By Annika von Berg and Benedikt Büchsenschütz (Violence Prevention Network)
This article was first published in German in: Interventionen #19, 2025 by Violence Prevention Network

Introduction: Organisations as gendered spaces

Advice centres, especially in the field of preventing violent extremism, are not only spaces for psychosocial intervention, but are also embedded in social power and meaning structures. They do not operate in a vacuum, but within institutional and cultural structures that are shaped by normative ideas of gender[1] , belonging and professionalism. The focus is not only on those seeking advice, but also on the organisations offering counselling with their specific professional logic, implicit expectations and structural requirements.

This article focuses on the question of how socially mediated and organisationally entrenched gender norms are reflected in the concrete practice of counselling work. The focus is not only on the individual gender images that professionals or those seeking advice have, but also on how gender relations are inscribed in everyday interaction, organisational routines and the symbolic order of counselling institutions. We discuss which (often implicit) role expectations take effect in teams and counselling situations, how organisational structures and external representations shape gendered identities, and to what extent unconscious perception filters – so-called unconscious biases – are effective on the part of both the organisation and those seeking advice (cf. Dorer 2021; Rosendahl et al. 2023) and can (negatively) influence the relationship with clients and their history of disengagement.

Against this background, the question of what spaces for reflection exist (or must exist) in advice centres in order to make these dynamics visible and workable is finally explored. Only through targeted self-reflection, critical collegial processes and gender-reflective organisational development can existing gender relations within counselling practice be problematised and transformed in the long term.

What does passing mean in this context? – Definition of terms and theoretical foundations

The concept of passing originates from critical race theory and describes the (un)intentional „passing“ as a member of a social group to which one does not belong or only partially belongs (cf. Goffman 1963), especially in the context of so-called racial passing in the United States, where people of African American descent present themselves as white in order to escape systemic discrimination (cf. Hobbs 2014). More recently, the concept has also been increasingly applied to gender identities (cf. Anderson et al. 2025; Smith 1994). It thus encompasses a process in which a person is perceived by others as belonging to a particular social category, even though their own identity or affiliation may differ. This perception can offer protection and open up opportunities, but at the same time carries the risk of exclusion and identity distortion (Dias et al. 2020).

In the context of gender and sexuality, the concept has been expanded to reveal the dynamics by which people are read and treated as „male,“ „female“ or „other“ – regardless of their actual gender identity or presentation (cf. Butler 1990; Dias et al. 2020). In psychosocial counselling settings, gender passing plays an ambivalent role: it can act as a door opener, creating trust and facilitating access, but at the same time it can also strain, distort or suppress one’s own identity.

Passing is a particularly ambivalent phenomenon when working with clients from right-wing extremist or Islamist milieus, where strict and raised notions of masculinity often prevail. This text aims to highlight the gap that arises when constructions of masculinity in particular and gender constructions in general are not taken into account in counselling work, even though they play a particularly important role among the predominantly male clientele. Counsellors who (consciously or unconsciously) employ the milieu-specific hegemonic codes of masculinity mentioned above ([2]) experience increased connectivity and acceptance among male clients. At the same time, however, they become a projection screen for collective ideals of masculinity, which can create tensions between personal authenticity and professional role.

Passing focuses on how individuals present themselves as „suitable“ for a social group in a given situation and relationship – or not. It highlights the process of recognition and the conditions under which a person is considered a legitimate member of a group.

Practical observations from counselling male clients illustrate these dynamics: male counsellors report increased trust as soon as they appear „tough“ or „masculine.“ Physical presence, such as a trained body, can generate respect. Female counsellors, on the other hand, are occasionally perceived by male clients and sometimes also by the counselling team or third parties involved in the case as ‚unsuitable‘ for the specific counselling setting, which makes access difficult on various levels. Non-binary colleagues report having to present themselves as male in order to be able to reach clients at all.

These examples show how passing works as a strategy in everyday counselling, but also how it reproduces existing power structures and normative gender images. It is therefore essential to understand passing not only as an individual tactical action, but also as an expression and reinforcement of structural gender relations, and to reflect on it critically.

Masculinity as a resonance chamber: closeness, familiarity, control

Extremist milieus often offer an exaggerated, binary image of masculinity: strong, untouchable, rational, combative (Herschinger 2022). Counsellors who use these codes (consciously or unconsciously) often experience increased connectivity. But at what price?

Observations from practice show how masculinity functions as a resonance space:

• A counsellor reports increased trust as soon as he comes across as „tough enough“.
• A colleague earns respect because he is ‚well trained‘.
• A female counsellor is perceived as „unsuitable/not competent“ for the consulting setting by male clients and/or the team during initial contact or as a consultant because of her gender.
• A non-binary colleague decides to „present“ themselves as male during initial contact in order to reach the male client group.

These practical observations raise critical questions: Which hegemonic images of masculinity are (re)produced in counselling? And how can an authentic, trusting working relationship be achieved without affirming power structures?

Passing in counselling work – opportunity, challenge, burden from a male perspective

As mentioned above, passing can be a way of gaining access to a specific target group, especially those who are strongly attached to binary images of masculinity or ideologies, or who place a strong emphasis on them. Of course, there are similar constellations with female counsellors, which will be discussed in the following chapter. Passing can be helpful in building a resilient and trusting working relationship. For example, clients[3] assume that they and the counsellor³ share perceptions and attitudes about masculinity because the client makes external attributions based on appearance or because the counsellor has not (yet) expressed an opinion on certain topics that could break with these external attributions. Clients perceive the counsellor as a ‚real man‘ because he fulfils certain scene-specific stereotypes, such as a muscular physique, a certain way of speaking, a full beard or a certain style of clothing, etc. Stereotyping based primarily on appearance can certainly lead to the client’s respect for the counsellor. Last but not least, counsellors thus become ‚role models‘ because they apparently serve hegemonic images of masculinity for the client. This often leads to role models such as the ‚big brother‘ or ‚father figure‘ being established, which in turn enables the counsellor to address the client’s current life situation within the counselling work and encourage critical reflection, because the counsellor is perceived as a role model by the client. This means that the counsellor is taken seriously because of his passing and that impulses for change are more likely to be accepted because the counsellor serves the images of masculinity that the client himself has.

In principle, this is an effective way of building a relationship of trust, but it can also quickly become a challenge for sustainable distancing if counsellors have not (yet) questioned their own hegemonic images of masculinity and thus do not address hegemonic images of masculinity in their counselling work or reproduce them implicitly or even explicitly. Insight into practice shows that dealing with images of masculinity is still not an integral part of case understanding or intervention and support planning, and that counsellors also have room for improvement in terms of their specialist knowledge and their own engagement with the topic. This has consequences for the distancing process. If the above-mentioned hegemonic images of masculinity are brought into counselling work, this can lead to a significant proportion of values, attitudes and ideological elements not being addressed or problematised, so that hegemonic images of masculinity remain vulnerable points for possible (re-)radicalisation processes among clients. This explicitly counteracts sustainable disengagement work.

It becomes particularly difficult when passing becomes a burden. Counsellors sometimes report tension between their professional role and personal integrity. Here, it is important to differentiate between two manifestations of this burden: frustration and self-denial. On the one hand, frustration can arise when clients show no willingness to open up about gender or do not consider it relevant. Such an attitude on the part of clients causes frustration when counsellors themselves consider the issue to be important, whether out of personal conviction or because they are affected by it. Counsellors who are influenced by passing often report that they consider the issues of masculinity and gender to be very important in their counselling work, but that their clients are not open to discussion or willing to change. This is particularly frustrating when openness and willingness to change can be observed in other areas. This often leads to the perception that ’nothing is happening in this case‘ because no change can yet be observed in this area. In addition to social diagnostic procedures for case development, it is essential to use collegial case consultation and case supervision to address these feelings of frustration, reassess the case development and discuss possible ways of dealing with the issue in a targeted manner.

On the other hand, (psychological) stress arises when processes of self-denial are necessary in order not to jeopardise the counselling process. Specifically, this means that gender-nonconforming identities cannot be made visible without jeopardising the counselling process. In this context, it is important to include the experiences of queer or non-binary professionals in the further development and quality assurance of counselling work. Their experiences of closeness, effectiveness and authenticity, how passing is used for self-protection or as an opportunity, and when passing becomes a problem, should also be taken into account. The question of what it means to be perceived in the field in a way that does not correspond to one’s own gender identity should also be addressed here. Collegial case consultation and case supervision should also be incorporated into these processes.

Female perspectives: Connectivity beyond hegemonic masculinity

Having considered the issue in the counselling context of ‚male client, male counsellor‘, the constellation of ‚male client, female counsellor‘ must not be neglected. Female colleagues often face a double challenge: They must assert themselves in front of male-dominated clientele and at the same time deal with gender-specific attributions that undermine their professional authority and call into question their fundamental counselling skills. This often begins with the assumption that female-identified individuals cannot gain access to male clients because the latter fundamentally reject interaction with women or devalue women in general. This denies female counsellors the professional competence to build a counselling relationship despite all adversities. However, qualities such as humour, a down-to-earth attitude, a shared migration history or simply authenticity can overcome these adversities and lead to a resilient and trusting counselling relationship.

In some counselling settings, female gender identity can be a deliberate irritant that triggers clients to question extremist images of masculinity and other extremist attitudes or enables them to address topics that are perceived as „feminine“ for the first time, such as relationships with family or female caregivers. These perspectives open up new avenues for relationship work beyond hegemonic masculinity logics, thus creating fundamentally different conditions and possibilities for counselling and its content. Nevertheless, it must be recognised that there are cases in which female counsellors are not suitable for male clients at the beginning of the counselling relationship. This can be the case in situations that pose a risk to the counsellor, for example when clients fall in love with female colleagues or have such a rigid ideological worldview that female counsellors are unable to gain access despite their professional skills and authenticity, and clients refuse to talk to or look at the counsellor. However, female counsellors may become an important resource in counselling work at a later stage.

Overall, however, a counsellor’s female gender should not be a criterion for exclusion from a counselling setting; rather, it should be decided on a case-by-case basis whether gender could be beneficial to the counselling process. Although gender-specific dynamics also arise in counselling female clients, this text focuses on constellations with male clients, as they make up the majority in practice.

A plea for reflexive counselling practice

In order to provide the best possible counselling and initiate sustainable disengagement processes, gender must not only be analysed on the client side but must also be reflected upon at the organisational and team level.

To this end, it is necessary to first raise awareness at the organisational, team and counselling levels that gender and associated role models are a relevant issue. Due to their strategic and planning orientation with regard to counselling content, organisations often already have this awareness. However, it must also be disseminated to the levels below senior management. Looking at the current status quo, it appears that there is a fundamental difference between the perception of images of femininity and masculinity. While the topic of gender/gender-specific approaches is now almost taken for granted in teams and among counsellors in the context of counselling female clients, and gender-specific topics are discussed almost automatically in this counselling context, this has not yet become the norm when working with male clients. This is evident in the fact that gender-specific approaches are understood as approaches that deal with ‚women’s issues‘ (even though ‚gender-specific‘ includes all gender identities) and leads to the idea that images of masculinity are not relevant to counselling work.

Once awareness of the need for gender-specific approaches for all gender identities has been established, it is expedient to provide teams and counsellors with further training on the topics of gender identities and competence, intersectionality and unconscious bias. These training courses must provide safe spaces in which to express and address one’s own uncertainties and attitudes. In this context, it is essential to use practical training courses or workshops that address the challenges of everyday counselling work and at the same time support counsellors in having the courage to embrace ambivalence and enable them to create connections without denying themselves. The conscious use of language should also be part of this training. Topic-specific terms should not be ridiculed, and extremist narratives such as ‚gender madness‘ should not be reproduced linguistically. Similarly, a deterministic understanding of gender in counselling work, especially when it comes to identity work, should not be reproduced unquestioningly. It is essential to learn to reflect critically with clients that behaviours understood as ‚typically female‘ and ‚typically male‘ are learned behaviours in social interaction that may be historically conditioned and subject to constant change.

In counselling work, social phenomena must not be naturalised and essentialised. Instead, the focus is on identity work. Counselling work should aim to enable people to develop stable and authentic identities, independent of social ideas or constraints surrounding gender. It is crucial that these identity concepts fit with one’s own authentic self. Fears and uncertainties are often encountered during these phases of thematic exploration. Sometimes there is a lack of understanding of the patriarchal constructs of gender-specific characteristics and the resulting power structures. Likewise, a lack of engagement with one’s own gender identity (or image of masculinity) or moments of feeling overwhelmed when dealing with oneself can also be observed. These perceptions of threat can be exacerbated by the general uncertainties of the current world situation, and counsellors (as well as clients) sometimes no longer have the energy to deal with gender-related injustice in addition to war, discrimination and climate change. Fear of contact and reluctance to confront and soften one’s own entrenched patterns of thinking can also be a challenge („If there is no difference between men and women, what does that mean for my sexuality?“). All of this must be addressed in a practical, realistic and non-humiliating manner during the phase of problem awareness and knowledge transfer.

Last but not least, case supervision and collegial case discussions are needed to address the challenges that arise from the topic. This may be to discuss approaches, address counselling uncertainties in a safe space, or deal with the ambivalence and frustration mentioned above.

It is essential that normative demands and the reality of counselling are brought into harmony. In concrete terms, this means that passing can help but cannot be sustained in the long term.

Conclusion and recommendations for action

Gender is not a neutral background factor, but a powerful structural and interpretative element that plays a central role both in interactions with clients and at the organisational level. The practice of passing, whether as a strategy for connectivity, as a professional role or as forced self-denial, not only reveals individual challenges, but also highlights structural tensions within counselling work in the context of extremist ideologies. Advice centres must be understood as gendered spaces, which includes, in particular, a conscious examination of hegemonic images of masculinity that are (re)produced by both clients and professionals and can leave blind spots in the rehabilitation process. The experience reports described show that passing can open up access under certain conditions but also carries the risk of stabilising existing power relations instead of questioning them. In this context, counsellors find themselves in a field of tension that requires institutional support and structures that can handle the associated tasks.

1. Anchoring gender-reflective perspectives in case understanding: Questions about images of masculinity, attributions and relational passing should be systematically integrated into social diagnostic work and assistance planning – not as an add-on, but as an integral part of professional case work.

2. Strengthening marginalised perspectives in counselling teams: The experiences of queer, non-binary or female professionals must be integrated into team culture and quality assurance as a necessary extension of professional perspectives, not as exoticisation, but as a necessary extension of professional perspectives.

3. Critical examination of suitability criteria in case assignments: The assignment of cases should not be automated along binary notions of gender and „responsibility,“ but should be critically reflected upon and decided upon in a context-specific manner within the team.

4. The professionalisation of counselling work in the context of P/CVE must recognise that there is no gender-neutral position. Only by consciously addressing and reflecting on gender relations can counselling be both accessible and transformative.

Literature:

Anderson, J. R., Burstall, J., Schweizer, K., & Tan, K. J. (2025). The Costs and Benefits of ‚Passing‘: A Systematic Review of the Qualitative Evidence on Passing for Trans Individuals and Communities. Sex Roles, 91(6), 1-27.

Bourdieu, Pierre (1979): La distinction. Critique sociale du jugement. Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit.
[English: Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1982.]

Butler, Judith (1990): Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York: Routledge.

Connell, Raewyn W. (2005): Masculinities. 2nd edition. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Dias, C. K., Da Rocha, L. R. L., Tateo, L., & Marsico, G. (2021). “Passing” and its effects on Brazilian transgender people’s sense of belonging to society: A theoretical study. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 31(6), 690-702.

Donaldson, M. (1993). What is hegemonic masculinity? Theory and society, 643-657.

Goffman, Erving (1963): Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

Herschinger, E. (2022). Mother, girl and Muhajirah: Gender and its significance for radicalisation. In Radicalisation narratives online: Perspectives and lessons from science and prevention (pp. 147-169). Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden.

Hill, Jane H. (1998): Language, Race, and White Public Space. In: American Anthropologist, 100(3), pp. 680–689.

Messner, Michael A. (1997): Politics of Masculinities: Men in Movements. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Rosendahl, Johanna; Schulze Wessel, Juliane; Reichertz, Jo (2023): Counselling as a gender relationship. Interdisciplinary perspectives on power, norms and practice. Bielefeld: transcript.

Smith, V. (1994). Reading the intersection of race and gender in narratives of passing. diacritics, 24(2/3), 43-57.

West, Candace; Zimmerman, Don H. (1987): Doing Gender. In: Gender and Society, 1(2), pp. 125–151.Dorer, Johanna (2021): Gender Relations in Social Work. An Introduction. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.

Authors:

Annika von Berg is a political scientist and sociologist. She has been working in various areas at the Violence Prevention Network since 2018 and conducts research on topics such as disengagement processes, risk assessment, social diagnostics and lone terrorist perpetrators.

Benedikt Büchsenschütz is a research fellow at the Violence Prevention Network and focuses on gender in extremism, (online) radicalisation and hybrid ideologies. He holds a Master of Science in Crisis & Security Management: Governance of Radicalism, Extremism and Terrorism from Leiden University.

---

[1] “The social and cultural differences between the sexes extend far beyond biological characteristics (Pearson & Winterbotham 2017). In scientific discourse, a distinction is therefore made between „sex“ and „gender“ – terms that have been adopted from English. While „sex“ refers to biological and physical differences between men and women (e.g. chromosomes, hormone balance, anatomical characteristics), „gender“ describes the social and cultural roles, behaviours and identity attributions associated with masculinity and femininity. In German, gender is often used synonymously with the term gender identity.“ (Büchsenschütz/Brinkmöller 2024).

[2] Hegemonic masculinity describes a culturally privileged configuration of gender practice that stabilises the structural dominance of men over women and the hierarchisation of different forms of masculinity among themselves. This is not the most widespread form of masculinity, but rather the socially legitimised and institutionally anchored form that functions as a normative reference and creates social consensus on gender relations. It manifests itself in symbolic and material superiority, while other masculinities, such as subordinate, marginalised or complementary ones, are marked as deviations. The term emphasises that male dominance is reproduced not only through direct violence, but also through cultural hegemony, i.e. through the tacit consent that is reflected in the media, education, the world of work and interpersonal interactions (cf. Donaldson 1993: 645).

[3] The masculine form is deliberately used here, as it concerns images of masculinity among male clients.