Gender Treachery: Homophobia, Masculinity, and Threatened Identities, Patrick D. Hopkins.

I do not think that this essay gives enough of an explanation of the connection between masculinity and homophobia to persuasive as to its thesis that homophobia comes about as a result of the masculine identity feeling threatened at the individual level. The essay states that much of our identity, our "personhood" as Mr. Hopkins puts it, is based on gender notions, and I agree with this point. But then Hopkins goes on to say that anything that does not clearly fit within the "binary" categories created by the two gender classification system is viewed as a threat to a man's developed identity. However he does not explain why a behavior that does not fit into the binary categories becomes a threat, why and how having a third category threatens the concept of masculinity. Hopkins does explain that the binary gender classification has an effect on many other categories in society, "They affect-if not determine-labor, reproduction-associated responsibilities, childrearing roles, distribution of political power,....", but he fails to make a convincing argument as to why having only two categories is the magical solution for having this societal order, as opposed to a society that may have three or more categories with respect to gender, or no categories at all.

Hopkins touches a little bit on the definition of masculinity, as mostly a definition as to what a male person is not, a negative definition. " For a man to qualify as a man, he must possess a certain (or worse, uncertain) number of demonstrable characteristics that make it clear that he is not a women, ... ". Hopkins does not clearly state how the definition of what a homosexual is- which he does not define in this essay-infringes on the definition of masculinity in such a way that it becomes a threat to it. It seems to me that the threat to masculinity comes from being an alternative, a third category, to the established categories, and not because the definition of masculinity as such. I found the essay kind of confusing because, as I understand it, Hopkins' arguments support the argument that homophobia is the result of a binary system, and not the result of preconceived definitions or roles. That seems to suggest that homophobia is a structural problem in society which may be more difficult to deal with rather than merely dealing with it at an individual personality level. Yet the title of the essay suggests the author's theory is that homophobia is the result of the definition of masculinity and potential personal identity crises, as opposed to society's reaction to a threat to its stable classification system based on only two genders.