"Femininity? It's the Aesthetic of Subordination": Examining Femmephobia, the Gender Binary, and Experiences of Oppression Among Sexual and Gender Minorities

Abstract

The devaluing of femininity is a social problem with serious consequences. Violence against women, men, transgender people, and racial minorities is often exacerbated when elements of femmephobia are present. Femmephobia refers to the devaluation and regulation of femininity and suggests a separate, perhaps overlapping, phenomenon specific to gender (e.g., femininity), rather than gender/sex (e.g., woman) or sex (e.g., female). Yet, despite growing evidence warranting the consideration of femmephobia, little research has considered femininity as an intersectional axis. Femmephobia has been examined in a fractured manner, isolating its various manifestations in specific, rather than overarching ways. The current paper explored how these systems are interrelated and argues that sources of oppression underlying many forms of violence today (e.g., anti-LGBTQ+ hate crimes, Incel attacks, sexual violence, transgender murders) are all symptoms of the same underlying social prejudice: femmephobia. While sexism, transphobia, homophobia, and racism also play a role, previous research tends to overlook or conflate the role of femmephobia in fueling prejudice and violence. Using in-depth interviews and thematic analysis, the current paper explored the intersecting role of femmephobia in experiences of oppression among sexual and gender minorities (N = 38). Two thematic networks are presented. The first network pertains to masculine themes: masculine privilege, masculinity as protective, and masculinity as the norm. The second network pertains to femininity: feminine inferiority , femininity as target, and femininity as inauthentic. The connection between these two thematic networks illustrates the symbiotic relationship between femmephobia and the gender binary. Finally, patterns identified from the thematic analysis were used to generate a model of femmephobia. This paper suggests that the gender binary is not merely a division; it is also hierarchical and regulated by femmephobia.

Full text

Vol.:(0123456789)
1 3
Archives of Sexual Behavior
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-020-01641-x
ORIGINAL PAPER
“Femininity? It’s theAesthetic ofSubordination”: Examining
Femmephobia, theGender Binary, andExperiences ofOppression
Among Sexual andGender Minorities
RheaAshleyHoskin1
Received: 4 February 2019 / Revised: 9 January 2020 / Accepted: 11 January 2020
© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020
Abstract
The devaluing of femininity is a social problem with serious consequences. Violence against women, men, transgender people,
and racial minorities is often exacerbated when elements of femmephobia are present. Femmephobia refers to the devaluation
and regulation of femininity and suggests a separate, perhaps overlapping, phenomenon specific to gender (e.g., feminin-
ity), rather than gender/sex (e.g., woman) or sex (e.g., female). Yet, despite growing evidence warranting the consideration
of femmephobia, little research has considered femininity as an intersectional axis. Femmephobia has been examined in a
fractured manner, isolating its various manifestations in specific, rather than overarching ways. The current paper explored
how these systems are interrelated and argues that sources of oppression underlying many forms of violence today (e.g.,
anti-LGBTQ+ hate crimes, Incel attacks, sexual violence, transgender murders) are all symptoms of the same underlying
social prejudice: femmephobia. While sexism, transphobia, homophobia, and racism also play a role, previous research tends
to overlook or conflate the role of femmephobia in fueling prejudice and violence. Using in-depth interviews and thematic
analysis, the current paper explored the intersecting role of femmephobia in experiences of oppression among sexual and
gender minorities (N = 38). Two thematic networks are presented. The first network pertains to masculine themes: masculine
privilege, masculinity as protective, and masculinity as the norm. The second network pertains to femininity: feminine inferi-
ority, femininity as target, and femininity as inauthentic. The connection between these two thematic networks illustrates the
symbiotic relationship between femmephobia and the gender binary. Finally, patterns identified from the thematic analysis
were used to generate a model of femmephobia. This paper suggests that the gender binary is not merely a division; it is also
hierarchical and regulated by femmephobia.
Keywords Gender binary· Femmephobia· Femininity· Gender hegemony· LGBT+ prejudice· Femme theory
Introduction
The devaluing of femininity is a social problem that has seri-
ous 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 lit-
tered with the memories of missing and murdered Indigenous
women, and American police investigates the 18th transgen-
der person to be killed in 2019, in what the American Medi-
cal 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 teenag-
ers, 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
Electronic supplementary material The online version of this
article (https ://doi.org/10.1007/s1050 8-020-01641 -x) contains
supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
* Rhea Ashley Hoskin
rhea.hoskin@queensu.ca
1 Department ofGender Studies andPsychology,
Queen’s University, D431 Mackintosh-Corry, Kingston,
ONK7L3N6, Canada

Archives of Sexual Behavior
1 3
of the same underlying social prejudice: the devaluation or regu-
lation of femininity known as femmephobia.
The cultural meanings attached to femininity underlie experi-
ences of prejudice, as supported by interdisciplinary scholarship
(for an overview, see Hoskin, 2017a; Bailey, 1996; Hooberman,
1979; Miller, 2015; Theodore & Basow, 2000). The overarch-
ing 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 (Bai-
ley, 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 accept-
ance to homophobia (Davies, Gilston, & Rogers, 2012); homo-
phobia to misogyny (Kilianski, 2003; Taywaditep, 2001); and
misogyny to white supremacy (Anti-Defamation League, 2018).
While previous psychosocial research refers to different fac-
ets of feminine devaluation and speaks to the interconnectivity
between systems of oppression, the underlying causal mecha-
nisms remain underexplored. Moreover, while previous research
has explored the connections between homophobia and sexism
(Pharr, 1997), little research has explored the preferential treat-
ment 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 inter-
secting 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; Brown-
miller, 1984; Daly, 1979; Friedan, 1963; Greer, 1970; Millett,
1977; Wolf, 2002; for an overview of feminist theory’s undertak-
ing 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 masculin-
ist–patriarchal framework (i.e., the scapegoating of femininity;
Serano, 2007).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 (Con-
nell, 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 his-
tory 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 femmepho-
bia (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 consid-
erable amount of empirical and theoretical scholarship has
focused on the concept of multiple masculinities (e.g., mar-
ginalized masculinities, subordinated masculinities, hegem-
onic masculinities; Connell, 1987, 1995), far less has focused
on building up the idea of multiple femininities, or critical
femininities (Hoskin, 2019a; Schippers, 2007). More specifi-
cally, 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 rel-
evance, 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., Hal-
berstam, 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 repu-
diation of femininity; Kimmel, 1997; Pascoe, 2007). In addition,
1 Arguably, the reason femininity is blamed is precisely because it is
devalued.

Archives of Sexual Behavior
1 3
many scholars note how subordinated masculinities are char-
acterized by feminine qualities, given that we do not wield any
other metric by which to categorize deviations from masculin-
ity (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 (Bright-
well & 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). Spe-
cifically, 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 gen-
eral 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 the-
ory is used as a theoretical framework that makes the intersec-
tion 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, sis-
syphobia, 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 micro-
cosm 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 com-
parison 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+ communi-
ties (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 experi-
ences of isolation, in-group discrimination and prejudice,
subsequently impacting the mental well-being of femme-
identified people (Blair & Hoskin, 2015, 2016; Levitt, Ger-
rish, & 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 fem-
mephobia (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 demon-
strated within gay male cultures against those perceived as
feminine (Davies, 2020; Sanchez & Vilain, 2012). For exam-
ple, 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, femi-
nine 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

Archives of Sexual Behavior
1 3
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, reper-
cussions 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 exem-
plified 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 discrepan-
cies, 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 idea-
tion, but also depression and anxiety (Taywaditep, 2001).2
The mental health disparities found among feminine chil-
dren AMAB can be found among gay men, who experience
elevated psychological distress, a discrepancy Aggarwal and
Gerrets (2014) attribute to the cultural privileging of mascu-
linity 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 under-
scores 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, hostil-
ity, and discomfort toward feminine gay men (Glick, Gangl,
Gibb, Klimpner, & Weinberg, 2007; Jewell & Morrison, 2012).
In large part, feminine gay men3 face the brunt of anti-gay atti-
tudes 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 noncon-
formity) 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 femi-
ninity) 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 demonstrat-
ing the impacts of femmephobia on experiences of marginali-
zation, 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 prefer-
ential treatment afforded to masculinity over femininity, sepa-
rate from men and women, as outlined above. For example, this
2 The term “gender nonconforming” is used to refer to people whose
“gender exists outside of the norm of their gender or for a gender
binary” (van Anders, Galupo, Irwin, Twist, & Reynolds, 2019, n.p.).
While noted as being dated, this term is also critiqued for having a med-
ical/pathologizing frame (e.g., it is a term that is often applied to others,
and rarely adopted by an individual; see van Anders etal., 2019). How-
ever, it should also be noted that many femme women consider their
gender to exist outside of gender norms and therefore frame femme as
a form of gender nonconformity (Brushwood Rose & Camilleri, 2002;
Hoskin, 2019b; Volcano & Dahl, 2008). Thus, these categories should
not be considered mutually exclusive.
3 It should be noted that, although gay men are often categorized as
“subordinate masculinities” within the field of Masculinities, given
that they are men who are frequently excluded from (hegemonic)
masculinity, gay men can equally express femininity, masculinity or
androgyny while being classified as such. Thus, the language used to
characterize participants’ gender expression throughout is reflective of
their own gender stylization and self-determination.

Archives of Sexual Behavior
1 3
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 sepa-
rate, 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 femme-
phobia 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 inter-
view related to their experiences of gender expression and
prejudice or discrimination (see Table1 for participant char-
acteristics). 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 explora-
tion 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.4 Participants were
recruited through online advertisements, e-mail listservs,
on-campus announcement, snowballing methods, and invita-
tions sent to previous study participants.
Procedure
Participants were recruited for interviews through an online
survey about gender expression and experiences of prej-
udice. 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 announce-
ments (recruitment materials available on the Open Sci-
ence Framework, https ://osf.io/5ywxm /?view_only=f2c31
c38d2 eb46a 4a4a2 09335 d4071 06). 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 quantita-
tive 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 qualita-
tive method of inquiry when interviewing sexual and gender
minorities, as it enables participants to have greater auton-
omy in constructing their self-actualized identities.
The semi-structure interview was guided by the central
research question: “How does gender expression impact expe-
riences 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 sen-
sitive to the data, bolstering the author’s interdisciplinary train-
ing 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 any-
thing 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.
4 The question of able-bodied status, however, was not systematically
asked at any point during the study, and larger considerations for the
intersection of disability cannot be made. While this is a limitation of
the data, it is important to note that the sample was not entirely com-
prised of able-bodied individuals.

Archives of Sexual Behavior
1 3
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 qualita-
tive data analysis software MAXQDA for coding and sorting
of data, and to build thematic narratives. The study used the-
matic 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 identify-
ing, 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
Table 1 Participants’
characteristics
a Denotes participants who self-identified as having a disability
Pseudonym Race/Ethnicity Sexual orientation Gender identity Age
Amelia White Lesbian Cisgender Woman 19
Alex Mixed-race Queer Genderqueer 27
Becky White Lesbian Cisgender Woman 30
Ben Native Gay Transgender Man 24
Carly White Queer Cisgender Woman 22
Chelsea White Queer Cisgender Woman 44
Dan White Queer Transgender Man 24
EliaIndigenous Two-Spirit 44
Emmett White Gay Cisgender Man 34
Eugene White Gay Cisgender Man 25
Hannah White Queer Cisgender Woman 30
Harriet White Bisexual Cisgender Woman 22
Hugo White Bisexual Transgender Man 32
JamieaWhite Pansexual Genderqueer 30
Jeff White Gay Cisgender Man 18
JenniferaWhite Lesbian Transgender Woman 32
Jessica Mixed-race Lesbian Cisgender woman 25
Jo White Queer Genderqueer Decline
Kristen White Bisexual Cisgender Woman 30
Laura White Gay Cisgender Woman 23
Logan White Straight Transgender Man 31
Mackenzie White Pansexual Cisgender Woman 28
Max White Asexual Androgyne Decline
Natalie White Queer Transgender Woman 29
Pat White Sexually fluid Non-binary 21
Paula Mixed-Race Pansexual Cisgender Woman 29
Quin White Lesbian Transgender Woman 34
Rebecca White Asexual Transgender Woman 25
RichardaDecline Queer/Cross-dresser Cisgender Man 52
Sarah White Bisexual Cisgender Woman 31
Sasha White Queer Cisgender Woman 46
Siobhan White Bisexual Cisgender Woman 38
Sophia Mixed-race Queer Cisgender Woman 24
Tamara White Queer Cisgender Woman 24
Tegan White Queer Cisgender Woman 30
UlrikaaWhite Lesbian Transgender Woman 28
Veronica White Queer Transgender Woman 46
William White Queer Cisgender Man 21

Archives of Sexual Behavior
1 3
thematic analysis was used, which allows themes to be driven
by the data and to develop organically, while also paying spe-
cific attention to the research question and theoretical inter-
est (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Fereday & Muir-Cochrane, 2006;
Pope, Ziebland, & Mays, 2000). To allow for open engage-
ment 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 interpreta-
tions 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 rela-
tions as operating through the interconnected subordination
of femininity that simultaneously uphold hegemonic mas-
culinity” (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 under-
lying patterns and relationships between themes (Attride-Stir-
ling, 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 func-
tion 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 cate-
gories 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 “plug-
ging 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).5
The first network organizes themes of masculinity: “mascu-
line 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 feminin-
ity 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
Table 2 Sample demographics
a Inclusion criteria for someone being non-binary were based on a par-
ticipant’s disidentification with binary categories of woman or man
Demographic % (n)
Location
Canada 58 (22)
USA 31.5 (12)
UK 8 (3)
Iceland 2.5 (1)
Gender/sex
Women 63 (24)
Transgender women 6
Cisgender women 17
Intersex 1
Men 24 (9)
Transgender men 2
Cisgender men 6
Cross-dresser 1
Non-Binarya13 (5)
Two-spirit 1
Sexuality
Queer 50 (19)
Lesbian 18.4 (7)
Bisexual 13 (5)
Asexual 5 (2)
Straight 2.5 (1)
Race/Ethnicity
White 82 (31)
Mixed-race 11 (4)
American Indian/Alaska Native 5 (2)
Decline 2.5 (1)
5 While the sample did not allow for an in-depth analysis of race, it
should be noted that race is always infused with experiences of accept-
ance and discrimination, whether or not it is recognized by participants.

Archives of Sexual Behavior
1 3
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.
Feminine Inferiority: Feminine Signiers
andSymbolism
In this theme, participants described femininity as signaling
subordination, and signifiers of femininity are interpreted as
a sign of inferiority.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 dif-
ference 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 vul-
nerability. While masculinity “acts upon others,” feminine
“weakness” is “unable to protect itself” (Jennifer, White, Les-
bian, 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 seri-
ously” (Kristen, White, Bisexual, Cisgender Woman). Feminin-
ity’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
Fig. 1 Thematic network
Fig. 2 A model of femmephobia
6 This is reflected in the first point of the model of femmephobia
(Fig.2; see “Discussion” for a full description).

Archives of Sexual Behavior
1 3
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 situa-
tions and the experiences we have with them. In other words,
there is no innate inference; meaning is determined by histor-
ical, 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 main-
tained 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 systemati-
cally places valued attributes, such as strength, knowledge, wis-
dom, and rationality, “exclusively within the masculine camp.”
Considering the cultural meaning afforded to masculinity and
femininity, whereby systems of meaning privilege masculin-
ity 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 vali-
dation 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 over-
lapped 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 arti-
ficial, 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 dimen-
sions of identity, expressions, space, and embodiment.
Operating within a larger patriarchal culture that values mas-
culinity, LGBTQ+ communities are neither exempt from nor
immune to the naturalization of feminine devaluation (Beneve-
des, 2015). For example, Sasha explains how LGBTQ+ commu-
nities mirror dominant culture by affording “masculine people”
a “higher status than feminine people,” otherwise known as mas-
culine privilege. Sarah (White, Bisexual, Cisgender Woman)
explains how “masculinity is celebrated (in and outside the
LGBTQIA+ community)[…while] femininity is not taken seri-
ously 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, Han-
nah describes masculinity as being praised and as the “ultimate
prize” (Hannah), while Tegan states that femininity is “ques-
tioned 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 com-
munity…. Butch women are seen as the epitome of attrac-
tiveness in the queer women spectrum…whereas femmes
are seen as less than. Femme men, femme nongender con-
forming 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

Archives of Sexual Behavior
1 3
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 ques-
tion 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 exam-
ple, 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).” Sissifi-
cation 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 oper-
ate 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 quali-
ties deemed feminine, such as emotions and self-expression,
which push against “cultural norms” of masculinity. Wil-
liam’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 soci-
ety 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 resound-
ing response from participants that connected prejudice
toward LGBTQ+ communities to their feminization or femi-
ninity; all the while LGBTQ+ communities themselves mir-
ror dominant culture’s devaluation of femininity.
For those AFAB, masculinity is a social promotion, inso-
far as they do not enter the realm of ambiguity and cultural
unintelligibility. Additionally, for those AFAB, masculine
promotion comes alongside feminine gender policing. Sim-
ilar to those AMAB who experience a demotion for their
entrances into the feminine, those who are unintelligibly gen-
dered 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 objec-
tification 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 conse-
quences 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 mascu-
linity 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 per-
ceived “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 fem-
ininity underscores a fundamental mechanism influencing

Archives of Sexual Behavior
1 3
prejudice toward sexual and gender minorities and is used
as justification for sexual or physical violence, sexual preju-
dice, 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 cir-
cles. 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 (Alexan-
drowicz, 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 mascu-
linity descends into the realm of the feminine, femininity is
already inherently failed (Hoskin, 2017a). Defined by its fail-
ure, feminine signifiers function to make target those whose
expressions do not adhere to the narrow confines of patriar-
chal feminine norms. Consequently, femininity is not only
heavily policed but also functions as a target across sexual
and gender identity (Hoskin, 2019a).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 partic-
ipants, 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 wear-
ing 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 “stereotypi-
cally gay” (i.e., feminine) and that, while he presents as mas-
culine and tends to pass as straight, the perceived femininity
of his purple backpack made him the target of this homo-
phobic 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 femi-
nine signifiers operate as a “target.” William also connects
his perceived feminine qualities to experiences of homo-
phobia—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, illus-
trating the social discomfort with femininities that transgress
patriarchal feminine norms.
Feminist and femme scholars have argued that feminin-
ity 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 devi-
ate from this model, or who transgress patriarchal femininity
by way of any intersecting component, face gender polic-
ing known as femmephobia (Hoskin, 2019a).8 For example,
Logan explains that while many in the LGBTQ+ commu-
nity “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
7 This is the crux of the model of femmephobia as a whole: how gen-
der and axes of power come together to make femininity a target for
violence and discrimination.
8 This is reflected in the second point of the model of femmephobia
(Fig.2; see “Discussion” for a full description).

Archives of Sexual Behavior
1 3
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 femi-
nine 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 bul-
lying, 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 sexu-
ality, participants characterized masculinity as a protective
factor.9 For example, masculinity was described as protect-
ing cisgender and transgender men from prejudice and dis-
crimination; non-binary folks from ridicule, sexual harass-
ment, and further dehumanization; and both cisgender and
transgender women from sexual harassment and in-group
discrimination.10 Moreover, a number of participants dis-
closed 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 (Man-
ley, 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 identi-
ties (Blair & Hoskin, 2016; Levitt etal., 2018). In particu-
lar, 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 credibil-
ity. 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 gen-
der 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 cloth-
ing as symbolizing “aggression” (Amelia, White, Lesbian,
9 While the theme of masculinity as protective was identified within
the data, it is important to consider for whom masculinity is protective,
and in what social relations or institutions.
10 This is reflected in the third point of the model of femmephobia
(Fig.2; see “Discussion” for a full description).

Archives of Sexual Behavior
1 3
Cisgender Woman), which offered a level of protection. As a
result, participants illuminated a double standard in how mas-
culine 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 physi-
cally 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 sim-
ply 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 feminin-
ity, 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 mis-
gendered 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 abso-
lutely 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 nonconform-
ing human just made the disrespect stop happening. (Pat)
Pat goes on to recount how the respect they receive has dif-
fered 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 associa-
tion 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 “swag-
ger,” 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 mas-
culinity 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 main-
tain 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 “cun-
ning.” 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 understand-
ing 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 contin-
ues 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. Femi-
nine artificiality contributes to the objectification of femininity.
As argued by feminist theorists, objectification is the first step
toward dehumanization (Kilbourne, 1979). The conceptual rel-
egation 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 sub-
ject to object revokes bodily integrity, contributing to a greater
risk of violence and dehumanization.
As masculinity stands as gender neutral, femininity is rel-
egated 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 femi-
nine and femme women, men, and non-binary persons all
described facing exclusion related to their perceived feminin-
ity. 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 con-
curs, stating that “a lot of very feminine-looking lesbians [she

Archives of Sexual Behavior
1 3
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, conform-
ing, trying to pass…. It’s a barrier initially when experi-
encing 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 preju-
dice and oppression facing many transgender women.
Indeed, transgender women are forced to walk a tightrope
between validation and accusations of “mockery.” For exam-
ple, Lloyd and Finn (2017) articulate how authenticity negoti-
ates 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 femi-
ninity 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 preda-
tors,” “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, Jen-
nifer 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 inauthen-
tic 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 comfort-
able 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 mascu-
line, 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

Archives of Sexual Behavior
1 3
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 high-
light 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 audi-
ence were supposed to feel are villains).” These depictions draw
on and reinforce cultural beliefs that “femininity itself is artifi-
cial” (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 pro-
vides 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 sub-
missive 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 representa-
tions 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.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.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 mas-
culinity by shunning femininity and everything we
associate with it. (Alex)
Abjection refers to the “vague sense of horror that perme-
ates 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 typi-
cally 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
11 This is reflected in the fifth point of the model of femmephobia
(Fig.2; see “Discussion” for a full description).
12 As described in the “Discussion”, and Point 3 of the model,
entrances into masculinity by those AFAB are simultaneously policed
for the failure to comply with patriarchal feminine norms (Fig.2; see
“Discussion” for a full description).

Archives of Sexual Behavior
1 3
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 femi-
ninity 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.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 infe-
rior” (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 mas-
culinity and femininity’s bifurcated relationship whereby the
latter is associated with artificiality and deception that mascu-
linity 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 carica-
turing 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 gen-
erate two key findings. The first is generated by the dichoto-
mous 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 fem-
mephobia 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 mean-
ing. 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 sim-
ply 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 over-
all 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 femi-
ninity—along with those who conform—face slut-shaming,
body-shaming, racism, objectification, disqualification as a
self-actualized, authentic, and active subject.14 Because mas-
culinity 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 pro-
motion, 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 intel-
ligibly “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 polic-
ing, dehumanization, and violence. If no longer intelligible as
AFAB, feminine expressions fall within the realm of effemi-
nacy 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
14 The diagram illustrates five examples of the many intersectional
regulatory forces that maintain patriarchal femininity. Other regulatory
forces might include, but are not limited to, ableism, affect, or the valu-
ation and celebration of femininity itself.
13 These findings are reflected in the fourth point of the model of fem-
mephobia (Fig.2; see “Discussion” for a full description).

Archives of Sexual Behavior
1 3
AMAB. Any deviations from hegemonic masculinity descend
into the effeminate realm whereby the individual faces dehu-
manization.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 con-
fines of “proper” femininity while instilling a fear of feminiza-
tion that calcifies the boundaries of hegemonic masculinity.
An outer-ring surrounds hegemonic masculinity: marginal-
ized masculinities. Hegemonic masculinity secures masculine
dominance, while ensuring that individuals benefit from mas-
culinity, even if they do not embody hegemonic masculinity
(Connell, 1995). In other words, some masculinity is hegem-
onic, and some is not; but to a certain extent, all masculine peo-
ple benefit from the power garnered by hegemonic masculinity.
Thus, as hegemonic masculinity is also underscored by white-
ness, scholars such as Connell (1995) distinguish masculini-
ties 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 masculini-
ties 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, masculin-
ity 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 sub-
ordinate 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 pre-
vious 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-Samar-
asinha, 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 con-
texts, 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 generaliz-
able, 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 posit-
ing a universal truth indicated by the findings, this research
reveals potentially testable circumstances for future research.
Additionally, despite having a geographically spread sam-
ple, participants in the current study were limited to Western
countries and almost exclusively North American. Future
research should not only consider urban and rural distinc-
tions, but also consider femmephobia outside of Western
LGBTQ+ experiences.
Femininity, woman, and female are conceptually and
empirically distinct (see van Anders, 2015). However, histori-
cally, 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/sex-
ism, 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.
15 To clarify, hegemonic masculinity refers to a type of masculinity
that is “culturally exalted above other expressions of masculinity” and
femininity (Connell, 1995, p. 77).

Archives of Sexual Behavior
1 3
Implications
The current study illuminates the complexities of both fem-
mephobia 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 identi-
fies femmephobia as a regulatory power used in the main-
tenance of the gender binary. This finding is important for
researchers, particularly those studying gender, power, and
sexuality. Along with activists, social scientists are increas-
ingly 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 gen-
der 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 pro-
pelled and maintained through the binary division of masculin-
ity and femininity—or, more specifically, hegemonic masculin-
ity and patriarchal femininity. Accordingly, hegemonic systems
of gender not only divide but also hierarchically place mascu-
linity 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 sys-
tematically 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 hierarchi-
cal 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.
Funding This study was funded by The Soroptimist Foundation of
Canada and a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of
Canada doctoral award. The first author was supported by a Social Sci-
ence and Humanities Research Council Doctoral Award as well as by
The Soroptimist Foundation of Canada.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest The author declares that they have no conflict of
interest.
Ethical Approval All procedures performed in studies involving human
participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the insti-
tutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki
declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed Consent Informed consent was obtained from all individual
participants included in the study.
References
Aggarwal, S., & Gerrets, R. (2014). Exploring a Dutch paradox: An
ethnographic investigation of gay men’s mental health. Culture,
Health & Sexuality, 16(2), 105–119.
Albrecht-Samarasinha, L. L. (1997). On being a bisexual femme. In L.
Harris & E. Crocker (Eds.), Femme: Feminists, lesbians, and bad
Girls (pp. 134–144). New York: Routledge.
Alexandrowicz, C. (2017). ‘Straight-looking, straight-acting’: Counter-
ing effemiphobia in acting training. Theatre, Dance and Perfor-
mance Training, 8(1), 5–18.
American Medical Association. (2019). AMA adopts new policies on
first day of voting at 2019 annual meeting: AMA takes action to
help prevent anti-transgender violence. Retrieved from: https ://
www.ama-assn.org/press -cente r/press -r elea ses/ama-adopt s-new-
polic ies-first -day-votin g-2019-annua l-meeti ng.
Anti-Defamation League. (2018). When women are the enemy: The
intersection of misogyny and white supremacy. Retrieved from
https ://www.adl.org/media /11707 /downl oad.
Attride-Stirling, J. (2001). Thematic networks: An analytic tool for
qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 1, 385–405. https ://
doi.org/10.1177/14687 94101 00100 307.
Bailey, M. (1996). Gender Identity. In R. C. Savin-Williams & K. M.
Cohen (Eds.), The lives of lesbians, gays and bisexuals: Children
to adults (pp. 71–93). New York, NY: Harcourt Brace.
Bailey, M. (2014). More on the origins of misogynoir. Retrieved from
http://moyaz b.tumbl r.com/pos t/84048 11336 9/mor e-on-the-origi
n-of-misog ynoir .
Barthes, R., & Duisit, L. (1966). An introduction to the structural analy-
sis of narrative. New Literary History, 6(2), 237–272.
Bartky, S. L. (1990). Femininity and domination: Studies in the phenom-
enology of oppression. New York, NY: Routledge.
Bartky, S. L. (2010). Foucault, femininity, and the modernization of
patriarchal power. In R. Weitz (Ed.), The politics of women’s bod-
ies: Sexuality, appearance and behavior (3rd ed., pp. 76–98).
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Benevedes, J. M. (2015). The juice girl: The lost feminine gay male
psyche. JungJournal: Culture & Psyche, 9(4), 7–25.
Bergling, T. (2002). Sissyphobia: Gay men and effeminate behavior.
New York, NY: Harrington Park Press.
Bergling, T. (2006). Sissyphobia and everything after. In C. Kendall
& W. Martino (Eds.), Gendered outcasts and sexual outlaws:
Sexual oppression and gender hierarchies in queer men’s lives
(pp. 27–34). London: Routledge.
Bettcher, T. (2006). Appearance, reality, and gender deception: Reflec-
tions on transphobic violence and the politics of pretence. In F. Ó.
Murchadha (Ed.), Violence, victims, justifications: Philosophical
approaches (pp. 175–200). Oxford: Peter Lang.
Bettcher, T. (2013). Evil deceivers and make-believers: On transpho-
bic violence and the politics of illusion. In S. Stryker & A. Z.

Archives of Sexual Behavior
1 3
Aizura (Eds.), The transgender studies reader 2 (pp. 278–290).
New York: Routledge.
Bhana, D., & Mayeza, E. (2019). ‘Cheese boys’ resisting and negotiat-
ing violent hegemonic masculinity in primary school. NORMA:
International Journal for Masculinity Studies, 14(1), 3–17.
Bishop, C. J., Kiss, M., Morrison, T. G., Rushe, D. M., & Specht, J.
(2014). The association between gay men’s stereotypic beliefs
about drag queens and their endorsement of hypermasculinity.
Journal of Homosexuality, 61(4), 554–567.
Blair, K. L., & Hoskin, R. A. (2015). Experiences of femme identity:
Coming out, invisibility and femmephobia. Psychology and Sexu-
ality, 6(3), 229–244.
Blair, K. L., & Hoskin, R. A. (2016). Contemporary understandings
of femme identities and related experiences of discrimination.
Psychology and Sexuality, 7(2), 101–115.
Blair, K. L., & Hoskin, R. A. (2019). Transgender exclusion from the
world of dating: Patterns of acceptance and rejection of hypo-
thetical trans dating partners as a function of sexual and gender
identity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 36(7),
2074–2095.
Bordo, S. (1993). Unbearable weight: Feminism, western culture and
the body. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychol-
ogy. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101. https ://doi.
org/10.1191/14780 88706 qp063 oa.
Brightwell, L., & Taylor, A. (2019). Why femme stories matter: Con-
structing femme theory through historical femme life writings.
Journal of Lesbian Studies. https ://doi.org/10.1080/10894
160.2019.16913 47.
Brownmiller, S. (1984). Femininity. New York, NY: Fawcett
Columbine.
Brushwood Rose, C., & Camilleri, A. (2002). Brazen femme: Queering
femininity. Vancouver, BC: Arsenal Pulp.
Carter, C., & Noble, J. (1996). Butch, femme, and the woman-identified
woman: Ménage-à-trois of the ‘90s. Canadian Woman Studies/
Les Cahiers De La Femme, 16, 24–29.
Chatfield, S. L. (2018). Considerations in qualitative research reporting:
A guide for authors preparing articles for Sex Roles. Sex Roles,
79, 125–135.
Connell, R. W. (1987). Gender and power: Society, the person and
sexual politics. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
Connell, R. W. (1995). Masculinities. Sydney, Australia: Polity Press.
Connell, R. W., & Messerschmidt, J. W. (2005). Hegemonic masculin-
ity: Rethinking the concept. Gender and Society, 19(6), 829–859.
Dahl, U. (2017). Femmebodiments: Notes on queer feminine shapes of
vulnerability. Feminist Theory, 18(1), 35–53.
Daly, M. (1979). Gyn/ecology: The metaethics of radical feminism.
Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Davies, A. W. J. (2020). “Authentically” effeminate? Bialystok’s theo-
rization of authenticity, gay male femmephobia, and personal
identity. Canadian Journal of Family and Youth, 12(1), 104–123.
Davies, M., Gilston, J., & Rogers, P. (2012). Examining the relationship
between male rape myth acceptance, female rape myth accept-
ance, victim blame, homophobia, gender roles, and ambivalent
sexism. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27(14), 2807–2823.
de Beauvoir, S. (1949). The second sex (H. M. Parshley, Trans.). New
York, NY: Random House.
Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism
and schizophrenia. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Eguchi, S. (2011). Negotiating sissyphobia: A critical/interpretive
analysis of one ‘femme’ gay Asian body in the heteronormative
world. Journal of Men’s Studies, 19(1), 37–56.
Fagot, B. J. (1977). Consequences of moderate cross-gender behaviour
in preschool children. Child Development, 48(3), 902–907.
Fereday, J., & Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006). Demonstrating rigor using
thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive
coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualita-
tive Methods, 5(1), 1–11.
Friedan, B. (1963). The feminine mystique. New York, NY: W.W. Norton
& Company.
Glick, P., Gangl, C., Gibb, S., Klimpner, S., & Weinberg, E. (2007).
Defensive reactions to masculinity threat: More negative affect
toward effeminate (but not masculine) gay men. Sex Roles, 57(1–
2), 55–59.
Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding reliability and validity in qualita-
tive research. Qualitative Report, 8(4), 597–606.
Greer, G. (1970). The female eunuch. New York, NY: Farrar, Strauss
and Giroux.
Grossman, A. H., D’Augelli, A. R., Salter, N. P., & Hubbard, S. M.
(2006). Comparing gender expression, gender nonconformity,
and parents’ responses to female-to-male and male-to-female
transgender youth. Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling, 1(1),
41–59.
Halberstam, J. (1998). Female masculinity. Durham, NC: Duke Uni-
versity Press.
Harry, J. (1983). Parasuicide, gender and gender deviance. Journal of
Health and Social Behavior, 24(4), 350–361.
Hooberman, R. E. (1979). Psychological androgyny, feminine gender
identity and self-esteem in homosexual and heterosexual males.
Journal of Sex Research, 15(4), 306–315.
hooks, B. (1992). Black looks: Race and representation. Toronto, ON:
Between the Lines.
Hoskin, R. A. (2013). Femme theory: Femininity’s challenge to western
feminist pedagogies (Master’s thesis). QSpace at Queen’s Uni-
versity, Kingston, Ontario, Canada. Retrieved from https ://qspac
e.libra ry.queen su.ca/handl e/1974/8271.
Hoskin, R. A. (2017a). Femme theory: Refocusing the intersectional
lens. Atlantis: Critical Studies in Gender, Culture & Social Jus-
tice, 38(1), 95–109.
Hoskin, R. A. (2017b). Femme interventions and the proper feminist
subject: Critical approaches to decolonizing contemporary west-
ern feminist pedagogies. Cogent Social Sciences, 3(1), 1–17. https
://doi.org/10.1080/23311 886.2016.12768 19.
Hoskin, R. A. (2018). Critical femininities: The development and
application of femme theory (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
QSpace at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada. https
://qspac e.libra ry.queen su.ca/handl e/1974/24491 .
Hoskin, R. A. (2019a). Femmephobia: The role of anti-femininity and
gender policing in LGBTQ+ people’s experiences of discrimi-
nation. Sex Roles, 81, 686–703. https ://doi.org/10.1007/s1119
9-019-01021 -3.
Hoskin, R. A. (2019b). Can femme be theory? Exploring the methodo-
logical and epistemological possibilities of femme. Journal of
Lesbian Studies. https ://doi.org/10.1080/10894 160.2019.17022
88.
Hoskin, R. A., Earl, J., & Yule, A. (2019). Critical consumption of
transgender and nonbinary representation in popular culture and
social media. In J. Green, R. A. Hoskin, C. Mayo, & S. Miller
(Eds.), Navigating trans and complex gender identities (pp.
79–111). New York, NY: Bloomsbury Academia.
Hoskin, R. A., & Taylor, A. (2019). Femme resistance: The fem(me)
inine art of failure. Psychology & Sexuality, 10(4), 281–300.
Iacoviello, V., Valsecchi, G., Berent, J., Anderson, J., & Falomir-
Pichastor, J. M. (2019). Heterosexual men’s attitudes towards
homosexuality and ingroup distinctiveness: The role of per-
ceived men’s feminisation. Psychology & Sexuality. https ://doi.
org/10.1080/19419 899.2019.16757 49.
Irigaray, L. (1985). This sex which is not one. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Uni-
versity Press.
Jackson, A. Y., & Mazzei, L. A. (2013). Plugging one text into another:
Thinking with theory in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry,
19(4), 261–271.

Archives of Sexual Behavior
1 3
Jauk, D. (2013). Gender violence revisited: Lessons from violent vic-
timization of transgender identified individuals. Sexualities,
17(7), 807–825.
Jewell, L. M., & Morrison, M. A. (2012). Making sense of homon-
egativity: Heterosexual men and women’s understanding of their
own prejudice and discrimination toward gay men. Qualitative
Research in Psychology, 9(4), 351–370.
Kennedy, E. L., & Davis, M. D. (1993). Boots of leather, slippers
of gold: The history of a lesbian community. New York, NY:
Routledge/Penguin.
Kiebel, E., Bosson, J. K., & Caswell, T. A. (2019). Essentialist beliefs
and sexual prejudice toward feminine gay men. Journal of
Homosexuality. https ://doi.org/10.1080/00918 369.2019.16034
92.
Kierski, W., & Blazina, C. (2009). The male fear of the feminine and
its effects on counseling and psychotherapy. Journal of Men’s
Studies, 17(2), 155–172.
Kilbourne, J. (1979). Killing us softly. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
Documentary Film Series. Film.
Kilianski, S. E. (2003). Explaining heterosexual men’s attitudes toward
women and gay men: The theory of exclusively masculine iden-
tity. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 4(1), 37–56.
Kimmel, M. (1997). Masculinity as homophobia: Fear, shame, and
silence in the construction of gender identity. In M. M. Gergen
& S. N. Davis (Eds.), Toward a new psychology of gender (pp.
223–242). New York: Routledge.
Kuhl, D., & Martino, W. (2018). “Sissy” boys and the pathologization
of gender nonconformity. In S. Talburt (Ed.), Youth sexualities:
Public feelings and contemporary cultural politics (Vol. 1, pp.
31–60). Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.
Lehavot, K., Molina, Y., & Simoni, J. M. (2012). Childhood trauma,
adult sexual assault, and adult gender expression among lesbian
and bisexual women. Sex Roles, 67(5–6), 272–284.
Levitt, H. M., Bamberg, M., Creswell, J. W., Frost, D. M., Josselson,
R., & Suarex-Orozco, C. (2018). Journal article reporting stand-
ards for qualitative primary, qualitative meta-analytic, and mixed
methods research in psychology: The APA Publications and Com-
munications Board Task Force Report. American Psychologist,
73(1), 26–46.
Levitt, H. M., Gerrish, E. A., & Hiestand, K. R. (2003). The misun-
derstood gender: A model of modern femme identity. Sex Roles,
48(3), 99–113.
Levitt, H. M., & Hiestand, K. R. (2005). Gender within lesbian sexu-
ality: Butch and femme perspectives. Journal of Constructivist
Psychology, 18(1), 39–51.
Levitt, H. M., Surace, F. I., Wheeler, E. E., Maki, E., Alcantara, D.,
Cadet, M., … Ngai, C. (2017). Drag gender: Experiences of gen-
der for gay and queer men who perform drag. Sex Roles, 78(5–6),
367–384.
Lloyd, C. E. M., & Finn, M. D. (2017). Authenticity, validation and
sexualisation on Grindr: An analysis of trans women’s accounts.
Psychology & Sexuality, 8(1–2), 158–169.
Lorber, J. (1998). Men’s gender politics. Gender and Society, 12(4),
469–477.
Manley, E., Levitt, H., & MCoun, C. M. (2007). Understanding the
Bear movement in gay male culture. Journal of Homosexuality,
53(4), 89–112.
Martin, P. Y. (1998). Why can’t a man be more like a woman? Reflec-
tions on Connell’s Masculinities. Gender and Society, 12(4),
472–474.
Martino, W., & Cumming-Potvin, W. (2019). ‘Effeminate arty boys
and butch soccer girls’: Investigating queer and trans-affirmative
pedagogies under conditions of neoliberal governance. Research
Papers in Education, 34(2), 131–152.
McCann, H. (2018a). Beyond the visible: Rethinking femininity through
the femme assemblage. European Journal of Women’s Studies,
23(3), 278–292.
McCann, H. (2018b). Queering femininity: Sexuality, feminism, and the
politics of presentation. New York, NY: Routledge.
Miller, B. (2015). ‘Dude, where’s your face?’ Self-presentation, self-
description, and partner preferences on a social networking
application for men who have sex with men: A content analysis.
Sexuality and Culture, 19(4), 637–658.
Miller, B., & Behm-Morawitz, E. (2020). Investigating the cultivation
of masculinity and body self-attitudes for users of mobile dating
apps for men who have sex with men. Psychology of Men & Mas-
culinities, 21, 266–277. https ://doi.org/10.1037/men00 00221 .
Millett, K. (1977). Sexual politics. New York, NY: Doubleday.
Mishali, Y. (2014). Feminine trouble: The removal of femininity from
feminist/lesbian/queer esthetics, imagery, and conceptualization.
Women’s Studies International Forum, 44, 55–68.
Namaste, V. (2005). Sex change, social change: Reflections on identity,
institutions and imperialism. Toronto, ON: Women’s Press.
Nestle, J. (Ed.). (1992). The persistent desire: A femme-butch reader.
New York: Alyson Books.
Nnawulezi, N. A., Robin, S., & Sewell, A. A. (2015). Femme-inism:
In daily pursuit of personal liberation. Feminism & Psychology,
25(1), 67–72.
Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017).
Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria.
International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16, 1–13.
Oxford English Dictionary. (2018). http://www.oed.com/viewd ictio
narye ntry/Entry /67623 . Accessed March 31, 2018.
Paechter, C. (2019). Where are the feminine boys? Interrogating the
positions of feminised masculinities in research on gender and
childhood. Journal of Gender Studies, 28, 906–917. https ://doi.
org/10.1080/09589 236.2019.15973 39.
Parmenter, J. G., Blume, A. K., Crowell, K. A., & Galliher, R. V. (2019).
Masculine gender-role congruence among sexual minority men.
Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling, 13(2), 134–151.
Pascoe, C. J. (2007). Dude, you’re a fag: Masculinity and sexuality in
high school. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Pharr, S. (1997). Homophobia: A weapon of sexism. Little Rock, AR:
Chardon Press.
Phillips, R. (2014). Abjection. TSQ: Transgender Studies Quarterly,
1(1–2), 19–21.
Pickens, C., & Braun, V. (2018). “Stroppy bitches who just need to
learn how to settle”? Young single women and norms of feminin-
ity and heterosexuality. Sex Roles, 79(7–8), 431–448. https ://doi.
org/10.1007/s1119 9-017-0881-5.
Pope, C., Ziebland, S., & Mays, N. (2000). Qualitative research in
health care: Analysing qualitative data. Education and Debate,
320(7227), 114–116.
Raymond, J. (1994). The transsexual empire: The making of the she-
male. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Renold, E. (2004). Girls, boys and junior sexualities: Exploring chil-
dren’s gender and sexual relations in the primary school. New
York: Routledge.
Renold, E. (2008). Queering masculinity: Re-theorising contemporary
tomboyism in the schizoid space of innocent/heterosexualized
young femininities. Girlhood Studies, 1(2), 129–151.
Rice, C. (2004). Abortion. In B. A. Crow & L. Gotell (Eds.), Open
boundaries: A Canadian women’s studies reader (2nd ed., pp.
320–332). Toronto: Prentice Hall.
Said-Moorhouse, L. (2019). High schoolers charged in attack on
lesbian couple. CNN World. Retrieved from: https ://www.cnn.
com/2019/07/25/europ e/homop hobic -attac k-londo n-intl-gbr/
index .html.
Sanchez, F. J., & Vilain, E. (2012). “Straight-acting gays”: The rela-
tionship between masculine consciousness, anti-effeminacy,

Archives of Sexual Behavior
1 3
and negative gay identity. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41(1),
111–119.
Schippers, M. (2007). Recovering the feminine other: Masculinity,
femininity, and gender hegemony. Theory and Society, 36(85),
85–102. https ://doi.org/10.1007/s1118 6-007-9022-4.
Serano, J. (2007). Whipping girl: A transsexual woman on sexism and
the scapegoating of femininity. Emeryville, CA: Seal Press.
Serano, J. (2013a). Excluded: Making feminist and queer movements
more inclusive. Emeryville, CA: Seal Press.
Serano, J. (2013b). Skirt chasers: Why the media depicts the trans revo-
lution in lipstick and heels. In J. Serano & A. Z. Aizura (Eds.),
The transgender studies reader 2 (pp. 226–233). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Skočajić, M. M., Radosavljević, J. G., Okičić, M. G., Janković, I. O.,
& Žeželj, I. L. (2020). Boys just don’t: Gender stereotyping and
sanctioning of counter-stereotypical behavior in preschoolers.Sex
Roles, 82, 163–172.
Smith, J., & Firth, J. (2011). Qualitative data analysis: application of the
framework approach. Nurse Researcher, 18(2), 52–62.
Sontag, S. (2004). The double standard of aging. In A. Prince & S. Silva-
Wayne (Eds.), Feminisms and womanisms: A women’s studies
reader (pp. 269–282). Toronto, ON: Women’s Press.
Speciale, M., Gess, J., & Speedlin, S. (2015). You don’t look like a
lesbian: A coautoethnography of intersectional identities in coun-
selor education. Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling, 9(4),
256–272. https ://doi.org/10.1080/15538 605.2015.11036 78.
Stafford, A. (2010). Uncompromising positions: Reiterations of misog-
yny embedded in lesbian and feminist communities’ framing of
lesbian femme identities. Atlantis: Critical Studies in Gender,
Culture & Social Justice, 35(1), 85–91.
Stern, K. (1997). What is femme? The phenomenology of the powder
room. Women: A Cultural Review, 8(2), 183–196.
Sullivan, J., Moss-Racusin, C., Lopez, M., & Williams, K. (2018).
Backlash against gender stereotype-violating preschool chil-
dren. PLoS ONE, 13(4), e0195503. https ://doi.org/10.1371/journ
al.pone.01955 03.
Tanenbaum, L. (2015). I am not a slut: Slut-shaming in the age of the
internet. New York, NY: Harper Perennial.
Taywaditep, K. J. (2001). Marginalization among the marginalized:
Gay men’s anti-effeminacy attitudes. Journal of Homosexuality,
42(1), 1–28.
Theodore, P. S., & Basow, S. A. (2000). Heterosexual masculinity and
homophobia: A reaction to the self? Journal of Homosexuality,
40(2), 31–48.
Tiffe, R. (2014). Nuanced white trash: Embodying class, moving
through time, and caretaking in the neoliberal university. Rhi-
zomes, 27. Retrieved from http://rhizo mes.net/issue 27/tiffe .html.
Torr, D., & Bottoms, S. (2010). Sex, drag and male roles: Investigat-
ing gender as performance. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan
Press.
Tosh, J. (2016). Psychology and gender dysphoria: Feminist and
transgender perspectives. New York: Routledge.
van Anders, S. M. (2015). Beyond sexual orientation: Integrating gen-
der/sex and diverse sexualities via sexual configurations theory.
Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44(5), 1177–1213.
van Anders, S. M., Galupo, M. P., Irwin, J., Twist, M. L. C., & Reynolds,
C. J. (2019). Talking about transgender experiences, identities,
and existences at conferences. Link: https ://docs.googl e.com/
docum ent/d/1iHod SA16o P0itT jZPkB 5tslB jMHOi Mdy9l t9zmT
PKPs/edit?usp=shari ng.
VanNewkirk, R. (2006). ‘Gee, I didn’t get that vibe from you’: Articu-
lating my own version of a femme lesbian existence. Journal of
Lesbian Studies, 10(1/2), 73–85.
Volcano, D. L., & Dahl, U. (2008). Femmes of power: Exploding queer
femininities. London, UK: Serpent’s Tail.
Warnke, G. (2011). Debating sex and gender. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Wolf, N. (2002). The beauty myth: How images of beauty are used
against women. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.