LGBTQ+ Inclusion Can Erase ‘Toxic Masculinity’ in Parish Groups

Today’s post is by Bondings 2.0 contributor Ariell Watson Simon.

Is the local parish men’s group a force for good, or a hotbed of chauvinism? What is the role of LGBTQ+ Catholics in these ministries – or do we even have one? These questions swirled in my mind as I read Don Clemmer’s discussion of the pervasiveness of toxic masculinity in parish male spaces in a recent issue of U.S. Catholic. In today’s post, I would like to review some of the important points of Clemmer’s essay, and then show how including LGBTQ+ people in such parish single gender groups can be a boon to the entire parish.

Clemmer observes that “men’s only” groups can have a dangerous downside. One observation he makes is  that macho ideas celebrated in the “online ‘manosphere” help to bring about “repressive policy proposals against women and gay people, transgender people, immigrants, and other vulnerable groups.” 

Unfortunately, parish men’s groups often bring these ideas from online discussions to the mainstream of American Catholic life. While such groups have the power to give men a sense of community and engage them in service to others, says Hoon Choi, assistant professor of theology and religious studies at Bellarmine University, on the other hand, “They are also vehicles through which a lot of political agendas are pushed.”

If American Catholicism is to break away from toxic masculinity and its political byproducts, parishes will need to make changes in their local men’s ministries. This begins with pushing back against the rigid gender norms they often reinforce.

Clemmer notes that such groups play into “stereotypes of what is considered manly: playing golf, drinking whiskey, smoking cigars, eating barbecue, lifting weights, growing beards.” While there is nothing inherently wrong with a group of men engaging in these activities together, it becomes problematic when enjoyment of these activities becomes a litmus test for manliness. Masculinity turns toxic when such activities become rigid norms. 

Choi says that toxic masculinity’s insistence on one model of manliness is at odds with a Christian understanding of masculinity. He believes that a Christian perspective on masculinity is enriched by the variety of experiences across age and culture. “In all the ways in which we’re men, God can be made visible,” he says. “Different rays of masculinity will enlighten us.”

I agree with Choi’s point, and wonder how the lack of LGBTQ+ inclusion in these groups contributes to their toxic masculinity problem. If parish men’s groups are unenlightened about healthy, Christ-like masculinity, perhaps this is in part because of the lack of queer representations of masculinity in their midst. LGBTQ+ voices round out the conversation about masculinity in ways that invite even straight, cis-gender men to deepen their understanding of their own gender identity. 

A “just us guys” mentality can cause a group to devolve into acting out the worst elements of machismo. Several participants in men’s groups have told me that they are uncomfortable with the chauvinistic ideas that others voice there – things they would not dare to say, were a woman present. One such group member, a gay man, told me that he had become fed up with others vilifying women who had broken up with them or rejected their advances. He spoke up, telling the group that he had experienced rejection and heartache too, at the hands of male partners. “Don’t make this about women versus men,” he told them. “The problem is us.”

Queer representation in male spaces matters – not only as a way to promote LGBTQ+ equality, but also for the sake of straight, cis-gendered men caught in the vise-grip of toxic masculinity. When manliness is defined narrowly, by physical attributes or sexual prowess, masculinity becomes a fragile thing that must be proven or achieved, often over and against women.

The voices of gay men can serve as an important reminder that masculinity isn’t defined in opposition to female partners. Such a perspective is another “ray of masculinity [to] enlighten us,” to borrow Choi’s phrase. Similarly, trans men’s experiences illuminate that manliness is not defined by genitals, hormones, or chromosomes. Asexual men’s experiences shed light on the myth that masculinity is equated with libido. The list could go on, for each person’s unique gender expression adds nuance to our understanding of masculinity as something far richer and more expansive than the reductive version touted in the ‘manosphere.’ 

Nonbinary perspectives also contribute to this conversation by inviting us to look beyond simple divisions of male and female. Toxic masculinity feeds off the idea of gender wars that pit men and women against one another. Queer perspective shows us that this is a false dichotomy, and creates some breathing room for both men and women trapped in rigid gender groupings. Clemmer quotes Megan McCabe, assistant professor of religious studies at Gonzaga University: “The value of men as human beings cannot be put at odds with…the successes and value of women as human beings.” If masculinity and femininity are not opposing forces, then men and women are no longer locked in a zero-sum game. 

So, should gender-based groups even exist as a model for parish ministries? Should we instead be grouped by stage of life or common interests? Sure: all of the above, if such groups facilitate spiritual growth. Gender-based groups have long served a purpose in many parishes. My parish is in the midst of starting a women’s ministry, with the hope that it will gather women from different sectors of the parish – different ages, cultures, languages, and social spheres. This intergenerational, intercultural mixture would be unlikely to happen in any other parish ministry. Men’s ministries could also be similarly structured to promote diversity.

Gender groups should not be the only options for fellowship within parish life, but they can host important conversations about how we experience God’s love in the particularity of our lives. To do so they must be truly ‘catholic’ — that is, diverse. Parish men’s and women’s ministries have the opportunity to make our Church less toxic and more catholic. Prioritizing the welcome of LGBTQ+ members in these groups would help to defuse the potentially harmful side effects caused by rigid gender norms.

To be honest, my wife and I did not attend the first meeting of our parish women’s ministry. We were uncertain of whether we would be welcome. We’re aware that the idea of welcoming LGBTQ+ people into gendered Catholic parish groups may seem absurd, or even dangerous, to some. And therein lies the problem: if the idea of a queer person being part of the group seems impossible, then the group is not really catholic. 

Catholics come in all shapes and sizes, ages and abilities, sexualities and vocations. Perhaps a first step toward more inclusive men’s and women’s ministries would be to hold joint meetings with a parish LGBTQ+ group. In the insights that arise from those conversations, we might find a less toxic, more catholic understanding of gender.

—Ariell Watson Simon, New Ways Ministry, August 12, 2025