Sex Roles https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-019-01021-3 ORIGINAL ARTICLE Femmephobia: The Role of Anti-Femininity and Gender Policing in LGBTQ+ People’s Experiences of Discrimination Rhea Ashley Hoskin 1 # Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019 Abstract Since the 1970s social science researchers have documented the cultural devaluation of femininity and its impact on experiences of discrimination among sexual and gender minorities. Yet, despite the continued and accumulating evidence demonstrating the role of anti-femininity (or femmephobia) in these experiences, little research has specifically examined femininity as an intersecting component of discrimination. Using in-depth interviews with sexual and gender minorities (N = 38), the current study explores the intersecting role of femmephobia in experiences of discrimination. Under the global theme of Bfemininity as target,^ 5 key subthemes were identified: femininity and passing, regulating sexualities, masculine right of access, biological determinism, and the feminine joke. Participants illuminated femmephobia as a regulatory power within LGBTQ+ communities and society at large, as well as how femininity itself operates as a target in their experiences of gender policing and discrimination. By turning attention toward femininity, the current paper provides a clearer understanding of what may possibly lay at the heart of many social issues surrounding discrimination and violence. These findings have implications for the study of social inequalities, as well as strategies for remedying the pervasive devaluation of femininity. Keywords Femmephobia . Critical femininities . Femininity . Prejudice . Discrimination and oppression . Gender policing . Femme theory . Pariah femininities . Gender hegemony . Hegemonic femininity . Emphasized femininity . Femme . Intersectionality As social equality takes a step forward, it seemingly takes two steps backward. Recent years have witnessed momentum in LGBTQ+ legal rights; while, at the same time a serial killer targeted Toronto’s gay village (Hunter 2019) and the Pulse nightclub was hit with one of America’s largest massacres since Wounded Knee (Segarra 2017). Concurrently, the LGBTQ+ community’s own slogan Blove is love^ (Lu 2016) is undermined by Grindr (a geosocial dating app geared toward queer men) profiles specifying Bno fats, no fags, no femmes^ (Miller and Behm-Morawitz 2016). Meanwhile, positive representations of trans women have begun to surface in television shows such as Orange is the New Black (https://www.netflix. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-019-01021-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. * Rhea Ashley Hoskin rhea.hoskin@queensu.ca 1 Department of Gender Studies & Psychology, Queen’s University, D431 Mackintosh-Corry, Kingston, Ontario K7L 3N6, Canada com/title/70242311), yet the rates at which trans women are murdered remain ever-rising (Human Rights Campaign Foundation 2017), and bathroom bill propaganda continues to caution the public that inclusion comes at their own personal risk. All the while, the 58th U.S. presidential election witnessed the most qualified candidate to ever run for presidency losing against the most under-qualified (Blair 2017). A year later, a man purposefully drove his white van into pedestrians on a crowded street in Toronto, reputedly citing an Bincel rebellion^ and his rage toward the women who have sexually rejected him as motive (Mezzofiore 2018). Amidst these tensions, individuals around the world, across identities, are screaming Bme too^ in solidarity and in hope of bringing to bare the alarming prevalence and normalization of sexual violence (Wexler et al. 2018). Call it homophobia, misogyny, transphobia, sexism, or rape culture but, perhaps, they are one in the same. The tensions of our time seem to be rising but are we continuing to overlook the pink elephant in the room? Perhaps our attention is best cast toward an underlying component across these issues: femininity, feminization, and antifemininity. For decades sociologists, philosophers, feminist Sex Roles theorists, linguists, and psychologists have documented the devaluation of femininity (Hoskin 2017a; Oliver 1994). Even in the early days of psychotherapy, the fear of the feminine— femininity’s characteristic lack (i.e., castration and penis envy) and subsequent inferiority—was a pressing topic of interest (Kierski and Blazina 2009). Oftentimes, particularly among second-wave feminists, this societal devaluation of femininity was wrongly interpreted as femininity itself being the source of oppression (Hoskin 2017b) —otherwise known as the scapegoating of femininity (Serano 2007). The scapegoating of femininity refers to the tendency to place blame on femininity itself for patriarchal oppression rather than what femininity has come to symbolize under the discursive power of patriarchy. The failure to examine the multidimensionality of femininity has resulted in an oversight in the theorization of social inequalities (Serano 2007; Hoskin 2013). Femininities and Gender Theory According to gender hegemony, the relationship between femininity and masculinity is characterized by complementarity, as well as the hierarchical position of masculinity over femininity (Schippers 2007). Because femininity is subordinated in society, Connell (1987) argues that a hegemonic femininity does not—or cannot—exist. Instead, Connell and Messerschmidt (2005, p. 848) use the term Bemphasized femininity^ to describe femininity that is defined by its compliance with subordination and accommodation of male desires, which they consider central to men’s dominance over women (Connell 1987; Connell and Messerschmidt 2005). Schippers (2007) disagrees with Connell (1987), arguing instead that hegemonic femininity does exist, but that it is not an equivalent structure to hegemonic masculinity. For example, hegemonic femininity does not wield an authoritative power but, rather, regulates power relations among women (Schippers 2007). Femme scholars are also critical of describing emphasized femininity as necessarily performed for a masculine gaze (Hoskin 2017a). For example, many femmes perform a hyper or emphasized femininity, yet this expression is neither compliant nor done for a masculine gaze (Brushwood Rose and Camilleri 2002; Hoskin and Hirschfeld 2018; Volcano and Dahl 2008). Whereas the term femme has historically referred to feminine lesbians who are attracted to or in relationships with butch women (Kennedy and Davis 1993; Levitt et al. 2003), femme has since come to reflect diverse identities (Blair and Hoskin 2016) and encompass a variety of meanings (Coyote and Sharman 2011). Taking femme politics and embodiment into consideration, Hoskin (2017a, p. 99) describes Bpatriarchal femininity^ in similar ways as Connell’s emphasized femininity, but teases apart dimensions of sexuality while remaining cognizant of agential feminine expressions. Patriarchal femininity refers to normative feminine ideals as they cut across dimensions of sex, gender, race, ability, and class. The term patriarchal femininity encompasses concepts such as normative or hegemonic femininity, but specifically refers to the regulatory power and gender policing used to maintain normative femininity (Hoskin 2017a, 2018). In contrast to patriarchal femininity, contemporary femme scholars use femme to describe femininity that veers from any one of patriarchal ideals, whether it be normative Whiteness, cisnormativity, heteronormativity, able-bodiedness, the cult of thinness or sexual appetite (Hoskin 2017a; Blair and Hoskin 2015). As a femininity that does not Barticulate a complementary relation of dominance and subordination between women and men^ (Schippers 2007, p. 98), femme could be equally described as a form of feminine resistance marked by non-compliance (Connell 1987). Femininity that strays in one or more ways from the confines of patriarchal femininity, or does not perform in complementary ways, is regulated by femmephobia. Femmephobia refers to the systematic devaluation of femininity as well as the regulation of patriarchal femininity. Femmephobia operates by policing feminine transgressions as they relate to race, class, sexuality, ability, and so on. For example, patriarchal femininity requires adherence to particular norms, such as White heterosexual able-bodied individuals who are assigned female at birth. In other words, femmephobia is composed of containment strategies that function to maintain the proper boundaries of patriarchal femininity and, in turn, gender norms. Thus, femmephobia not only maintains femininity’s subordinated status, but is also a regulatory power used in the maintenance of gender hegemony (Hoskin 2018). Contemporary femme scholars use femme in similar ways to queer, ranging from an identity to a theoretical framework (Hoskin 2017a; Blair and Hoskin 2015). This theoretical framework is devised by centering femme identities; what Schippers (2007, p. 95) might describe as Bpariah femininity.^ Pariah femininity refers to a set of characteristics that are perceptibly subordinate to hegemonic femininity because they deviate from normative rule and contaminate the relationship between masculinity and femininity (i.e., complementarity and distinctiveness) (Schippers 2007). Put succinctly, pariah femininities are characteristics that are simultaneously stigmatized and feminized when embodied by women. Although similar to pariah femininities, femme refers to deviations from the rules of patriarchal femininity (Hoskin 2017a). Moreover, although the concept of hegemonic femininity is akin to patriarchal femininity, where they differ is that patriarchal femininity regulates relations across intersecting identities via femmephobia. Theories of Discrimination and Inequality Gender policing refers to the regulation and enforcement of gender norms that target an individual who is perceived as Sex Roles transgressing normative rules or the heterosexual matrix. The heterosexual matrix refers to the ways in which gender is dichotomized and maps out corresponding qualities, characteristics, embodiments, and desires (Butler 1990). Typically, normative gender rules are governed by the gender binary, and gender policing is often discussed in relation to cross-gender transgressions—for example, an individual assigned female at birth who is masculine or another assigned male who is feminine. Thus, gender policing stigmatizes expressions that are unsanctioned, which in turn upholds the gender binary. But gender hegemony is not simply dichotomous and complementary (i.e., a binary); it is also characterized by ascendency of masculinity over femininity (Schippers 2007). In other words, gender policing maintains both binary gender division as well as the subordinated status of femininity. Although the directionality of gender policing that maintains masculine ascendency is given far less attention, an overview of gender-based discrimination demonstrates how it is specifically the feminine side of the binary that receives the brunt of gender policing. Recent years have witnessed a proliferation of terms to describe discrimination rooted in femininity. To name a few, terms such as anti-femininity (Eguchi 2011; Kilianski 2003; Miller 2015), trans-misogyny (Serano 2007, 2013), effemimania (Serano 2007), femi-negativity (Bishop et al. 2014), benevolent sexism (Glick and Fiske 1996), sissyphobia (Eguchi 2011), anti-effeminacy (Sanchez and Vilain 2012), femiphobia (Bailey 1996), slut-shaming/bashing (Tanenbaum 2015), and misogynoir (Bailey 2014) target specific social groups (e.g., trans women, gay men, Women of Color), and share the overarching theme of feminine devaluation. These concepts are propped-up by over 30 years of psychological research documenting how feminine gender transgressions (i.e., deviating from patriarchal norms of femininity) are policed more severely (Grossman et al. 2006; Kilianski 2003;) and contribute to greater experiences of discrimination, violence, and mental health disparities (Aggarwal and Gerrets 2014; Fagot 1977; Harry 1983; Taywaditep 2001). Within LGBTQ+ communities, feminine devaluation can be evidenced within gay culture (Miller 2015; Taywaditep 2001), lesbian communities (Blair and Hoskin 2015, 2016), and trans people’s experiences (Blair and Hoskin 2018). Despite the accumulating evidence to warrant the deliberate consideration of femininity, there has been a continued neglect of femininity as an important intersectional axis. However, the recent addition of femmephobia to the literature brings together the various mechanisms of feminine devaluation to propose an overarching system of feminine-based oppression (Blair and Hoskin 2016; Hoskin 2017a). In particular, this growing body of research highlights the need to incorporate femmephobia within intersectional analyses. The term intersectionality originated from critical race theory and Black Studies, and it was intended to critique single-axis frameworks (Combahee River Collective 1983; Crenshaw 1989). For example, intersectional analysis demonstrated how sexism cannot be examined in isolation, but must also include how sexism is influenced by racism. Now championed as one of the major contributions of feminist studies, intersectional analysis has grown into a multifaceted analytical approach that considers how various axes of privilege and oppression inform lived-experiences (Carbado et al. 2013; McCall 2005). Consequently, by offering a more complete perspective of social inequality, intersectional analysis also makes new solutions imaginable. The Present Study Considering how the embodiment of masculinity has widespread cultural and social effects (Connell 1987; Schippers 2007), what then does it mean to occupy the feminine—to be perceived as occupying the feminine or, more specifically, pariah femininity and femme? Thus, a primary focus of the current paper is to explore the characteristics and practices defined as feminine that are stigmatized across identities and regulated by femmephobia. Additionally, given the accumulating evidence to support the presence of femmephobia, in the current paper I sought to explore the complexities of feminine devaluation as it manifests across sexual and gender minorities’ experiences of discrimination. Therefore, central goals of my paper are to illuminate how instances of femmephobia connect across identity and to better understand the use of femmephobia as a regulatory power. Method Design and Participants I used a semi-structured interview design to examine LGBTQ+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer) individuals’ experiences of gender expression and discrimination. Interviews were conducted by the author, who identifies as a queer, crip (e.g., person with a disability), femme of Jewish descent. The Queen’s University General Research Ethics Board approved all procedures and materials for the study. Identification as a sexual or gender minority, internet access, and fluency in English were requirements of participation. Participants who had previously completed an online survey hosted on Survey Gizmo were invited to complete an interview study. Convenience sampling and snowball methods (Braun and Clarke 2013) were used to recruit participants to an online survey about gender expression and experiences of discrimination. Additionally, participants were recruited through online advertisements, email listservs, and oncampus announcements (recruitment materials available on the Open Science Framework). Interested participants were Sex Roles directed to an information page that provided details of the study and an informed consent agreement. Consenting participants, 18 years of age or older, were forwarded to an online survey to complete a series of quantitative measures (not discussed here). Participants were asked if they wanted to participate in an in-depth interview. Those interested were later contacted by email to arrange a time for the interview. Following 226 expressions of interest from the survey, a diversity-sampling principle (Patton 1990) was employed as a means of ensuring a breadth of experiences. Interview invitations were sent out weekly, and attempts were made to invite participants who would diversify the sample. A total of 122 respondents were invited to an interview through this process, of which 60 agreed and 38 followed through. Selection was based on availability, expression of interest, and ensuring representation of a diverse sample of sexual and gender minorities (e.g., lesbian, gay, bisexual, asexual, and queer individuals who are both cisgender and transgender). A total of 38 participants of diverse sexual orientations and gender identities took part in an in-depth interview related to their experiences of gender expression and discrimination. The mean age of the participants was 29.7 (SD = 8), ranging from 18 to 52. The majority of participants were from Canada (58%, n = 22) or the United States (31.5%, n = 12), with a minority from the United Kingdom (8%, n = 3), and Iceland (2.5%, n = 1). Participants identified as women (63%, n = 24, including 6 transgender women, 1 intersex woman, 17 cisgender women), men (24%, n = 9, including 2 transgender men, 1 crossdresser, 6 cisgender men), or non-binary or gender queer (13%, n = 5, including 1 Two-Spirit person). A majority identified as queer (50%, n = 19, including pansexual and sexually fluid), whereas others identified as lesbian (18.4%, n = 7), gay (10.5%, n = 4), bisexual (13%, n = 5) or asexual (5%, n = 2), with one participant identifying as straight (2.5%). Participants identified as White (82%, n = 31), mixed-race (11%, n = 4) or American Indian/Alaska Native (5%, n = 2); one participant declined to respond. On average, participants had 17 years of formal education (SD = 4, range = 5–25), with 43% (n = 16) falling below $50,000 in household income. The sample was also diverse in ablebodiedness. Although the question of able-bodied status was not specifically posed at any point during the study, 5 participants self-disclosed their disability during the interview. Procedure Interviews were conducted through Userlike, a text-based encrypted chat software program. After scheduling the interview, participants logged onto Userlike where the author facilitated the interview. The central question to the semistructured interview was: BHow does your gender expression impact experiences of discrimination and oppression?^ In addition, the interview was guided by a set of 12 open-ended questions, which were used to focus the central question. (For the full interview guide, see the online supplement). The interviews ranged from 2 to 3 h in length and observed two credibility checks to ensure the strength and credibility of the data. First, at the end of the interview, participants were asked if there was anything else they wished to discuss or revisit. Second, upon completion of the interview, participants were given the option of downloading the transcript of the interview and elaborating/clarifying any points over the coming weeks. These credibility checks enabled participants to Bconsider their interviews and to provide information to the researchers that may have otherwise been omitted^ (Levitt et al. 2018, p. 371). This method of inquiry aligns with feminist-informed research (DeVault and Gross 2006; HesseBiber 2007). It is also useful as a method of culturally safe interviewing for sexual and gender minorities because it enables participants to have greater autonomy in constructing their self-actualized identities, particularly for those whose voice or visual appearance may undermine their authentic selves (Wilson and Neville 2009). Saturation was reached after 36 interviews. This was indicated by new themes or categories no longer developing from the interviews, which suggests a comprehensive and robust dataset (Glaser and Strauss 1999). Analysis Thematic analysis was used, which looks through the data set to find repeated patterns of meaning and helps systematize large amounts of textual data. Additionally, I used a modified approach to thematic networks to examine the relationships between themes. The thematic analysis was conducted over six phases: (a) familiarization with the data, (b) generation of initial codes, (c) searching for themes, (d) reviewing themes, (e) defining and naming themes, and (f) producing the report (Braun and Clarke 2006). I used two theoretical frameworks to identify key concepts as coding categories in my analysis of the data: gender theory or gender hegemony and femme theory. Gender hegemony theorizes gender relations as operating through the interconnected subordination of femininity that simultaneously upholds hegemonic masculinity (Connell 1987). In particular, my analysis was informed by Schippers (2007), who offers a reworking of Connell’s (1987) gender hegemony in ways that do not tether gender to sex and that situates femininity within gender hegemony. In addition, I used femme theory as a theoretical framework, which places feminine intersections as central to understanding the ebb and flow of power, particularly in relation to social inequalities (Blair and Hoskin 2016; Hoskin 2017a, 2018). Dual-coding deductive-inductive thematic analysis was used (Fereday and Muir-Cochrane 2006). In Sex Roles other words, themes were driven by the data and evolved through the coding process, but were also developed from theoretical interest and to answer the research question (Braun and Clarke 2006; Pope et al. 2000). This coding process allowed for theories to develop organically, while paying specific attention to those relating to femininity. A latent level of analysis was used in order to examine underlying ideas, assumptions, and ideologies, which shape and inform the sematic content of the data (Braun and Clarke 2006). I utilized a flexible and open coding system throughout the analytical process that enabled open engagement between data and literature (Pickens and Braun 2018). Such an approach allowed for the analysis of surface sematic data content as a means of producing latent patterns and themes (Braun and Clarke 2013). After developing initial themes and obtaining theoretical saturation, I devised a coding scheme. The transcripts from the text-based interviews were transferred to the qualitative data analysis software MAXQDA12 for the coding and sorting of data and to build thematic narratives. Table 1 Participants’ characteristics Results Interviews with participants of varying of sexual and gender identities (see Table 1) were used to identify one thematic network based on 795 meaning units (see Table 2). The overarching theme of femininity as target refers to how femininity, or the perception of femininity, is policed across identities and thus functions as a regulatory power. Within this overarching theme, I identified subthemes of regulating sexualities, biological determinism, masculine right of access, the feminine joke, and femininity and passing. A resounding response from participants demonstrated how femininity operates as a target for discrimination, and how this target not only manifests differently across multifaceted sexual and gender identities, but also functions as a type of gender policing that maintains the boundaries of normative gender constructs and the heterosexual matrix more broadly. This theme operated as an organizational theme for subsequent themes, all of which illustrate the complexities of femmephobia and support my overarching finding that the perceived presence of femininity operates as a target across sexual and gender identities. Pseudonym Race/Ethnicity Sexual orientation Gender identity Age Amelia Alex Becky Ben Carly Chelsea Dan Elia Emmett Eugene Hannah Harriet Hugo Jamiea Jeff Jennifera Jessica Jo Kristen Laura Logan Mackenzie Max Natalie Pat Paula Quin Rebecca Richarda Sarah Sash Siobhan Sophia Tamara Tegan Ulrikaa Veronica William White Mixed-race White Native White White White Indigenous White White White White White White White White Mixed-race White White White White White White White White Mixed-Race White White Decline White White White Mixed-race White White White White White Lesbian Queer Lesbian Gay Queer Queer Queer Two-Spirit Gay Gay Queer Bi Bi Pansexual Gay Lesbian Lesbian Queer Bi Gay Straight Pansexual Asexual Queer Sexually fluid Pansexual Lesbian Asexual Queer/Cross-dresser Bi Queer Bi Queer Queer Queer Lesbian Queer Queer Cis Woman Genderqueer Cis Woman Trans Man Cis Woman Cis Woman Trans Man 19 27 30 24 22 44 24 44 34 25 30 22 32 30 18 32 25 Decline 30 23 31 28 Decline 29 21 29 34 25 52 31 46 38 24 24 30 28 46 21 a Denotes participants who self-identified as having a disability Cis Man Cis Man Cis Woman Cis Woman Trans Man Genderqueer Cis Man Trans Woman Cis woman Genderqueer Cis Woman Cis Woman Trans Man Cis Woman Androgyne Trans Woman Non-binary Cis Woman Trans Woman Trans Woman Cis Man Cis Woman Cis Woman Cis Woman Cis Woman Cis Woman Cis Woman Trans Woman Trans Woman Cis Man Sex Roles Table 2 The major theme and its subthemes, their description, and example quotes Theme Subthemes Description Example quotes This is the overarching theme under which all other themes BFeminine folks—whether people gendered as female, or people gendered as male but viewed as feminine are organized. This theme illustrates how femininity, or anyway—are often seen as weak and in need of protecthe perception of femininity, is made target across tion and easy to prey on […] I think femininity, in itself, identities and functions as a regulatory power. is synonymous with weakness.^ (Max) The heterosexual matrix is regulated using femmephobia. BThere’s this perception that bisexuality is an Regulating sexualities: attention-getting thing for the benefit of men.. .. I think Femmephobia regulates sexualities through coercive Slut-shaming, femininity plays into it because the way that we present language and other containment strategies (e.g., Virgin-shaming, and our gender almost determines whether we’re ‘actually slut-shaming, virgin-shaming and victim-blaming). Victim-blaming queer’ or if we’re just hooking up with women to titillate men, so queer women who are more feminine are seen to be the latter.^ (Carly) Morphology and biological Femmephobia is a tool used in the regulation of biological BI criticize my inability to move heavier weights […] I chalk that up to estrogen. I don’t look at myself without determinism determinism by maintaining femininity as female, clothes on. I haven’t in a long time—I see a female inherently weak, and naturalizing gender roles. body.^ (Logan) BI have a friend who is a feminine straight man, and a lot of Masculine right of access: Femininity is thought to be done for the purpose of people assume that he’s gay.. .. I think it speaks to the Bodies and spaces attracting a masculine or male other across sexual and assumption that femininity is directed toward male gender configurations. Masculinity is given symbolic consumption. Because he is seen as more feminine, and literal access to both spaces and bodies. Femininity people assume—like they assume with me—that he is is thought to signify masculine right of access, which interested in getting male attention.^ (Harriet) undermines feminine subjectivity. The feminine joke: Feminine The subordinated status of femininity is maintained BSometimes I worry that I’ll be taken advantage of or not trivialization through trivialization as well as its use as an insult or a taken seriously as a scientist because of my feminine comedic device. gender presentation.^ (Kristen) Femininity and passing Femininity interacts with issues of passing by disqualifying B[Because of my femininity] I’m read as a cis gay man, but individuals from being accepted as their gender identity am not any of those [things]^ (Dan) or sexual orientation, or misidentifying individuals in ways that make them target for discrimination. Femininity as target Regulating Sexualities: Slut-Shaming, Virgin-Shaming, and Victim-Blaming Femmephobia regulates sexualities through coercive language and other regulatory practices including slut-shaming, virginshaming, and victim blaming. These containment strategies (Stone and Gorga 2014) function to maintain patriarchal femininity as complementary and subservient to masculinity, which subsequently upholds gender hegemony. Participants described a plethora of simultaneously feminizing and stigmatizing terms used against them such as slut, bitch, sissy, Sally, faggot, whore, squaw, or prude. Illustrating the use of dog or bitch as femmephobic regulatory language, Hannah recalls walking down the street with her partner and being Bbarked at^ like dogs or bitches. Siobhan illuminates Hannah’s experience, explaining that BWomen are supposed to accept advances… not act independently of men. That’s proper femininity. Those who do not comply and accept are bitches.^ In other words, lesbians are dogs or bitches because their sexuality is independent of men, which is a departure from patriarchal femininity. Thus, a woman who asserts herself or her sexuality is not masculine, rather she is a bitch: feminine, undesirable, and a contaminate to gender hegemony (Schippers 2007). Dog and bitch have long been used as an insult, with particular reference to Bsomeone whose behavior was improper or transgressive^ (Franco 2014, p. 81). In its earliest use, bitch referred to promiscuous female sexual behavior (Hughes 2006), and has since secured the Bpersistent symbolic connection^ that reaffirms women’s inherent subordination (Franco 2014, p. 4). Modern adaptations of bitch are used to describe sexually brazen or bossy women, in addition to subordinate or submissive men who have sex with men. In each use, however, bitch serves as a form of gender policing against deviations from patriarchal feminine norms while also securing gender hegemony. Illustrating a second prominent use of coercive language, Siobhan recounted how her ex-boyfriend would get angry and call her a slut, which she described as deeply Bsteeped in biphobia.^ Siobhan continued to describe how Bwhen [slut] is used in a context as abusive and manipulative, as it was for me, it’s intended to shame the person [… to make them] become even more submissive.^ Like Siobhan, many participants described being called a slut or slut-shamed. Coercive language is used to re-feminize the failed subject via the cultural use of shame, to police people back into the confines of patriarchal femininity, and to disqualify those who push Sex Roles against their ascribed subordination. In other words, the feminine is to accept sexual advances, but not act independently. As prescribed by patriarchal femininity, those who do not comply are bitches, whereas those who pursue their own desires are sluts. Sasha described patriarchal femininity as that which Bserves to oppress or dominate an entire sex.^ It is smiling when told, being quiet, reserved, looking pretty, wearing appropriate makeup, and presenting oneself as simultaneously sexually available without being sexual (Brownmiller 1984). These characteristics all hinge on the performance being Bdone for the benefit of the dominant sex^ (Sasha), which Connell (1987) would describe as emphasized femininity. By contrast, queer femininities (pariah or femme femininities) challenge normative femininity through their self-actualized feminine expressions and by transgressing normal coordinates of sex, gender, and sexuality (Hoskin and Hirschfeld 2018). For example, Sasha explains how Bfemmes transgress [patriarchal femininity] by not being straight, which is expected of feminine looking women.^ Queer femininities also transgress the imperative that femininity makes itself sexually available, but not sexually desirous. To be feminine is to be a passive recipient of male pleasure (Connell 1995; Kavanaugh 2013; Yarvorsky and Sayer 2013). Thus, sexual assertiveness and desire could be classified as Bpractices and characteristics that are stigmatized and sanctioned when embodied by women^—or by individuals who are feminine (Schippers 2007, p. 95). For example, when embodied by a feminine subject, characteristics that are typically understood as masculine, like sexual appetite, constitute a Brefusal to complement hegemonic masculinity in a relation of subordination and therefore are threatening to male dominance^ (Schippers 2007, p. 95). Therefore, femmes, like sluts, are feminine folks who seek sexual pleasure for themselves in ways that are deemed culturally unacceptable. As Paula explains: BI think it’s just part of that deeply ingrained idea that women shouldn’t be that interested in sex and that if they are interested in it beyond pleasing a man then there’s something wrong.^ This Bsomething wrong^ largely relates to an individual’s failure to adhere to patriarchal femininity’s ascribed servitude and, more specifically, the idea that femininity is to serve masculinity. Slut-shaming is Bdecidedly feminine^ (Schippers 2007, p. 95) and an integral component of feminine gender policing that impacted participants’ experiences of discrimination within and outside of LGBTQ+ communities. Mackenzie related how, after being called a slut and a whore, she felt she had been Bmore discriminated [against] because of [her] sexual openness than [her] identity [as pansexual].^ A number of participants spoke to the gendered dimension of slut-shaming, such that those considered masculine do not experience the same level of judgment for their sexual choices. In other words, the parameters drawn around sexuality are specific to femmes and feminine queer women or feminine men and tend not to apply to individuals presenting as androgynous or masculine. Whereas feminine folks are sluts, those who are masculine and androgynous are considered Bstuds^ (Sasha). Carly noted: I know some andro people who definitely self-identify as sluts, but as far as I know, no one has a problem with the way they act sexually. The double standard seems [to privilege] people who present in a more masculine way. (Carly) Carly continues to explain how masculinity is congruent with having multiple sexual partners, which is seen as a good thing. However, feminine folks with multiple sexual partners transgress patriarchal feminine norms, which claim feminine sexuality as masculine property. Conversely, Laura illuminated the opposing side of the Madonna/Whore dichotomy: the experience of being a virgin. Laura describes encountering Bvirgin shaming way more than. .. homophobia.^ According to the Madonna/Whore dichotomy, those who are assigned female at birth (AFAB vs. AMAB) are called sluts if they are perceived to be sexual, whereas on the other hand called prudes and ridiculed if they do not make themselves sexually available (Bordo 1993). Those who are perceived as feminine must walk the fine line between slut and prude and are blamed for the outcome of their deviations (Attwood 2007). Richard explained how Bit seemed [that LGBTQ+ communities] blame homophobia on the feminine ones. They thought the feminine ones created an image problem offending the mainstream.^ Similar to the victim-blaming that occurs with slut-shaming and rape culture, men who are perceived as feminine are blamed for provoking homophobic discrimination. In both instances of victim-blaming, the blame lies solidly in the victim’s perceived feminine transgression. For example, Dan noted: [In school] I would be called things like faggot daily with no intervention from the administration. When I did ask for help it was often put on me to Bbe the better person^ and to Bjust walk away^ as if I had some control over how and why people were awful toward me. It was like the message to me was if I changed—if I stopped acting in a way that is perceived to be feminine—that that sort of stuff would stop. (Dan) Whether expressed by someone AFAB or AMAB, the perceived failure to adhere to patriarchal feminine norms works as a justification for slut-shaming, virgin-shaming, sexual violence, and homophobic harassment, as well as both in-group and out-group discrimination. In this way, feminine gender policing functions as a regulation of sexualities across identities. Sex Roles Morphology and Biological Determinism Masculine Right of Access: Bodies and Spaces Participants illustrated how femmephobia regulates the heterosexual matrix and gender hegemony via the perpetuation of biological determinism. Femmephobia maintains biological determinism, such that femininity is equated with female, which participants describe as being taken to indicate particular roles and abilities. As Jamie explained, although things like breasts, hormones, and secondary sex characteristics are claimed within the realm of Bsex, these things are read as feminine or masculine and change how we are read when they are combined with clothing,^ leading to how gender is perceived. Biological determinism, essentialism, and femmephobia overlapped in how participants experienced limitations imposed by others. For instance, as Siobhan described, there is an assumption that a perceptively feminine Bcurvy body^ disqualifies someone from being physically strong. Similarly, Max described their gender fluidity and how, because they are physically small, they are often misgendered as the Bweak fem.^ Dan also described how being Bgenerally smaller than other guys^ contributed to him being perceived as feminine by others. Because men and masculinity are characterized as strong, femininity is characterized as weak. This assigned weakness maintains hegemonic relations and, in particular, feminine inferiority. Thus, participants illuminated how bodily signs of femininity were taken to signal a weakness/ limitation and vice versa. Biological determinism and essentialism played integral roles in the regulation of patriarchal femininity. To be feminine is to be female-bodied, and vice versa—while normative feminine aspirations are expected to follow. The role of biological determinism, specifically related to morphology and femininity, was particularly salient among non-binary participants’ experiences of the medical industrial complex. Alex explained: Gender hegemony and the heterosexual matrix define femininity as signifying masculine right of access. Participants illuminated how being perceived as feminine was equated with being sexually available to men, regardless of their gender identity or sexual orientation. This assumption had a number of consequences in participants’ lives: from symbolic erasure and invisibility to sexual harassment, discrimination, and the regulation of public spaces. For many of the women in the current sample, sexual harassment overshadowed their experiences with homophobia or transphobia. Although being invisible as transgender or a sexual minority affords feminine queer women some element of safety, it magnifies sexual harassment, cat calling, and everyday street harassment (Yarvorsky and Sayer 2013). As Veronica recalls: BI don’t get nearly as much slur-worthy aggression these days. A lot of sexual harassment [though].^ For others, experiences of sexual harassment were naturalized to the extent that it did not occur to them as worthy of discussion. These experiences demonstrate how the fear of attack takes a markedly feminine shape: to be feminine is to Bnegotiate the possibility of attack on a daily basis^ (Dahl 2017, p. 42; Yarvorsky and Sayer 2013). Consequently, participants across identities who expressed or identified in some way as being feminine felt particularly vulnerable in public spaces. For example, Veronica explains how BMr. Man owns the public domain, and when [she’s] in it he gets to say what’s on his mind.^ Veronica’s description of public space aligns with previous research chronicling the gendered dimension of space allocation. The private realm has been established as the primary location of violence against women, causing previous scholars to argue that public fear (or fear to be in public, rather) is but a tactic to produce feminine docility (Pain 1991). The division of public and private spheres is a product of the gender binary—masculinity as the public and femininity as the private (Tetreault 2001). Therefore, participants’ fear while in public is not only a product of gender policing to keep femininity in the private realm (Pain 2001) but also a disciplinary tool of femmephobia that targets femininity transgressing patriarchal norms—in this particular case, the norm of remaining in the private realm. The discrepancy between spatial locations and fear is a product of everyday (sexual) harassment in public spaces, which imposes the internalization and normalization of threat within public space (Pain 1991). These experiences of harassment evoke fear of more severe attacks through Broutinely creating a state of insecurity and unease^ among feminine and feminized folks (Pain 1991, p. 421). Moreover, gender norms are bound by heteronormativity and are secured through internalized and externalized means, including sexual harassment (Yavorsky and Sayer 2013). Fear is thus not only a tool of feminine gender policing, it also is used to constrict So I have tried for a very long time to get an ablation or hysterectomy and have had several negative experiences with doctors being dismissive. [I recall] one male doctor sitting me down and telling me that as a female I will definitely and absolutely at some point want children. (Alex) In this way, via the regulatory power of femmephobia, sex as assigned at birth and corresponding feminine gender roles posed a barrier to non-binary participants’ ability to access medical needs. This barrier stems from the biological imperative of femaleness necessitating femininity, as well as patriarchal femininity’s scripted childbirth and motherhood. Consequently, the feminine imperative of motherhood and childrearing disqualified those AFAB from accessing their gender-affirming medical needs. Sex Roles femininity’s social and physical movement by perpetuating the myth that they must be dependent on men for protection (Yavorsky and Sayer 2013). Perhaps as a consequence of this routinization, when asked about their experiences, many femmes and feminine queer women in the current study stated that they had never experienced discrimination or oppression—that they were privileged to pass as straight or cisgender women. Yet, many of these women did not feel safe to walk alone or within public spaces and had faced sexual harassment in and outside the workplace, corrective rape, slut-shaming, sexual violence, and other forms of feminine gender policing. However, the naturalization of femmephobia allowed these experiences to remain unidentified as experiences of oppression (Serano 2007). For example, although Carly had initially stated that because of her Bfemme-ness^ she is Balmost never harassed because of her queerness,^ she later disclosed: About a year ago I was raped by a man who fairly clearly thought that because I was bisexual, I wanted to cheat on my girlfriend . . . the idea of bisexual women (especially feminine ones) as slutty definitely played into what happened. (Carly) A number of femmes and feminine queer women did not identify everyday harassment, sexism, street harassment or even sexual assault as experiences of oppression or discrimination. For example, when asked about experiences of discrimination, Ulrika asked, BDoes street harassment count?^ Tamara also struggled to answer the question, stating: BNothing jumps out at me. I feel like I come from a pretty darn privileged background.^ She then continued to recount street harassment and sexual harassment in her place of work. Pain (1991) explains that because there is a cultural tendency to trivialize sexual harassment, those who experience it struggle to label their experiences as oppression. Similarly, Harriet initially stated that she has never Bfelt unsafe or treated unfairly on account of [her] sexuality.^ Harriet later disclosed that she had been sexually assaulted, and asked BWait. Ah, does sexual harassment count as oppression or discrimination?^ She revealed: I kept saying BNo, I have a girlfriend,^ but he just said BCome on, all I need is 30 minutes and you’ll realize how straight you really are.^ . . . I felt like I led him on. . . . He really made me feel like my outfit and my makeup was an invitation, and I kind of believed that. (Harriet) Harriet’s experience illustrates the naturalization of masculine right of access over femininity and how feminine fear is a regulatory power whose internalization is akin to the panopticon. Borrowed from observations of architectural designs of prisons in which the building itself creates the sense of an omnipresence of the jailers, Foucault (1975) theorized that the panopticon creates an internalized surveillance resulting in the self-regulation of behavior. The assumption that femininity is performed for men informs experiences across sexual and gender identities. Femme and feminine queer women are assumed to be straight whereas masculine women are assumed to be lesbians, regardless of their self-described sexual orientation. Conversely, feminine men are assumed to be gay, whereas masculine men are assumed to be straight. Each of these assumptions operates on the imperative that femininity is done for the purpose of attracting men. Assumptions circulating around bisexuality also draw on masculine right of access. For example, Sarah is an androgynous woman who identifies as bisexual. As she is masculine/androgynous in her appearance: Bpeople think [she’s] really a lesbian^ (Sarah). Conversely, feminine bisexual women are never believed to be authentically queer and are assumed to be really straight (Huxley et al. 2013; McLean 2008). Here, two feminine tropes are in operation: that femininity is performed for men and that femininity is inherently deceptive or inauthentic (Hoskin 2017b; Serano 2007). Arguably, the assumption that femininity as a product for masculinity is produced through hierarchical and complementarity of gender relations (Schippers 2007). In other words, masculinity is socialized to take and femininity is consequently to be taken. Likewise, masculinity acts whereas femininity appears (Berger 1972). Thus, femininity is a mere sight to be taken in by the male gaze (Mulvey 1975). For example, Ben explains how, in the eyes of an acquaintance, his sexual orientation disqualified him from being seen as a real man, having made himself vulnerable and therefore feminized. The acquaintance questioned how an individual could like both men and women (e.g., bisexuality). Ben then describes the woman stating that she Bcould never be with a man who had been with other men because whenever [she’s] with a man [she] needs him to be a real man.^ Similarly, William explains how Bthere’s still a large sense in the [U.S.] Midwest that gay men are feminine and not considered ‘real’ men.^ Previous research has described how gay men define themselves as Breal men^ in relation to a feminine other: straight acting in relation to femmes; bears in relation to twinks [attractive, boyish-looking, young gay man]; or tops in relation to bottoms (Schippers 2007). Arguably, Ben’s experience can be understood through the concept of subordinate masculinities (Connell 1987). Subordinate masculinities are often conflated with femininity, are measured against a hegemonic masculine ideal, and Bserve as the inferior Other^ (Schippers 2007, p. 87). Their otherness ensures a system in which hegemonic masculinity is secured atop the gender hierarchy. As scripted by patriarchal feminine norms, femininity is done to entice or attract the male gaze. This norm produces a culture in which masculinity is granted access to all that is Sex Roles perceived to be feminine. Consequently, the purpose of femininity is to serve and please men. This cultural imperative was evidenced in participants’ experiences, particularly of coming out and being in public spaces. For example, Hannah recalls walking down the street with her partner and a stranger yelling at them, calling them dykes and that they should Bmake [themselves] useful and suck his dick.^ Hannah continues: We are two women—pleasing to the eyes of men who are engulfed in the ideals of lesbians as their personal sexual pleasure. . . . They want us to know our place. On our knees, in the kitchen, serving them. Queer women like us do not serve cis men, we are useless to them. (Hannah) The cultural imperative of masculine right of access and the idea that femininity signifies a willingness to serve men also impacted Harriet’s experience. Harriet recalls her ex-partner’s hesitation with her femininity: that if she Bwas truly gay and didn’t care about getting male attention, then [she] wouldn’t want to dress the way [she] did.^ Further, when Harriet came out, her parents were shocked because she Bdidn’t look like a lesbian. [She] wore dresses and makeup.^ Her mother described Harriet’s sexuality as Bsuch a shame because [Harriet] was so pretty.^ To her mother, Harriet’s beauty was Bsupposed to be directed at a male gaze and the fact that [she] wanted women meant that [her] beauty was put to waste^ (Harriet). She continued to explain: I really think that it comes down to the idea that femininity is meant for the male gaze/male consumption. So when a woman appears so feminine, it’s a social assumption that she presents herself that way to attract the attention of males. (Harriet) Mackenzie echoes this experience, describing how outside the LGBTQ+ community she receives comments like Byou’re too pretty to be a lesbian,^ again indicating how feminine beauty is synonymous with masculine right of access. In other words, feminine beauty is reduced to a product for the purpose of male consumption. The assumed masculine right of access gives way to a new feminine dichotomy: that femininity is consumable or disposable. Paradoxically, Veronica describes how femininity is seen as attractive while simultaneously being met with equal amounts of Bdisdain or hatred.^ She continues to express how, when walking alone in public, she does not Bknow whether [the men she sees] want to fuck [her] or kill [her] or both,^ concluding that she Bthink[s] this fear is common to women and femmes^ (Veronica). This consumable/disposable dichotomy is echoed in Natalie’s experiences as a sex worker, finding that aggression and flirtation walk a fine line. As a feminine person, Hannah described how she is reduced to a Bpiece of meat. .. either fuckable or not.^ Similarly, Jessica recalls the polarity of being Bhollered at for holding [her] girlfriend’s hand in public. .. that’s hot or that’s disgusting.^ A similar discourse was also found in the LGBTQ+ community, as Carly describes how B[the lesbians she knew] nicknamed their pretty long-haired friend ‘prey.’^ Similar to Carly, Max describes meeting people who Bsimultaneously try to prey on and protect the feminine.^ Max’s experience could be understood through the concept of benevolent sexism, which is the belief that women are to be cherished, protected, and valued (Glick and Fiske 1996). Although seemingly positive, benevolent sexism marks women and, by extension, those who are feminine as innately vulnerable and in need of protection. Conversely, Sophia recalls her ex-partner’s friend commenting about how the next time he Beats sushi,^ he will be sure to inform the ex that he Beats [has oral sex with] Japanese too.^ Thus, while patriarchal femininity is characterized as vulnerable, it is also marked by an invisible Whiteness. Consequently, the vulnerability and need of protection afforded to patriarchal femininity is not extended to Femininities of Color, whose femininity is constructed as wild, animalistic, and unrapeable (Bordo 1993). Racially minoritized femininity is compounded by exoticization and fetishization, which further props up the discourse that femininity is something to be consumed by men. In these instances, femininity is Ba product, and more masculine individuals are the consumers^ (Harriet). This is also evidenced by Natalie, who explain how she is assumed to be Ba sex worker by the general populace because [she is] a trans woman.^ In other words, because Natalie presents as feminine, her gender is interpreted as a commodity or consumable. Whereas Tegan relates this consumability or entitlement to Btoxic masculine ideals that feminine bodies are theirs to own/possess/objectify,^ Jessica attributes male entitlement over the feminine to the historical legacy of women as property: [Male entitlement] comes from the long history where women were treated like property of men and even postsexual revolution. . . . Women’s bodies are constantly on display for the benefit of the beholder and these images are created with that hetero-male gaze in mind. I think that strongly contributes to some men assuming any woman, myself and my girlfriend included, is for them and their enjoyment. (Jessica) The imperative of masculine right of access also influences the experiences of masculine-of-center women who date femmes and feminine queer women, which challenges male entitlement. Amelia describes being at bars and having strangers, most of whom were men, tell her that the Bvery feminine Sex Roles looking girl^ she was with was Btoo cute^ for her and that her girlfriend Bshouldn’t be with a disgusting butch dyke.^ While Jessica’s experiences highlight how two feminine or femme women are hot and appealing to the male gaze, Amelia demonstrates how masculine women appear to have claimed ownership over that which hegemonic masculinity has deemed its property. The combination of hegemonic masculinity and masculine right of access over the feminine also informs heterosexual male responses to gay men. For instance, Ben describes how his straight male friend suddenly became uncomfortable with Ben’s sexuality. During their annual skinny-dip ritual with his classmates, Ben’s good friend suddenly became aggressive: When I approached him it was from the front and it was playful just like it was with everybody else. He all of a sudden got this look in his eye. Like he was scared and he kind of said BHey, back off man.^ (Ben) In this experience, Ben attributes the sudden change in his friend’s disposition to feeling feminized and vulnerable as a result of being naked in the presence of a gay man and that this vulnerability functioned to emasculate his friend. His friend became aggressive because, as Ben describes, he is a man who is Battracted to men,^ and that makes men feel as though they are being viewed Bthe way that they view women, which is primarily as a sex object.^ His friend’s alleged emasculation is a product of how femininity and feminization are understood as signaling masculine right of access and availability. In this way, regardless of sex, if a subject is perceived as feminine or feminized, they are assumed to sexually orient toward men or be the sexual property of men: gay men are stereotyped as effeminate (Jewell and Morrison 2012, p. 359); cisgender feminine women are assumed to be heterosexual, regardless of their sexual orientation, as is the case for femme and lipstick lesbians (Blair and Hoskin 2015); transgender women are assumed to have transitioned (i.e., adopted femininity) as a means of luring men (Natalie); and both trans men and butch/androgynous women who are perceived to have feminine qualities are called faggots. This finding moves beyond previous articulations of men’s entitlement to women’s bodies (Pascoe 2007), suggesting that these phenomena might be more accurately described as femininity signalling masculine right of access. The ability to be seen as one’s authentic sexual identity requires compliance with a dichotomous set of rules, enforced by a hegemonic heterosexual system of meaning that upholds the notion that femininity is necessarily performed to entice a male subject—or male gaze (Mulvey 1975). Gender expressions that stray from the current structures of meaning are met with femmephobia, which retracts femininity in order to maintain femininity as a signifier of female-bodied heterosexuality over which masculine ownership lays claim. Masculinity lays claim not only over bodies, but also over spaces and geographies. For example, whereas masculinity socializes entitlement over taking up space, femininity requires permission (Alexandrowicz, 2017). Thus, masculine entitlement over space and people contributes to the hegemonic heterosexual imperative of difference between, yet complementarity of, femininity and masculinity (Schippers 2007) and is maintained by the regulatory power of femmephobia. The Feminine Joke: Feminine Trivialization One of the many mechanisms that maintains femininity as a signifier of subordination is naturalizing its use to insult, humiliate, or dehumanize others (Blair and Hoskin 2015; Hoskin 2017a). Participants illuminated how Bthe feminine joke^ is a femmephobic tool used to discursively produce femininity’s subordinated status. For example, Pat recounts a Bstereotype [that] butch women are masculine in public, hitting on [women and taking them] home,^ but that it is all for show and when they Bgo home with someone. .. they start to show their true desires which is to be bottom.^ This on-going joke within queer women’s communities ridicules butch lesbians for being Bbutch in the streets, femme in the sheets^ (Pat). The punch line not only hinges humor on the subordinate status of femininity but also reifies femininity’s association with deception, passivity, and something worthy of closeting. Femininity is the backbone or brunt of jokes and is used to invalidate or diminish a person. Arguably, the feminine joke is a product of viewing femininity as subhuman or an artifice, which gives way to its perception as being deceptive or its reduction to an object or performance (Serano 2007). The perception of femininity as an artifice or commodity is also evidenced by drag culture, whereby drag queens are seen as the face of drag, while Bdrag kings aren’t as nearly loved^ (Amelia). The entertainment lies in the performativity and consumability of femininity, specifically the commodification of and cultural preoccupation with presumably male adaptations of femininity. Despite the commodification of male femininity, participants illuminated how it is strictly relegated to the stage, the screen, a Halloween costume or the brunt of a joke. William explains the Bguy in a dress joke^ as a trope commonly found in both LGBTQ+ communities and dominant culture: One of the common "jokes" at the pageant is for a guy to come out with bad makeup and in a dress… The "guy in a dress" joke is still a common one here. It's usually among the same groups who are uncomfortable and against transgender identities and it's an easy way for them to believe and degrade a community they dislike. We've had to struggle frequently against guys who want to wear dresses as a joke for improv skits in the theatre because, to groups that already devalue feminine Sex Roles identities and mock transgender ones, there's some absurd humor in juxtaposing masculinity with the "bad" femininity of a dress. (William) Arguably, this comedic device lends itself to the artificialization of trans-femininity. For example, Logan explains how Btrans femininity is not [seen as] real. It’s seen as pretend and make believe. It’s just looked at as crossdressing.^ Perhaps t he feminine joke and i ts subsequent artificialization serves as a defense mechanism in appeasing the cultural fear of femininity—the stage (commodity, joke, or performance) drawing boundary distinctions of selfhood. In other words, to laugh at that which produces cultural fear and anxiety is to attempt to disarm its power. For example, although a drag queen on stage compels both Bpleasure and applause, the same [drag queen] on the seat next to us on the bus can compel fear, rage, even violence^ (Butler 1997, p. 410). Illustrating this point, when asked where he felt most vulnerable, Richard responded with Bbeing around seemingly unfriendly people at night more so in dresses.^ Although Richard’s discomfort is certainly understandable, the contrast between Richard’s experience and William’s Bguy in a dress joke^ is worth noting: How can the same combination of gender expression and sex be a comedic device in one setting and put an individual at risk in another? Illustrating how femininity is used to ridicule, Jeff described an interaction at a party: BThey just kept constantly saying that I was gay and making jokes about it, and using their tone of voice to indicate mockery of it.^ This sentiment was echoed by Tegan, who recounts how Bthe feminine is scorned, questioned, mocked, devalued in our society,^ both in queer spaces and by the dominant culture. Yet, whereas some participants note how popular representations of LGBTQ+ communities have come a long way and, in fact, appear to celebrate femininity, these celebrations are often reductive, performative, and homonormative representations that are palatable for a heteronormative public—presenting femininity as artifice, entertainment, and gay men as the sassy brunt of jokes. In Emmett’s experience, gay men are Bignored or sneered at because they [are] ‘too femme,’^ which William attributes to the wider cultural phenomenon of mocking or devaluing of femininity. At the core of these jokes, femininity remains the Bobject of ridicule, scorn, hatred,^ and an embodiment society has deemed worthy of contempt (hooks 1992, p. 146). As such, the feminine joke gives an acceptable form of public expression to cultural misogyny and greater societal disdain for femininity (hooks 1992). Similar to hooks’ (1992) argument that Black male comedians strategically adopt/perform femininity to condone their contempt for women as a means of garnering male privilege, among gay men the repudiation of femininity may be an attempt to secure a seat at the table (Pascoe 2007). Due to femininity’s utility as an insult or a joke, it is trivialized within the workplace. Sasha explains how Bpreconceived ideas [about femininity] steps into the room right about the time [her] first heel does^ because femininity signifies that someone is neither Bintelligent^ nor to be taken seriously. Illuminating Sasha’s experience, Jamie describes how masculinity is seen as logical and scientific, whereas femininity is Bmad,^ irrational, and emotional. These perceptions of femininity contribute to sexual harassment, targeting for homophobia violence, and the mediation of passing, but also to career advancement. For example, Jo describes how their Bflamboyancy can be a barrier^ to them in the workplace, particularly when trying to impart knowledge. As an androgynous woman and engineer, Sarah also finds this to be true, explaining Bthat if [she] dressed more feminine, [she] would be disrespected more^ than she already is (Sarah). The disqualification and trivialization of femininity within the workplace can also be evidenced within academia. Siobhan is treated differently depending on whether she is wearing conference attire, which she characterizes as being more masculine, versus her everyday feminine clothing. When in her conference attire, she is treated with more respect, Btaken seriously [and treated] like an intelligent person^ whereas with the latter, she is treated like a Bgirly girl,^ compliant and sweet (Siobhan). This function of femmephobia is also echoed within the research, which illustrates how femininity impacts workplace experiences across sexual and gender identity and is compounded by racial minoritization (Eguchi 2015; Gilbert 2006). For example, feminine bodies do not conform to patriarchal notions of power and authenticity upon which respect is built (Eguchi 2015). To be masculine is to be rational (Benevedes 2015). Instead, femininity signifies an immaturity that disqualifies individuals from competency (Eguchi 2015; Forster 2017). This is particularly evident in male- and masculine-dominant fields such as the sciences where feminine appearance is often taken to interpret that an individual is not well suited for the job (Banchefsky et al. 2016; Forster 2017). Femininity and Passing This theme particularly highlighted the importance of incorporating femininity within intersectional analysis, such that femininity intersected with issues of passing across sexual orientation and gender identity. Participants also described how the relationship between femininity and passing contributed to feelings of inauthenticity and invisibility. Passing typically refers to one’s ability to remain unidentified as a minority, and it stems from the contested concept of racial passing (Ginsberg 1996). As such, passing involves visibility and authenticity, which not only inform in-group membership and insider/outsider social status but also Sex Roles heighten out-group discrimination and exclusion. Passing is complex, and although for many it is important for survival and validation, for others it is invalidating or simply not relevant. For trans women in the current study, passing was influenced by femininity such that participants had to negotiate dominant cultural ideals of femininity to be validated as women. In other words, to be recognized as women, trans women needed to conform to heteronormative gender rules (Yavorsky and Sayer 2013). For example, although cosmetics can help to make trans women like Quin Bfeel less dysphoric,^ to be feminine also comes with the weight of cultural meaning. Trans women illustrated how expressing femininity can be validating, but they are simultaneously policed for their femininity and also for not presenting femininely enough. For example, Quin explains how she despises that Btrans women are expected to be super-femme in order to be validated. Not femme enough you’re not trying hard enough, too femme you’re a caricature.^ Natalie also speaks to the duality that trans women face and the parameters drawn around appropriate femininity. Natalie describes herself as Bacceptably trans^ in that she can negotiate and navigate the parameters of femininity. For femmes and feminine queer women more broadly, invisibility and passing as either straight or cisgender was equally complex, straddling both privilege and oppression. Although passing as cisgender or straight can afford participants a certain level of safety, passing on the feminine spectrum was also met with exclusion, femmephobia, and sexual harassment. For example, Tegan reports being ignored within LGBTQ+ communities—Bpeople refusing to talk^ to her or Bturn[ing] away^ when she attempts to talk to them. To this end, participants like Chelsea described how passing and invisibility were exhausting and required them to Bperpetually come out.^ Although passing may shield sexual or gender minorities from out-group discrimination, for femmes and feminine queer women like Carly, passing as straight and their invisibility as sexual or gender minorities exposed them to homophobia, transphobia, and microaggressions to which they otherwise may not be subjected. As Natalie explains, passing does not necessarily result in the absence of discrimination. Although Natalie passes as a cisgender woman, she is also queer, which she says makes her Bbeholden to all the nuanced homophobia that society has to offer^ (Natalie). Invisibility also produced a type of minority stress whereby participants constantly had to question the multiple intersections of their identity in relation to the person with whom they are interacting. Sasha relates this experience to feeling like a Bproverbial ‘faggot in a football locker room.’^ Speaking to multiple consciousnesses, Sophia recounts her thought process of Bwhat if they’re queerphobic AND a racist AND a fatphobe AND a sexist^ (capitalization added for emphasis). Similarly, participants felt the pull of their intersecting identities in how potential discrimination may manifest; the majority of these pulls tethered on their perceived femininity and were made salient by the invisibility of their minority identities. Hannah feels the pull of her intersecting identities, particularly as a product of her social world. She describes: BIf I’m feminine and alone, I’m targeted as a woman. If I’m feminine and with my partner, I’m targeted as a dyke^ (Hannah). Further exemplifying the contextual and gendered nature of passing, particularly as it relates to street harassment, Sarah described: People who know I am a cis woman think I’m a lesbian, people who can’t tell what gender I am, either think I’m a [feminine] gay man or a lesbian. . . . Walking alone at night I’m afraid of being gay bashed and/or sexually assaulted. (Sarah) Although passing Bmay grant reprieve from the social stigma and potential danger of ambiguous gender expression, as well as access to social and material resources granted only to particular group members, this access and these reprieves are often tenuous, context specific, and revocable^ (Pfeffer 2014, p. 11). For example, although passing often afforded femmes cisgender-privilege or femme-privilege, Jessica describes how it does not Berase the sexism, misogyny, homophobia [she experiences] in the world at large.^ Additionally, although passing allowed femme lesbians entry into heteronormative culture, it was only insofar as they remained passive and attractive sexual objects: BWe are often invisible as queers to heteronormative culture and still regarded as objects of desire by straight cis men—and beholden to the same mistreatment as other feminine women^ (Natalie). Similarly, Becky explains: I feel accepted by mainstream culture but not included. They accept me because they perceive me as one of them, but I know I’m not one of them and often don’t feel like I relate well to non-queer people. (Becky) Perhaps as a consequence of their invisibility and experiences of exclusion, many of the femme women in the current study actively resisted and lamented their closeting. For example, Becky describes feeling proud of her queer identity, the importance of having her queer identity recognized, and wishing Bpeople could guess it just by looking^ at her. Femmes and feminine queer women expressed a yearning to be seen and recognized as LGBTQ+ community members. For many, passing as heterosexual meant the denial of an important element of their identity—the revoking of symbolic and literal space in addition to a void where they felt more masculine members were able to access support, inclusion, and gain recognition. Participants who described being made to feel inauthentic, invisible, and excluded because of their Sex Roles femininity also described a need to be validated as community members. The failure to acknowledge participants’ identities or to be seen as their authentic selves caused many participants to feel perpetually pushed back into the closet by both community members and dominant culture. There was an overwhelming response from femmes and feminine queer women that their femininity disavowed their belonging in particular spaces and that their presence was Btaking space away from somebody else. .. [or] infiltrating a space that wasn’t [theirs] to occupy^ (Tegan). As Hannah explains, if you are feminine within these spaces, people question if you Bare sure you’re in the right place.^ Whereas femmes and feminine queer women minimized their experiences of symbolic violence, erasure, and experiences of exclusion in contrast to the more tangible violence experienced by others in the community, Dan describes the exclusion and erasure of identity as nevertheless Bharmful.^ This was the case for Harriet, who states that invisibility causes her Banxiety^ and feeling as though she is Bconstantly being shoved back into the closet^ after so ardently fighting to assert and claim her sexuality. Harriet elaborated to explain how these experiences also contributed to social anxiety and how having to constantly out herself resulted in attempts to further isolate herself from exhausting and stressful social interactions within which she felt perpetually thrown back into the closet. Carly notes how these assumptions also impact the quality of healthcare she receives, such that the health concerns specific to queer people go unattended due to her invisibility and because doctors Bdon’t bother to ask.^ These narratives illustrate how Bqueer visibility remains culturally synonymous with social perceptions of female masculinity and male femininity^ (Pfeffer 2014, p. 33). However, it is important to distinguish that queer visibility only translates into queer social capital insofar as it is masculine. Discussion In response to the research question of how femmephobia connects across intersecting identities, the themes I identified in the current paper demonstrate how femmephobia regulates bodies and sexualities as exemplified by masculine right of access, biological determinism, and passing, each of which is held up by femininity’s inferiority and perpetuated through ideologies such as the feminine joke. To this end, participants demonstrated how femmephobia culminates across identities, bringing to bear how the societal devaluation of femininity regulates particular bodies and manifests as a target for discrimination. Indeed, perhaps one of the most striking of these themes is how femmephobia functions as a regulatory power precisely through its manifestation as a target. This finding was evidenced across themes which, taken together, showcase not only how femininity functions as a target but also how it is used as a form of unidirectional gender policing. As I noted in my literature review, gender policing tends to focus on a cross-binary regulation of sex and gender embodiment. For instance, cross-binary gender policing is concerned with how feminine men or masculine women face gender policing for transgressing the gender binary. The finding that femininity functions as a target also introduces femmephobia as a novel form of gender policing that does not focus on cross-binary transgressions per se but, instead, considers how cultural ideologies, regulation, and policing of femininity impact people of various identities. Consequently, my paper highlights the importance of dislodging the idea that gender policing itself relies on binary transgressions to instead examine the direction of gender policing as it manifests within and across identities. For example, the themes illustrate how the norms of femininity (i.e., patriarchal femininity) map onto gender hegemony and how these collective assumptions play out in the lived experiences of LGBTQ+ participants. A particularly compelling finding is the idea that femininity is interpreted as signalling a masculine right of access. This finding is at the core of feminine gender policing, and it ultimately contributes to gender hegemony by perpetuating femininity as being done for the consumption of men. Reducing femininity to a product for the consumption of men characterizes femininity, as well as perceptively feminine individuals, by servitude, objectification, and lacking agency. Consequently, the regulation of femininity via masculine right of access ensures that femininity and masculinity are distinct, complementary, and hierarchical. Despite the growth of masculinities, far less attention has been paid to the investigation of femininities (Hoskin 2017a; Schippers 2007). Indeed, many sociologists highlight the need for further theory and research devoted to femininities (Connell and Messerschmidt 2005; Schippers 2007). In response, the current study begins to remedy this gap and illustrates the importance of examining femininities, particularly femme or pariah femininities, as a means of identifying features of gender hegemony—or even hegemonic masculinity. Although masculinity is often described as fragile by social media (Myketiak 2016), it simply does not elicit the same magnitude of gender policing or regulation that is placed on femininity. For example, psychosocial literature highlights the different consequences for gender transgressions, such that feminine individuals who were AMAB (assigned male at birth) face more bullying and exclusion and are more heavily policed than are those who were AFAB and masculine (see Hoskin 2017a, for an overview). Rather, masculinity is specifically made fragile when it is threatened by feminization (Kimmel 1997). Again, the different consequences, as well as the particular threat of feminine transgressions, highlight the importance of examining femininity (versus cross-binary gender policing) and femmephobia in particular. Sex Roles Despite how societal attitudes toward femininity reduce femininity to a target, many participants in the current study viewed their own feminine expressions differently than as dictated by gender hegemony. To them, femininity is a selfexpression and a source of power. It is the cultural understanding of femininity as inferior that has taken their source of power and turned it into their oppression. This juxtaposition begs the question of what lessons might be gained from researching those for whom femininity is empowering and of value, and how might we use their insight to revalue femininity more broadly? Limitations and Future Research Directions Although the current paper had a diverse sample of sexual and gender minorities, a majority of participants identified as White. Feminist scholars have written extensively on the intersections of femininity and race/ethnicity and how benchmark femininity is not only marked as heterosexual and cisgender, but also White (Sharpley-Whiting 1999; Keeling 2007). Produced within a colonial imperial context (Dyer 1997; hooks 1981), patriarchal femininity is maintained by the invisibility of Whiteness (Frankenberg 1993), compulsory heterosexuality (e.g., women as bearers of the White race), and its juxtaposition against Femininities of Color (Deliovsky 2010; LeBlanc 1999; Rich 1980). Consequently, patriarchal femininity relegates Femininities of Color to the bottom of the gender hierarchy and maintains femininity as being at the disposal and service of men (Deliovsky 2008; Hoskin 2017a). Given how race/ethnicity and racialization influence perceptions of femininity and gender more broadly, as well as the legacy of colonization on gender roles, future research should examine experiences of femmephobia among racial/ethnic minorities. Although the intersection of racialization and femmephobia is of theoretical interest, it is also a pressing social justice issue that warrants scholarly attention. The purpose of the current study was to examine how experiences of discrimination connect through a central tenant of femmephobia as a means of gaining greater insight into the systematic devaluation and regulation of femininity. Because LGBTQ+ individuals face gender and sexual prejudice, this population was a good sample on which to begin such an exploration. Although I explore femmephobia across LGBTQ+ identities to examine their interconnectivity, each specific sex and gender configuration warrants its own individual study. By looking across the diverse identities composing the LGBTQ+ community, in the current study I was able to illuminate how femmephobic patterns connect with one another across difference. Future research should consider in-depth analysis of specific identities that fall under the LGBTQ+ umbrella. In addition, because the current study focused on sexual and gender minorities, future research should consider how femininity functions to regulate individuals who identify as both heterosexual and cisgender. Practice Implications The finding that femininity intersects to inform experiences of discrimination is important for researchers, particularly those studying issues of social inequalities through an intersectional lens. It is imperative for researchers, clinicians, and activists to increasingly fine-tune their intersectional lens and incorporate a holistic understanding of social inequalities. Such an approach provides a clearer understanding of what may possibly lay at the heart of many social issues and will aid in the development of future interventions. For example, although interventions are important, they can only be effective if researchers are targeting the proper underlying construct. What if researchers have been examining the wrong constructs and should, instead, direct their attention to societal views about femininity? By turning attention toward femininity, this article also contributes to the emergent field of critical femininities and to the growing understanding of femininity as an intersectional analysis worthy of consideration. Research focusing on gender policing or gender-based discrimination should consider the direction of gender transgressions and how they might be impacted by femmephobia. For instances, those accounted for by the Transgender Day of Remembrance (the annual day to memorialize transgender people who have been murdered) are nearly entirely women (Namaste 2005). Not only are trans women disproportionately murdered, trans Women of Color are at an even greater risk of interpersonal violence. Consideration for how the regulation and devaluing of femininity contributes to trans-misogynistic murder might provide useful insight to help the LGBTQ+ community’s most vulnerable group. As I demonstrate in the present article, an examination of femininity can reconfigure how gender- and sexual-based prejudices are understood. Such a shift in perspective can provide new avenues to remedy some of the pressing issues continuing to plague contemporary society. If sexism, rape culture, trans-misogyny, homophobia, biphobia, misogynoir, and even hegemonic masculinity can be connected through the way society sees and regulates femininity, perhaps reenvisioning femininity itself can offer a fruitful strategy to tackle discrimination. Clinical applications and activism should center around re-learning—or unlearning—what it means to be feminine, focusing on the value of feminine qualities and cultivating acceptance for the parts of ourselves deemed feminine. Conclusion In her TED talk entitled BA woman’s fury holds lifetimes of wisdom,^ Black-ish actor Tracee Ellis Ross (2018) explains how we live in a culture of Bmen helping themselves to Sex Roles women^ and how the seemingly innocuous acts of every day sexism or misogyny are what Bmake space for the horrific.^ Extending Ross’s perspective, my article illustrates how such a phenomenon is not simply fueled by rape culture and misogyny, but also by a culture that does not afford bodily sovereignty to the feminine, that reduces the feminine to an object or sub-human status and that makes femininity a target. The innocuous is dismissed, and the horrific is seen in isolation. What is lacking is an analysis of the spectrum itself. Arguably, it is the spectrum of feminine devaluation that carves such a pathway from normalization and innocuous to the horrific. Researchers need to start understanding the spectrum itself—to begin placing behavior on this spectrum and to make the connections between social phenomena rooted in the ways we see and devalue femininity. Developing an explicit consideration of femininity allows for a deeper analytical lens into how sexual violence, as well as other forms of discrimination and harassment, function. Just as contemporary feminists provided an alternate framework for defining and interpreting sexual violence in order to better understand sexual violence as the spectrum commonly known as rape culture (Donat and D'Emilio 1992), researchers must begin to craft alternate frameworks for understanding femmephobia. By making connections between the way femininity is used to regulate sexuality across identities, places limitations on subjectivity and spaces, lays masculine claim of ownership, and is routinely the object of ridicule, the current study facilitates such an endeavor. BTime’s up^ (https://www.timesupnow.com/) on viewing sexism, misogyny, transphobia, rape culture and homophobia in isolation. Scholars need to look beyond patriarchal femininity’s sole purpose as an instrument of oppression to instead consider how femininity is constitutionalized and operationalized in such a way that deems sexual violence natural, murder permissible, and disqualification expected. Acknowledgments The first author was supported by a Social Science and Humanities Research Council Doctoral Award as well as by The Soroptimist Foundation of Canada. Compliance with Ethical Standards Research Involving Human Participants and Informed Consent The current study was conducted in compliance with ethical standards for research involving human participants and informed consent was obtained from each participant. The Queen’s University General Research Ethics Board approved all procedures and materials for the study. Conflict of Interest There are no potential conflicts of interest to be addressed. Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 13691058.2013.841290. Alexandrowicz, C. (2017). ‘Straight-looking, straight-acting’: Countering effemiphobia in acting training. Theatre, Dance and Performance Training, 8(1), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/19443927.2016. 1246381. Attwood, F. (2007). Sluts and riot grrrls: Female identity and sexual agency. Journal of Gender Studies, 16(3), 233–247. https://doi. org/10.1080/09589230701562921. Bailey, M. J. (1996). Gender identity. In R. C. Savin-Williams & K. M. Cohen (Eds.), Lives of lesbians, gays and bisexuals: Children to adults (pp. 71–93). New York: Harcourt Brace. Bailey, M. (2014). More on the origins of misogynoir. Retrieved from http://moyazb.tumblr.com/post/84048113369/more-on-the-originof-misogynoir. Banchefsky, S., Westfall, J., Park, B., & Judd, C. M. (2016). But you don’t look like a scientist! Women scientists with feminine appearance are deemed less likely to be scientists. Sex Roles, 75(3–4), 95– 109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0586-1. Benevedes, J. M. (2015). The juice girl: The lost feminine gay male psyche. JungJournal: Culture & Psyche, 9(4), 7–25. https://doi. org/10.1080/19342039.2015.1086954. Berger, J. (1972). The nude. In J. Berger (Ed.), Ways of seeing (pp. 45– 64). New York: Penguin Books. 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369. 2014.865464. Blair, K. L. (2017). Did secretary Clinton lose to a ‘basket of deplorables’? An examination of islamophobia, homophobia, sexism and conservative ideology in the 2016 US presidential election. Psychology & Sexuality, 8(4), 334–355. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 19419899.2017.1397051. Blair, K. L., & Hoskin, R. A. (2015). Experiences of femme identity: Coming out, invisibility and femmephobia. Psychology & Sexuality, 6(3), 229–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/19419899.2014.921860. Blair, K. L., & Hoskin, R. A. (2016). Contemporary understandings of femme identities and related experiences of discrimination. Psychology & Sexuality, 7(2), 101–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 19419899.2015.1053824. Blair, K. L., & Hoskin, R. A. (2018). Transgender exclusion from the world of dating: Patterns of acceptance and rejection of hypothetical trans dating partners as a function of sexual and gender identity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407518779139. 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 psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101. https://doi.org/10. 1191/1478088706qp063oa. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2013). Successful qualitative research: A practical guide for beginners. London: Sage. Brownmiller, S. (1984). Femininity. New York: Fawcett Columbine. Brushwood Rose, C., & Camilleri, A. (2002). Brazen femme: Queering femininity. Vancouver, BC: Arsenal Pulp. Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York: Routledge. Butler, J. (1997). Performative acts and gender constitution: An essay in phenomenology and feminist theory. In K. Conboy, N. Medina, & S. Sex Roles Stanbury (Eds.), Writing on the body: Female embodiment and feminist theory (pp. 401–418). New York: Columbia University Press. Carbado, D. W., Williams Crenshaw, K., Mays, V. M., & Tomlinson, B. (2013). Intersectionality: Mapping the movements of a theory. Du Bois Review, 10(2), 303–312. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S1742058X13000349. Combahee River Collective. (1983). The Combahee River collective statement. In B. Smith (Ed.), Home girls, a black feminist anthology (pp. 264–274). Kitchen Table: Women of Color Press. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Connell, R. W. (1987). Gender and power: Society, the person and sexual politics. Cambridge: Polity. Connell, R. W. (1995). Masculinities. Sydney: Polity Press. Connell, R. W., & Messerschmidt, J. W. (2005). Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the concept. Gender and Society, 19(6), 829–859. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243205278639. Coyote, I. E., & Sharman, Z. (2011). Persistence: All ways butch and femme. Vancouver, BC: Arsenal Pulp. Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989(1), 139–168 https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclf/ vol1989/iss1/8. Dahl, U. (2017). Femmebodiments: Notes on queer feminine shapes of vulnerability. Feminist Theory, 18(1), 35–53. https://doi.org/10. 1177/1464700116683902. Deliovsky, K. (2008). Normative white femininity: Race, gender and the politics of beauty. Atlantis: Critical Studies in Gender, Culture & Social Justice, 33(1), 49–59 http://journals.msvu.ca/index.php? journal=atlantis&page=article&op=view&path%5B%5D= 429&path%5B%5D=422. Deliovsky, K. (2010). White femininity: Race, gender & power. Halifax and Winnipeg: Fernwood Publishing. DeVault, M. L., & Gross, G. (2006). Feminist interviewing: Experience, talk, and knowledge. In S. M. Hesse-Biber (Ed.), Handbook of feminist research: Theory and praxis (pp. 173–198). London, UK: Safe Publications. Donat, P., & D'Emilio, J. (1992). A feminist redefinition of rape and sexual assault: Historical foundation and change. Journal of Social Issues, 48(1), 9–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1992. tb01154.x. Dyer, R. (1997). White. London: Routledge. 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. https://doi.org/10.3149/jms. 1901.37. Eguchi, S. (2015). ‘But, I ain’t your geisha!’: (re)framing the ‘femme’ gay Asian male body in the global context. In K. Sorrells & S. Sekimoto (Eds.), Globalizing intercultural communication: A reader (pp. 77– 85). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Fagot, B. J. (1977). Consequences of moderate cross-gender behaviour in preschool children. Child Development, 48(3), 902–907. https://doi. org/10.2307/1128339. 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 Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 1–11. https: //doi.org/10.1177/ 160940690600500107. Forster, E. (2017). As a woman in science, I need to conceal my femininity to be taken seriously: It’s a thesis I tested myself. It proved to be true. Vox. Retrieved from https://www.vox.com/first-person/2017/5/ 4/15536932/women-stem-science-feminism. Foucault, M. (1975). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. New York: Random House. Franco, C. (2014). Shameless: The canine and the feminine in ancient Greece. Oakland, CA: University of California Press. Frankenberg, R. (1993). The social construction of whiteness: White women, race matters. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Gilbert, M. A. (2006). The feminist cross-dresser. In K. Scott-Dixon (Ed.), Trans/forming feminisms: Trans-feminist voices speak out (pp. 105–111). Toronto: Sumach Press. Ginsberg, E. (1996). Passing and the fictions of identity. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1999). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Transaction Publishers. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 491–512. https://doi. org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491. Grossman, A. H., D’Augeli, 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. https://doi.org/10.1300/j462v01n01_04. Harry, J. (1983). Parasuicide, gender and gender deviance. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24(4), 350–361. https://doi.org/10. 2307/2136401. Hesse-Biber, S. N. (2007). The practice of feminist in-depth interviewing. In S. Hesse-Biber & P. L. Leavy (Eds.), Feminist research practice: A primer (pp. 111–148). London, UK: Sage Publications. hooks, b. (1981). Ain’t I a woman?: Black women and feminism. Boston: South End Press. 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 University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada. Retrieved from https:// qspace.library.queensu.ca/handle/1974/8271 . Hoskin, R. A. (2017a). Femme theory: Refocusing the intersectional lens. Atlantis: Critical Studies in Gender, Culture & Social Justice, 38(1), 95–109 http://journals.msvu.ca/index.php/atlantis/article/view/ 4771/95-109%20PDF. Hoskin, R. A. (2017b). Femme interventions and the proper feminist subject: Critical approaches to decolonizing contemporary western feminist pedagogies. Cogent Social Sciences, 3(1), 1–17. https://doi. org/10.1080/23311886.2016.1276819. Hoskin, R. A. (2018). Critical femininities: The development and application of femme theory.(Unpublished dissertation). QSpace at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada. https://qspace. library.queensu.ca/handle/1974/24491 . Hoskin, R. A., & Hirschfeld, K. L. (2018). Beyond aesthetics: A femme manifesto. Atlantis: Critical Studies in Gender, Culture & Social Justice, 39(1), 85–87 http://journals.msvu.ca/index.php?journal= atlantis&page=article&op=view&path%5B%5D=5426&path% 5B%5D=pdf_59. Hughes, G. (2006). Encyclopedia of swearing: The social history of oaths, profanity, foul language, and ethnic slurs in the Englishspeaking world. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe. Human Rights Campaign Foundation. (2017). A time to act: Fatal violence against transgender people in 2017. Retrieved from http:// assets2.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/A_Time_To_Act_2017_ REV3.pdf . Hunter, B. (2019). Bruce McArthur: More serial killer victims across the province? Toronto Sun. Retrieved from https://torontosun.com/ news/local-news/bruce-mcarthur-more-serial-killer-victims-acrossthe-province . Huxley, C., Clarke, V., & Halliwell, E. (2013). Resisting and conforming to the ‘lesbian look’: The importance of appearance norms for lesbian and bisexual women. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 24(3), 205–219. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.2161. Sex Roles Jewell, L. M., & Morrison, M. A. (2012). Making sense of homonegativity: Heterosexual men and women’s understanding of their own prejudice and discrimination toward gay men. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 9(4), 351–370. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 14780887.2011.586098. Kavanaugh, P. R. (2013). The continuum of sexual violence women’s accounts of victimization in urban nightlife. Feminist Criminology, 8(1), 20–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085112442979. Keeling, K. (2007). The witch’s flight: The cinematic, the black femme and the image of common sense. Durham: Duke University Press. Kennedy, E. L., & Davis, M. D. (1993). Boots of leather, slippers of gold: The history of a lesbian community. New York: Routledge/Penguin. Kierski, W., & Blazina, C. (2009). The male fear of the feminine and its effects on counseling and psychotherapy. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 17(2), 155–172. https://doi.org/10.3149/jms.1702.155. Kilianski, S. E. (2003). Explaining heterosexual men’s attitudes toward women and gay men: The theory of exclusively masculine identity. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 4(1), 37–56. https://doi.org/10. 1037/1524-9220.4.1.37. Kimmel, M. S. (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. LeBlanc, L. (1999). Pretty in punk: Girls' gender resistance in a boys' subculture. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Levitt, H., Gerrish, E. A., & Hiestand, K. R. (2003). The misunderstood gender: A model of modern femme identity. Sex Roles, 48(4), 99– 113. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022453304384. Levitt, H. M., Surace, F. I., Wheeler, E. E., Maki, E., Alcantara, D., Cadet, M., … Ngai, C. (2018). Drag gender: Experiences of gender for gay and queer men who perform drag. Sex Roles, 78(5–6), 367–384. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-017-0802-7. Lu, W. (2016). 8 LGBTQ activists share what Blove is love^ means to them in Donald Trump’s America. Bustle. Retrieved from https:// www.bustle.com/p/8-lgbtq-activists-share-what-love-is-lovemeans-to-them-in-donald-trumps-america-7278041 . McCall, L. (2005). The complexity of intersectionality. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 30(3), 1771–1800. https://doi.org/10. 1086/426800. McLean, K. (2008). ‘Coming out, again’: Boundaries, identities and spaces of belonging. Australian Geographer, 39(3), 303–313. https://doi.org/10.1080/00049180802270507. Mezzofiore, G. (2018). The Toronto suspect apparently posted about an ‘incel rebellion.’ Here’s what that means. CNN. Retrieved from https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/25/us/incel-rebellion-alekminassian-toronto-attack-trnd/index.html. 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 & Culture, 19(4), 637–658. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-015-9283-4. Miller, B., & Behm-Morawitz, E. (2016). BMasculine guys only^: The effects of femmephobic mobile dating application profiles on partner selection for men who have sex with men. Computers in Human Behavior, 62, 176–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.088. Mulvey, L. (1975). Visual pleasure and narrative cinema. Screen, 16(3), 6–18. https://doi.org/10.1093/screen/16.3.6. Myketiak, C. (2016). Fragile masculinity: Social inequalities in the narrative frame and discursive construction of a mass shooter’s autobiography/manifesto. Contemporary Social Science, 11(4), 289–303. https://doi.org/10.1080/21582041.2016.1213414. Namaste, V. (2005). Sex change. Social change: Reflections on identity, institutions and imperialism. Toronto, ON: Women’s Press. Oliver, K. (1994). Womanizing Nietzsche: Philosophy’s relation to the feminine. New York: Routledge. Pain, R. (1991). Space, sexual violence and social control: Integrating geographical and feminist analyses of women’s fear of crime. Progress in Human Geography, 15(4), 415–431. https://doi.org/10. 1177/030913259101500403. Pain, R. (2001). Gender, race, age and fear in the city. Urban Studies, 38(5–6), 899–913. https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980120046590. Pascoe, C. J. (2007). Dude, you’re a fag: Masculinity and sexuality in high school. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Pfeffer, C. A. (2014). ‘I don’t like passing as a straight woman’: Queer negotiations of identity and social group membership. American Journal of Sociology, 120(1), 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1086/677197. Pickens, C., & Braun, V. (2018). BStroppy bitches who just need to learn how to settle^? Young single women and norms of femininity and heterosexuality. Sex Roles, 79(7–8), 431–448. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s11199-017-0881-5. Pope, C., Ziebland, S., & Mays, N. (2000). Qualitative research in health care: Analysing qualitative data. British Medical Journal, 320, 114– 116. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.320.7227.114. Rich, A. (1980). Compulsory heterosexuality and lesbian experience. Signs, 5(4), 631–660. https://doi.org/10.1086/493756. Ross, T. E. (2018). A woman’s fury holds lifetimes of wisdom [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/tracee_ellis_ross_ a_woman_s_fury_holds_lifetimes_of_wisdom?utm_campaign= social&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_ content=talk&utm_term=global-social%20issues . Sanchez, F. J., & Vilain, E. (2012). ‘Straight-acting gays’: The relationship between masculine consciousness, anti-effeminacy, and negative gay identity. Archives of Sexual Behaviour, 41, 111–119. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10508-012-9912-z. Schippers, M. (2007). Recovering the feminine other: Masculinity, femininity, and gender hegemony. Theory and Society, 36(85), 85–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-007-9022-4. Segarra, L.M. (2017). The 10 deadliest mass shootings in modern U.S. history. Time. Retrieved from http://time.com/4967879/deadliestmass-shootings-las-vegas/. Serano, J. (2007). Whipping girl: A transsexual woman on sexism and the scapegoating of femininity. Emeryville, CA: Seal Press. Serano, J. (2013). Excluded: Making feminist and queer movements more inclusive. Emeryville, CA: Seal Press. Sharpley-Whiting, T. D. (1999). Black Venus: Sexualized savages, primal fears, and primitive narratives in French. Durham: Duke University Press. Stone, A., & Gorga, A. (2014). Containing pariah femininities: Lesbians in the sorority rush process. Sexualities, 17(3), 348–364. https://doi. org/10.1177/1363460713516336. Tanenbaum, L. (2015). I am not a slut: Slut-shaming in the age of the internet. New York: Harper Perennial. Taywaditep, K. J. (2001). Marginalization among the marginalized: Gay men’s anti-effeminacy attitudes. Journal of Homosexuality, 42(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1300/j082v42n01_01. Tetreault, M. A. (2001). Frontier politics: Sex, gender, and the deconstruction of the public sphere. Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, 26(1), 53–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/030437540102600103. Volcano, D. L., & Dahl, U. (2008). Femmes of power: Exploding queer femininities. London, UK: Serpent’s Tail. Wexler, L., Robbennolt, J. K., & Murphy, C. (2018). #MeToo, Time’s up, and theories of justice. University of Illinois College of Law Legal Studies Research Paper. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3135442. Wilson, D., & Neville, S. (2009). Culturally safe research with vulnerable populations. Contemporary Nurse, 33(1), 69–79. https://doi.org/10. 5172/conu.33.1.69. Yavorsky, J., & Sayer, L. (2013). BDoing fear^: The influence of heterofemininity on (trans)women’s fears of victimization. The Sociological Quarterly, 54(4), 511–533. https://doi.org/10.1111/ tsq.12038.