i was raised to be a man. that was not my fault. this was done to me by this fucked up patriarchal system, and turns out i neither want to be a man nor am i a man now.
but being trans did not make me immune to the harmful behaviours and ideas that are taught to those children perceived as boys.
i internalized many patriarchal ideas, and while realizing that i am trans at the age of 20 helped me unlearn some of that shit, i am still not free of it and am still unlearning.
not everyone goes through the same and not everyon processes it the same, so i don’t doubt that other people who were raised to be men (both cis men and trans people) made different experiences, but it is certainly true for me.
i don’t know if “male socialisation” is the best word for it, but i think it makes sense to have a word to describe what i and many others went through
it definitely should not define us. everyone can and should unlearn the patriarchal ideas and behaviours they internalized. overcome and reject their socialization.
it is cruel and pointless to hate people for what was done to them; for a past they left behind.
“Male socialisation” implies that everyone who was AMAB went through the same kind of upbringing and was exposed to the same kinds of indoctrination, toxicity, and bias. It is an over generalisation at best, and intentionally misrepresentative at worst.
If you want to talk specifically about what being assigned male at birth did to your upbringing, I can see it being useful to have a generally understood terminology for that. But you aren’t talking about something that is necessarily applicable as a broad term like “male socialisation”.
I was raised by people who thought I was a male, and part of that bombarded me with machismo and objectification of women. Traditional masculine values were, or at least there was an attempt to, pasted onto me. But many of them slid right off because even if I didnt acknowledge it until a decade or more later, I was a woman, and these values did not align with me. Some stuck, and took learning and introspection to undo.
I am still undoing some of that and I’m sure theres more that I’m unaware of that I will be undoing for years. But my experience differed so greatly from one whose identity aligns with their assigned gender at birth, because the core assumption at the root of what those around me were trying to impart upon me, was wrong. I was not a man. I have never been a man.
I can plant a seed and a plastic bead in the same soil, give them the same fertiliser, water them the same, and only the seed will grow into a plant. The bead might be wet, or dirty, just like the seed, but to expect that it would have experienced the same resulting changes as the seed would be unwise.
“Male socialization” paints transgender women as invariably unable to escape the chains of their assigned gender at birth. Let us rather discuss, on an individual basis, the toxicity and unhelpful values that were or were not taught by those we trusted.
“Male socialization” paints transgender women as invariably unable to escape the chains of their assigned gender at birth. [Emphasis added]
I feel like i also was exposed to a lot of cultural views, about men and women, about race, class, etc, which were informed by my role and identity in society. And while I’ll always have that background to overcome, my background doesn’t control my beliefs or behaviors.
I had no idea people were using it to say that trans women would always be “like men” but it makes sense now… unfortunately :(
I’m glad I could provide some valuable thought food for you!
We are, of course, influenced by our upbringing, but I do think that gesturing at this nebulous, oversimplified concept of “male socialisation” is not constructive.
“Male socialisation” implies that everyone who was AMAB went through the same kind of upbringing and was exposed to the same kinds of indoctrination, toxicity, and bias. It is an over generalisation at best, and intentionally misrepresentative at worst.
You’re making the mistake of confusing, “everyone is unique, therefore no description is perfect” with “everyone is unique, therefore no description is possible or useful.”
I’m not making a mistake - I am directly stating that this term does not do a good job at capturing a group in a useful way.
There is ample feminist literature for decades debunking how “male socialization” is used today.
More current, is the concept viewed from intersectional feminism, which criticises the fact that flattening down “male socialization” in this way does a disservice by excluding other, perhaps more prominent social and circumstantial factors which all contribute together, such as race, class, disability, sexuality, nationality, etc.
A more nuanced discussion is necessary, in my opinion, and I dont think I have ever seen “male socialization” used in a constructive context. I most prominently see it used to invalidate (trans) women’s genders, hand-wave away poor behaviour, etc.
I’ve seen the term used with extreme usefulness, even within the trans community.
Studying male/female socialization is extremely useful for binary trans people who want to pass and assimilate into society. Maybe it’s not useful for the most gender rebel nonbinary folks out there. And more power to such folks. But we shouldn’t gatekeep trans identities and invalidate the experiences of binary trans people.
And yes, you are making the exact mistake I suggested:
More current, is the concept viewed from intersectional feminism, which criticises the fact that flattening down “male socialization” in this way does a disservice by excluding other, perhaps more prominent social and circumstantial factors which all contribute together, such as race, class, disability, sexuality, nationality, etc.
A description does not have to be perfect to be useful. All models are wrong. Some models are useful. Gender socialization is not the sole determiner of behavior. It may not even be the greatest single factor of behavior. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t broad averages that are still very useful to reference in the right context.
For example, men are generally socialized to take up more space than women are. And this is true across many other axes. Across most cultures, religions, income levels, etc. Men are encouraged to be big, bold, and be heard. See manspreading. Women are encouraged to be smaller and take up less space. Maybe you can find some rare culture in history that this wasn’t the case. But it’s true for the cultures that the vast vast majority of human beings on this earth live in.
And this is not simply an academic matter. For a binary trans woman seeking advice on how to pass better, “take up as little physical space as possible” is actually fantastic advice if she isn’t already doing it. You can have a body, face, and voice that are read as female. But if you sit down a couch, wearing a skirt, and spread your legs wide instead of keeping them crossed or closed? That will immediately out you as a trans woman, or at the very least draw attention to you. Women generally are socialized to close their legs when they sit. Maybe that’s not true for the Sentilese, but for an American woman living in the US in 2026, it’s certainly true in far more cases than not.
Passing is all about appealing to societal averages. Again, if someone doesn’t care at all about passing, fair enough. But we should not invalidate the experiences of those who wish to pass. And for those that do, studying their socialization and adjusting their behavior accordingly is something that most of us have to do.
Again, it isn’t a mistake - I am criticising the label not because it is imperfect, but because it is not a meaningful label. I would appreciate if you would consider the fact that I heard you the first time and disagree for a reason, not out of ignorance.
I understand where you’re coming from with behaviour and mannerism adjustment - I had not (until yourself) seen these aspects held under the nebulous umbrella of “male socialization”, at least not when it comes to the kinds of things that binary trans women would be looking to change in an effort to be perceived as feminine. Perhaps this is the correct term for that, but I’m not convinced
As a binary trans woman who is intentionally performing gender in a mostly traditional way, I wouldn’t begin to gatekeep trans identities or invalidate the experiences of binary trans people. For all the conversation about behaviour and mannerism adjustment, I would have instead been using the terms “femininity” and “masculinity”, or “traditional X gender presentation”, especially given the widespread adoption of the term “male socialization” as a piece of transphobic rhetoric. I believe the aforementioned two terms to be more well defined, generally applicable, and less prone to centering the conversation on a gender they do not identify with.
If it is useful to you to use this term in this way, more power to you. I shouldn’t, can’t, and won’t prevent you from doing so.
but being trans did not make me immune to the harmful behaviours and ideas that are taught to those children perceived as boys.
Absolutely not. But you also didn’t have the same relationship with your upbringing as cis men and boys did, because you dealt with a lifetime of internalised transphobia that made you doubt who you are.
We all absolutely share some similarities with the socialisation of our cis peers, good and bad, but we did not have the same experience as them, and I think that’s an important distinction to make. “Male socialisation” erases those different experiences. But when you don’t conflate the two experiences, you can start to talk about the difference, whilst also acknowledging the commonalities.
i was raised to be a man. that was not my fault. this was done to me by this fucked up patriarchal system, and turns out i neither want to be a man nor am i a man now.
but being trans did not make me immune to the harmful behaviours and ideas that are taught to those children perceived as boys. i internalized many patriarchal ideas, and while realizing that i am trans at the age of 20 helped me unlearn some of that shit, i am still not free of it and am still unlearning.
not everyone goes through the same and not everyon processes it the same, so i don’t doubt that other people who were raised to be men (both cis men and trans people) made different experiences, but it is certainly true for me.
i don’t know if “male socialisation” is the best word for it, but i think it makes sense to have a word to describe what i and many others went through
it definitely should not define us. everyone can and should unlearn the patriarchal ideas and behaviours they internalized. overcome and reject their socialization.
it is cruel and pointless to hate people for what was done to them; for a past they left behind.
I think its important to draw a line.
“Male socialisation” implies that everyone who was AMAB went through the same kind of upbringing and was exposed to the same kinds of indoctrination, toxicity, and bias. It is an over generalisation at best, and intentionally misrepresentative at worst.
If you want to talk specifically about what being assigned male at birth did to your upbringing, I can see it being useful to have a generally understood terminology for that. But you aren’t talking about something that is necessarily applicable as a broad term like “male socialisation”.
I was raised by people who thought I was a male, and part of that bombarded me with machismo and objectification of women. Traditional masculine values were, or at least there was an attempt to, pasted onto me. But many of them slid right off because even if I didnt acknowledge it until a decade or more later, I was a woman, and these values did not align with me. Some stuck, and took learning and introspection to undo.
I am still undoing some of that and I’m sure theres more that I’m unaware of that I will be undoing for years. But my experience differed so greatly from one whose identity aligns with their assigned gender at birth, because the core assumption at the root of what those around me were trying to impart upon me, was wrong. I was not a man. I have never been a man.
I can plant a seed and a plastic bead in the same soil, give them the same fertiliser, water them the same, and only the seed will grow into a plant. The bead might be wet, or dirty, just like the seed, but to expect that it would have experienced the same resulting changes as the seed would be unwise.
“Male socialization” paints transgender women as invariably unable to escape the chains of their assigned gender at birth. Let us rather discuss, on an individual basis, the toxicity and unhelpful values that were or were not taught by those we trusted.
Thank you. I had never considered this view:
I feel like i also was exposed to a lot of cultural views, about men and women, about race, class, etc, which were informed by my role and identity in society. And while I’ll always have that background to overcome, my background doesn’t control my beliefs or behaviors.
I had no idea people were using it to say that trans women would always be “like men” but it makes sense now… unfortunately :(
I’m glad I could provide some valuable thought food for you!
We are, of course, influenced by our upbringing, but I do think that gesturing at this nebulous, oversimplified concept of “male socialisation” is not constructive.
You’re making the mistake of confusing, “everyone is unique, therefore no description is perfect” with “everyone is unique, therefore no description is possible or useful.”
I’m not making a mistake - I am directly stating that this term does not do a good job at capturing a group in a useful way.
There is ample feminist literature for decades debunking how “male socialization” is used today.
More current, is the concept viewed from intersectional feminism, which criticises the fact that flattening down “male socialization” in this way does a disservice by excluding other, perhaps more prominent social and circumstantial factors which all contribute together, such as race, class, disability, sexuality, nationality, etc.
A more nuanced discussion is necessary, in my opinion, and I dont think I have ever seen “male socialization” used in a constructive context. I most prominently see it used to invalidate (trans) women’s genders, hand-wave away poor behaviour, etc.
I’ve seen the term used with extreme usefulness, even within the trans community.
Studying male/female socialization is extremely useful for binary trans people who want to pass and assimilate into society. Maybe it’s not useful for the most gender rebel nonbinary folks out there. And more power to such folks. But we shouldn’t gatekeep trans identities and invalidate the experiences of binary trans people.
And yes, you are making the exact mistake I suggested:
A description does not have to be perfect to be useful. All models are wrong. Some models are useful. Gender socialization is not the sole determiner of behavior. It may not even be the greatest single factor of behavior. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t broad averages that are still very useful to reference in the right context.
For example, men are generally socialized to take up more space than women are. And this is true across many other axes. Across most cultures, religions, income levels, etc. Men are encouraged to be big, bold, and be heard. See manspreading. Women are encouraged to be smaller and take up less space. Maybe you can find some rare culture in history that this wasn’t the case. But it’s true for the cultures that the vast vast majority of human beings on this earth live in.
And this is not simply an academic matter. For a binary trans woman seeking advice on how to pass better, “take up as little physical space as possible” is actually fantastic advice if she isn’t already doing it. You can have a body, face, and voice that are read as female. But if you sit down a couch, wearing a skirt, and spread your legs wide instead of keeping them crossed or closed? That will immediately out you as a trans woman, or at the very least draw attention to you. Women generally are socialized to close their legs when they sit. Maybe that’s not true for the Sentilese, but for an American woman living in the US in 2026, it’s certainly true in far more cases than not.
Passing is all about appealing to societal averages. Again, if someone doesn’t care at all about passing, fair enough. But we should not invalidate the experiences of those who wish to pass. And for those that do, studying their socialization and adjusting their behavior accordingly is something that most of us have to do.
Again, it isn’t a mistake - I am criticising the label not because it is imperfect, but because it is not a meaningful label. I would appreciate if you would consider the fact that I heard you the first time and disagree for a reason, not out of ignorance.
I understand where you’re coming from with behaviour and mannerism adjustment - I had not (until yourself) seen these aspects held under the nebulous umbrella of “male socialization”, at least not when it comes to the kinds of things that binary trans women would be looking to change in an effort to be perceived as feminine. Perhaps this is the correct term for that, but I’m not convinced
As a binary trans woman who is intentionally performing gender in a mostly traditional way, I wouldn’t begin to gatekeep trans identities or invalidate the experiences of binary trans people. For all the conversation about behaviour and mannerism adjustment, I would have instead been using the terms “femininity” and “masculinity”, or “traditional X gender presentation”, especially given the widespread adoption of the term “male socialization” as a piece of transphobic rhetoric. I believe the aforementioned two terms to be more well defined, generally applicable, and less prone to centering the conversation on a gender they do not identify with.
If it is useful to you to use this term in this way, more power to you. I shouldn’t, can’t, and won’t prevent you from doing so.
Absolutely not. But you also didn’t have the same relationship with your upbringing as cis men and boys did, because you dealt with a lifetime of internalised transphobia that made you doubt who you are.
We all absolutely share some similarities with the socialisation of our cis peers, good and bad, but we did not have the same experience as them, and I think that’s an important distinction to make. “Male socialisation” erases those different experiences. But when you don’t conflate the two experiences, you can start to talk about the difference, whilst also acknowledging the commonalities.