I would like to start with a short story which i had trough many many years ago.
(I used past tense as if i were not encounter or face off this kind of circumstances any more, on the contrary, even if my entourage have changed recently, I nearly encounter such issues comparing the previous years, or I can say that I am able to deal with the situation better) I was at elementary school and as far as I remember it was the calligraphy hour or one of those activity hours. Our teacher told us that we could write with any pen or any crayon which we would like to do. I had chosen to write with crayon. It was yellow. Other pupils chose more specific colors such as blue, brown, red, black, etc. At the end of the class, he checked each of our papers out and he passed all of them with a smiley face, however when he looked my notebook he just could not understand and dazzled in a second and looked once again with a surprised face. Then, his surprised face suddenly got lost. Then, irritating, loathe and disgusted manners turned up in the blinking of an eye. He was looking to me with a disgusting and a sour face. No other boys in the classroom wrote yellow beside me. As a boy, I might have written with a black or brown or perhaps blue crayon, but why yellow. After for a while ( The irritating moments just lasted perhaps 3 minutes at most, however, later on I was going to learn that, that tree moments will have haunted me enormously in the following years ) he came around and loudly asked me “What was this? Why did you choose to write with a yellow one?” and without any pause he kept grouse at me with a sour face ; “It's not visible, neither clear nor appearance. This is too ambiguous.” As far as I remember, It was the first time that I had been dictated on ambiguity have been considered as an unwelcome issue. Ambiguity is thing that real man had better stay away of it. I was going to learn that after all, boys or real men are intend to act reasonable. So much so that, as we all know, modern philosophy and modern men were constituted on this ideology. Just as early remarkable feminist theorists pointed out so; such as Alcoff emphasizes this issue on her remarkable and as well as instructive essay. She clearly underlines this masculinist formulation based on reason and continues : “From the time of Plato, reason was thought to enable the soul reach a pure and eternal... immortal and unchangeable realm...”(Alcoff, 1996) Accordingly,there cant be any ambiguity within the context of reason then. Hence, as a boy it was sort of awkward situation to chose yellow crayon. Besides the aforementioned issue, the disgusted face of him which was emerged in the presence of yellow letters, in this very moment, reminds me Kristeva's “abject” notion. (Kristeva, 1982) I ,who chose relatively ambiguous color which could be directly or indirectly related to feminine desire or so, was abjected. In her ostensible essay, Kristeva explains the reactions, bodily gestures and reactive manners of one who finds himself and herself in the presence of the abjection. The disgusted face, spasm, irritating meaningless, the sour face and so forth. As she defines it: What disturbs idendity, sytem and order. What does not respect boundries, positions, rules. The in-between, the ambiguous, the composite (Kristeva,1982) After I read this ostensible essay, this story or this memory occurred to my mind all of a sudden. The color of yellow represented the ambiguous one, the one that he could not match with his reality and as well as my corporeality either. I guess, I must cut this instructive story in here and had better start to recite briefly about my inquiry and what concerns me in this paper. With this introductory story my aim is to highlight ostensible situation which I went through and have been through as well.
For a long while I have profile on “Gayromeo” which is a sex-date onile profile website (By the way, recently the aforementioned web-site have been banned by the government owing to the fact that the web-site founded “obscene” under the guise of public morality. This can be also a good and instructive study field, however, even though how much it is significant to work on in it, my primary concerns dragged me to this perspective of it, which I will just explain ) There four or may be six more online sex-date web-sites. However, This one is relatively a mainstream comparing the other online profile ones. Most of the members of this web-site identify themselves as a gay or homosexual. There are some others who do prefer not to label or identify themselves as such. In here my explorative aim to deal with some common discourses which were uttered for a while in the homonormative cvyber-space area by those who identify themselves as a gay or a homosexual. Yet I prefer to call them as mainstream gays or straight gay. I will also briefly addressees the notion of homonormativity and mainstream or straight gay later on. I have a mind to explore and explain these discourses in my own way. I am not intend of coming through to get an ostensible or a big results, neither do I have purpose to make a seminal argument. I can also name this study as an ethnographic research. Because of the very fact that the web-site which I have told about enable you to have field study opportunity. Long story short, it can be considered as a critical approach towards the statements in the context of discourse analysis. As we all know that in discourse analysis, the aim is to reveal and to demonstrate the hegemonic relationship with power and knowledge. However the discourses against femininity were not invented within homonormative structure neither basicly constituted, nor it is peculiar to the homonormative structure. Yet, these discourses have been condensely embraced by the members of aforementioned cyber-space and as well as in the public sphere too.
Before I go through, I would like to briefly recite what homonormativity is. I and many of others like me have been tried to dealt with first heteronormativity “which means the set of norms that make heterosexuality seem natural or right and that organaize homosexuality as its oppiste binary. This set of norms works to maintain the dominance of heterosexuality by preventing homosexuality from being a form of sexualty that can be taken for granted or go unmarked or seem right in the way heterosexuality can. (Queer Studies reader, introduction, 2003)and with so many repetitive enactments constituted its hegemonic discourses . One of those most popular and ostensible discourses is homophobic and feminine phobic ones, as we all know very well. Besides it is quite explicit the relationship between discourses and ideologies, accordingly every discourse was constituted in the presence of the ideology. Accordingly heteronormativity brought the homonormativity within its specific perception. This process can be perceived as a mimicry in a way. I must underline the issue in here, that is, the notion of mimicry, because having a name of such a noteworthy issue as a mimicry will bring some risks as well, as you may imagine either. I deploy the notion in here to elaborate the concept which I try to recite. To my mind homonormative structure imitates some concepts of heteronormativity-either way more or less normative structures eventually will resemble each other- such as sublimation of masculinity, feminine phobia, active and passive identification and binary which masculinity is also perceived as a top/active and femininity the opposite which we already know from heteronormativiy very often. Just as Homi Bhabha suggests; “in mimicry, the representation of idendity and meaning is re-articulated along the axis of metonymy.” (Bhabha,1994) It can be also described as a fetishistic imitation. But I am not going to elaborate this is issue ver much (By the way it is not a surprising consequence, that is, every social constituted identity which is based on stability, and as well as coherent entity will eventually create their own normativity in order to settle its position down)
To my mind these discourses re-constituted unconsciously in homonormative structure within a performative way either.
The issues of femininity and masculinity for a long time have been very much draw and concerned by many people and understandably me either. The discourses have been lasting for almost ages, we all one or other way experienced them all. A man must behave like a “real man” or must wear manly or must speak like a man, a man should not crinkle, etc. Same discourses more or less are legitimate for women, as you know, therefore I wont go through much. The aforementioned normative discourses are very much appreciated among those gays especially among “straight acting” (they call themselves as such.) / “masculine gays whom they internalize and reproduce in the homonormative area as well.
Accordingly, I have a mind to find out in an explorative reading of these ongoing statements. My main concern is to understand what kind of performativity and corporeality these discourses coincides with.
In introduction part of Herculine and Barbine , Foucault seeks an answer to his remarkable question in a speculative way, that is, “Do we really need a true sex. (Foucault,1980) I would like to deploy this question and addressees to my inquiry; Do we really need true body/ real body in the frame of masculinity and femininity. Foucault engagement is, understandably, very much about the corporeality in its very essence, considering the issue. Sex and gender are the main entities which shape and define our bodies in pre-modern, modern, and unfortunately still in post-modern times as well. Accordingly, true body, appreciated body manners and gestures and as well as identifications will remarkably be related with gender and sex issues eventually. Understandably in normative spheres both in heterosexual matrix and also homonormative matrix, whether in cyber-space or public space, appreciated corporeality is considered what is masculine or non feminine one. (Hereby, the problematized issue is related to directly discursive masculinity and femininity in the frame of gay males who identified themselves as a male homosexuals. Accordingly, the notions such as appreciated body, true body and considered as an appropriated etc. has been uttered and will be uttered in the context of aforementioned issue.)
As we all know discursive identities have been constituted by both power and knowledge relationship and by society as well. Accordingly the masculinity and its aforementioned discursive practices are socially constituted entities in their very essence. Accordingly, as it is well known, modern society and its subjectivity were constituted within the modern philosophy which based mostly on dichotomies such as Hetero/homo, man/woman/ nature/culture, mind/body, modern/tradition, masculinity/femininity and public/private. All these binaries, as it is well known, are linked to each other. And understandably everything which is related to feminine has been devalued, disdained and excluded. As we all known, within these dichotomies the masculine one, the man and masculinity have been sublimated, valued. While male one was very much appreciated with mind and rationality, the woman was linked with the body, marked, traditional and nature and so forth. After all, the transformation of this new society , as Pateman puts it; “ is fraternal social pact”(Pateman,1989) Modern philosophy had addressed male individuals to “be a man.” Modern rational individual should stay away from the handicaps of the body. Modern rational one should not get touchy, should not run away from the obstacle. It means that the modern rational individual should avoid womanhood. Tradition, nature, emotion, etc. modern individual should not get intercourse with any of those aforementioned notions, otherwise he can lost his rationality in the dread of engulfing in femininity. The body was seen as an handicap before the mind, hence the reason was freed from the body. The modern rational individual was gendered unmarked. Accordingly, all the features of corporeality were given to the marked one, namely to woman, to feminine. Within these binary structures, unsurprisingly heterosexuality is the one which has been densely produced and normalized over and over by certain performative identities and subjectivities. Understandably, through the aforementioned binary, that is, hetero/homo, heterosexual individual was the masculine one and, on the contrary, the homosexual individual has been densely feminized over and over by certain institutions and some discourses such as medicine, psychiatry or law and so forth, as it is well known. Men was created for woman and vice verse. Man is the stronger one and rule the woman just as mind or culture rules the nature. Man can not permit any femininity which tries to surround his being, his essence and so on. These kind of performative discourses were used to make heterosexuality and nuclear family natural. Especially repetitive manners, gestures and discourses by all means, enabled masculinity and as well as femininity perceive as natural. Besides, it is also very instructive remember gendered power and nature relationships between man and woman. This ostensible feminine/masculine opposition, as Sedgwick puts “a metonymic chain of such binarism” (Sedgwick,1990) Culture/nature, body/mind, modern/traditional, etc. Masculinity is the essence of male individual and the femininity is very much the same for female ones. Masculinity constituted as “active social organization and active cultural production within institutional sites, including the state, family, work-place, education and media.”( Haywood, Ghaill, 2003) Power, education, media, medicine and certain social entities provide the ideal masculinity and its discourses. Accordingly, the ideal masculine agents can be constituted. Therefore, the bodies can be modified neatly. Desires can be manipulated in the order.
Understandably, masculinity is the main issue of this modern project within the emphasis of rationality. Modernity created prototype masculinity; Father, ruler, strong and etc. It is quite explicit that this mythic male power discourse also constructed male dominance in the contex of sexuality, sex and gender. Because of the very fact that man is the one who is always penetrating, the one is always be active during the sexual practices. This concept creates so many problematic understanding both in heterosexual arena and as well as in homosexual arena either, as it is imagined well. Productive sexual relationship and its practices constructed itself very well and diffused into the every dimension of sex and gender notions. Even though sex and gender are different things, owing to the common manipulated beliefs, both male and female ones whether in heterosexual sphere or homosexual sphere, have remarkable difficulties with it, as it is well known.
Femininity is always linked to passive desires or considered as bottom one in the context of sexual practices. Most of the people even can not think or assume that woman can be top (active) as well.
Therefore, this ostensible understanding diffused into each engagement both within social organizations, relations, practices, structures and as well as constituting the self and subjectivity.
However, hitherto, the aforementioned discourses are more or less pretty much for constructing the heterosexual male individual. Besides, as we know very well, homosexuality endanger masculinity and its constructive discourses. Same sex male desire violates the myths of male power and its contents, considering the issues which I explicitly cited above. Pronger explains the issue very well, as he puts; “In our culture male homosexuality is a violation of masculinity, a degeneration of the mythic power of men, an ironic subversion that significant numbers of men pursue with great enthusiasm. Because it gnaws at masculinity it weakens the gender order.” (Pronger, 1990) Considering the all those stigmatized against homosexuality and regarding the all those panics, it is quite explicit to understand the reason of hetero anxiety which provokes the flexibility and enable to create coherent stability of normative ground.
Yet, if we consider gay identity as an other constituted subjectivity, it will be understandable why such an hegemonic masculinity is emerged and produced over and over by certain discourses and therefore certain performativity. Late modernity embraced “gay identity” apparently within the reproduced masculinity and its subjectivity. At some point masculinity has been reunited with homosexuality and hegemonic perception of masculinity, apparently has been structured against femininity once again. The castrated homosexual male will have been able to find a ground to gain his power again through the global ubiquitous perception of maleness. Manhood can be constituted through process of repudiating the femininity again and again. As Connell (2000) suggest, “globalization is not simply a recent phenomenon, arguing that we are able to historically to identify a number of globalizations. As a social phenomenon, the current global gender order has been shaped by imperialism and has resulted in a broadly patriarchal society... At each historical moment gender regimes have been re-constituted as male dominance.” Accordingly, with the late modernity the gay identity and corporeality have been gendered once again in the context of hegemonic masculinity. The dominant gender and sexuality was established too in the center of this new identification which is based on hegemonic masculinity. So, this is again inclusion and exclusion process within the “neo-liberal” era . Once again dominant masculine one included himself into the hegemonic sphere and started to be part of it in the context of power and knowledge relationship,to my mind, namely straight-acting gay can be given an example of this process whom they define themselves as having straight behaviors and declared that they have no difference from their hetero individuals and announced that they have merely one difference, that is, the sexuality practices which they perform in their bedroom. As Mac an Ghaill emphasized; “furthermore, this parital social inclusion extends to individual gay men but not homosexuality, with an accompanying official prescription/proscription of specific types of gays, that is, those embodying dominant modes of male heterosexuality.(Mac an Ghaill, 1999) Understandably, they have something in common in the context of femininity and masculinity. On the other hand the feminine male homosexuals were excluded and marked again. They have “Body” which will be posed a risk.
Long story short, understandably , my inquiry/ my main issue within this perspective is very much about this hegemonic masculinity especially in the context of corporeality. As feminine male one, I have encountered such circumstances very much in the daily life both in cyber-space and public space as well. (which is posed a risk that I just cited above) Actually, as we all known very well, being feminine, being marked by any of aforementioned issue within the public sphere have very much both difficulties and as well as arbitrary facilities. However my concern is specifically about homonormative/mainstream sphere. One of the most common wrong belief of this problematic perception is, just as heteronormative matrix, sex and gender trouble. Having a feminine body /becoming feminine body or performing femininity is very much linked to passive desires again. The mimicry issue functions in here either. Just as in heteronormative discourse, everything which is related to femininity or which reminds femininity are very much perceived as always in the desire of submissive preference or etc. I am not in the aim of talking that the feminine one does not want to be submissive or bottom, we are talking about the desires, by all means, desires con not be limited within one or another way. We also know from queer theory sex and sexuality are different things ( Sedcwick.1990) and therefore limited the desires within the one dimension is merely an act or performing the hegemonic discourse of sexuality again and again. It will be turned into a vicious circle and eventually will create stable normative practices which will be merely imitation (mimicry) of the aforementioned circumstances but nothing else.
For instance, “Erkeksi Pasif” (Masculine bottom) is the one of the most common discourses among the mainstream arena both in cyber-space and in public space such as popular clubs and bars. There is one gay club in İstanbul most famous and popular (understandably it is mainstream as well) They have very discriminative dress-code applications. There is a bodyguard in the front door and this guy checks every body before let them enter. By the way, they have woman quota, they declare that they have limited entrance for women and especially during the rush days such as weekends like Friday and Saturday they even don not let any woman come in. Anyway this is another study topic, however I recited this significant detail to frame out for another issue which is if the male customers are too feminine they also do not let them enter in the club. Their excuse for this ostensible and unacceptable discriminative rule is; “ we also do not let woman in. Besides, here is a gay bar not transvestite or transsexual club.” However, I recited this very irritating condition to highlight the issue which, as far as I understood and derived form my experiences (that I also declared this study can be perceived as an ethnographic research in its very essence) femininity is considered of being peculiar to woman. It is very much linked to female body and its dimensions such as gestures, manners and so forth.
Through exercise and habitual patterns of movement, through negotiating its envoirement whether this be rural or urban, through clothing and makeup, the body is more or less marked, constittuted as an appropriate, or as the case may be , an inappropriate body, for its cultural requirements. ( Gross, 1999)Then, for this case, the unwanted male body marked femininity through the gestures, manners and discourses. “Girly-men” have been turned in to be inapproriate one in the context of performative masculinity. Within its cultural requirements, considereing the homonormative discourse , the feminine body or feminine attitudes are considered as undisciplined, uncanny or insecure in a way. Hence feminine gay is then,“beyond the normative” (Shilling,1993) if we consider the issue within the frame of discourses, namely “Adam gibi Adam (real man) or straight-acting guy.” These feminine bodies are unwelcome, unwanted corporeality in the context of “normative anxiety”(shilling,1993) “Güvenilir, Aklı başında.” These statements are also very popular and appreciated among the aforementioned gays. It means that if you are feminine, you are unreliable, you are not rational. The feminine body represent the insecure part of this gendered relationship again, the dark side, the unknown. It contains a risk to engulf within this femininity in the context of male anxiety which we are very familiar in psychoanalysis.
On the other hand, gay men whom they perform their masculine body on the web-site have very much yearning for being a desired one. Masculinity, sexual act and desire, Being desired is one of the most crucial issue among gays, and most of them consider the masculinity as a fundamental key in the context of sexual attractiveness. It is the one of the most important feature to get access this dominant sphere. To my mind, that is why , whenever the so called msculine one utters a femininity as a negation utterance, indirectly and sometimes directly will bring in our minds the masculine one or masculinity in the same order. if we think this semiologic relationships in the context of binary opposition He will take his-self into the secure ground and therefore
with the utterance of masculinity his socially position will have also been settled down. Because of the very that every performative utterance will anchor his body in the context of masculinity.
Bodies produce language and language produces bodies and within this performance the hegemonic masculinity is reproduced. Accordingly within the repetitive abjection of femininity, he will be arbitrary desired one through the negation of feminine one. Accordingly, the language and its too is predictably very important in this process. The act speech issue is very much linked to the process and as well as remarkably instructive to highlight the aforementioned duration.
Considering the issue, that is, to be desirable, “working-out”/ “body-building” is one of the most important concept. The aforementioned mainstream gays always cited on their profile that they are keen on sport, but not a specific one, especially “body-building” their favorite leisure activity. Masculine body is perceived or considered as a natural progress of the male individuals. For example one of those profiles, there are also such statements as “I am a real man, therefore I am muscled and athletic. Of course I am looking for a real athletic man like me. You all; girly, fat and feminine. Please do not even bother yourself to send me a massage. I am a normal muscled man”
I have encountered several statements like these. Accordingly, once again masculinity is seen as a most important essence of the man identity. Therefore body-building must be the first and foremost
leisure activity or predictably must be the most important primary duty of all. Because of the very fact that, as they wrote on their profile, after all we are a man and we like, we find attractive men not the Sisies (sisy means girlish-boy or a boy looks like exactly girl or woman) nor the queens.
Hence our bodies must be shaped according to the hegemonic masculine desire. There is another problematic consideration in here, in the context of body issue. As we all know very well, through history, homosexuality and homosexual one were feminized and it was or even is in the aim of linked to the femininity. Homosexual or gay is described or defined girl-like, feminine-like and the body was feminized and therefore because of the gender trouble passivated as well. This consideration still has been continued among mainstream gay arena both in Turkey and as well as in other country where the gay identity emerged as within the globalization process. Hence, this is also progress of bodily globalization. It is a once again a process to discipline the body. These docile mechanical bodies can provide a ground for reproducing the idealized masculinity over and over.
On the other hand the aforementioned dread of being never lasting feminized issue most probably lead them to make their body much more muscled, “neutral and innocuous” (Featherstone, 2000). This muscled, so called masculine body helps the individual to gain distance from the one whom in not desired and not unwelcome in the context of corporeality and besides helps to gain a ground for performing his identity. In the context of gender issue, the muscled body also functions very well in the heterosexual matrix. It can be transformed unmarked body. Accordingly they can create a safe ground within this body modification. This discursive and as well as constituted so called masculinity can enable them to stay in the closet or heterosexual matrix. Therefore, they can save their body form the feminized process by being alienated out of the context. And they can prove that their body is not infected by femininity in its very essence via well-shaped muscled body.
Hence, the structured self can deploy the masculinity as a socializing “weapon” or method against effeminacy.
However, the problematic issue in here, body-building, make one's body muscled is also a body modification in its very essence, as it is known very well. How come every other bodily modifications are considered as a transgression of the nature-law or unwritten social pacts and so forth, but body-building. As a matter of fact I am not intended to pose a question, because of the very fact that the answer is quite explicit, considering the issue that I pointed out above. The concepts of “gender insecure and gender anxiety” are predictably and understandably the main causes of yearning the perfect body. This process could be considered as an instructive tool against homosexual panic or feminine panic, I mean the fear of engulfing into the femininity or into the feminine body. However, to my mind, no matter how the one is located himself into the safe ground of this heterosexual matrix or mainstream gay arena, being into the closet and structuring the body according to the hegemonic discourse, one or another way will create another anxiety eventually, hence the process will be turned into be vicious circle in a way. Namely, certain questions will be revealed again and again such as “am I perfect enough, am I masculine enough and am I desirable enough and so forth. More or less these kind of problematic issues are linked to each other in a way.
Besides, excessive muscled bodies also transgress the normative perception either.
On the other hand, generalizing the body-building and body-builders as merely anxiety of manhood, is another problematic issue, to my mind. Because of the very that body-building is also social activity as well. Hence I would like to cease the argument in here. Herewith I would not deploy the conservative feminist perspective, because of the very that there is not merely “negative” reasons of it. Besides there are some other various positive consideration in the context of fetishistic desire, self reflexivity. It also enables a person to have certain eroticised moment in the context of
homo-sociality. It is also another kind of subculture, hence it has a risk to alienate the topic very much. Also body-building is another topic per se, accordingly, to my mind it must be focused through by taking into consideration of every dimensions and details which are linked each another. Hereby, I wanted to draw the attention to the point of hegemonic masculinity and its linked with feminine phobia and also as an gender insecurity in the context of corporeality. Besides, I wanted to try to emphasize how body-building activity used as a constitution of desired body through the hegemonic masculine discourse among mainstream gay arena against femininity. However there could be taken into various considerations both for body-builders, for academics and so forth. Some could say that this is purely the cause of gender insecurity or manhood anxiety, for some it could be considered as an merely health activity and a chance to get intercourse with homosocail possibility. I mean it could not be merely the significance of masculine violence within its own matrix. “The body is not simply an objective signifier in the social world but an active, embodied sentient being, subject to the contingencies of space and time”(Feathertone,2000)
Hence, every generalizing issue on particular body activity can lead unintended consequences and considerations as well. Generalizing or limiting the issue to the particular type of masculinity, according to me, is also another problematic consideration . However my main inquiry is all about the hegemonic masculinity. We also witness different type of masculinity both in heterosexual matrix and in queer spaces as well such as “female masculinity” as Halberstaim emphasizes in his remarkable book(Halberstaim,1998) To my mind, female masculinity, namely drag kings and butch lesbians, is significant becomings, considering the masculinity as a socially constructed identity. Besides, female body builders are significant as well, considering the all aforementioned issues in the context of identity constitution and structuring the self. Especially regarding with corporeality, female masculinity provides an important bodily subversion. It serves unique multiplicity against the belief of masculine's essence in the invented male individual.
Consequently, while I was starting this paper and study, I was intended to explorative reading on issues which I pointed out and I tried to frame the discourses which are mentioned within the concepts of performativity and corporeality as well. I know that such a significant and remarkable issues can not be completely enframed within merely mentioned issues and considerations. Besides, there are lots of issues remain unmask in the context of aforementioned notions. Yet, none the less, as a conclusion, in mainstream arena these feminine gays are the others against whom masculine gays show their identity over them, regarding with the all issues which are emphasized in this paper. They have to prove to others and also to themselves non-stop, which they are not the sisy, feminine, queen ones through their muscled bodies and everlasting process of repudiating the femininity as well. There is a silence within this becoming. The silence of the body, the silence of the fear that causes the identity or subjectivity to be established by the fear of becoming the other or becoming fluid. The silence of the manhood. All these fears and repudiations are the core of the silence which runs the system. Different, fluid becomings can break the silence, however concrete identities and the bodies which established through the fear of gender insecurity, will continue to mask this silence of hypocrisy.
REFERENCES
Alcoff, Linda Martin, “Feminist Theory and social science” in body space, ed. Nancy Duncan. Routledge, 1996
Bhabha, Homi K. “Of Mimicry and Man: The Ambivalence of Colonial Discourse” in The Location of Culture. London and New York: Routledge, 1994
Connell, R.W (2000) "The Men and the Boys." London: Polity
Featherstone, Mike (2000) "Body Modification" London: Sage
Foucault, Michel (1980) "Herculine & Barbin" New York: Pantheon Books
Gross, Elizabeth, (1999) "Space, Time and Perversion" London: Routledge
Halberstam, Jack (Judith) (1998) "Female Masculinity", London: Duke Press
Haywood ,Chris & Mac an Ghaill, Mairtin (2003) "Men and Masculinities" Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Kristeva, julia. (1982) "Powers of Horror, An Essay on Abjection." New York: Colımbia Press.
Pateman, Carol (1989) "The fraternal Social Contract," in The Disorder of Women . Polity Press
Pronger, B.(1990) "The Arena of Masculinity: Sports, Homosexuality and the Meaning of Sex. London: Gey Men's Press
Queer Studies : an interdisciplinary reader 2003, edithed by Robert J.Cober and Stephan Valocchi. UK: Blackwell
Schiling,C (1993) "The Body and Socail Theory. London: Sage.
Sedgwick, Eve Kosofsky, (1990) "Epistemology of The Closet" Berkley: University Press
