As I write my book on transmasculinity and the discrimination faced by transmasculine individuals, I keep circling a gap in our vocabulary. I begin to write about how transandrodia, the specific discrimination against transmasculine people, is the intersection of transphobia, misogyny, and… and… what? Misandry? No, that would suggest a society that discriminates against men as a class, which isn’t accurate. Gender essentialism? While true, that's too broad; essentialism affects everyone. The word I was looking for didn’t exist. I was trying to name the way masculinity itself, an axis of power, can double as an axis of discrimination when embodied by the “wrong” person. And so I’ve made the word exist; I call it ancandry (an-KAN-dree; from ‘anceps’ [Latin] and ‘andros’ [Greek], literally “double-headed masculinity”). This concept exists in relation to the established theory of hegemonic masculinity — the dominant, socially endorsed form of masculinity that subordinates all other masculinities and femininity. While hegemonic masculinity describes the system and the ideal at the top of this hierarchy, ancandry names the specific mechanism of discrimination enacted against those who are punished for embodying masculinity while belonging to a marginalized group; where one’s identity is simultaneously perceived as an aspiration to male privilege and a failure to legitimately embody it. Think of it this way: When a white man does something wrong, it is him who has done a bad thing. He may be judged as an individual, but his manhood, in a patriarchal society, remains fundamentally Good. It is itself never on trial. On the contrary, when a Black man is even suspected of wrongdoing, his manhood is not a neutral fact. It intersects with his race — his Black masculinity is Bad. He is not simply someone who made a mistake or even an individual ‘bad person’, but rather a brute or a thug. His Black manhood is evidence against him. I believe there is this misconception that minority men experience a “base” version of discrimination compared to minority women. And while it is true that minority men have male privilege over women of the same minority, I think dumbing down the intersection to this is an oversimplification. See, manhood has a unique property not seen in other privileges. There is, for example, no such thing as being white in the “wrong way”. There is no way to be a “failed” rich person. There are no “incorrectly” able-bodied people. Compared to femininity, masculinity is better; but compared to a white man’s, a Black or Brown man’s masculinity is dangerous. Compared to a cis man’s, a trans man’s masculinity is inadequate. Compared to a straight man’s, a gay man’s masculinity is weak. Compared to a rich man’s, a working man’s masculinity is unrefined. Compared to an abled man’s, a disabled man’s masculinity is flimsy. Ancandry also intersects with misogyny. As previously mentioned, transmasculine people face both misogyny and ancandry because our masculinity is aggressively policed. In a transphobic society, we are perceived as women attempting to usurp a privilege that isn’t ours. Consequently, what is praised as strength in cis men is condemned in us as deception, inadequacy, or a rejection of our ‘proper’ role. This is also true for gender non-conforming women. The masculinity of a woman who is butch or cross-dresses is masculinity on the “wrong” person. She is then not judged solely as a woman or a masculine person, but as a masculine woman. She is “bossy”, a “bitch”, or a “dyke”. Like transmasculine people, she is reaching for a privilege that doesn’t belong to her, and therefore her masculinity is Bad. My hope is that the term ancandry can help open up more intersectional discussions. In all these cases, the same system that prizes masculinity fiercely polices its borders. By naming it, we take the first step in disabling it.
