Introduction
The increasing visibility and rights of transgender1 people within many military contexts has sparked discussion and policy reconsiderations worldwide (Crosbie & Posard, 2016). This has been brought into even sharper focus in the wake of recent political directives which restrict the recruitment and service of openly transgender people in the armed forces of the United States (Vanden Brook & Jansen, 2025). Notably, the debates about the inclusion of transgender individuals in military forces often intersect with long-standing discourses on gender norms and ideologies of traditional masculinity, echoing the historical challenges faced by cisgender women and openly lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) individuals seeking to enlist and serve (Newswise, 2017).
Military institutions have long been bastions of a traditional cisheteronormative2 masculinity (Worthen, 2019), with cultural norms emphasizing toughness, dominance, and aggression. These traits have in many contexts been deeply ingrained in military training and come to underpin discourses of operational effectiveness, discipline, and cohesion (Agostino, 1998; Arkin & Dobrofsky, 1978; Hale, 2008). These gendered and gendering norms shape military culture and the military identity of personnel, subordinating and marginalizing those gendered subjectivities, bodies, and qualities which do not fit and embody this reductive model, even influencing the perceptions of competency and capacity to lead (Connell, 1995; Higate, 2003; Korenman et al., 2019; Van Gilder, 2019).
This backdrop not only provides critical context for understanding the resistance to transgender inclusion in military environments but, moreover, the rationale for this study to investigate the endorsement of traditional masculinity ideology (TMI) among cisgender men in the South African Navy (SAN) and their attitudes toward transgender people serving in the SAN. The SAN offers an interesting case for examining how masculinity within military organizations shapes attitudes toward gender diversity. As part of the broader post-apartheid reforms aimed at dismantling discrimination based on race, gender, and sexual orientation, the South African military has adopted policies geared toward enhancing inclusion and diversity (Heinecken, 2025). However, as a naval force, the maritime theatre of operations and sea-based deployments of the SAN may create unique social and spatial conditions that could influence attitudes toward transgender personnel. In this regard, this study contributes to global military scholarship by offering one of the first large-scale investigations of cisgender men’s attitudes toward transgender personnel in an African military context. By examining the link between traditional masculinity ideology and support for transgender inclusion in the SAN, it contributes with new insights from a non-Western, post-apartheid setting to global debates on gender diversity in armed forces.
Traditional Masculinity Ideology and Attitudes Toward Sexual and Gender Diversity
TMI encompasses a set of beliefs about how people sexed and gendered as male/masculine/men should think, feel and behave, in a given time and place (Levant & Richmond, 2016). For Levant et al. (2013), TMI specifically scaffolds the ideal and dominant form of masculinity in a heteronormative and patriarchal society as a collection of distinct but ultimately interconnected characteristics that include heterosexuality (and heterosexism), emotional stoicism, anti-femininity, sexual prowess, toughness, dominance, as well as self-reliance and mechanical skill.
Although there are “as many different masculinity ideologies in the world as there are individuals to enact them” (McDermott et al., 2022, p. 211), TMI is argued to underpin a core set of masculine role norms which are rooted in what is a conservative, patriarchal, (hetero)sexist, and prescriptive model of masculinity (McDermott et al., 2022), akin to Connell’s (1995) theorisation of “hegemonic masculinity”3 (Gerdes et al., 2018). While masculine role norms are not inherently deleterious, high endorsement and rigid adherence to these norms and the strains experienced in not meeting normative expectations can engender behaviours that compromise men’s health and wellbeing (Berger et al., 2005; O’Neil, 2012; Uy et al., 2014).
Amongst the civilian public, endorsement of TMI and associated masculine role norms are a significant predictor of more negative attitudes to sexual and gender diversity (Perez-Arche & Miller, 2021). More traditional views of masculine gender roles correlate with essentialist thinking about sex and gender (Smiler & Gelman, 2008) and predict less accepting attitudes toward LGB and transgender people (Hackimer et al., 2021; Jones et al., 2023).
Gender Norms and Gender Diversity in Military Contexts
According to Nagel et al. (2021, p. 4), “masculinity and beliefs about the masculine characteristics that supposedly make the ideal soldier are central to military culture.” Research has highlighted an archetype of so-called “warrior masculinity” that permeates the organisational culture, values, and practices of military forces (Do & Samuels, 2021; Swain, 2016; Woodward, 2000). However, studies have revealed the existence of multiple masculinities that military men (and women) perceive and perform, influenced by gender, rank, occupation, and branch of service (Duncanson, 2009; Hale, 2012). In naval forces, occupational speciality (combat vs. support role) and rank (level of authority) have also been found to shape Navy men’s endorsement of masculine norms and their perception of hierarchies of masculinity among different groups of men (Barrett, 1996; Hinojosa, 2010). This mirrors the gendered dynamics present amongst military service members in other branches, such as Air Force personnel, where the work of non-combat support, logistical, and technical roles is often coded as feminine and viewed as less valuable compared to pilots (Lane, 2017; Wasserman et al., 2018).
Despite efforts to enhance gender diversity in military forces, resistance to inclusivity has often been shown to persist at organizational and individual levels (Kouri, 2024; Pendlebury, 2020; Van Douwen et al., 2022). Alongside socially conservative political agendas, essentialist attitudes about sex, gender, and sexuality have also underpinned policies that excluded cisgender women on the grounds that they purportedly lacked the physical ability for combat operations or that openly LGB people would “disrupt” unit discipline (Connell & Connell, 2022; Muhr & Sløk-Andersen, 2017). However, evidence suggests that these concerns were unfounded, as operational effectiveness remained largely unaffected after the removal of exclusionary policies directed at these groups (Belkin et al., 2013; Hardt & von Hlatky, 2024). Similarly, research into the military forces of Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom, all of which have enabled the integration of openly transgender individuals into service, has failed to find evidence of significant adverse impacts on operational effectiveness or unit cohesion (Coppola, 2021; Okros & Scott, 2015; Schaefer et al., 2016). Yet, even where the service of women and openly LGB and transgender people takes place, discrimination, sexism, homophobia and transphobia, and sexual violence still form part of the daily lived experiences of these personnel (Connell, 2024; Dietert & Dentice, 2015; Gurung, et al., 2018; Wetzler et al., 2024).
Although research with members of the public has shown that people with more traditional views about gender roles are less likely to support military service by transgender individuals (Lewis et al. 2021), research with actively serving military members remains limited, particularly among the personnel of armed forces located in non-Western, less industrialized, and lower income contexts. Studies from the United States indicate a spectrum of opinions. Military cadets have been found to be less supportive of transgender inclusion than their civilian counterparts (Ender et al., 2016), and although other studies have suggested shifting attitudes, with growing support among military students (Ender et al., 2017; Kelty et al., 2023), their attitudes remain diverse (Worthen, 2019). Dunlap et al. (2021) found support for the military service of transgender personnel across all branches of service and ranks. However, White, male, and heterosexual respondents were less supportive than the personnel who were from a racial/ethnic minority, cisgender woman, and LGB. Other factors influencing these attitudes include gender, education, and ideological conservatism. Military men with more traditional beliefs concerning gender roles are generally less supportive of transgender inclusion, while higher educational attainment correlates with more accepting views (Daniels, 2023).
Similarly, in a survey of current and former members of the US military, Spindel and Ralston (2020) found that participants with more conservative political ideologies were more likely to perceive transgender individuals as negatively impacting unit cohesion, as they understood cohesion to be primarily based on bonding through shared social identities – framing transgender people as “other.” However, they also found that personnel with combat experience, a higher rank, and who were active-duty were more likely to endorse a task-based view of cohesion that displaced social identity in favour of military professionalism and competence, creating the possibility for more inclusive attitudes. These findings resonate with scholarship on postmodern militaries, which suggests a shift away from traditional warrior ideals toward professionalism, technical expertise, and diversity as core operational values (King, 2013; Kümmel, 2018).4 In such contexts, cohesion is increasingly understood in task-oriented terms, potentially enabling greater inclusion of gender-diverse personnel. Apart from studies focusing on the United States, a recent study among younger male personnel in the Brazilian army found higher levels of prejudice toward sexual and gender diverse people if the respondent was religious, had a lower income, and was more limited in their educational attainment (de Azevedo et al., 2024).
Masculinity and sexual and gender minority personnel in the South African military and navy
With the collapse of apartheid, the apartheid-era South African Defence Force (SADF) underwent significant structural reorganization and cultural transformation in the 1990s to align with the new constitutional values of human rights, non-discrimination, and equality. These reforms included organizational policies across the newly reconfigured South African National Defence Force (SANDF) that set enlistment targets for women, introduced mechanisms to combat gender-based discrimination, and established programmes to foster a culture of inclusion (Hendricks, 2012).
Although cisgender White women had been gradually integrated into SAN non-combat support posts since the early 1970s (Bennett & Söderlund, 2008), it was only from the mid-1990s that pathways were opened for women to occupy combat roles, hold senior command positions, and serve in specialist branches. For openly LGB people, the SADF was a hostile environment, especially for the gay men who were conscripted through the apartheid regime’s compulsory national service programme for White men (Belkin & Canaday, 2010; Janak et al., 2024). Today, the recruitment and staffing policies of the SANDF expressly prevent discrimination against cisgender women, openly LGB, and transgender people (Heinecken, 1998, 1999; Marrian, 2019). For transgender personnel, transition-related healthcare is also included within the package of comprehensive health services available to SANDF members, although with some specialist gender transition procedures typically outsourced to the state-run civilian healthcare facilities resourced for this care.
There are no publicly available figures on the number of SANDF or SAN personnel who identify as LGB or transgender, although cisgender women represent approximately 28% of SANDF personnel (defenceWeb, 2022). Despite these advancements, studies indicate that traditional gender norms and patriarchal values continue to influence attitudes and behaviours within the SANDF. For example, research with men in the South African Army found that they relied on traditional, misogynistic, and heterosexist beliefs to construct their understanding of military masculinity (Mankayi, 2006, 2008; Shefer & Mankayi, 2007). Research with women in the SANDF has also found that they still experience systemic sexism (Heinecken, 2020) and marginalization (Mmakola, 2023).
In the SAN, resistance to the equality and command of women in naval work was a prominent feature of men’s attitudes within the first decade of a fully integrated navy (Van Wijk, 2005; Van Wijk & Finchilescu, 2008; Van Wijk et al., 2009). Today, only a minority of women occupy senior command roles in the SAN and only 18% of the total number of Naval Combat Officers are women (Department of Defence, 2023). However, in a recent survey examining the attitudes of men in the SAN toward masculinity, it was found that self-sufficiency, physical toughness, and emotional restrictiveness were more strongly endorsed than avoidance of femininity and risk-taking (Martin & Van Wijk, 2021). This research points to possible shifts in the dominant ideologies that SAN men may be drawing on to construct organizationally acceptable forms of masculinity. This study specifically builds on these earlier findings by employing a comprehensive measure of TMI to evaluate which masculine norms are endorsed by a sample of SAN men and examine how this may be related to their attitudes toward transgender people serving in the SAN.
Aim and Objectives
This study aims to explore how SAN men endorse traditional masculinity norms and how this relates to their attitudes toward the transgender people they serve with. Specifically, the study had three objectives: (1) to examine the endorsement of traditional masculine role norms among SAN men; (2) to explore cisgender Navy men’s attitudes toward the transgender they serve alongside and identify any socio-demographic differences in these attitudes; and (3) to investigate the relationship between the endorsement of TMI and attitudes toward transgender people serving in the SAN. Based on existing literature, this study seeks to test the hypothesis that lower endorsement of TMI will be associated with higher support for transgender people serving in the SAN. Given the distinctive socio-spatial dynamics of naval service, particularly the confined and communal living arrangements at sea, the study also sought to differentiate between attitudes toward transgender personnel serving in shore-based versus sea-based units. This distinction informed both the design of the attitude measure and the interpretation of findings within the naval environment.
Methods
Research Design, Sampling Strategy, and Participants
The present study employed a cross-sectional design that used a non-probability convenience sampling strategy. Following the necessary permissions and adhering to military security protocols, participants were invited to participate in the survey during their mandated annual health screening at a military health support unit serving the SAN Fleet. Potential participants received an information leaflet outlining the study’s scope and participation requirements. Those who volunteered to participate signed an informed consent form and then completed questionnaire booklet in a private setting at the conclusion of their health screening.
Data were collected from a voluntary sample of self-identified cisgender men stationed with the SAN Fleet, and yielded 1,113 completed response sets. Participants ranged in age from 20 to 60 years (M = 35.53, SD = 9.35). In terms of race, there are no recent reliable figures available for the specific demographics of the SAN. However, the present sample closely reflected the broader demographic composition of the SANDF, though some differences were evident. In this study, most participants identified as Black (57.77%), followed by Coloured (22.19%), White (15.81%), and Indian (3.5%), with 0.72% not reporting their race (see Table 1).5 Comparatively, the SANDF as a whole comprises 76.48% Black, 12.22% Coloured, 10.04% White, and 1.26% Indian (DoD, 2023). The sample was predominantly heterosexual (98.11%), with 0.81% identifying as homosexual, 0.18% as bisexual, and 0.90% not reporting their sexual orientation.
Table 1
Socio-Demographic Data of the Participants.
| VARIABLE | n | % |
|---|---|---|
| Rank | ||
| Junior Non-Commissioned Officers | 455 | 40.88 |
| Senior Non-Commissioned Officers | 353 | 31.72 |
| Warrant Officers | 136 | 12.22 |
| Junior Officer | 82 | 7.37 |
| Senior Officer | 72 | 6.47 |
| Not indicated | 15 | 1.34 |
| Ethnicity | ||
| Black | 643 | 57.77 |
| Coloured | 247 | 22.19 |
| Indian | 39 | 3.50 |
| White | 176 | 15.81 |
| Not indicated | 8 | 0.72 |
| Relationship status | ||
| Civil partnership | 30 | 2.70 |
| Long-term relationship | 145 | 13.03 |
| Married | 482 | 43.31 |
| Single | 450 | 40.43 |
| Not indicated | 6 | 0.54 |
| Sexual orientation | ||
| Bisexual | 2 | 0.18 |
| Heterosexual | 1092 | 98.11 |
| Homosexual | 9 | 0.81 |
| Not indicated | 10 | 0.90 |
| Education | ||
| Did not complete high school | 3 | 0.27 |
| Matric | 785 | 70.53 |
| Post-matric vocational diploma | 181 | 16.26 |
| Undergraduate degree | 92 | 8.27 |
| Postgraduate degree | 39 | 3.50 |
| Not indicated | 13 | 1.17 |
The language composition of the sample broadly reflected the distribution across South Africa’s 11 official languages, and the naval rank group distribution also broadly reflected the proportions within the fleet. A total of 70.53% of the sample had a secondary school qualification (locally called “matric”), a further 16.23% had vocational diplomas, and 11.77% were in possession of a university-awarded degree. The average length of service in the SAN was 14.44 years (SD = 9.40). For security reasons, the demographic markers of occupational specialty were not permitted to be published.
Data collection
The recruited participants completed a survey composed of two questionnaires. The first was an anonymous socio-demographic questionnaire where participants were requested to indicate their age, self-identified race, home (primary) language, sexual orientation, relationships status, and highest level of education (HLE). Participants also indicated military-specific demographic information such as their naval rank and total years of service in the SAN. At the end of this questionnaire, participants were asked about their attitude toward having transgender people serve in the SAN: “Do you believe that transgender people should be able to serve in the SAN?” Participants were provided four categorical responses from which to indicate the one best reflecting their attitude: (1) “Yes, at sea and ashore”; (2) “Yes, but only in shore-based units and posts”; (3) “No, transgender people should not be able to serve in the SAN”; or (4) “No, I do not know enough about transgender people.”6 The distinction between sea and shore-based service was included to reflect operational differences within the SAN. Sea-going units present unique challenges, such as, extended deployments, confined living conditions, and team cohesion dynamics, which may shape attitudes toward transgender personnel differently than in shore-based units. It is also worth noting that the response option “No, I do not know enough about transgender people” was double-barrelled and may conflate uncertainty with implicit non-support. It was retained in the binary recoding to reflect a broader spectrum of hesitant or ambivalent attitudes, which was considered relevant to inclusion. The limitations of this decision are further discussed in the Limitations section of this paper.
The 21-item Male Role Norm Inventory–Short Form (MRNI-SF; Levant et al., 2013) was employed as a measure of TMI. The MRNI-SF measures respondents’ endorsement of seven hypothesized norms of TMI, each of which represent a subscale of the measure, namely: Negativity Towards Sexual Minorities, Restrictive Emotionality, Self-Reliance Through Mechanical Skills, Avoidance of Femininity, Importance of Sex, Dominance, and Toughness (Levant et al., 2013). Responses are rated on a 7-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Each of the seven subscales includes three items, with higher mean scores indicating a higher endorsement of a specific role norm. In addition, there is a general factor of TMI, calculated as the mean of all 21 items. Good reliability across total and subscale scores (see Table 2) have been reported, for respondents who identified as men (Levant, et al., 2013). For the present study, internal consistency was strong with the total α at .91 for the overall TMI scale.
Table 2
MRNI-SF means, standard deviations, internal consistencies, and single sample t-test statistics.
| PRESENT STUDY (N = 1113) | THEORETICAL MID-POINT | LEVANT ET AL. (2013; N = 549) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M | SD | α | SINGLE SAMPLE T-TEST (p < .001) | M | SD | α | |
| Restrictive Emotinality | 2.52 | 1.29 | 0.67 | –41.138 | 2.92 | 1.22 | 0.83 |
| Self-Reliance Through Mechanical Skills | 4.61 | 1.62 | 0.77 | 12.61 | 4.52 | 1.36 | 0.86 |
| Negativity Towards Sexual Minorities | 2.72 | 1.41 | 0.76 | –30.073 | 3.18 | 1.57 | 0.88 |
| Avoidance of Femininity | 3.01 | 1.37 | 0.69 | –24.025 | 4.24 | 1.52 | 0.90 |
| Importance of Sex | 2.99 | 1.49 | 0.83 | –22.434 | 3.76 | 1.51 | 0.83 |
| Toughness | 3.77 | 1.58 | 0.75 | –4.808 | 4.68 | 1.23 | 0.79 |
| Dominance | 2.09 | 1.2 | 0.80 | –52.660 | 3.05 | 1.39 | 0.87 |
| Traditional Masculinity Ideology | 3.11 | 1.02 | 0.91 | –28.976 | 3.74 | 1.05 | 0.92 |
There are a large number of self-report scales to measure men’s conformity to norms of traditional and alternative ideologies of masculinity (Thompson & Bennett, 2015). However, a distinct advantage of the MRNI-SF above other measures is that it remains a concise questionnaire that requires little time to administer and complete. This proved practically important given the limited time afforded to execute the survey at the sampling site.
Data analysis
Statistical analyses were performed using the SPSS software tools. Internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) was calculated and reported in Table 2. Descriptive statistics included means, standard deviations, and frequencies of the socio-demographic variables as well as the total and subscales of the MRNI-SF.
Singe-sample t-tests evaluated whether the MRNI-SF mean and subscale scores were statistically different from scale means (namely 4, indicating “No Opinion”) and other reference samples.
One-way ANOVAs were performed to determine whether any statistically significant differences existed between socio-demographic subgroups of the sample and the total TMI score. These variables included race, rank, sexual orientation, relationship status, and the attitudes toward transgender people serving in the SAN. Scheffé’s test was employed for post-hoc analysis.
Further, Chi-square tests of independence were conducted to examine the association between the nominal socio-demographic variables of rank, race, HLE, sexual orientation, and attitudes toward transgender people serving in the SAN (based on their responses to the four categorical response options of this question).
Lastly, a binary logistic regression analysis was conducted to examine the extent to which TMI, as measured by the MRNI-SF total score, predicted support for transgender individuals serving in the SAN. For this analysis, the two affirmative response categories (“Yes, at sea and ashore” and “Yes, but only in shore-based units and posts”) were combined into a single support category, while the two “No” categories were combined into a non-support category.
To further differentiate between levels of support, an ordered logistic regression was conducted with TMI as the predictor. This model distinguished between those who supported full service (sea and ashore), more restricted participation (shore-based only), and non-support.
Ethical considerations
The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and received ethical approval from the University of Pretoria Faculty of Humanities Research Ethics Committee (reference: HUM007/0120). Respondents signed a consent form which detailed their rights in participating. No information that could be used to personally identify a participant was collected. The MRNI-SF was used with the authors’ permission.
Results
Endorsement for traditional masculine role norms
The endorsement of the MRNI-SF total and subscales is presented in Table 2. Navy men recorded the highest endorsement on subscales of Self-Reliance Through Mechanical Skills and Toughness, while the Dominance subscale received the lowest level of endorsement.
The total TMI score for the current sample was significantly lower than the score reported by Levant et al. (2013) in their validation sample of predominantly White, American university men (t = –20.550, p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 0.62). This suggests that SAN men, on average, endorsed traditional masculinity norms to a lesser extent than that reference group. One subscale, Self-Reliance Through Mechanical Skills, stood out with a mean score significantly above the scale midpoint of 4, indicating that participants strongly endorsed the belief that men should be technically competent and able to solve practical problems independently. In contrast, all six remaining subscales had mean scores significantly below the midpoint, suggesting lower overall endorsement of these masculine norms (detailed in Table 2).
Results showed no significant differences in TMI scores by race (F (4, 1,108) = 0.541, p = .706) or relationship status (F (4, 1,108) = 1.239, p = 0.293). However, a significant difference was found based on HLE (F (5, 1,107) = 5.108, p < 0.001), with participants holding a matric qualification (M = 3.17) scoring higher than those with an undergraduate degree (M = 2.67). Sexual orientation also influenced TMI scores (F (3, 1,109) = 6.265, p < 0.001), with heterosexual participants (M = 3.11) scoring higher than homosexual participants (M = 1.75), though bisexual participants (M = 3.44) did not differ significantly from other groups. Attitudes toward transgender service in the SAN also affected TMI scores (F (4, 1,108) = 37.390, p < 0.001). Participants who supported transgender service both ashore and at sea (M = 2.86) had lower TMI scores than those opposed (M = 3.88), with a mean difference of 1.02, reflecting stronger endorsement of traditional masculine norms among those opposed (see Figure 1). Participants supporting service in shore-based units only (M = 3.60) and those who did not know enough about transgender people (M = 3.54) scored higher than those supporting full service.
Figure 1
Box and Whisker Plot for Traditional Masculinity Ideology (TMI) Mean Score and the Attitudes Toward Transgender People Serving in the SAN.
Attitudes toward transgender people serving in the SAN
Descriptive analysis (see Table 3) revealed that most participants (68.1%) supported transgender people serving in both sea- and shore-based SAN units, while 4.2% supported service only in shore-based units. Combined, 72.3% of the sample expressed affirmative support for transgender service in the SAN. Conversely, 21.2% indicated opposition due to insufficient knowledge about transgender people, and 3.9% opposed transgender service outright. Altogether, 25.1% of participants recorded a non-affirmative stance toward transgender service in the SAN, albeit for different reasons.
Table 3
Frequency of Attitudes Toward Transgender eople Serving in the SAN (N = 1113).
| CATEGORICAL RESPONSE OPTION | N | % |
|---|---|---|
| Yes, at sea and ashore | 758 | 68.1 |
| Yes, but only in shore-based units and posts | 47 | 4.2 |
| No, transgender people should not be able to serve in the SAN | 43 | 3.9 |
| No, I do not know enough about transgender people | 236 | 21.2 |
| Not Indicated | 29 | 2.6 |
The Chi-Square analyses of rank and sexual orientation found no significant relationship between these variables and the attitudes of participants towards transgender people serving in the SAN.
Participants’ self-identified race was significantly associated with their views on whether transgender individuals should serve in the SAN, χ2 = 35.711, p = 0.003. Across all race groups, the majority of participants supported transgender people serving both at sea and ashore, with Black (70.4%), Coloured (66.8%), White (61.9%), and Indian (61.5%) respondents showing strong endorsement. However, there were notable differences between racial groups. White respondents had the highest proportion of opposition to transgender service (9.1%), followed by Coloured respondents (4.5%), with only 2.2% of Black participants opposing transgender service. Moreover, a substantial percentage of Black (21.3%) and Coloured (22.7%) respondents indicated that they did not know enough about transgender individuals to express a clear view, compared to 19.3% of White respondents and 20.5% of Indian respondents.
Chi-square tests also revealed a statistically significant association between HLE and attitudes towards transgender people serving in the SAN, χ2 = 34.974, p = 0.02. Educational attainment in this sample was related to attitudes toward the integration of transgender people in the SAN, affirmed by the likelihood ratio (χ2 = 32.753, p = 0.036). Amongst participants with a Matric qualification, 66.5% supported the inclusion of transgender people at both sea and ashore, while 22.7% were opposed to this because they reported not knowing enough about transgender people. For respondents with a post-matric vocational diploma, 70.7% supported transgender people serving at sea and ashore, but a smaller percentage (19.3%) indicated that they did not know enough about transgender people and were, on this basis, against transgender people serving in the SAN. Those with undergraduate degrees showed similarly high levels of support for transgender individuals serving at sea and ashore (79.3%), but only 14.1% were unsure about transgender people serving in the SAN. Among participants with a postgraduate degree, 64.1% supported transgender service at sea and ashore, but 15.4% opposed transgender individuals serving in the SAN.
The relationship between traditional masculinity ideology and attitudes toward transgender people serving in the SAN
A binary logistic regression analysis was conducted to examine the extent to which TMI predicted support for transgender individuals serving in the SAN. The overall model was statistically significant (χ2(1) = 96.703, p < 0.001), indicating that TMI significantly contributed to explaining variations in support for transgender service members. The model demonstrated an overall classification accuracy of 74.5%, correctly identifying those who supported transgender service. However, the Nagelkerke R2 value of 0.125 suggests that only 12.5% of the variance in attitudes was explained by TMI, pointing to the likelihood that additional factors contribute to attitudes toward transgender personnel in the SAN.
TMI emerged as a strong and significant predictor of lower support (p < 0.001). The negative B value (–0.708) and an odds ratio of 0.493 indicated that higher endorsement of TMI was associated with decreased likelihood of supporting transgender personnel in the SAN. Specifically, for each unit increase in TMI, the odds of supporting transgender service decreased by approximately 50.7%, suggesting that the endorsement of TMI was meaningfully linked to less supportive attitudes to the service of transgender people in the SAN.
To further investigate distinctions in levels of support for transgender service members, an ordered logistic regression was conducted, distinguishing between those who supported full participation at sea and ashore, those who supported shore-based service only, and those who opposed transgender inclusion altogether. The model was statistically significant (χ2(1) = 119.860, p < .001), indicating that TMI significantly contributed to explaining these attitudes. While the Nagelkerke R2 value of 0.136 suggests that 13.6% of the variance in support levels was explained by TMI, goodness-of-fit tests confirmed the model’s adequacy (p > .05).
TMI again emerged as a significant negative predictor, with higher endorsement associated with lower support for transgender individuals serving at sea and ashore, and a greater likelihood of supporting service only in shore-based units (B = –0.754, SE = 0.074, Wald χ2(1) = 103.085, p < 0.001). The odds ratio (Exp(B) = 0.471) suggests that each single-unit increase in TMI raised the odds of supporting restricted service (shore-based only) by 52.9%.
Discussion and Conclusion
This study examined how SAN men endorse traditional masculinity norms and how these norms relate to their attitudes toward transgender people serving in the Navy. While prior studies have explored the construction and endorsement of gendered and masculine role norms among SAN men, this study is the first to consider these norms in the context of contemporary debates about trans-inclusivity in armed forces. By doing so, it provides valuable insights into how members of a naval force on the African continent view transgender individuals serving in the Navy and how the SAN might approach transgender inclusivity.
This sample of SAN men closely mirrored the original validation sample of Levant et al. (2013) in their endorsement of masculine role norms, with Self-Reliance Through Mechanical Skills and Toughness receiving the highest endorsement, while Negativity Towards Sexual Minorities, Restrictive Emotionality, and Dominance the lowest. Notably, compared to the reference sample of White, American, university-going men, SAN men reported lower scores across all masculine role norms and general TMI factor on the MRNI-SF, except for Self-Reliance Through Mechanical Skills, which was more strongly endorsed. This divergence may highlight the limitations of applying Eurocentric models of masculinity to non-Western contexts. As McDermott et al. (2017, p. 727) caution, the TMI construct “largely reflects White, male, heterosexual, and Eurocentric masculinities” and may therefore fail to account for the cultural specificity and contextual variation in how traditional masculinity is constructed elsewhere.
Interestingly, the endorsement of Self-Reliance Through Mechanical Skills and Toughness in this sample aligns with the endorsement of the self-sufficiency and physical toughness items in (Martin & Van Wijk, 2021) earlier study of TMI amongst SAN men. Physical toughness remains a defining aspect of TMI, reflecting enduring themes in masculinity research (David & Brannon, 1976). Perhaps unsurprisingly, for military men in general, physical endurance and strength remain central to military masculinity (Hockey, 2017). This emphasis on toughness is also reflected in the premium placed on physical fitness among naval personnel as a component how resilience is constructed by SAN members (Van Wijk & Martin, 2019). However, the high endorsement of Self-Reliance Through Mechanical Skills may also reflect contemporary circumstances within the SAN. As a peacetime Navy, the SAN has shifted from the aggressive posture of the apartheid-era SADF to a focus on human and social security support (Blaine & Nel, 2019). This shift may have displaced the centrality of norms like masculine Dominance, allowing other norms, such as Self-Reliance Through Mechanical Skills, to take on greater significance within the organizational culture and identity of SAN men. Rather than diminishing masculinity, this may signal the alternative configuration of a ‘peacetime masculinity’ that, even if only partially and temporarily, “disrupts elements of the traditional linkages between militarism and masculinity”, and which Duncanson (2009, p. 63) has similarly observed with peacekeepers. These traditional masculine norms may be less rooted in military aggression or dominance and more in technical skill and operational resilience, especially as high-readiness combat operations recede. These kinds of reconfigurations may also help explain how support for transgender personnel can coexist with certain enduring aspects of traditional masculinity.
Perhaps further compounding the contemporary shift in masculine role norms is the SAN’s well publicized declining warfighting capabilities, attributed to budget constraints and resource limitations (Africa Defense Forum, 2024; Martin, 2024). Persistent challenges in fleet maintenance have fuelled debates about the Navy’s relevance (Mason, 2020). In this context of limited resources and operational strain, technical competence and mechanical skill may have become more essential for SAN personnel in their everyday work lives, further amplifying the salience of Self-Reliance Through Mechanical Skills within the SAN’s organisational culture.
These organizational circumstances have also occurred alongside significant gender mainstreaming and transformation efforts within the SAN that may be reshaping attitudes and diminishing norms such as Dominance as well as Avoidance of Femininity and Negativity Towards Sexual Minorities, a trend also found in the survey by Martin and Van Wijk (2021). These initiatives may have encouraged a cultural shift in the SAN toward inclusivity, while also fostering an environment where discriminatory attitudes toward women and sexual or gender minorities are either less socially acceptable or discouraged. A potential social desirability effect may therefore also influence participants to underreport discriminatory attitudes due to the punitive consequences associated with expressing such views in the current institutional culture.
Against this context, this study found that the majority of respondents (68.1%) reported affirmative attitudes towards transgender people serving ashore and at sea in the SAN. In contrast, militaries on the African continent are regarded as some of the least inclusive armed forces for sexual and gender diverse people, where the majority of African states continue to criminalize sexual and gender diverse identities and relationships. With its constitutional and other legal protections for LGB and transgender people, there exist no legal barriers to transgender people serving in the South African military (Polchar et al. 2014). Large-scale quantitative research on the lives of transgender people and public attitudes toward them is limited in South Africa. However, in a 2017 survey on global attitudes toward transgender people, 62.8% of (civilian) South African respondents agreed that transgender individuals should be able to serve in the military (Luhur et al., 2021). While not directly comparable, the higher support amongst SAN men in this study may reflect the centrality of non-discrimination as a core constitutional and organisational value of the SANDF. The absence of significant differences in attitudes toward transgender personnel by rank suggests that these attitudes could be shaped more by the overarching organisational culture of the SANDF, which socializes all military personnel to adhere to a common set of norms. As a “total institution” (Goffman, 1961; Kramm, 2017), the SANDF’s strong socialization processes likely foster a shared, inclusive outlook on gender diversity, irrespective of rank. However, the fact that the military men in this study endorsed conventional norms of military masculinity, such as Toughness, while also reporting less negativity toward sexual and gender minorities and support for transgender people serving in the Navy might reflect the kind of “alternative military masculinity” (2009) or “hybrid masculinity” (2015) that Duncanson argues can emerge through the combination of traditional and non-traditional (or traditionally feminized) masculine military norms.
Support for transgender personnel was consistent across racial groups, with 70.4% of Black respondents expressing affirmative attitudes. This challenges stereotypes depicting Black South African men as more socially and culturally conservative and less accepting of sexual and gender minorities (Bhana & Mayeza, 2016; Ratele, 2014). Notably, approximately 20% of respondents across demographics cited a lack of knowledge about transgender individuals as a reason for withholding support. While these findings may be attributable to a limitation in the construction of the response option, it also highlights the need for targeted educational initiatives to build knowledge. Although the SAN has historically implemented anti-discrimination programmes (Chief of Naval Staff, 2006; Director Naval Personnel, 2001), these have primarily focused on gender and sexual orientation. Expanding existing programmes to include transgender issues could prove to be a more comprehensive approach to sexual and gender diversity education as a strategy for enhancing a trans-inclusive armed force (Shrader et al., 2017; Yerke, 2020).
Education also emerged as a significant factor influencing TMI endorsement and attitudes toward transgender personnel. Respondents with higher educational attainment were less likely to endorse TMI and more supportive of transgender inclusion, echoing previous findings linking higher more advanced formal education to reduced gender norm adherence and prejudice (de Azevedo et al., 2024; Hammer et al., 2013).
The study further found that TMI endorsement was a strong negative predictor of attitudes toward transgender personnel serving in the SAN. These findings supported the hypothesis that lower endorsement of TMI was associated with greater support for transgender people serving in the SAN, albeit with a relatively modest variance explained in the regression models which point to additional factors beyond TMI that may contribute in shaping support for transgender personnel. Nonetheless, in both models, those with weaker adherence to TMI were more likely to support transgender inclusion, highlighting the role of less traditional views of masculinity in fostering more flexible and inclusive attitudes toward gender diversity in military settings. Traditional norms of masculinity tend to be rooted in both a rigid and binary understanding of gender that constructs masculinity in opposition to femininity and gender non-conformity (Connell, 1995). Transgender identities challenge the biological essentialism of sex, gender categorization, and gender identity, potentially eliciting experiences of masculinity threat and, with this, stronger adherence to TMI among men, as evidenced in existing research (Konopka et al., 2021). The relationship between TMI and attitudes toward gender diversity is well described (Jones et al., 2023; Perez-Arche & Miller, 2021), and aligns with Heinecken’s (2020) contention that increased gender diversity in numerical representation in the SANDF does not necessarily equate with less patriarchal norms that underpin the construction of gender. For Heinecken (2020, p. 118), what is needed is a more fundamental “re-gendering of the gender norms in the military”.
Despite comparatively lower endorsements of Negativity Towards Sexual Minorities and Avoidance of Femininity in this sample, discriminatory attitudes regarding sexual and gender diversity may persist. Women in the SANDF, for instance, continue to report marginalization despite over two decades of gender mainstreaming efforts, suggesting that traditional ideologies of masculinity still operate as a latent force shaping interpersonal dynamics and institutional culture (Mmakola, 2023). This may also highlight that traditional masculinity is not always hegemonic masculinity (Everitt-Penhale & Ratele, 2015), and that the norms of a TMI which still hold to essentialist and patriarchal ideas of masculinity can live alongside hegemonic cultural norms for SAN men that discourage discrimination against sexual and gender minorities.
Educational interventions addressing TMI alongside gender diversity could play a critical role in transforming military norms and fostering genuine inclusivity. Such interventions would need to meaningfully engage traditional understandings of gender and masculinity alongside gender diversity in order to ensure that inclusivity efforts challenge the deeper ideological roots of gendered exclusion and support the transformation of military culture and gender norms.
Limitations and future directions for research
This study faced several limitations. First, the measure of SAN men’s attitudes to serving alongside transgender personnel was limited to a single question with four categorical and somewhat reductive response options, offering only a broad indication of their views. Furthermore, the response option “Yes, but only in shore-based units and posts” did not allow participants to elaborate on their specific reasons for preferring this more limited form of service. These reasons may be important to explore in future research because they could reveal underlying misconceptions or context-specific factors influencing attitudes toward transgender inclusion in different operational contexts and sea-going vessels.
In addition, the response option “No, I do not know enough about transgender people” was double-edged, requiring participants to equate their lack of awareness about transgender individuals with opposition to their service. This may have inflated opposition in the present study and suggests that the findings indicating less support for transgender inclusion in the SAN should be interpreted with caution, as they may partially reflect uncertainty rather than outright rejection. In this regard, existing research on the development and validation of transgender attitude scales (Hill & Willoughby, 2005; Nagoshi et al., 2008; Walch et al., 2012; Winter et al., 2009), collectively highlight that measuring attitudes of non/acceptance toward transgender people requires a complex questionnaire that is linked to a multidimensional set of constructs that inform and mediate a respondent’s attitudes toward transgender individuals.
Second, the question posed on transgender support did not differentiate between attitudes toward transmen, transwomen, and transgender gender-nonconforming individuals, limiting the depth of insight. Future studies could address this gap by exploring attitudes toward specific transgender identities.
Third, the sample included only cisgender Navy men, excluding the perspectives of cisgender women in the SAN. While the number of women serving in the SAN is comparatively smaller to that of men (defenceWeb, 2023), future studies should examine their adherence to ideologies and norms of masculinity or femininity or gender roles, and attitudes toward transgender personnel, for comparative analysis and to inform tailored anti-discrimination efforts.
Fourth, while the survey was administered following participants’ annual health screenings, the questionnaire did not reference health status in relation to transgender identity. Nonetheless, it may be possible that the clinical setting may have subtly influenced how some respondents interpreted the questions, perhaps unintentionally framing transgender inclusion in terms of physical or psychological fitness.
Lastly, the results concerning the endorsement of masculine role norms found in this sample of SAN men may not necessarily be representative of all men across the South African military. According to Mostert et al. (2025, p. 18), the SANDF is characterized by “qualitative differences in the organisational and operational (sub)cultures of the fighting arms of service and their social (and gendered) constructions of toughness”. A future direction for research could be to include an examination of masculine role norms amongst men in other arms of service, such as, the South African Army and Air Force, both of which far exceed the size of the SAN. This would not only enhance the generalizability of such findings but also enable finer conclusions to be drawn about the endorsement of gender role norms and the construction of masculinities specific to men in different arms of service in the South African military.
Notes
[1] The term “transgender” refers to individuals whose gender identity differs from the sex they were assigned at birth. It is an umbrella term that can include binary-identified trans men and trans women, as well as non-binary and gender-diverse individuals.
[2] “Cisheteronormativity” refers to the cultural assumption that people are, or should be, both cisgender (identifying with the sex assigned at birth) and heterosexual. It positions these identities as normal or ideal, marginalizing those who are transgender, non-binary, or non-heterosexual.
[3] “Hegemonic masculinity”, a concept developed by Connell (1995), refers to the culturally dominant ideal of manhood that legitimises men’s power over women and over other expressions of masculinity. It typically values traits such as stoicism, aggression, heterosexuality, and authority.
[4] While postmodern military professionalism has increasingly displaced traditional models of warrior masculinity, recent developments illustrate its ongoing contestation. For instance, in the United States, Secretary of Defense (now Secretary of War) Pete Hegseth has called for a renewed emphasis on warrior culture, advocating a return to “lethality” as a core military value (U.S. Department of Defense, 2025).
[5] The use of apartheid-era racial terminology in South Africa remains contested. However, researchers continue to use these categories as meaningful, though problematic, reference points for subjectivity, community, and lived experiences of post-apartheid inequality. Within this context, we use the following terms: “Black” refers to people of African descent indigenous to Southern Africa; “Coloured” denotes individuals of mixed ancestry, a category shaped by apartheid but now a reclaimed, albeit contested, cultural identity; “White” refers to people of ethnic European descent; and “Indian” refers to South Africans of South Asian descent.
[6] The questionnaire also included a brief definition of transgender for the respondent: “A transgender person is someone whose gender identity differs from the sex they were assigned at birth. For example, someone assigned female at birth may identify as male, female, both, or neither. Being transgender is about one’s internal sense of gender, which may or may not align with social expectations based on physical or biological characteristics.”
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank all participants in this study for their contribution. The authors would also like to thank the reviewers of this paper for their insightful suggestions during the peer-review process.
Competing Interests
The authors have no competing interests to declare.
Author Contributions
Jarred H. Martin and Charles Van Wijk conceptualized and designed the study and were principally responsible for data collection, analysis, and formulating the submitted manuscript. Nicoleen Coetzee and Cobi Hayes were involved with the data collation, analysis and reviewing drafts of the submitted manuscript.