Conceptualizing Masculinity in Female-to-Male Trans-Identified Individuals: A Qualitative Inquiry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A non-normative gender identity raises questions concerning widely accepted theories of gender that prevail in Western society. These theories are founded upon dichotomous models of gender identity that are posited as having a direct relationship to binary biological sex. The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore how individuals who have transitioned from female to male (FTM) conceptualize their masculinity outside of the constraints of the binary model. Six FTM participants who had transitioned to some degree were interviewed. Through the exploration of the participants’ lived experience and understanding of their male identities, 5 major categories, 12 major themes, and 48 subthemes emerged. A process entitled Embodying a Male Identity was revealed. According to this process, the FTMs in this study embodied a male identity through a variety of experiences that serve to align external physiology with internal self. This process suggests that masculinity, which is often interpreted in the social realm as a validation of maleness, is not a requirement for, or a product of, a male gender identity. Rather, masculinity (alongside femininity) is viewed by participants as a set of traits that vary naturally in all humans (regardless of gender).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".