In her book, Men in Place: Trans Masculinity, Race, and Sexuality in America, Miriam Abelson asks, “What does it means to be a man in America?” Through interviews with 66 self‐identified trans men of diverse backgrounds who are currently living in urban, suburban, and rural locations in thirteen states throughout the Midwest, South, and West, Abelson finds there is no single way to answer this question. In attempting to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the complexities of trans lives, especially those associated with gender, sexuality, race, and class, Abelson details how masculinities are situational, contextual, and also depend on the places and spaces that respondents have lived in and moved between throughout their lives.

While literature on masculinities often ignores the experiences of transgender men and fails to consider how individual practices of masculinity shift based on expectations that are often associated with institutional or geographic spaces, Abelson expands on these conversations using an intersectional approach and thus gives a greater voice to trans men living in rural, urban, and suburban spaces. “Goldilocks masculinity,” as explored by Abelson, is a hybrid masculinity that is characterized by being in‐between, not too masculine and not too feminine. This model of masculinity, which was common among Abelson’s respondents, is considered to be the ideal form for men as they should be able to control and express their masculinity in whatever way that is deemed proper for the situations and spaces which they are currently inhabiting. Throughout the text, Abelson shows that trans men are not static in their practices of masculinity, but rather change how they act and interact based on their institutional and geographic locations. While there have been changes to masculinities in recent history, Goldilocks masculinity remains central to contemporary discussions of masculinity. The majority of men Abelson interviewed aspired to be a regular guy who is not too masculine and not too feminine.

When considering experiences of trans men, Abelson finds that, for many, being misgendered is part of everyday life. The process of being gendered is not attached to a fixed trait, but rather something her interviewees experience when others recognize them as their authentic selves. When recognized as men, Abelson finds that her respondents were treated quite differently and were most often given greater respect, seen as more competent, and received increased sexual attention from women who did not know their transgender history.

In discussing their transitions and experiences with taking testosterone, her respondents often struggled with emotional changes. Through analysis of their narratives of emotions, including calm, crying, anger, aggression, and sexual impulses, Abelson again finds balance to be a necessity, as these men attempt to determine what is appropriate and rational in a given space and place. These findings lend further evidence to the prevalence of Goldilocks masculinities and the importance of self‐regulation of masculinity and emotions in the lives of trans men.

In the final chapters of her book, Abelson considers the role that violence, fear, and inequalities play in the lives of her respondents as they attempt to navigate place, space, and institutions including public bathrooms, hospitals, and other medical contexts. Abelson shows how interactions within these spaces, although sometimes necessary, reproduce conditions of fear and violence. In her conclusion, Abelson emphasizes the need for a greater focus on place and space, especially in discussions of social inequalities, masculinities, and transgender lives. When considering the major issues that arose from trans men’s narrative, Abelson also cites the need for increasing institutional change, especially in relation to public bathrooms and other institutions, especially medical facilities. In a call to action of sorts, she notes that those who are already marginalized, in this case trans men, cannot be the only ones working to create change, and implores readers take action in ways that consider the specific power dynamics that are at work and the role that place and space must play in creating effective strategies for change.

In a day and age where large scale interview projects are often facilitated through VOIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) and other internet‐based technologies, Abelson took to the road over the period of four years, completing in‐depth, in‐person interviews to amass one of the largest interview samples of its type to date. While just over half of Abelson’s interviewees lived in urban places, she also made the conscious decision to include voices of suburban and rural trans men, who are often left out of the discourse. When considering rural voices, Abelson falls short in fully capturing the experiences of trans men of color in rural spaces. While one fifth of her respondents identify as men of color, only one of nine rural respondents identify as non‐white. By utilizing snowball sampling, Abelson notes that she was able to identify some “less visible men through their acquaintances that who were more visible.” Further research is needed to continue to bring additional rural trans voices, who are often an invisible population, into the discourse.

Abelson’s work is an excellent example of qualitative in‐depth interviewing as well as feminist and grounded theory methods and analysis and would make a great addition to courses in methods, especially those focusing on qualitative interviewing and feminist methods. Men in Place would also be a wonderful and timely addition to both undergraduate and graduate courses in gender and sexuality as discussions relating to masculinities, trans lives, spaces such as bathrooms, and institutions, including schools and the military, often find their ways into our students lives and our classrooms.

米里亚姆·阿伯森（Miriam Abelson）在她的著作《男人在场：美国的跨性别，种族和性行为》中问：“成为美国男人意味着什么？” 通过采访66位具有不同背景的自我识别的跨性别者，他们目前居住在中西部，南部和西部的13个州的城市，郊区和农村地区，阿贝尔森发现没有唯一的方法可以回答这个问题。为了更全面地了解跨性别生活的复杂性，特别是与性别，性，种族和阶级相关的跨性别生活，Abelson详细介绍了男性气质是如何处境，情境的，并且还取决于受访者所居住的地方和空间在他们的一生之间移动。

尽管有关男性气质的文献经常忽略跨性别男人的经历，并且没有考虑到男性气质的实践是如何根据通常与制度或地理空间相关的期望而转变的，但Abelson使用交叉方法扩大了这些对话的范围，从而给予了更大的声音生活在农村，城市和郊区的跨性别者。正如阿伯森（Abelson）所探讨的，“洋娃娃男性气质”是一种混合性男性气质，其特征是介于两者之间，而不是男性化且不太女性化。这种男性气质的模型在阿伯森的受访者中很普遍，被认为是男人的理想形式，因为他们应该能够以适合他们当前所处环境和空间的任何方式控制和表达男性气质。在整篇文章中，阿贝尔森（Abelson）显示，跨性别男人的男性气概并非一成不变，而是根据其机构和地理位置来改变其行为方式和互动方式。尽管最近历史上男子气概发生了变化，但戈迪洛克式男子气概仍然是当代有关男子气概的讨论的中心。Abelson接受采访的大多数男性都渴望成为一个普通男人，但又不太男性化也不太女性化。

在考虑跨性别者的经历时，Abelson发现，对许多人而言，性别歧视是日常生活的一部分。性别化的过程并没有固定的特征，而是她的受访者在别人认识到自己是真实的自我时会经历的事情。当被认为是男性时，阿贝尔森发现，她的受访者受到的待遇截然不同，并且常常受到更多的尊重，被认为更有能力，并且不了解跨性别史的女性对性的关注也有所增加。

在讨论他们服用睾丸激素的过渡和经历时，她的受访者经常为情绪变化而苦恼。通过分析他们对情绪的叙述，包括镇定，哭泣，愤怒，侵略和性冲动，Abelson再次发现保持平衡是必要的，因为这些人试图确定在给定的空间和位置上什么是适当的和理性的。这些发现提供了进一步的证据，证明了金发姑娘的男子气概的流行以及在跨性别者的生活中自我调节男子气概和情绪的重要性。

在她的书的最后几章中，Abelson考虑了暴力，恐惧和不平等在受访者试图穿越场所，空间和机构（包括公共浴室，医院和其他医疗环境）时所扮演的角色。阿伯森（Abelson）展示了这些空间中的互动，尽管有时是必要的，但如何再现恐惧和暴力的条件。在其结论中，Abelson强调需要更加关注地点和空间，尤其是在讨论社会不平等，男子气概和变性者生活时。在考虑跨性别者的叙述所产生的主要问题时，阿贝尔森还指出，有必要加大机构改革的力度，尤其是在公共浴室和其他机构，特别是医疗机构方面。在号召性用语中，

在当今时代，通常通过VOIP（基于Internet协议的语音）和其他基于Internet的技术来促进大规模的采访项目，Abelson在过去的四年中走上了道路，完成了深入的面对面采访，积累了迄今为止最大类型的采访样本之一。尽管阿伯森（Abelson）的受访者中有一半以上居住在城市，但她还是做出了有意识的决定，将郊区和农村跨性别者的声音包括在内，而这些人通常不在话语范围内。在考虑乡村声音时，Abelson未能充分捕捉乡村空间中有色人种的经验。尽管她的受访者中有五分之一认为自己是有色人种，但九个农村受访者中只有一位认为自己是非白人。利用雪球采样，阿伯森（Abelson）指出，她能够辨认出“一些不那么明显的人，因为他们的相识使人更加可见”。需要继续进行研究，以继续将更多的农村跨性别声音（通常是无形的人口）引入讨论中。

Abelson的工作是定性深入访谈以及女权主义和扎实的理论方法和分析的典范，将为方法课程，尤其是侧重于定性访谈和女权主义方法的课程锦上添花。“在位的男人”对于在性别和性方面的本科生和研究生课程而言，也是一次奇妙而及时的补充，因为与男子气概，跨性别生活，诸如浴室之类的空间以及包括学校和军方在内的机构有关的讨论通常会进入我们的生活学生生活和我们的教室。