Transgender actor Elliot Page used a podcast appearance to argue that “healthy masculinity” is less about projecting toughness than about resisting pressure to emotionally “shut down.” Speaking on “It’s Open with Ilana Glazer” on Thursday, the 39-year-old actor—known for roles including in “Odyssey”—framed the concept in direct contrast to toxic masculinity, emphasizing how people can change their automatic responses to fear, shame, or social expectations.
The discussion focused on what Page described as a personal shift in the context of his “gender journey.” Page said that healthy masculinity, as he has felt it while transitioning, involves turning away from an internal impulse or socially imposed expectation to close off emotionally. In Page’s description, it is an active practice rather than a static trait—leaning away from the urge to shut down and toward continued emotional openness.
Page was asked about healthy masculinity both as a public figure and as someone undergoing gender transition. His remarks suggested that the idea of masculinity often carries assumptions about emotional restraint—assumptions that can become harmful when they are treated as rules rather than choices. Instead of embracing that restraint, Page argued, healthy masculinity looks like choosing not to fall into those patterns.
“Healthy masculinity… is… leaning away from whenever there is some sort of impulse or expectation you’ve put on yourself to, like, shut down,” Page said, according to the report of the exchange. The comments, though delivered in the setting of a celebrity podcast, position the actor’s message squarely within an ongoing cultural debate: whether masculine behavior can be defined in ways that are beneficial and measurable, or whether the term “toxic masculinity” is so elastic that it obscures what is actually harmful.
While Page’s remarks were grounded in lived experience and emotional language, other reporting in the verified sources underscores how the “toxic masculinity” label has become widely used—and increasingly contested. One analysis points to confusion that can arise when people treat the term as if it categorically condemns “all masculine elements,” rather than distinguishing specific behaviors or attitudes that create harm.
That source describes research efforts aimed at making the concept more precise. A team from the University of Auckland, led by Deborah Hill-Corn, reportedly examined data from roughly 15,000 men using the New Zealand Attitudes and Values Study, a large-scale panel survey covering social attitudes, personality, ideology, and health status. The study asked whether “toxic masculinity” could be measured, and it attempted to statistically categorize “potentially problematic masculinity” into eight indicators. The emphasis, as described, was to separate broadly negative assumptions from more concrete patterns that can be analyzed and discussed in clearer terms. GIGAZINE
Page’s comments do not directly address those eight indicators or the methodology behind measuring toxicity, but they contribute to the same larger conversation—how society defines masculinity, what expectations it imposes, and where harm may show up. For Page, the central marker of health is not dominance, stoicism, or emotional suppression; it is the ability to avoid being boxed into a shutdown response when emotions are present.
In broader cultural commentary about toxic masculinity, other verified sources highlight how the concept is often tied to normalized aggression and damaging scripts about gender. For example, HuffPost recounts remarks by Javier Bardem at the Cannes Film Festival, where the Oscar-winning actor described toxic masculinity as stemming from long-standing “bad education” and pointed to violence against women as an example of how harmful ideas can become routine. HuffPost
Bardem’s cited comments included a profanity-laced description of “toxic male behavior” framed around threats and humiliation. The inclusion of such an example underscores a recurring theme in public discussions: toxic masculinity is frequently portrayed not merely as personal attitude, but as a social pattern that can escalate into real-world harm. Page’s intervention, by comparison, focuses on an earlier emotional step—how people are trained to stop feeling or to treat feeling as weakness—rather than on outward acts alone.
That distinction is relevant to how audiences may interpret “healthy masculinity.” For Page, the problem begins with expectation: the sense that one must lock down emotionally to meet an identity standard. His proposed alternative is to resist that impulse. In effect, Page is redefining masculinity as something adaptive—something that can be recalibrated as people’s circumstances, identities, and understanding evolve.
Other verified material reflects how “toxic masculinity” is also used as a critical lens for media and storytelling. A report described “Half Man,” an HBO series created and starring Richard Gadd, and noted that critics have called it a study of toxic masculinity—though Gadd pushed back on that label. In the same discussion, Gadd talked about complicated emotional dynamics, including the experience of being surrounded by people who think they understand what’s happening while he felt internally “dying inside,” describing performance pressures and emotional dissonance. HPPR
Taken together, these sources suggest that “healthy masculinity” and “toxic masculinity” are not just abstract academic terms; they show up in public discourse, research debates, and creative interpretations. Page’s podcast remarks place emotional openness at the center of what he calls “healthy,” contrasting it with shutdown behaviors he believes can be reinforced by expectations. Whether audiences agree with his framing or not, his comments add a distinct emphasis: that well-being can involve rejecting the reflex to become closed off, particularly for those navigating identity and change.
As the conversation continues, Page’s message may resonate with viewers who see emotional suppression as a culturally learned script—and who want alternatives that allow vulnerability without collapsing into passivity. In his telling, the difference between healthy and toxic masculinity is not simply how someone looks or sounds, but what they do with feeling: whether they shut down under expectation, or lean away from that impulse.
SHOP AMAZON BEST SELLERS, CLICK TO BUY FROM AMAZON.
SHOP AMAZON BEST SELLERS, CLICK TO BUY FROM AMAZON.
