The mere idea of "masculine hegemony" is an oversimplification in itself. It assumes that anything and everything "masculine" is automatically of elevated status, and it is often misinterpreted to mean essentially the same thing as "male hegemony." But these are quite emphatically not the same thing.

Hegemonic power is exercised by those who conform to the traditional definition of masculinity, not necessarily those who are male. It is critical that we understand this.

I invite the doubtful reader to consider the case of a male who identifies as homosexual: is he "masculine?" If we understand "masculine" to have one simple definition and if we assume this question to have a simple yes or no answer, we've already strayed into tricky territory. The assumption would be, no, he is not "masculine," at least not by any traditional sense. But what if his sexual orientation is unknown, and he is a tough, six-foot-three construction worker who has completed three Ironmans and supports a family (without knowing that his partner happens to be male?) Without knowing his orientation, in this case, we would assume him to be "masculine."

The homosexual male, to take just one example, of course does not enjoy the benefits of being of the hegemonic sex. Other possible counterexamples include metrosexual males, those who identify as transgender, asexual males, or maybe even heterosexual males who fail to conform to masculine expectations--someone who is abstinent, maybe.

We must therefore be careful to differentiate between what is male and what is masculine. When we speak of "masculine hegemony," we are speaking only of a very specific type of masculinity, one that does not automatically apply to anyone with a Y chromosome. Plenty of biological males find themselves oppressed by masculine hegemony.