Beyond Male and Female

Beyond Male and Female:
Poststructuralism and the Spectrum of Gender

Surya Monro, PhD
ABSTRACT. Transgender explodes the notion that male and female are discrete categories. Transgender people change sex or
inhabit third (or multiple) sex, androgynous,
or fluid identities. I theorize this by developing and then critiquing poststructuralist
transgender theory. A poststructuralist theory of transgender disassociates sex and gender, models both as constructed, and
emphasizes the technologisation and commodification of the body. Poststructuralist
accounts can, however, entail denial of
bodily limitations, erase transgender peoples subjective experience, and overlook
social and political factors, such as the importance of gender categories as a basis for
identity politics. I argue for the deconstruction of gender binaries to be combined with
the development of a gender-pluralist, flexible, model of gender. This points to the replacement of bipolar models of gender with
a gender spectrum, with important implications for conceptualizing gender. My analysis is based on empirical research with a
range of transgender people. [Article copies
available for a fee from The Haworth Document
Delivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail
address: <docdelivery@haworthpress.com> Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com> 2005
by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.]
KEYWORDS. Transgender, gender identity, post-structuralism
This paper aims to develop poststructuralist

transgender theory, to provide a critical analy-
sis of this theory, and to indicate new directions for gender theory. The lynchpin of my
argument stems from the existence of people
who can be interpreted to be other than male or
female: intersexes, transsexuals in transition,
and androgynes.1 People with non-male and
non-female bodies challenge the ontological
assumption that female and male, and the lesbian, gay, and bisexual categories that refer to
the gender binary (female and male) system, are the only possible sex, gender, and
sexual orientation categories. The inclusion
of non male/female people in gender theory
problematises existing approaches, such as
feminisms, masculinity studies, and queer
theory. These bodies of theory often involve
the disruption of the gender binary system,
but they also refer back to, and potentially
reinforce, binary systems of categorisation.
Poststructuralist and postmodernist approaches
are also flawed in a number of ways, including
in some cases, a lack of attention to lived experience of the body, a denial of the need for gender categorisation, and a lack of political
awareness. There is, therefore, a need for gender-pluralist theory, and an expansion of the
way that gender is conceptualised.
After briefly reviewing definitions, methodology, and literature, the paper explores the
central concepts of poststructuralist transgender theory. These include (I) sex and gender as constructed; the (IIa) commodification
and (IIb) technologisation of the body; (III) the
transgender disruption of the links between sex
Surya Monro, PhD, is Senior Research Fellow, Policy Research Institute, Leeds Business School, Leeds Metropolitan University (E-mail: S.Monro@leedsmet.ac.uk).
The author would like to acknowledge and thank the research contributors and the ESRC, who funded the
study on Transgender Politics. All contributions have been anonymised unless the contributor wished to be named.
International Journal of Transgenderism, Vol. 8(1) 2005
http://www.haworthpress.com/web/IJT
2005 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
10.1300/J485v08n01_02
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TRANSGENDERISM
and gender; (IV) a pluralist model of gender

binaries; and (V) gender beyond duality. The
paper demonstrates a number of problems with
poststructuralist transgender theory, including
(I) an inability to deal with some transgender
peoples experiences of an essential self; (II) the
erasure of corporeal limitations; (III) difficulties
concerning the technologisation of the body;
(IV) denial of the need for gender categorisation; and (V) the tendency to overlook social
and political issues. I conclude by indicating
some directions for a gender-pluralist model
which utilises, but does not rely on, poststructuralism as a basis for gender praxis. This paper does not address transgender critiques of
queer theory and feminisms, citizenship, or
social policy aspects of transgender; these are
dealt with elsewhere (Monro 2000b, 2003,
2004, Monro and Warren 2004). The paper is
limited to the Western (mostly UK), predominantly white, situation; further work is needed
to counter the ethnocentrism of Western
transgender theory, given the way in which
gender identities develop in interaction with
national, racialised, and other identities and
the fact that this is often overlooked by transgender theorists (see Herdt 1993 and Ramet
1997 for some non-Western accounts of gender diversity). Discussion of factors such as
ethnicity, class, and ability and the ways in
which they cut across, and interact with, gender (as addressed in Monro 2004) is also not
possible here because of space limitations, although I would like to emphasise the importance of the inclusion of debates concerning
difference and structures of inequality in gender pluralist theory.
DEFINITIONS
Postmodernism and poststructuralism are
influential bodies of theory that have developed in the West in the latter parts of the twentieth century. Both of these fields of theory developed as critiques of mainstream theory and
the radical thinking of the 1960s and 1970s
(Beasley 1999). Prior to the development of
postmodernism and poststructuralism, theorists (with the exception of psychoanalysts)
tended to assume that people were rational,
autonomous beings, with coherent identities,
and that there was a foundational essence, or

reality, to the world. This type of approach
was called Enlightenment, or modernist,
thinking. Postmodernists and poststructuralists, who take a range of different approaches,
share a critique of the idea that we make decisions rationally on the basis of a unified sense
of self, and that there is an essential truth. Instead, they see subjectivity (our sense of self)
as socially constructed, often contradictory
and fragile, and reject the notion that there is
an underlying reality in our worldinstead,
reality, including gender binaries, is seen as
constructed via the exclusion of other options.
For example, the development of a male
identity involves the rejection of supposedly
female characteristics, such as the caring
involved in playing with dolls, and the identification with supposedly masculine traits,
such as being competitive (for instance, interested in football).
Some authors see postmodernism and poststructuralism as part of the same body of theory, but it is worth pointing out that postmodernism encompasses a broader range of
authors, where as poststructuralism draws primarily on the work of Saussure, a French philosopher (Beasley 1999). Saussure, who was a
structuralist, argues that there is a fixed underlying structure to language, which formulates meaning and is tied into power relations. For example, our language is gender
binaried (man/woman, female/male, Mr
and Mrs/Miss/Ms), meaning that anyone
who does not fit those categories is socially
marginalized, and that the power relations
that are based on gender difference are reinforced. Poststructuralists, like postmodernists,
criticise the structuralist notion of a static
structure underlying language and power relations, emphasising fluidity and complexity instead. In this paper, I use postmodernism and
poststructuralism interchangeably. I utilise
postmodernist and poststructuralist concepts
to explore the relationship between fluidity
and structure, but my use of the terms structure and structuralism do not draw only
on Saussures work, but rather, indicate a
concern with the social structures and institutions (such as law and education) that
mold our experiences. I also use the term
post-postmodernist to mean theory that is de-
Surya Monro
veloped in critical relationship to postmodernism and poststructuralismspecifically, theory that combines postmodern and structural
approaches.
Transgender is an umbrella term that
can be used in its broadest definition to describe anyone who transgresses usual gender roles (see Raymond 1994), but which is
taken here mean cross-dressers, transsexuals,
androgynes, intersexes (people born with a
mixture of male and female physiological characteristics), drag artists, third gender people,
and other gender-complex people, for example, gender queer peoplegender queer is defined roughly as any type of transgender identity which is not always male or female, i.e., as
a mixture of male and female or as no gender.
Estimates of the numbers of transsexuals in the
UK range from 30,000 to 80,000 (Morgan
1996a) and intersex conditions affect between
0.15% (Dreger 1998) and 4% (Nataf 1996,
Rothblatt 1995) of individuals. Definitions of
transgender are currently being disputed, and it
is important in particular to point out that [i]
many transsexuals prefer to be described as
transgender, because their gender identity
issues concern gender, not sexuality; [ii]
many intersex people and drag kings and
queens do not identify as transgender; [iii] there
are, of course, huge variations both within and
between the groups of people discussed here
under the umbrella term of transgender.
METHODOLOGY
The research utilised a participative, feminist
standpoint approach with a range of transgender
people. The author is a female-bodied bisexual
who has explored a transgender identity. The
methodology involved 24 in-depth interviews,
over 50 informal interviews, a focus group
and over 1,000 hours of participant observation with transsexuals, transvestites,
cross-dressers, intersexes, an androgyne, a
gender transient, drag kings and queens, other
transgender people, and related professionals.
Research contributors were involved in the research design and analysis as far as was possible, enabling a richer picture to be developed
than would have been possible using traditional methodologies. The research drew to a
much lesser extent on subsequent studies con-
cerning transgender and bisexual politics. The

research is not intended to be representative:
as noted above, transgender people are very
diverse, and many might not support notions
of gender pluralism. I have distinguished between interview data and material from the literature by dating the latter (some of the authors contributed to the research via interview
as well as published material). My own interpretations and comments are unreferenced.
LITERATURE
Until recently, literature concerning transgender was primarily medical (for example,
Benjamin 1966, Green 1974, Green and
Money 1969, Socarides 1970, 1991) and autobiographical (for example, Morris 1974, Rees
1996, Von Mahlsdorf 1995). Sociological accounts were developed by authors such as
Garfinkel (1967), Kessler and Mckenna
(1978), King (1986), Bullough and Bullough
(1993), and more recently, Ekins and King
(1996) and Ekins (1997). There has been a
critique, mostly by feminists (Raymond
1980, 1994, Daly 1984, Jeffreys 1996, Greer
1999) of transgender. There have also been
contributions from cultural studies (Epstein
and Straub 1991 and Garber 1992). Important recent developments have come from
the transgender communities, stemming initially from the work of Stone (1991), and
consisting mostly, although not uniformly,
of writing which draws on postmodernism and
poststructuralism (particularly Butler 1990,
1993). This includes the work of authors such as
Bornstein (1994, 1998), Halberstam (1994),
Wilchins (1997), Nataf (1996), More and
Whittle (1999), Prosser (1998), and the
transgender issue of GLQ. The work of these
authors has shifted debates towards a politicised,
deconstructionist approach. Here I seek to integrate and develop some of the concepts
emerging from this latter body of literature,
address emerging problems, and explore possible theoretical directions.
POSTSTRUCTURALIST
TRANSGENDER THEORY
Poststructuralist gender theorists, for example Butler (1990), posit the body, sex and
gender as fictitious; constructed through social

processes occurring at macro social, micro social, and intra-psychic levels. Transgender theorists have used and contributed to poststructuralist gender theory in a number of ways, particularly concerning the multiple, fragmented,
and constructed nature of sex and gender:
(I) Sex and Gender as Constructed
Postmodernist and poststructuralist approaches to gender and sexuality envisage
subjectivity as fictitious (fictional) and as having no essential, or foundational, basis. Therefore, concepts such as gender identity,
woman trapped in a mans body, and female soul are all seen as socially constructed
via the interaction of the individuals subjectivity and discourse (sets of meanings and
ideas that are present in society). For example,
research contributor Kate More drew on Butler (1990) in describing transgender identities
as performative and processual, in other
words, constructed via the introjection
(internalisation) of discourses which then become part of our identities, expressed through
the way we dress and interact. Transgender as
performative is illustrated by the following
quote:
Dave/Joanne: When it comes to gender
how do I define myself? Hm . . . I would
say I mean Im not, Im not a trainee, I
would say. I would say that I am more a
drag queen I would say I am more, say
in-between, in-between, inbetweenie.
Interviewer: What, in-between drag and
TV?
Dave/Joanne: Well inbetweenie full stop.
You know its sort of a case of thats how
I can be, thats the way I tend to come
across, I dont come across as your archetypal trainee, I would say I come
across as more sort of like, its a performance, its all my way of acting, its sort
of like, youre going out youre putting
on a show, you know?
Interviewer: Yeah, yeah but its not like
drag either?
Dave/Joanne: No, no . . . I am the show.

(IIa) The Body as a Commodity
For Cameron et al. (1996), transsexual bodies are the realisation of the body as image and
commodity, and transsexuality is one practice
among others which offers the means for
reconfiguring subjectivity (changing identity).
Thus, sex reassignment surgery could be
seen as just another form of body modification
along with piercing, branding, and tattooing
(Nataf 1996: 55). In this context, transgender
is seen as a means of self-expression. This can
be linked with Foucaults extension of aesthetics: art enables subjective transformation, and
the reinvented body can be a work of art, with
emancipatory potential in its dislocation of
dominant discourses (Venn 1997). I discussed
body modification as a form of self-expression
with research contributor Zach Nataf:
I: Oh right. Well, I said something about
. . . now dont quote me on this because I
cant remember exactly what Stryker and
Cameron were saying, but the idea was
transgender as, changing body as a performance.
Zach: Yeah, okay. . . . I mean, this is . . . it
opens up a lot of, the idea is the freedom
to do with your body whatever you want
to do, kind of thing and . . . the fact that
people have been having plastic surgery
for all sorts of reasons.
I: Sure.
Zach: Cosmetically. All sorts of kinds of
plastic surgery for cosmetic reasons for
years and as long as you have the money,
you can do it.
I: Yeah.
Zach: I mean, Orlan has sort of changed
that, in that shes changing her body as
artistic expressions, you know, as a sort
of social . . . I dont know . . . confrontation about what is aesthetic and what is
real.
Surya Monro
(IIb) Technologised Bodies

Along with cyborgs, cloning, and cybersubjectivity, transsexuality may offer unprecedented opportunities for the reconfiguration of identity. It can be linked with hybridisation of ethnicity, achieved both physiologically and culturally (Anzaldua 1987), and via
new information technologies (see Hammonds
2000). Technological advancements serve to
extend the possibilities for modification, including not just surgery, but also genetic engineering (Nataf 1996). Some transgender theorists, for example Stone (1991) and Nataf
(1996), discuss transgender in relation to cyborg identities. Nataf (1996) draws on notions
of shifting, hybridised, monstrous bodies as
envisaged by Haraway (1991).
sex and gender. This decoupling of sex and

gender is amply evidenced in the research
findings, with people assuming gender identities in fluid or seemingly contradictory relationships with their biological attributes, and
with those who have had surgery changing not
only their sex but also their gender identities in
varied ways. For example, in one case someone is physically a pre-operative MTF transsexual and identifies as a woman, a lesbian,
and a drag queen, whilst in another situation a
transsexual man continues to enjoy vaginal
sex, whilst in other situations people change
sex but continue with some of the gender roles
traditionally associated with their sex of birth,
whilst also assuming gendered social practices
in line with their current gender identification.
(IV) A Pluralist Model of Gender Binaries
(III) The Transgender Disruption

of the Links Between Sex and Gender
Stone (1991) discusses the way in which
transsexuality offers a means for disrupting
hegemonic discourses of gender and sex. As
Shapiro (1991) argues, it makes the processes
of gender explicit, and exposes the way in
which we are all passing as sexed and
gendered subjects. As contributor Kate More
said, transsexuals are tropes (metaphors), with
difference from genetically sexed males and
females, but with this difference hidden by
signification (signs by which people communicate socially): even passing transsexuals displace conventional understandings because
they are not what they appear to be.
An important aspect of poststructuralist
transgender theory is the delinking of sex and
gender. This reinforces in some ways the
poststructuralist feminist departure from the
sex as given, gender as constructed assumptions that dominated earlier strands of feminist
theory. However, it goes beyond the conceptual frameworks of poststructuralists such as
Butler (1990, 1993), who relies on the binary
gender system as a basis for theorising at the
same time as repudiating it. For transgender
theorists following Stone (1991), the sex/gender link is seen as arbitrary, with some connection, but the links being constructed rather
than innate. There is a dislocation of the cultural positionings and discourses concerning
Another aspect of poststructuralist transgender theory draws on Butlers (1990) discussion of the way in which the categories
man and woman currently subsume dissonant gender features. This is useful in building
transgender theory beyond sexual dimorphism
(binaries). If male and female categories are to
be rejected, as some respondents, in particular
contributor Christie Elan Cane, suggest, dissonant gender features would be foregrounded
rather than hidden, resulting perhaps in a
wider spectrum of gender. Gender would be
constituted by the play of signifiers freed from
the body. This possibility echoes the multiple,
fluid genders found in cyberspace. Gender,
sex, and sexuality would become a process
rather than a noun (see Ekins 1997), and identity would be produced via the Derridean processes of difference and deferral (Weedon
1994). For example, Nataf (1996) discusses
the way in which, for some people, gender is
only a tool of the erotic, allowing polarity as a
basis for attraction and acting as a means of
communication without any essential basis.
Thus, a more finely grained system of polarities would emerge, based on similarity or difference (contributor Roz Kaveney) or active/
passive attributes (contributor Simon
Dessloch). This is echoed in the literature,
where sexual preference and butch/femme
(Bornstein 1994, Bercuwitz 1995) are suggested as possible gender polarities. For ex-
ample, Holmes (1998), who is an intersex person married to an MTF transsexual, explains
their relationship in terms of the butch/femme
dynamic. Contributor Hamish Macdonald and
I discussed the play of binaries:
I: Its like you said earlier about there being
a number of dualities, because a faggot
playing a butch bloke is a polarity.
Hamish: Its because it aint what he is
meant to be.
I: Yes, its like a butch dyke playing a
sissy girl.
Hamish: Or a femme doing drag king.
Yes its complicated for me, finding language to kind of pull stuff together.
(V) Gender Beyond Duality
Poststructualist transgender authors, in particular Stone (1991), Bornstein (1994) and
Cameron et al. (1996), describe transsexuality
as a place outside of duality. This can be
linked with some discourses within queer theory. For example, Seidman (1993) discusses
the queer celebration of liminality, or the
spaces between or outside of structures of gender and sexual orientation. Discourses concerning liminality are becoming increasingly
common among transgender people. For example, Jennifer Miller, a bearded woman and
a performer, says I live in a very liminal
place. Liminal means an in-between place
(Feinberg 1996). Interestingly, once named,
liminality becomes a space which transgender
people can inhabit (see Prosser 1998). As
Whittle (1998a) says, quoting Stone, transsexuals counter-discourse needs to come from
outside of the binaries of gender. This corresponds with the arguments of de Lauretis (in
Alcoff 1995): the discursive production of the
self means that the only way to understand this
is from outside. The notion of a moment or
space outside of categorisation provokes a
contradiction: How is it possible to understand
the constructed self from within that self? This
contradiction is echoed in the findings. Contributor Kate More noted that it is possible to
argue that transsexuals are the only people
who know what male and female are, because

they know they are not simply male or female.
However, the issue of whether it is possible to
exist outside of gender remains contentious.
Postmodernist feminists such as Flax (1990)
discuss the way in which we are embedded in
our current social positions, making the search
for a point outside of these very problematic,
and the quest for an absolute truth impossible.
THE CRITIQUE
OF POSTSTRUCTURALIST
TRANSGENDER THEORY
The developing poststructuralist transgender
theory expands models of gender and sexuality, but also involves a number of difficulties. Overall, my research showed that there
are serious limitations with postmodernist and
poststructuralist approaches, which can be
summarised as a lack of groundedness in lived
experience (both physical and psychological),
and incoherence concerning the social and political processes that affect this. These processes include difficulties concerning the way
in which some transgender people experience
themselves as having an essential self, limitations on the extent to which embodied
gendered experience is constructed and malleable via technology, the importance of gender categorisation, and the cruciality of social
and political factors. Before examining these,
I would like to note that the theorists I have labelled poststructuralist do show awareness
of issues concerning social structure and corporeality. I have dubbed them poststructuralist
as they utilise poststructuralist theory, and in
some cases do not conceptualise the problems
inherent in poststructuralism, although awareness of these is evident in their writings.
Inability to Deal with Some Transgender
Peoples Experiences of an Essential Self
One criticism of poststructuralist transgender theory is that research findings in some
cases indicate the possible existence of a core,
or essential, self, which contradicts the work
of authors such as Butler (1990). Essentialism
is defined by King (1993) as the presumption
of an underlying reality behind appearances.
Surya Monro
Findings indicate that people experience

themselves as having an essential self in some
cases. For example, contributor Alex
Whinnom described his experience of gender
as innate and not linked to his upbringing,
while contributor Christie Elan Cane experienced an essential sense of gender which was
neither male nor female. Similarly, contributor James Green discussed his experience of
having an essential self, which was more
than his body, and noted that such experiences are common among people who suffer
injury, for example, severe paralysis. Contributor Pamela Summers strongly supported my
arguments for an essential self when she read
my summary of findings. These findings are
supported in the literature. Transgender authors such as Cameron et al. (1996) describe
the experience of maintaining a personal identity despite shifts from one speaking position
to another. The notion of self-essentialism is,
however, contentious within the transgender
communities. Some people experience themselves as having no essential self, although it is
important to point out that the concept of
agency does seem to be crucial for all contributors.
Theorising the essential self is problematic
within established theoretical frameworks.
Both religious and psychoanalytic accounts of
the self are liable to be sexist and homophobic
(see, for example, Segals (1994) critique of
psychoanalysis). However, it may be possible
to reform these discourses in a way which supports gender and sexual diversity. Discourses
which can support gender diversity include
psychosynthesis (Silvester 2000), which includes a transpersonal element and models a
sense of self which is constant and authentic
(authenticity is defined by Weeks (1995) as
being true to the self). In addition, discourses
which support the notion of an essential self
can be developed from phenomenology (Rubin 1999) and some branches of feminism (see
Fuss 1989). Fuss discusses an essential self
that can change and still remain a central point
for the subject. Transgender authors Whittle
(1998a) and Rubin (1999) have begun to theorise an essential self. Whittle discusses the self
as both subject to social construction and as a
core which is essential and gendered. The core
self is felt to be authentic, allowing a base for
identity building and politics. Rubin (1999)

utilises phenomenology to model an essential
self, but sees the development of an essential
self as ultimately being strategic rather than
real.
An extension of discussions about the essential self concerns the experience which
some people have of an energetic body. One
contributor, a woman who does not identify as
transgender, described experiences of subtle-energy gender-changing. For example, she
cultivated awareness of a penis, which she described as an aspect of some types of shamanic
practice. Another contributor, a female-bodied transgender person, experienced energetic
orgasm while using a strap-on dildo during
penetrative sex. However, the implications of
subtle energy for gender theory have not been
explored. Another area that has not been theorised concerns the issue of reincarnation. One
of the participants, Annie Cox, discussed
transgender in relation to her belief in reincarnation, saying that I suspect that genuine
TSs are caused by reincarnations that have
gone wrong because the person concerned
has been born with a vague memory of their
past identity as a person of the opposite sex.
This conceptualisation lends itself to
pathologisation, but does potentially offer a
new theoretical slant on gender. Other
approaches to gender diversity and reincarnation are non-pathologising; see for example
Bornstein (1994) and some of the material on
the web (for example, imet.csus.edu/imetl/
denyer).
It is probably impossible to prove the existence of an essential self from within the confines of embodied and socially constructed
realities. However, it can be argued that
while Butler and other poststructuralists account for the psychic constitution of the
self, they fail to satisfactorily explain notions of self-essentialism. It is not enough
to dismiss these as false consciousness, as
this denies peoples lived experience. It is
also possible to argue that, drawing on
Sawicki (1991), poststructuralism provokes
consciousness-raising and can thus be useful,
but can also be damaging, and that this is
linked with a failure by poststructuralists to
address the essential self. This is because people who are going through major identity
10
change need a strong sense of self, and the idea

that the self is completely constructed can be
destructive to this. Therefore, whilst I do not
argue for the definite reality of an essential
self, I do argue that it should be included as an
aspect of gender theory.
The Erasure of Corporeal Limitations
The research counters the poststructuralist
assertion that the body is socially constructed
and fictitious. Transsexual author Prosser
(1998) argues that Butlers work fails to deal
with transsexuals experience of sexed embodiment. It seems that some postmodernist
transgender authors, such as Bornstein (1994,
1998), do not fully explore this either. Research findings underline the importance of
corporeality, indicating the necessity of some
level of foundationalism. Research participants discussed the varied ways in which the
body affects and limits their expression of
gender identity. For example, participants
mentioned the limits of surgery and the high
rates of complications, the effects of hormones, and the impact of stature and appearance on passing. Transgender also involves
factors such as ageing, as discussed by
Hamish:
Physically I am changing because of my
age, and I am physically changing in
ways which I thought would result in one
set of reactions from the world outside,
which seem to be resulting in another. I
thought that as I aged, the female, biologically female person changes in skin,
changes in body fat you know, getting
bigger, I thought that my passing would
be harder, now what I have actually
found out and experienced is that I pass
more now. Now I dont know what I am
passing as, I know that I used to pass as a
young boy, as a teenage boy. Now I dont
know whether I am passing as an older
young man, but I am passing more, and
getting less people saying Oh sorry
maam. Now there could be several factors to that, one that I could be showing
more confidence in myself in terms of
not giving a damn about how people really do perceive me. My not being
self-conscious about my masculinity. It

could be a reflection of the world giving
less of a damn, but I dont think the world
has moved on that much in the last few
years. I dont know, I am probably in a
state of transition in terms of my age
physically, which does impinge upon my
age emotionally. (Hamish Macdonald)
Biological accounts of transgender are
available; for example, le Vay (1993) argues
that transsexuality indicates the existence of
some biological factors. The possibility of a
biological factor in transsexuality is mentioned by some contributors. For example,
Salmacis and Kate N Ha Ysabet both discussed gender in terms of bodymaps (the
nervous system), and Kate More mentioned
the Swaab study (Swaab and Hofman 1995)
which provides evidence for biological determinism. Kate More generally rejected empiricist accounts, but did refer to biology on some
occasions; for example, she discussed the impact of hormones on transsexuals transitions:
once people have had testosterone jabs they
change so dramatically.
Biological accounts of gender are very
problematic. For example, biological determinism is rejected by most second wave
feminists, who have analysed the way in
which biology has been used to justify unequal sex roles (Wajcman 1991), and for
whom constructionism is crucial. However,
biologistic arguments can in fact be used in favour of gender diversity. Rothblatt (1994)
and Bornstein (1994) both discuss the absence of empirical evidence for absolute
male/female differences, while Kessler
(1998) documents the wide range of intersex
conditions occurring naturally among the
population. This challenges both dominant,
two-gendered biological determinism and
feminist discourse. Genetic anomalies demand a broader view of sex. What is called
for here is to develop an account of sexual
differentiation which permits the existence
of intermediate states (Kessler 1998: 371).
Biological arguments for gender diversity
and equality are mirrored in the wider literature; for example, Hrdy (1981) uses empiricist methods to argue for female equality.
Surya Monro
11
Difficulties Concerning
the Technologisation of the Body
the social and political context, and implications of technological innovation.
Another linked area of problems with the

emergent transgender theory concerns the
technologisation of the body. Critiques of
technology include that of Baudrillard (1994),
who argues that transsexuality fetishises the
body. The body thus altered becomes assumed
as the locus of identity. The notion of technology extending a postmodern aesthetics of the
body is also problematic: postmodern aesthetics can be seen as masculinist (Newman 1993)
because, historically, aesthetics have been
based on male experience and a gender binary
system.
There are various approaches to theorising
technology and the body. Technology can be
seen as evolutionary: increasing our capacities
(Davis-Floyd and Dumit 1996) or, alternatively, as regressive or linked with patriarchal
domination (see Farquhar 1996, Corea 1985
and Meis 1987). An alternative interpretation
of new technology involves the rejection of
both utopian and dystopean models, and interprets the possibilities presented by technology
as allowing both emancipatory development
and horrific abuse (Davis-Floyd and Dumit
1998), both the controlling of subjects and the
creation of new sites of resistance (Sawicki
1993). Borrowing from Sawicki (1993), the
issue is how to devise progressive struggles
over definitions of needs and the ways these
are met.
Interpretations of technology vary among
transgender people. One issue is that, for
transgender people, the use of technology
is spread across sexes and is leading to unexpected forms of gender and sex identity. For example, Wilchins (1997) documents the use of surgery by one person to retain the head of their penis as well as having a
vagina created, while contributor Christie
Elan Cane, who was initially female-bodied,
has used surgery to become androgynous.
Feminist arguments (for example Meis
1987) about technologisation as a feature of
male power collapse in the face of this
multiplicity of sexes. However, concerns
about technologisation and power remain,
leading to arguments for a critical approach to
technologyone that includes consideration of
Denial of the Need

for Gender Categorisation
Further criticism of poststructuralist transgender theory concerns the need on a social
level for gender categorisation as a means of
communication. Several authors discuss the
possibility of eliminating gender categorisation (Lorber 1994, Connell 1986, Stacey
1999). Haraway (1992), for example, argues
that feminism must resist male/female categorisation and still erupt in powerful new
tropes. Some of the research contributors
also explored a world without gender. However, findings indicate the use of gender signifiers to communicate gender as being crucial
to other transgender people. For example, contributor Penny Gainsborough described the
importance for her social position of being
seen to be female. Gender categorisation of
some sort seems to be socially necessary for
some people at presentwhat is then in question is whether this has to be binary categorisation.
One research finding concerning categorisation relates to the importance of categories
for non-male and non-female identification.
Bornstein (Day 1996) describes a feeling of
being splattered or floating when gender
duality goes. I personally experienced this
when I first met people whose sex I could not
ascertain, or whose sex and gender were juxtaposed. Whittle (1998b) described the challenge of theory building when the language is
simply not there. For me, it was not just a case
of a lack of pronouns, it was that a whole area
of cognitive patterning was absent. The part of
my psyche that recognises or constructs
intersex, transsexual, and other transgender
identities was barely developed. Given the
lack of discourse, Bornsteins floating/splattered space was one of direct experience: it
was not possible to cognitively organise my
perceptions in the usual manner. Bornstein
(Day 1996) interprets such experience as
non-pathological altered states of consciousness. Once I became more used to being with
people whose gender was different from that
which I had been used to, such experiences
12
stopped occurring, as I identified these people

as gender ambiguous or non male/female
categories that made cognitive sense to me.
Shapiro (1991) usefully points out that
transgender reveals the extent to which gender
is constructed, but also the way in which gender categories form a crucial framework for
our existence. This is echoed in feminist literature; for example, Rubin (1992) discusses the
importance of identity categorisation for organising at individual and social levels. Rubin
argues, however, that these categories are permeable, and that what is needed is tolerance of
diverse means of categorisation. Such categorisation is starting to emerge, for example:
Obviously the legal system recognises
only male and female, mostly toilets are
only male and female (although there are
some unisex). Those between genders do
not get the same protection from discrimination at work as transsexuals have now
been given. However passports can now
have an other category on them. It is
possible to live between the sexes practically (there are people at Bicon [bisexual
conference] who are doing so). (Tasha)
I feel that the creation and adoption of new
terms and gender categories may be important
for gender politics, particularly categories
which will act to socially include intersex people, androgynes, and other non-male/female
people and which will support gender pluralism. As More (1996) says, binary structures
are not integral to language. There are many
forms of socially accepted, linguistically supported transgender cross-culturally and
transhistorically (Herdt 1993, Bullough and
Bullough 1993, Feinberg 1996, Ramet 1997,
Roscoe 1998). This shows that it is not gender
categories themselves that enable gender inequality, but rather the power structures to
which they relate.
Tendency to Overlook Social
and Political Issues
There is another set of problems with poststructuralist transgender theory, which centre
around the difficulties decentred subjectivities
(identities where there is no sense of essential
self, and fragmented identities) pose for identity politics and the absence of analysis of
power at institutional and relational levels.
Poststructuralist transgender theorists such as
Halberstam (1994) envisage a cessation of
identity politics, given the dissolution of fixed
identities and the shift towards gender as a
process. However, this is problematic. As
Weeks (1995) says, radical pluralism and progressive individualism rely on an autonomous, authentic subject. Poststructuralism, in
destabilising identities, can be seen to erode
the basis of an emancipatory politics:
What is left to organise around if we
dont use identities? While postmodernism has been largely unable and unwilling to apply itself to the nitty-gritty
of social change, you and I dont have
that luxury. We have a movement against
gender oppression to mount. (Wilchins
1997: 85)
Butler would argue that poststructuralism, including the problematisation of identity, is
necessary as a basis for an informed politics
(see 1997). Deconstruction of bodies and
identity is not to refuse those terms but rather
to displace them from contexts where they are
used oppressively (1992). Nonetheless, I feel
that the political use of poststructuralism must
involve not just deconstruction but also the restructuring of identities and social structure.
For example, contributor Pamela Summers
noted the need to have a place of leverage for
effecting social change, as opposed to the
decentered self, which is politically ineffectual. This line of argument is supported by the
work of authors such as Richardson (1996),
who argues that while postmodernism and
poststructuralism may highlight the fluidity of
identities, there is a need to ground this knowledge in material conditions. Identities can be
understood to be constructed, but used strategically. This concept is drawn from the work
of Black feminists (Combahee River Collectives A Black Feminist Statement in Alcoff
1988) where identity is taken as a locus of action. There were examples of the strategic use
of identity in the literature; for instance,
Hirshauer (in Hirshauer and Mol 1995), a hermaphrodite who identifies politically as a
Surya Monro
constructivist-feminist, sees sex as performed

locally and as context-based rather than an inherent characteristic of individuals, and in the
data, for example, Roz Kaveney said that to
claim rights you need solid ground to stand
on, but noted that this is not the same thing as
those identities actually existing. She said that
we are caught in a contradictionand must
embrace this; discussing the way in which
whilst pragmatically we must use identities,
these identities cannot fully describe all
realms or experiences. Other contributors also
talked about the strategic use of identity, for
instance:
Its rather like the first drag kings I can
think of, it was the Village People. Now
they were out and about in the mid 70s
and they did the whole exaggerating
masculinity and everybody knew they
were screaming faggots. They were a big
mainstream success, so its like, I dont
know why I am bringing that up, but, part
of it to me is partly to do with usurping
commonly held prejudices. To me the
Village People were really clever because they did it mainstream wise, they
did it in the gay scene as well. It was like
using that whole mega-masculinity, all
those multiple mega, masculine male stereotypes and that is what drag kings do.
They were the first sort of mainstream
male drag kings, but they were men.
They werent playing around with gender . . . they werent playing around with
anything other than their prescribed gender but they were exaggerating it. Because they were homosexual, in a way
that made people go hey whats this
about? (Hamish)
The literature indicates problems with the
use of poststructuralism as a political force.
Seidman (1993) argues for a shift in debates
concerning identity away from both poststructuralism and identity politics, towards a
structural analysis. Burkitt (1998) provides a
useful critique of Butlerian and semiotics
driven poststructuralism. He argues that a socially and historically contextualised analysis
of gender which deals with power relations is
necessary. Debbie Weeks (1995) critiques the
13
use of postmodernism in theorising ethnicity:

firstly, postmodernist celebration of choice
and difference fails to tackle inequalities concerning, firstly, the availability of choice
about identity, and secondly, the commodification and appropriation of identities. Poststructuralism is thus not in itself progressive; it
needs to be tempered with ethics (see Weeks
1995) if it is to be politically efficacious. This
line of argument is supported by research findings; for example, Zach Nataf discussed the
necessity of principles, including respecting
diversity, in the face of the postmodern breakdowns in grand narrative, whilst Pamela Summers argued that, given the impossibility of
conducting politics outside of the very systems that oppress us, what is crucial is democratic debate. This is particularly important
because the majority of transgender people experience discrimination and social exclusion
(Monro 2000a). There is therefore a need to
include concerns with human rights and power
relations when developing transgender theory.
TOWARDS A PLURALIST THEORY
OF GENDER
Poststructuralist accounts offer many useful insights into transgender, in particular concerning the discursive production of sex and
gender. It provides a means of beginning to
theorise the areas beyond the structures of
male and female via the notion of the freeing of gender and sex signifiers from the body.
However, it is clear from the research findings
that there are a number of important problems
with poststructuralist notions of the body,
technology, subjectivity, identity politics, and
social structure. Poststructuralist transgender
theory lacks grounding in lived experience in
several ways. It raises a paradox: reality is
constructed, but at the same time it is necessary for our existence. We cannot escape reference to the structures we seek to transcend,
even though we can reconfigure our bodies,
forms of sexual expression, language, and social institutions.
The problems with poststructuralist transgender theory imply the need for the development of pluralist gender theory. This is because, at present, only poststructuralist and
14
postmodernist approaches enable the inclusion and representation of the full range of
gender diversity, including gender fluidity,
multiplicity, and non-male and non-female
identities. It achieves this by deconstructing
discrete male and female categorisation,
showing how the idea that there are only male
and female people, and that everything else
must be temporary or abnormal, is socially
constructed. This is useful, but it does not go
far enough. People with fluid, multiple, or
other gender identities also need social categories that make sense in the outside world, and
this involves building models of gender that
include gender diversity at every level, not just
at the level of representation and discourse, as
is the case with postmodernist and poststructuralist approaches. In other words, we need a
pluralist model of gender that supports
intersex, androgynous, gender-fluid, transsexual, cross-dressing, multiply-gendered, and
non-male/female people as (1) physical, embodied people, with the biological foundationalism that this implies; (2) social people, who may change genders despite having a
fairly static physical appearance; (3) psychological people, who may have an experience
of themselves which is different to their social
and physical identities and mainstream male/
female norms; (4) political actors, who require
changes in social structures and institutions to
enable them to have basic human rights; (5)
academics, who may seek to critique current
gender theory and develop pluralist alternatives. Before exploring these aspects of gender
pluralist theory, I would like to discuss some
core themes of gender pluralist theory: gender
categorisation and fluidity, the gender spectrum, and moving beyond gender.
Gender Categorisation and Fluidity
As I have shown, there are now a number of
gender identities that involve some fluidity or
movement beyond mainstream gender categories and structures. These gender identities can
be theorised by looking at the relationship between structure and fluidity, a theme that is
central to gender pluralist theory. Structure is
defined here as a set of interconnecting parts
of any complex thing: a framework (Thomp-
son 1995). Movement between identities was

described by contributors such as Pheadra:
Interviewer: So you are saying that it is
not about set categories, but actually
about that fluidity?
Phaedra: Yes, its about a discipline of
duality with an open mind. without
changing sex with hormones, with pills,
with injections, or surgery; living ones
dualism as much as possible. If I am
Phaedra, I allow elements of Bruce
through, and there is no self hatred or self
loathing going on. If I am Bruce I allow
elements of Phaedra, its horses for
courses, but like the transvestite and to
some degree the transsexual living full
time, I live with a separate identity. I
have accepted my separate identity as
well.
Interviewer: So you move between the
two?
Phaedra: I am not saying that I am, er,
well I suppose that I am, in a sense an
androgyne all of the time, except that occasionally I transform in order to define
it.
Interviewer: Right, what do you mean by
that?
Phaedra: Well when I transform to
Phaedra its total, it is as total as it can be
without hormones and surgery, the voice
changes, the mannerisms change, the appearance changes. Its from head to toe
and it is also a meditative thing, it comes
mentally and spiritually as well. So other
people can feel it, they are aware of my
femininity, that is what I am doing today
at that particular moment.
Here, the type of theory that seems to be
emerging from data models social reality as
involving movement between structure (gender categories) and fluidity (between and beyond gender categories), and vice versa. Biology, the essential self, subjectivity and social identities and structures may all be seen as
Surya Monro
both constructed and real to varying extents.

The extent to which identities are normalised,
and thus appear to be real, depends on context.
Context is also important in determining the
possible extent of bodily, social, and subjective change (for example, bodily type and condition, age, financial situation, geographical
location, social structures, and levels of social
support, all impact on the extent and way in
which people are able to modify their sex and
gender). Theory that incorporates movement
between fluidity and structure as existing at
different levels (the body, subjectivity, and social identities) can also allow for the way that
liminal identities and processes become social
reality once named and incorporated into institutional structures. This is currently occurring
in the UK with regard to transsexuality (in that
there is now an observed recognition of central
government willingness to develop (limited)
anti-discriminatory legislation, thus validating
transsexual identities to an extent), and may
happen in the future in relation to intersex and/
or third or other genders.
The Gender Spectrum
There was support for gender pluralism
amongst some of the research contributors
who discussed the way that they would prefer
to identify as something other than female or
male if this was socially possible. Sex and
gender as a continuum or as a spectrum was
also discussed by Ann Goodley, who said:
Ann: I see the main problems being that
society and indeed children, in other
words all of us, are programmed to only
see in black and white, in monochrome.
A concept I actually see as a rainbow, or
many shades of grey, I prefer to see it as a
rainbow, thats more positive, the grey
areas are actually the technicolor colours
between black and white. I believe that
there are elements of all the colours in
everybody, but that people knee-jerk into
one column or the other quite often in
Western patriarchal society. And I think
thats damaging.
I: Id like to ask a bit further into that if
thats OK?
15
Ann: Surely.
I: Um, it sounds as if youre saying that
its not a rigidly gendered binary system?
Ann: No, Im certain this division isnt
on behavioural, biological or spiritual
levels, if there is such a thing, but on all
levels. In terms of personal identity its
one of the ways in which each of us defines ourselves and is defined by other
people that forms a portion of a very
complex mosaic that makes a person.
Some of the literature supports the spectrum model of sex and gender. Rothblatt
(1995) discusses what she terms gender continuum theory, a shift away from bipolar sex/
gender categories towards a multiplicity of
genders. One contributor in Feinbergs (1996)
book describes sexes as a spectrum. For Nataf
(1996), the third sex is not seen as a set category but rather a space, which is differentiated
according to cultural context. The notion of a
gender and sex continuum may be expanded;
for example, one (non-transgender) bisexual
contributor described genders as places in
space rather than a continuum. Overall, blocking of the possibility of a sex and gender spectrum (or universe) necessitates the exclusion
of hermaphroditism and intersex as possibilities, on both individual and social levels.
Tauchert (1998), like others (for example
Bornstein 1994), argues that the binary system
is imposed on a gender continuum, and rigidly
policed in order to maintain differentiation. In
poststructuralist terms then, the middle space
can be constructed as socially viable through
signification in the same way that male and
female are, providing a more inclusive way
of modelling sex and gender. This challenges
the rigidity of the gender binary system, but
does not prevent people identifying as male or
female; rather, it provides a broader set of possibilities.
Moving Beyond Gender
One theme emerging from the research concerns the tension between degendering and
working towards a more pluralist system of
16
gender categories. Some authors such as

Lorber (1994), and a minority of contributors,
argue for a move towards a genderless society.
For example, Christie Elan Cane said:
Christie Elan Cane: I would like to live in
a genderless society.
Interviewer: Right, yup. What do you
think that would mean?
Christie Elan Cane: Just getting rid of the
entire notion of gender. I mean theres
obvious biological differences and certain people can perform certain functions
depending on their sort of genitalia and
biological makeup and whatever, but the
whole concept of gender, I feel, is completely wrong.
Findings from the research on transgender and
intersex raise problems for the idea that we can
degender society. This is because identity
categories seem to be necessary as a basis for
cultural and political organisationfor example, out transsexuals are crucial for the gaining of civil rights for all transsexual people;
out transsexuals in the UK have impacted on
the policy and political process in a number of
ways, including lobbying, consultation exercises, and legal action (see Monro 2004). If a
strategy solely of erasing gender is pursued,
the minority gender groupsand those who
have less power, including non-transgender
womenare likely to be disadvantaged because the power of men and non-transgender
people will remain unchallenged. At the same
time, a number of contributors did discuss the
need for a less heavily gendered societyfor
example, the use of male and female on
forms when sex appeared irrelevant to the
matter at hand. This was especially apparent in
certain social spaces; for example, one bisexual contributor said that at a typical BiCon
[bisexual conference] Id say Ive talked to
people who represent 4-5 different genders;
people might identify as androgynous, or plural, or both. There are many genders and people feel more free to choose genders within the
[bisexual] community. Overall, in a society
where there was less concern with gender, androgynous and gender-ambiguous people, for
example, would face less barriers to social inclusion, and gender norms overall would be
less heavily enforced.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
Gender pluralist gender theory is based on a
combination of postmodernist and structural
analysis, and could be described as postpostmodernist. It draws understanding of the
constructedness of sex and gender from
postmodernism, including the commodification and technologisation of sexed bodies, the
disruption of the links between sex and gender, and the plurality of gender binaries. Postpostmodernist analysis grounds the new possibilities in the realities of a social system that is
currently deeply gender-binaried. This involves challenging the discrete categories of
female and male, and the social institutions
that support these. It entails the acknowledgement of gender diversity, especially intersex,
by theorists, and possibly the development of
linguistic systems which can deal with this.
Adoption of the third sex terms ze (s/he) and
hir (him/her, his/her) (Feinberg 1996), and
pansexual (sexual attraction to all genders)
could be initial steps in this direction, although
recent fieldwork indicates that the development of specific terms for non-male/female
identities is rejected by some transgender people. Feminisms, queer theories, and other relevant areas of social theory, would need to be
revised to allow for transgender inclusion.
Post-postmodern analysis also entails addressing sex/gender technologies, including
surgery, hormones, cybergenders, and genetic engineering: the problems associated
with technology and power inequalities,
must be recognised. In addition, theorists
might wish to examine issues concerning
some peoples experience of an essential self,
which is highlighted when sex and gender
norms are destabilised. Other areas for exploration include transgender and identity politics. Some transgender people, as I have
shown, have fluid or multiple identities.
This is problematic for identity politics,
which require a certain amount of identity coherence as a basis for organising (with the possible exception of queer activism, which is
Surya Monro
broad-based); I deal with this issue more fully

in Monro (2004).
Gender pluralist theory could be taken as either a minority interest or as a development
with major implications for gender theory and
politics. It adds to the burgeoning critique of
postmodernist and poststructuralist gender
theory, but, rather than reinstating a binary-gendered analysis, moves beyond this.
As noted above, some of the implications of
gender pluralist theory are as follows:
Physical
Gender pluralism inserts a certain amount
of biological foundationalism into gender politics, by, firstly, acknowledging research that
shows that there are some physiological differences between genetic females, genetic
males, intersex people, transsexuals, and others (as well as within these groups), and that
these manifest as social, as well as physical
differences, to some degree. Crucially, these
differences are seen as operating in a complex
way in conjunction with social factors and individual agency, maximising the potential for
self-determination (in other words, our experience is affected by a combination of our physical make-up and our social conditioning, and
we can, to an extent, make choices about both
of these). Secondly, emphasis on the operation
of agency concerning bodily experience is balanced against awareness of the limitations of
bodily experience for everyone (transgender
and non-transgender); the limitations and difficultiesas well as opportunitiesafforded by
surgical and hormonal intervention; and the
constraints imposed by age and physical functioning. Including a biological element in gender theory assists with the recognition of gender pluralism, because the variety of non-normative male and female physiologies, and in
particular intersex identities, forms a strong
basis for the rejection of rigid gender binaries,
especially when used as a basis for calls for
civil rights.
Social
Gender pluralism is increasingly evident on
a social level, both among the more fringe (as
opposed to traditional, where people seek to
17
assimilate into mainstream society) parts of

the transgender communities, and in some
parts of mainstream society. This pluralism
exists, however, in a complex relationship to
the biological pluralism described earlier: social genders may or may not match biological
sexes. Gender pluralist theory therefore
needs to map out the spaces between biological sex and social gender; both are mutable,
although the latter more so, and biological
sex is quite clearly no longer always seen as
the unproblematic determinant of social gender. Various questions remain; for example,
how far is it possible to disassociate physiology
and social identities? Are certain structuring
factors associated with certain physiologies,
such as womens inequality, attached at a discursive level in a definite way to certain
physiologies, such as a female body, or are
they migratory, attached primarily to the cultural meanings associated with femaleness
and maleness? How do people move in and
out of the inequalities/privileges associated
with certain identities if they change their
physical appearance and/or social identity?
How do these processes relate to discussions
concerning fluidity, which (unless named as a
category in itself) is culturally unintelligible,
and categorisation, which is ubiquitous at a social level? What are the implications of such
discussions for other areas of social inequality, such as ethnicity and disability, where
physical alteration may be not only impossible
or more difficult, but also politically unacceptable?
Psychological Elements
and the Essential Self
As I have shown, notions of an essential self
are problematic in a number of ways. Firstly,
only some transgender people report such experiences, so that building the notion of an essential self into theory could erase the experiences of those who do not. Secondly, such a
notion could lead to a form of determinism in
which other factors (physical, social) are overlooked, and thirdly, enlightenment notions of
unitary identity could be problematically reinstated. However, when the essential self/non
essential self polarity is itself seen as a spectrum (that is, some people do have essential
18
self experiences, others do not), and the probable constructedness of experienced essential
selfness is acknowledged, the concept becomes useful. This is because it provides a reference point, or marker, for experience that is
developed somewhat separately to discursive
patterning or biological factors. The notion
therefore widens the scope of gender theory. It
potentially foregrounds agency, as reflexivity
(peoples ability to reflect on, and understand
themselves) is emphasised. It also allows
space for notions of spirituality to be incorporated into social theory, without the bigotry
that is frequently associated with traditional
religion. Notions of essential self-ness may be
important in theorising transitory, fluid identities, and the relationship between fluidity and
categorisation. The essential self can be seen
to provide a vehicle for identity transformation, and manifestation of this, in the physical
and social worlds. This is the case with people
whose gender identity is other than that of the
body they were born with, who conceptualise
the gender they wish to live as prior to manifesting this via social or physical change. It is
also relevant to people who inhabit fluid identities, or those outside of gender categorisationhere, reference to a self which is not
based on the body, or other peoples perceptions of oneself, may be particularly important. Essential self-ness provides a means, perhaps, of living in the tension between categorisation and fluidity. If the space between categorisation and fluidity becomes more open,
greater diversity concerning gender becomes
possible, as people experience new options
being formed out of the relationship between
essential self-ness, discourses (particularly
those associated with the less traditional parts
of the transgender movement, and associated
movements such as the bisexual, and lesbian
and gay movements), and bodily experience.
Political
Pluralist gender theory supports a raft of
changes in policy making and politics concerning gender.2 The provision of civil rights
for gender-diverse people include rights to the
legal recognition of different gender identitiesnot just male, female, and post-operative
transsexual, and, in a limited way, intersexual,
but also, full intersexual rights (to self-definition as intersex, female, or male, or other
and protection from discrimination if intersex
is chosen), and rights for androgynes, third
or other sexes, and gender-plural people. The
call for human rights also includes the
depathologisation of gender diversity, the possible expansion or alteration of language to include gender diversity, the right to be free of
harassment and abuse, the right to work, and
partnership and parenthood rights. Politically,
support for non-male/female identities will remain problematic, given justified concerns
amongst the transgender communities concerning the dangers of ghettoisation if such identities are supported, plus a reaction against such
identities amongst post-operative transsexuals
who fear that assimilation will be more difficult
if gender-diverse people gain social visibility.
One contributor recently told me that the time
was not right for a movement for third and
other-sexed/gendered peoples rights, given
existing social conservatism and bigotry and
the need to fight other battles first, whilst others said: Third genderI resist that phrase, because all it does is rigidify, codify stuff
(James Green), and Its [third gender] got a
sort of dustbin sense to it, even though I know
people would use it for themselves (Hamish).
Despite difficulties with non-male and
non-female sexes and genders, a number of
people now identify as third or other sexes and
genders. It therefore seems necessary to address the implications of these identities when
theorising gender diversity, even if political
activism in this area is limited.
Academic Theory
Gender pluralism takes a spectrum approach to an area that has traditionally been
carved up into separate (if overlapping) disciplines, including feminisms, masculinity studies, and queer theory. These disciplines have
been linked to embodied male or female subjects in a way that may reify gender divisions
feminisms and masculinity studies incorporate such a distinction in their names and foci,
so that it is, as noted earlier, hard to escape
from a focus on women or men as groups,
despite the development of complex approaches utilising critical race theory and
Surya Monro
postmodernism. Queer theory refers primarily

to lesbian, gay, or bisexual subjects, and the
terms lesbian, gay, and bisexual are founded
in a gender binaried ontology, thus problematically reasserting, as well as challenging,
binaried systems of categorisation. Simply
dissolving gendered distinctions is not the
answer, as less powerful groups then become
(or remain) marginalized. This is exemplified
by, for instance, the struggles to challenge
womens inequality that are ongoing within
the academy (witness for example the dissolution of many womens studies courses and the
mainstreaming of womens issues in gender
studies courses which may marginalize them).
The existence of such struggles does point to
the need for specific provision for certain
groups, such as women and LGB people,
within academic theory and the academy, as
well as elsewhere. However, gender pluralism
perhaps provides a more complete approach.
It includes all genders and, therefore, all forms
of gender theory. It addresses feminisms, masculinity theories and queer theories as part of
the gender theory spectrum, but, by adding in
other gender spaces and identities, and an understanding of the movement between fluidity
and categorisation, it provides a means to a
more complex analysis of sex and gender. For
example, someone may wish to engage with
socialist or postmodernist feminisms when
they are exploring a female identity and are
seeking to understand the nature of womens
oppression, and may also wish to engage with
these areas of theory when identifying as
male, perhaps highlighting difficulties, or areas for expansion, by moving between
subjectivities and analysing theory from different standpoints. There are currently theoretical areas of the gender spectrum that remain
unmapped, including transsexual, cross-dressing, intersex, and third/other/multiple sex
praxis (theory as politics), which could be developed along the lines of some branches of
feminisms and masculinity studies, with further attention being paid to the political and
social processes by which these groups are
marginalized or included. Gender pluralist
theory could be used to understand gender role
non-identification amongst people who identify as female and male, and for research on
gender fluidity and liminality; this could draw
19
further on postmodernism, on self-essentialist

theory, and on theory concerning hybridity
(particularly ethnic hybridity, see for example
Anzaldua 1987). Understanding of the intersections between non-male/female and gender
could also be developed using, for example,
Black and postcolonial feminist theories and
theory concerning disability.
Current, gender binaried models of gender
and sexuality, and the theories that are constructed in relation to them, are inadequate for
understanding gender diversity. Postmodernist
and poststructuralist accounts, whilst providing a number of important tools for theorising
gender diversity, are problematic in a number
of ways. Transgender, by problematising both
unitary notions of gender binaries and
poststructuralist analysis of gender, provokes
calls for the development of new gender theory, which could be termed gender pluralist
theory. Gender pluralist theory would develop notions of sex and gender as a spectrum,
with standpoints which would include female
and male as well as a range of (probably) less
common, but socially viable, other-gendered
positions. Some people would move between
positions, experiencing the fluidity and
liminality that is described by poststructuralist
transgender theorists. New sex and gender positions are likely to emerge, as liminality is
named and becomes social categories. Gender
categories would be inhabited in a way experienced mostly as fixed and essential but
which could also be seen as constructed.
Core aspects of gender pluralist theory include, therefore, not only the deconstruction
of limited notions of male and female, but
also the exploration of gender categorisation, moving beyond gender, and gender and
fluidity, development of ideas concerning
pluralist sex and gender categorisation at biological, social, psychological, political,
and theoretical levels.
NOTES
1. Because fully transitioned and post-operative
transsexuals identify as either male or female, including
them in the non-male/female categories of spectrum
models of gender is problematic. Obviously, postoperative transsexuals vary widely in their type of identifica-
20
tion (some being out as transsexual, others seeking to be

closeted and to assimilate as female or male), as well as
physical characteristics (all have their birth-sex chromosomes and some experience of growing up and living as
the opposite sex to current identification), so arguably
there could be a case for modelling them as having
somewhat different positions on the gender spectrum to
men and women born as men and womenbut, this is
problematic as it could undermine their agency (choice),
as well as perhaps masking the plurality of genders
amongst men and women born as male and female.
2. The pluralist social theory used here is of the robust variety, supporting progressive social change,
rather than a weak liberal approach (see Monro 2004).
REFERENCES
Alcoff, L. (1995) Cultural Feminism Versus
Post-Structuralism: The Identity Crisis in Feminist
Theory, in: N. Tuana and R. Tong (eds.), Feminism
and Philosophy: Essential Readings in Theory, Reinterpretation and Application. Boulder, USA:
Westview Press: 434-456.
Anzaldua, G. (1987) Borderlands/La Frontera: The
New Mestiza. San Francisco: Aunt Lute Books.
Baudrillard, J. (1994) Plastic Surgery for the Other
(available on http://www.ctheory.com/a33-plastic_s
urgery.html). Last visited on 22 November 2000.
Beasley, C. (1999) What is Feminism? An introduction
to Feminist theory. London, Thousand Oaks, New
Delhi (Sage Publications).
Benjamin, H. (1966) The Transsexual Phenomenon.
New York: Julian Press.
Bercuvitz, D. (1995) Stand By Your Man, in
Newman, L. (ed.) The Femme Mystique. Los Angeles: Alyson Press: 90-94.
Bornstein, K. (1994) Gender Outlaw: On Men, Women
and the Rest of Us. New York, London: Routledge
Publications.
Bornstein, K. (1998) My Gender Workbook. New York:
Routledge Publications.
Bullough, V. and Bullough, B. (1993) Cross Dressing,
Sex and Gender. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press.
Burgess, R.G. (1984) In the Field: An Introduction to
Field Research.
Burkitt, I. (1998) Sexuality and Gender Identity: From
a Discursive to a Relational Analysis, The Sociological Review 46(3): 483-504.
Butler, J. (1990) Gender Trouble: Feminism and the
Subversion of Identity. New York, Routledge Publications.
______(1992) Contingent Foundations: Feminism and
the Question of Postmodernism, in: J. Butler and
J. Scott (eds.) Feminists Theorise the Political. London, New York: Routledge Publications: 3-21.
______(1993) Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive
Limits of Sex. New York: Routledge Publications.
______(1997) The Psychic Life of Power. Stanford:

Stanford University Press.
Cameron, L. (1996) Body Alchemy: Transsexual Portraits. USA: San Francisco: Cleis Press.
Connell, R.W. (1987) Gender and Power, Cambridge
UK: Polity Press.
Connell, R.W. (1995) Sexual Revolutions. Paper presented at the Conference: New Sexual Agendas,
Middlesex University, July.
Corea, G. et al (1985) Man Made Women: How New Reproductive Technologies Affect Women. London:
Hutchinson.
Daly, M. (1984) Pure Lust: Elemental Feminist Philosophy. London: Womens Press.
Davis-Floyd, R. and Dumit, J. (1998) Cyborg Babies:
From Techno-Sex to Techno-Tots. London, New
York: Routledge.
Day, S. (1996) Are You a Boy or a Girl? http://
planetq.com/pages/BornsteinDay.html. Last visited
June 1999.
Dreger, A.D. (1998) Ambiguous sex-or ambivalent
medicine? The Hastings Center Report, 28,
(3):24-35.
Epstein, J. and Straub, K. (eds.) (1991) Body Guards:
The Cultural Politics of Gender Ambiguity. London:
Ekins, R. and King, D. (eds.) Blending Genders: Social
Aspects of Cross-Dressing and Sex-Changing. London, New York: Routledge Publications.
Ekins, R. (1997) Male Femaling: A Grounded Theory
Approach to Cross Dressing. London, New York:
Farquhar, D. (1996) The Mother Machine: Discourse
and Reproductive Technologies. New York, London: Routledge Publications.
Feinberg, L. (1996) Transgender Warriors: Making
History from Joan of Arc to Dennis Rodman. Boston:
Beacon Press.
Firestone, S. (1971) The Dialectic of Sex. London:
Womens Press.
Flax, J. (1990) Postmodernism and Gender: Relations in
Feminist Theory in: L.J. Nicholson (ed.) Feminism/
Postmodernism. London, New York: Routledge:
39-62.
Fuss, D. (1989) Essentially Speaking: Feminism, Nature
and Difference. London, New York: Routledge Publications.
Garber, M. (1992) Vested Interests: Cross-Dressing and
Cultural Anxiety. London: Penguin.
Garfinkel, H. (1967) Passing and the Managed
Achievement of Sex Status in an Intersexed Person,
in: H. Garfinkel, Studies in Ethnomethodology.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall: 116-185.
Gay and Lesbian Quarterly (G.L.Q) (1998) The
Transgender Issue.
Green, R. (1974) (ed.) Sexual Identity Conflict in Children and Adults. New York: Basic Books.
Surya Monro
Green, R. and Money, J. (eds.) (1967) Transsexualism

and Sex Reassignment, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
Press.
Greer, G. (1999) The Whole Woman. New York: Alfred
A. Knopf.
Halberstam, J. (1994) F2M: The Making of Female
Masculinity, in L. Doan (ed.) The Lesbian
Postmodern, New York: Columbia University Press:
210-228.
Hammonds, E.M. (2000) New Technologies of Race,
in: G. Kirkup, L. Janes, K. Woodward and F.
Hovenden (eds.) The Gendered Cyborg: A Reader.
London and New York: Routledge in association
with the Open University: 305-318.
Haraway, D. (1991) Symians, Cyborgs and Women.
London: Free Association Books.
______(1992) Ecce Homa, Aint (Arnt) I a Woman,
and Inappropriate/d Others: The Human in a
Post-Humanist Landscape, in: J. Butler and S. Scott
(eds.) Feminists Theorise the Political. London, New
York: Routledge Publications: 86-100.
Herdt, G. (ed.) (1994) Third Sex Third Gender: Beyond
Sexual Dimorphism in Culture and History. New
York: Zone Books.
Hirshauer, S. and Mol, A. (1995) Shifting Sexes, Moving Stories: Feminist Constructivist Dialogues, Science, Technology and Human Values 20(3): 368-85.
Holmes, M. (1998) In(to) Visibility: Intersexuality in
the Field of Queer, in: D. Atkins (ed.) Looking
Queer: Body Image and Identity in Lesbian, Bisexual, Gay and Transgender Communities. New York,
London: Harrington Park Press: 221-226.
Hrdy, S. (1981) The Woman That Never Evolved. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press.
Jeffreys, S. (1996) Heterosexuality and the Desire for
Gender in: D. Richardson (ed.) Theorising Heterosexuality: Telling it Straight. Buckingham, Philadelphia: Open University Press: 91-108.
Kessler, S.J. McKenna, W. (1978) Gender: An
Ethnomethodological Account. New York: Wiley.
Kessler, S.J. (1998) Lessons from the Intersexed. New
Brunswick, New Jersey and London: Rutgers University Press.
King, D. (1986) The Transvestite and the Transsexual:
A Case Study of Public Categories and Private Identities, PhD Thesis, unpublished, University of
Essex.
______(1993) The Transvestite and the Transsexual: A
Case Study of Public Categories and Private Identities. Aldershot: Avebury.
le Vay, S. (1993) The Sexual Brain, Cambridge Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Press.
Lorber, J. (1994) Paradoxes of Gender. Newhaven,
London: Yale University Press.
Monro, S. (2000a) Theorizing Transgender Diversity:
Towards a Social Model of Health, Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 15(1): 33-45.
21
______(2000b) Transgender Politics. PhD thesis, Unpublished, University of Sheffield.

______(2003) Transgender Citizenship in the UK,
Critical Social Policy (in press).
Monro, S. and Warren, L. (2004) Transgendering Citizenship, Sexualities, 29(4).
Monro, S. (2004) Gender Politics. London: Pluto Press.
Morgan, D. (1996a) A Hitchhikers Guide to
Transsexualism, Radical Deviance: A Journal of
Transgendered Politics, March 1996 issue: 4-5.
More, K. (1996) A Queer Praxis with a Different Axis,
Radical Deviance: A Journal of Transgendered Politics 2(2): 55-58.
More, K and Whittle, S. (eds) (1999) Reclaiming Genders: Transsexual Grammars at the Fin de Sicle.
London: Cassell.
Morris, J. (1974) Conundrum. London: Faber,
Nataf, Z. (1996) Lesbians Talk Transgender. London:
Scarlett Press.
Newman, A. (1993) Aestheticim, Feminism, and the
Dynamics of Reversal, in: H. Hein and C. Korsmeyer
(eds.) Aesthetics in Feminist Perspective. Bloomington
and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press: 193-204.
Prosser, J. (1998) Second Skins: The Body Narratives of
Transsexuality. USA: Columbia University Press.
Ramet, S. (1997)Gender Reversals and Gender Cultures: Anthropological and Historical Perspectives.
London, New York: Routledge Publications.
Raymond, J. (1980) The Transsexual Empire: The Making of the She-Male. London: The Womens Press.
______1994) The Politics of Transgender, Feminism
and Psychology 4(4): 628-633.
Rees, M. (1996) Dear Sir or Madam: The Autobiography of a Female-to-Male Transsexual, London:
Cassell.
Richardson, D. (1996) Heterosexuality and Social Theory, in: D. Richardson (ed.) Theorising Heterosexuality: Telling it Straight. Buckingham, Philadelphia:
Open University Press: 1-20.
Roscoe, W. (1998) Changing Ones: Third and Fourth
Genders in Native North America. New York: St
Martins Press.
Rothblatt, M. (1995) The Apartheid of Sex: A Manifesto
for the Freedom of Gender. USA: Crown Publishers.
Rubin, G. (1992) Of Catamites and Kings: Reflections
on Butch, Gender, and Boundaries J. Nestle (ed.)
The Persistent Desire: A Butch-Femme Reader.
Boston, MA: Alyson: 466-48.
Rubin, H. (1999) Transstudies: Between a Metaphysics
of Presence and Absence, in: K. More and S. Whittle
(eds.) Reclaiming Genders: Transsexual Grammars
at the Fin de Siecle. London: Cassell: 173-192.
Sawicki, J. (1991) Disciplining Foucault: Feminism,
Power and the Body. London, New York: Routledge.
______(1993). Disciplining Mothers: Feminism and
the New Reproductive Technologies in: S. Jackson
et al. (ed.) Womens Studies: A Reader. New York:
Harvester Wheatsheaf: 394-4.
22
Segal, L. (1994) (2nd ed.) Is the Future Female? Troubled Thoughts on Contemporary Feminism. London:
Virago Press.
Seidman, S. (1993) Identity and Politics in a
Postmodern Gay Culture: Some Historical and
Conceptual Notes in: M. Warner (ed.) Fear of A
Queer Planet: Queer Politics and Social Theory.
Minneapolis, London: University of Minnesota
Press: 105-142.
Shapiro, J. (1991) Transsexualism: Reflections on the
Persistence of Gender and the Mutability of Sex, in:
J. Epstein and K. Straub (eds.) Body Guards: The
Cultural Politics of Gender Ambiguity. London:
Routledge Publications: 248-279.
Silvester, K. (2000) Psychosynthesis in: D. Davies
and C. Neal (eds.) Therapeutic Perspectives on
Working with Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Clients.
Buckingham, Philadelphia: Open University Press:
122-143.
Socarides, C.W. (1970) A Psychoanalytic Study of the
Desire for Sexual Transformation (Transsexualism):
The Plaster-of Paris Man, International Journal of
Psychoanalysis 51: 341.
______(1991) (ed.) The Homosexualities and the Therapeutic Process. Madison, USA: International Universities Press.
Stacey, J. (1993) Untangling Feminist Theory in: D.
Richardson, V. Robinson (eds.) Introducing
Womens Studies. London, Basingstoke: MacMillan
Press Ltd: 49-73.
Stein, E. (1990) Forms of Desire: Sexual Orientations
and the Social Constructionist Controversy. London,
New York: Routledge Publications.
Steiner, B. (ed.) (1985) Gender Dysphoria. New York:
Plenum Press.
Stone, S. (1991) The Empire Strikes Back: A
Posttranssexual Manifesto in: J. Epstein and K.
Straub (eds.) Body Guards: The Cultural Politics of
Gender Ambiguity. London: Routledge: 280-304.
Swaab, D.F., Hofman, M.A. (1995) Sexual Differentiation and the Human Hypothalamus in Relation to
Gender and Sexual Orientation, Trends in
Neurosciences 18(6): 264-270.
Tauchert, (1998) Beyond the Binary: Fuzzy Gender and
the Radical Centre. Paper presented at The Third International Conference on Gender and Sexuality:
TrAnsGENDER AGENDA for the New Millenium,
Exeter College, Oxford University, September
17-20.
Thompson, D. (1995) (ed.) (9th edition). The Concise
Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
Venn, C. (1997) Beyond Enlightenment? After the
Subject of Foucault, Who Comes? Theory, Culture
and Society 14(3): 1-28.
Von Mahlsdorf, C. (1995) I Am My Own Woman: The
Outlaw Life of Charlotte Von Mahlsdorf, Berlins
Most Distinguished Transvestite. San Francisco:
Cleis Press.
Wajcman, J. (1991) Feminism Confronts Technology.
Cambridge, Polity Press.
Weedon, C. (1994) Feminism and the Principles of
Poststructuralism, in Storey, J. (ed.) Cultural Theory and Popular Culture. Harvester Wheatsheaf:
170-182.
Weeks, D. (1995) Essentialism and Blackness, Paper
presented at the Understanding the Social World
Conference, Huddersfield, 17-19 July.
Weeks, J. (1995) Invented Moralities: Sexual Values in
an Age of Uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity Press.
______(1998) The Sexual Citizen, Theory, Culture
and Society 15(3-4): 35-52.
Whittle, S. (1998a) The Trans-Cyberian Mail Way,
Social and Legal Studies, 7 (3): 398-408.
______(1998b) Personal Communication. October.
Wilchins, R.A. (1997) Read My Lips: Sexual Subversion and the End of Gender. Ithaca, New York: Firebrand Books.

Beyond Male and Female

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Beyond Male and Female

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Beyond Male and Female:

Poststructuralism and the Spectrum of Gender

KEYWORDS. Transgender, gender identity, post-structuralism

This paper aims to develop poststructuralist

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TRANSGENDERISM

and gender; (IV) a pluralist model of gender

and that there was a foundational essence, or

cerning transgender and bisexual politics. The

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TRANSGENDERISM

gender as fictitious; constructed through social

Dave/Joanne: No, no . . . I am the show.

(IIb) Technologised Bodies

sex and gender. This decoupling of sex and

(III) The Transgender Disruption

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TRANSGENDERISM

who know what male and female are, because

Findings indicate that people experience

identity building and politics. Rubin (1999)

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TRANSGENDERISM

change need a strong sense of self, and the idea

self-conscious about my masculinity. It

the social and political context, and implications of technological innovation.

Another linked area of problems with the

Denial of the Need

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TRANSGENDERISM

stopped occurring, as I identified these people

constructivist-feminist, sees sex as performed

use of postmodernism in theorising ethnicity:

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TRANSGENDERISM

son 1995). Movement between identities was

both constructed and real to varying extents.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TRANSGENDERISM

gender categories. Some authors such as

broad-based); I deal with this issue more fully

assimilate into mainstream society) parts of

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TRANSGENDERISM

postmodernism. Queer theory refers primarily

further on postmodernism, on self-essentialist

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TRANSGENDERISM

tion (some being out as transsexual, others seeking to be

______(1997) The Psychic Life of Power. Stanford:

Green, R. and Money, J. (eds.) (1967) Transsexualism

______(2000b) Transgender Politics. PhD thesis, Unpublished, University of Sheffield.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TRANSGENDERISM

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen