indeed, our research with trans men and trans masculine individuals in Portugal and the United Kingdom has shown that those performing masculinity (whether they self-define as men, FtM transsexuals, non-binary masculinised individuals or other) gained some advantages. The dividends that came with the fact of being perceived by others as men are acknowledged, even if they are unwanted or viewed with criticism (Schilt, 2010). That is not the case of trans women, regardless of their greater visibility in public spaces and the media. Gender matters, after all. acknowledgements This chapter draws on data collected during the European Research Council funded project transrights: Gender citizenship and sexual rights in Europe: Transgender lives in transnational perspective (transrightseurope.wordpress.com/). The project reflects only the views of the authors, and the European Union cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein. The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Research Council under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (fp7/2007-2013)/erc grant agreement n.° 615594. ____________________________________ sofia aboim Instituto de Ciências Sociais, Universidade de Lisboa Av. Prof. Aníbal Bettencourt 9 — 1600-036 Lisboa, Portugal [email protected] orcid.org/0000-0002-6605-8614 ____________________________________ pedro vasconcelos iscte-iul, Instituto Universitário de Lisboa Pedro.V[email protected]t orcid.org/0000-0002-1806-1843 ____________________________________ sara merlini Instituto de Ciências Sociais, Universidade de Lisboa [email protected] orcid.org/0000-0001-7729-1908 ____________________________________ trans masculinities 353 references abelson miriam. J. 2014. “Dangerous privilege: Trans men, masculinities, and changing perceptions of safety”. Sociological Forum, 29: 549-570. aboim, S. 2016. Plural Masculinities: The Remaking of the Self in Private Life. London: Routledge. aboim, S. 2018 (forthcoming). “On identity politics and its discontents: between gender recognition and disembodied communities”. In Género, Direitos Humanos e Desigualdades, cieg-iscsp, ulisboa. beasley, C. 2005. Gender & Sexuality – Critical Theories, Critical Thinkers. London: Sage. blackwood, E. 2009. “Trans identities and contingent masculinities: Being tomboys in everyday practice”. Feminist Studies, 35 (31): 454-80. boellstorf, T., et al. 2014. “Decolonizing transgender – a roundtable discussion”. tsq: Transgender Studies Quarterly, 1 (3): 419-439. bourdieu, P. 2001. Masculine Domination. Stanford: Stanford University Press. brittan, A. 1989. Masculinity and Power. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. butler, J. 1993. Bodies That Matter. New York: Routledge. butler, J. 2004. Undoing Gender. New York: Routledge. connell, R. W. 1987. Gender and Power: Society, the Person and Sexual Politics. Cambridge: Polity Press. connell, R. W. 1995. Masculinities. Cambridge: Polity Press. connell, R. 2012. “Transsexual women and feminist thought”. Signs, 37 (4): 857-881. connell, R. W., J. W. Messerschmidt. 2005. “Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the concept”. Gender and Society, 19 (6): 829-859. corwin, A. I. 2017. “Emerging genders: semiotic agency and the performance of gender among genderqueer individuals”. G&L:Gender and Language, 11 (2): 255-277. cromwell, J. 1999. Transmen and ftms: Identities, Bodies, Genders and Sexualities. Urbana, il: University of Illinois Press. de beauvoir, S. 1949. Le deuxième sexe. Paris: Gallimard. derrida, J. 1988. Limited Inc. Evanston, il: Northwestern University Press. devor, H. 1997. ftm: Female-to-Male Transsexuals in Society. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. donaldson, M. 1993. “What is hegemonic masculinity?” Theory and Society, 22 (5): 643–657. foucault, M. 1979. The History of Sexuality, Volume 1: An Introduction. New York: Vintage. fraser, N., A. Honneth. 2003. Redistribution or Recognition? London: Verso. garfinkel, H. 1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Malden, ma: Blackwell Publishers. given, L. 2008. Convenience Sample. The sage Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. London: Sage. gramsci, A. 1979 [1947]. Letters from Prison. London: Quartet. green, A. I. 2007. “Queer theory and sociology: Locating the subject and the self in sexuality studies”. Sociological Theory, 25 (1): 26-45. green, J. 2005. “Part of the package: ideas of masculinity among male-identified transpeople”. Men and Masculinities, 7 (3): 291-99. halberstam, J. J. 1998. Female Masculinity. Durham: Duke University Press. hausman, B. L. 2001. “Recent transgender theory”. Feminist Studies, 27 (2): 465-490. 354 ambiguous inclusions: inside out, outside in hearn, J. 2004. “From hegemonic masculinity to the hegemony of men”. Feminist Theory, 5 (1): 97-120. hines, S. 2002. “Absent subjects: Feminist discourse and trans masculinities”, paper presented at Gendys 2002: The Seventh Gender Dysphoria Conference. Manchester: University of Manchester. jefferson, T. 2002. “Subordinating hegemonic masculinity”. Theoretical Criminology, 6 (1): 63-88. jeffreys, S. 2014. Gender Hurts: A Feminist Analysis of the Politics of Transgenderism. Abingdon: Routledge. marciano, A. 2014. “Living the virtureal: negotiating transgender identity in cyberspace”. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19: 824-838. messerschmidt, J. W. 2015. Masculinities in the Making. From the Local to the Global. London: Rowman & Littlefield. namaste, V. K. 2005. Sex Change, Social Change. Toronto: Women’s Press. plummer, K. 1996. “Foreword: genders in question”. In Blending Genders, eds. R. Ekins and D. King. London: Routledge, xiii–xvi. prosser, J. 1998. Second Skins. The Body Narratives of Transsexuality. New York: Columbia University Press. raymond, J. G. 1979. The Transsexual Empire. London: The Women’s Press. rubin, H. 2003. Self-Made Men: Identity and Embodiment Among Transsexual Men. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press. santos, A. C., S. Hines. 2017. “Trans* policy, politics and research: The uk and Portugal”. Critical Social Policy, 38 (1): 1-22. schilt, K. 2010. Just One of the Guys? Transgender Men and the Persistence of Gender Inequality. Chicago, il: University of Chicago Press. stryker, S. 2008. Transgender History. Berkeley: Seal Press. stryker, S. 2014. “Transgender studies today: an interview with Susan Stryker”. Available at: https://www.boundary2.org/2014/08/transgender-studies-today-an-interview-with-su san-stryker/. transgender europe (tgeu). 2016. tvt research project (2015) Trans murder monitoring, “Transrespect versus transphobia worldwide”, (tvt) project website: http://transrespect. org/en/research/trans-murder-monitoring/. valentine, D. 2007. Imagining Transgender: An Ethnography of a Category. Durham, nc: Duke University Press. vasconcelos, P. 2018. (forthcoming), “Ordens de género e reivindicações trans: a desgenitalização política do género?”. In Género, Direitos Humanos e Desigualdades, ciegiscsp, ulisboa. vidal-ortiz, S. 2002. “Queering sexuality and doing gender: Transgender men’s identification with gender and sexuality”. Gendered sexualities, 6: 181-233. wacquant, L. 2004. Body & Soul: Notebooks of an Apprentice Boxer. New York: Oxford University Press. wacquant, L. 2005. “Carnal connections: On embodiment, apprenticeship, and membership”. Qualitative Sociology, 28 (4): 445-474. west, C. and D. Zimmerman. 1987. “Doing gender”. Gender & Society, 1 (2): 125-151. wetherell, M. and N. Edley. 1999. “Negotiating hegemonic masculinity: imaginary positions and psycho-discursive practices”. Feminism & Psychology, 9 (3): 335-356. trans masculinities 355 whitehead, S. 2002. Men and Masculinities. Key Themes and New Directions. Cambridge: Polity Press. the independent. 2017. “Joe Biden says transgender equality is ‘civil rights issue of our time’ in forward of activist’s memoir”, 4 October. Available at: http://www.independent. co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/joe-biden-transgender-memoir-foreword-sarahmcbride-book-a7983386.html. cite this chapter as: aboim, S., P. Vasconcelos, and S. Merlini. 2018. “Trans masculinities: embodiments, performances and the materiality of gender in times of change”. In Changing Societies: Legacies and Challenges. Vol. i. Ambiguous Inclusions: Inside Out, Inside In, eds. S. Aboim, P. Granjo, A. Ramos. Lisbon: Imprensa de Ciências Sociais, 333-355. https://doi.org/10.31447/ics9789726715030.14