Introduction 

Queer Subculture, the arena for not only homosexual people but also individuals who deviate from societal norms of gender and sexuality, is commonly paired with conversations about gender, often due to queer individuals understanding of discursive and social/cultural constructs: ‘‘The discursive proliferation of queer has been enabled in part by the knowledge that identities are fictitious–that is, produced by and productive of material effects but nevertheless arbitrary, contingent and ideologically motivated’’ (Jagose, 1996:NP).The vocabulary to have these conversations comes from a necessity to be able to communicate alternative gender identity and non-conforming gender expressions that are important to all parts of the queer community, from camp dress (Sontag 1964:290) to the trans community (Papoulias, 2006). These expressions are often placed under scrutiny in our heterocentric society via misunderstanding (Sichler, 2010:53). With this subcultural understanding and experience of gender expression, a level of understanding is formed for the veridiction contract (Greimas, 1989). Though not every queer person will know the contract by name, in queer subculture there is a hyper awareness of told truths, often seen in common communicative exchanges such as the asking of an individual’s pronouns. Linguistics is important in queer subculture to avoid clumsy and harmful exchanges, however extra-linguistics such as appearance are still observed. Often, due to the nature of the society we grew up in, that of a heterosexual matrix (Butler, 1990), even as queer people we make reactionary decisions based on a set of schemas involving Gender we have ingrained into us, such as Blue is owned by boys, Pink is owned by girls, etc. So, this bears the question as to what extent does gender expressions relate to gender identity in contemporary queer subcultures and, as such, the role the veridiction contract plays in the ‘’constraining effects of naming’’ (Jagose, 1996).  

These discussions are part of contemporary queer subculture (Sichler, 2010), but to further understand the contracts that are in place that allow gender expressions to negate gender norms, conversations need to take place that are viewed through heterosexual privilege. Though this is something many queer people are unable to do due to the power dynamics in a society driven by social constructs, through the lens of the heterosexual matrix we will be able to highlight as to why analysis of gender queer politics is limited to the very thing it tries to subvert. Though the conversation has progressed in queer subculture past the point of a natural construct to discourse, this is not a standardised form of thinking about gender. There is still a great lack of understanding of fundamentals of gender studies in popular/Heterosexual culture, due to lack of acknowleadgement of genders outside of the binary (Sichler, 2010:46). As queer people we owe it to ourselves, after years of oppression, to be aware of the ways in which we can signify our own identities outside the realm of queernormativity, being aware of the mechanisms that promote oppressive systems of heteronormativity, and how we can use social contracts effectively to further educate on systems of oppression and societal constructs that prevent growth in our communities.   

Here it is important to further highlight that many systems of oppression will affect different queer people, for example racism effects a large portion of the community, as does transphobia. It is important to retain this understanding while having this conversation as it is not just heterosexual privilege that acts as a limitation to the subversive intent of queer genders.         

Literature review

Two key ideas will be used from A. J Greimas theories on semiotics: The Semiotic square and the veridiction contract. The veridiction contract will be used in the capacity of a social contract that affects the way in which gender is viewed, as gender expression is often a form of social exchange. Judith Butler’s theories around gender performativity and subversion will be key pillars throughout our discussion around the veridiction of gender involving the nature of gender conforming and queer gender. Gender performativity in all forms, normative or otherwise is entangled with the matter of Veridiction. The receiver is required to accept the gender performativity of the sender for it to hold true, this is an interchangeable relationship, as to be normative is not a natural state and requires work (Ahmed, 2006). Furthermore, performative gender must be continually reinforced, (Butler, 1990) thus creating a continued social contract.

Firstly, the veridiction contract (Greimas, 1989) is a socially formed contract used to explain the stable equilibrium, which may or may not be reached, as part of communication between two parties. Particularly interested in the problem of communicating Truth, ‘‘these modes of veridiction results from the twofold contribution of the sender and receiver’’ (Greimas, 1989: 653). The Contract helps us to understand right and wrong as constructions and as separate from true and false, which are also constructs despite this difference. It requires an understanding of truth, lie, secret and falsehood, and how these objects form relationships with each other. It is clear that the sender can be certain of the truth, however this doesn’t always communicate the truth, as the receiver can choose to not reach a consensus, thus creating a new individual truth, further supported by the understanding that for the sender the meaning being communicated is primary opposed to that of the receiver, the meaning is emerges as conclusion, highlighting the difference between ‘‘production and perception’’ (Jakobson, 1981:32). Due to this, individual truth, or fake truths, will not always equal objective truth, for more or less so conscious agreements or disagreements. ‘‘Truth is an object of communication and requires fiduciary ratification’’ (Greimas, 1989: 659), this highlights the weight of fiduciary, the believability of the information being communicated. This contract helps to explain plausibility and how it is seen as a reached agreement via adult rationality, built from gained knowledge and a given viewpoint of reality (Greimas, 1989: 651-657). Here it becomes apparent as to the effect the contract has on queer gender and how ‘‘Queer bodies hover outside the power structure of society due to their perceived lack of ‘Realness”’ (Sichler, 2010:53)  The veridiction contract further offers insight into the ‘‘gap between knowing and believing’’ (Greimas, 1989: 659), and the way in which this gap can be produced. When we look at the heterosexual receiver communication with the queer sender, a relationship already unstable due to heteronormative power structures, a clear mismatch of given realities starts to be highlighted (Jagose, 1996).  Social and cultural constructs have an effect in the creation of a given reality and the effects these constructs have on the cognitive exercise of ‘‘causing-to-seem-true’’ (Greimas, 1982: 368). 

‘Gender trouble’ (Butler, 1990) questions the relationship between sex and gender, while clearly detailing what gender is. ‘‘Whatever biological intractability sex appears to have, gender is culturally constructed: Hence gender is neither the casual result of sex not as seemingly fixed as sex’’ (Butler, 1990:8) outlines key points such as that gender is a cultural construct opposed to sex that has given biological ties, further supported by other gender theorists, such as De Beauvoir (2009) highlight the becoming of gender opposed to its assumed link to sex. Butler interrogates these ties between sex and biology/nature by questioning what builds this connection and how many biological components, hormonal/chromosomal/anatomical, does a person require to fit a given group in terms of sex. It is clear that gender is socially constructed by a set of given props made by society, however Butler also explains that although they are by definition separate, gender is still effected by sex due to the heterosexual matrix, thus forming a cis-gendered norm: ‘‘relation of gender to sex whereby gender mirrors sex or is otherwise restricted by it’’ (Butler, 1990:9). This ‘‘Presum(ption) the bodies must have a coherence between sex, gender identity and gender expression of; that these categories are stable’’ (Baggio, 2019:655, our translation) constitutes the heterosexual matrix (Butler, 1990). Butler further brings into question the nature of sex in terms of how it is prescribed, “gender is not to culture as sex is to nature; gender is also discursive / cultural means by which ‘sexed nature’ or ‘a natural sex’ is produced and established as ‘prediscursive’” (Butler, 1990:10), further solidifying the link between sex and gender. Though it is easy for us to understand the important distinction between these two categories in certain queer subculture, ‘‘queer describes those gestures… which dramatize incoherence in the allegedly stable relations between chromosomal sex, gender and sex desire’’ (Jagose, 1996:NP), we must still understand that there is a link between gender and sex due to a deep-rooted lack of understanding and oppression in the cultural mainstream (Butler, 1990). 

An understanding is built that due to a ‘cultural matrix’ imbued with heterosexuality oppositions are formed between ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ which in turn are partnered as attributes connected with ‘male’ and ‘female’, which again links them through gender as we have previously discussed. This also started to form the connection between heterosexualisation and culture laws as well as ‘legal law’, in instigating heterosexuality as a root of sex, gender identity and gender expression. Due to the matrix that this constitutes, gender expressions that don’t fit cultural laws start to form a subversive domain to the given cultural binary (Butler, 1990). The Queer genders misalignments of these cultural norms forms a ‘’Challenge to hegemonic gender binaries and their naturalizing force and invoked the possibility of fluid… gender’’ (Papoulias, 2006:231).   

‘‘Names fail fully to gender the characters whose femininity and masculinity they are expected to secure. The name fails to sustain the identity of the body within the terms of cultural intelligibility’’ (Butler, 1993:97) here Butler explains that gender is limited to the social construction that it is formed by, and not only that but that ‘cultural intelligibility’ limits the way in which gender can be perceived. Words do not allow for the fluidity of which these concepts could possess, if it was not for the limitations of current gender norms. Butler further understands that there are more possibilities for  achievable gender identities despite the theories suggested limits due to culture intelligence (Butler, 1990). Arguably these other gender identities are still based on ‘‘combination of the masculine and feminine’’ (Baggio, 2019:652, our translation). Further enforced by the notions of ‘personalized identities are eventually realigned upon a spectrum, with masculine on one end and feminine on the other’ (Sichler, 2010:46).    

A vital understanding is formed in regard to the nature of drag culture in affiliation with subversion of hegemonic gender (Butler, 1993). Butler solidifies that there is ‘‘no necessary relation between drag and subversion’’ (Butler, 1993:85). The theorist continues to outline that the subversion in question is that for dominant gender norms and not that of heterosexuality as it is viewed as a dispute of heterosexuality’s claim to naturalness or the given norm, granted to it by hegemonic gender. This starts to bring into question whether drag, and other forms of gender denaturalization, can achieve the goal they set out to do, due to the nature of hegemonic gender, ‘’whether parodying the dominant norms is enough to displace them, whether the denaturalization of gender cannot be the very vehicle for reconsolidation of hegemonic norms’’ (Butler, 1993:85). This suggests that denaturalization of gender is a parody or reflection of the current status quo which aids in refortifying the power structure made by social constructs, albeit the intention could have been to oppose such constructs, ‘‘The queer copies are, thus, perceived as little more than cheap knockoffs of ‘straight’ or properly gendered behaviour’’ (Sichler, 2010:46). Moreover, if the non-normative is just a reflection or parody of the norm then it cannot be subversive of the norm as it occupies this given space (Hooks, 2006). Butler further explains, like many things in queer culture, drag can be appropriated via the vehicle of heterosexual privilege, which not only operates, as other privileges, by claiming originality, naturalizing itself and stating itself as the norm (again aided by hegemonic gender), but allows the person benefiting from the privilege to concede the idea of originality, thus performing drag, whilst still retaining the power associated with the privilege. Acting to further endorse homosexual discrimination and panic. Thus, reinstating the given norm of hegemonic gender by masking a heterosexual agenda through heterosexual entertainment as parody of homosexual culture (Butler, 1993:85-86).

Butler further explores the impact of the heterosexual matrix in terms of homosexual male and homosexual females’ relationship with misogyny. Butler does this by highlighting the relationship between drag and its criticisms pertaining to its roots in misogyny. This space is also used to emphasize that there is a difference between cross dressing, transsexualism and drag. Butler states that the issue with concluding that drag is inherently misogynist due to its mistreatment of the female image, is that this implies women are at the centre of male homosexual activity, following the same logic of homophobia. Butler likes Drag and Lesbianism through the links in this logic concerning misogyny and misandry, further ‘‘observ(ing)… that the presence of the term homosexuality summons its opposite in the same semantic axis, heterosexuality’’ (Baggio, 2019:655, our translation). Again, asserting the heterosexual matrix by placing heterosexuality as the root of these homosexual subcultures (Butler, 1993:84). A further key take away from this section is Butler’s understanding of, ‘‘This ‘being a man’ and this ‘being a woman’’ are internally unstable affairs’’ (Butler, 1993:84).These two points aid in understanding what is meant by Butler when stated ‘(drag) is not first an appropriation and then a subversion. Sometimes it is both’ (Butler, 1993:87-88). Underscoring the complexity of parody when in terms of hegemonic constructs, due to interpretation against intent. When previously discussing drag in ‘‘Gender trouble’ Butler described the parody as ‘artifice, plays, falsehood, and illusion’’ (Butler, 1999:xxiii) further spacing drag from the idea of gender subversion.

In conclusion to the theories discussed, the intersection between sematic analysis and gender identities is a complex topic that is heavily reliant on the veridiction contract, the building of a stable equilibrium between heterosexual receiver and queer senders. This in nature, due to power constructs including heterosexual dominance and lack of common ground, is already a difficult discourse to communicate between the subculture and prevailing culture, who in essence has no need to negate the fragile current gender binarism as it renders heterosexuality as the ‘original’.

Method of Approach

A set of images, consisting of queer identities from popular culture and queer subculture, will be used to produce visual analysis of individual’s gender expressions. From this analysis relationships between differing gender identities association with gender conforming and gender non-conforming will be related to associated form of gender identity with queer subculture. These values will be used to form a semiotic square to help further explain the relationship between gender variation in queer subculture and the matter of gender veridiction that impacts the way they are communicated. 

Greimas’ square will be used as an analytical tool to highlight lack of objective content within gender constructs, particularly pertaining to the fixed positions of the semiotic square, versus the fluidity of gender expression. The semiotic square is a visual representation of the analysis of a given category, using two types of binary; A/Ā and A/non-A. Though these two binaries are used to construct the square via analysis, they open up possibilities that fall outside of binarism, and tackle the complexity of signification, such as the relation of contrariety, complementarity, and contradiction (Greimas, 1982: 308). In figure 1, we can see that the combination, or cross sections of the corners of the square produced complex values: truth, lie, secret, falsehood. As the semiotic square is a Semio-narrative structure, it is useful when ‘’applied to concrete linguistic objects’’ (Greimas, 1982: 311) also referred to as uttered discourse. The different values emerging from various forms of gender expression will be visually represented in the semiotic square, which will result from the analysis of gender expression’s implications on its relationship to individuals’ gender identities. Visual Analysis will be used to help discuss gender on a discursive level and provide visual representations of gender props and expression, furthermore their link to the semantic value that is assigned to the identity.         

Find below the semiotic square that is the result of analysing gender expressions relationship to gender through the lens of the heterosexual and of a cis-gendered society that reinforces gender binarism. It is important to highlight that even though the discussion will focus on queer subculture we must view this tool through the lens of the prevailing social and cultural constructs, this been the heterosexual matrix due to us living in a heterocentric society. 

(Figure 1). Semiotic square articulating semantic values of gender identities in queer subculture. 2021. Source: Own Diagram

Chapter 1 will cover the left half of the square going into detailed discussion regarding Gender Compliance and the plausibility of given gender expression. To gain understanding of Gender Compliance, we will analyse Gender Conforming individual’s gender expression, their relationship with gender and their alignment of gender and gender expression. The typing, Masculine men and Feminine women, will be supported by visual analysis of Cara Delevingne and Wentworth Miller, two homosexual, cis-gendered public figures. These constructs will be viewed through the impact the heterosexual matrix has on Queer Culture that causes forms of hyper genderism, which leads to Gender Compliance will be viewed through the visual analysis of Laverne Cox and Amanda Lepore. Cox will be used to explore the place of the trans community within this analysis and how this is articulated on the semiotic square. Lepore will open the discussion to the role of the veridiction contract in dictating how queer individuals can conform to gender norms despite intentions to subvert. Staying with the ideas of an unstable equilibrium effecting the veridiction contract, as to how non-binary gender still relies on binarism’s to define itself as ‘The Other’. Visual analysis of celebrity, Jonathan Van Ness, who is a non-binary individual will be used to highlight the use of gender props, that are found within the binary, being used to try and signify a non-binary identity. 

Chapter 2 will cover the right half of the square and start by discussing ‘Queerness’ and queer cultures relationship with gender constructs broadly. The relationship between Queerness, in terms of gender, and gender non-conforming, will help to highlight how individuals can match to different values in varying degrees and as ‘’not so much liberal pluralism as a negotiation of the very concept of identity itself’’ (Jagose, 1996:NP). An Image of Harry Styles at the BRIT Awards 2020 will be analysed in contrast to an image of YungBlud at the Attitude magazine awards 2020, to show the juxtaposition of Gender Queer and Gender non-Conforming, and how this queer culture can be perverted by the heterocentric society we live in. This will lead to the interrogation of Drag as a form of Suspicious Gender expression. Not only will the signs present in an image of Divina De Campo be analysed to highlight how Drag is a form of divergence at best but mostly parody as burlesque (Rose, 1993:54-72), the Veridiction Contract will be further explored here to highlight the issues regarding gender subversion.   Following this, a visual analysis will take place of a photo of Salvia, a visual artist, and a case will be built as to how this is the closest form of Subversion gender expression can reach. This analysis on the nature of subversion will allow us to discuss if subversion of gender is actually at all possible due to the nature of the hegemonic gender. Furthermore, how the veridiction contract leads to a suspicion that can prevent alternative gender expressions from having a subversive impact.     

Chapter 1: Gender and Compliance

Gender conforming is seen as ‘normal’ due the statistical probability of an individual’s gender expression complimenting their gender, which, when viewed through the heterosexual matrix, often is mirrored by their sex (Butler, 1990). This holds true in the queer community as well, albeit that queer subculture has a different relationship with gender than that of the heterocentric prevailing culture. Due to this power structure produced by social constructs the communication of gender, binary or otherwise, is in a constant need for stable equilibrium that is caused by the heterosexual matrix. A stable balance can be reached between queer senders and heterosexual receivers, under the restricted communication of conforming; however, as we will explore, these are naturally unstable forms of veridiction. Conforming to gender perpetuates the need to conform to gender for many individuals, even those in queer culture: ‘‘Everyone hates to look like a fool’’ (Hollander, 1994:174). The concept of masculine men and feminine women are viewed as given norms due to an abundance of conforming individuals produced by the power held by the heterosexual matrix. There is a fragility of these concepts, the constant need to reaffirm gender via gender props and gender expression, however in that fragility of not being able to support itself, gender is constantly being communicated as a set of norms, which in turn, involving the veridiction contract, causes the individual to ratify the social construct of gender (Butler, 1990). Queer individual can also be party to this fortification of the normality of a gender binary via performative cis-gendered expressions. 

(Figure 2). Wentworth miller modelling. 2016. Source: https://weheartit.com/entry/234229365  

(Figure 3). Paris Fashion Week Cara Delevingne. 2019. Source: https://www.styledumonde.com/2019/02/paris-fw-2019-street-style-cara-delevingne/

Both of the following images are of openly homosexual public figures who conform their gender expressions to their gender identity and assigned sex. Looking at Figure 2 of Wentworth Miller, an openly homosexual popular actor, we see a cis-gendered presenting man. Before analysis we need to put ourselves in the position of the heterosexual receiver, however being careful to not assume a stable equilibrium as the sender may be trying to communicate something entirely separate (Griemas, 1989:659), however this simply doesn’t matter as the heterosexual receiver will interpret it through their gained knowledge of gender, which as such is limited to binarism and the social connections between sex, gender and gender expression. Now this is established, we can view the visual communication in this photo in a way that allows us to accept that the gender props Miller is using are masculine forms of dress such as tailored trousers, a black tie and a white shirt, furthermore the styling of the actor, short hair and lack of jewellery are expressions of conforming to his gender norms, as we are aware male contemporary fashion is not overly decorative and simple in its relation to the male body (Dyer 1993:188). This also holds true in Figure 3 of Cara Delevingne, a homosexual actress. We can see this image of Delevingne is completely gender conforming through the use of feminine gender props: A pink flowy dress, long styled hair, makeup and jewellery, to communicate the gender identity of woman (De Beauvoir, 2009:848). These props, both masculine and feminine, only hold the weight they do due to the social constructs formed around them which again are reinforced by the need to communicate alignment of gender to the binary of man and woman in today’s heterocentric society. It is clear in both of these examples, though different in expression and displaying constructs that are forced to oppose each other in heterosexual society. This introduces Plausibility as a factor of the veridiction contract between queer senders and heterosexual receivers. Due to the heterosexual receiver accepting the gender expressions correlation to gender identity as ‘normative’ this puts the receiver at ease. This is due to how imbued the idea of heterosexuality is into masculinity and femininity, as a premise of definition; the feminine woman waits for the masculine man to come and save her and then they live happily ever after (Wolf, 2002:12). It is as though you can’t be a masculine man or feminine woman and still be homosexual as it is not a correct correlation. It’s common communication to hear heterosexual people and also queer people that are so entangled in heterosexual culture say, ‘I would have never guessed you are gay because you are so masculine/feminine’. Highlighting the unstable equilibrium in the veridiction contract caused by gained homophobic assumptions, reinforcing the social construct of masculine men and feminine women being exclusively accessible gender expressions to heterosexual people, the assumption of heterosexuality being aligned with gender congruency is resultant of the heterosexual matrix (Baggio, 2019:655, our translation). It is not plausible to the heterosexual receiver for queer individuals to have ‘correct’ relationships between gender and gender expression, however at the same time it is expected of queer public figures to conform due to the very nature of how conforming self-perpetuates. 

So, Plausible Gender is not the same as Gender Conforming. ‘‘Plausible; … (of a person) skilled at producing persuasive argument, especially ones intended to deceive’’ (Oxford Language, 2019) using this definition we can already see the differences that are starting to form between being and others believing, another unstable equilibrium (Griemas, 1989). To discuss this, see figure 4 of Laverne Cox, a transgendered actress. We can see here Cox using gender props to express gender that is in line with her gender identity, the use of feminine makeup, contouring and highlight to bring out feminine features, an excess of jewellery often seen as a feminine prop and fitted blouses to accentuate her figure, the use of long blonde hair[1].                                           

(Figure 4).  Emmy-nominated actress Laverne Cox. 2017. Source: https://www.colorado.edu/today/2017/01/12/   

By this analysis Cox is Gender Conforming ‘’help(ing) to stabilize the social construction of gender’’ (Papoulias, 2006:231), however we need to take into consideration the heterosexual matrix role in analysis of gender identities and furthermore how this effects the social contracts between Cox and the receivers. Arguably, following the discussion we had about gender conforming and its link to heterosexuality and cis genderism there is a lack of occupiable space for the trans community with this binary. This shows the limitations of assigned societal values, as many people would argue trans individuals gender conform exactly the same as cis-gendered individuals, however actually interrogation of gender conforming highlights how much of a restricted criteria must be matched for a consensus to be reached with the receiver of your gender identity, ‘‘testify to the fault lines and methodological impasses in the theorization of gender’’ (Papoulias, 2006:231). Your gender identity should be something that is for you, but what’s the value of an authentic identity if it is not perceived as plausible? If the receiver doesn’t reach the understanding that you are gender conforming then you’re not, no matter how you communicate your gender, visually or linguistically (Papoulias, 2006). Yes, while this is transphobia, it is the reality of the heterosexual matrix and a reflection of misunderstanding of queer culture in a heterocentric society. Because of the assumption heterosexual interpretation of binary gender makes of gender congruency being natural or a given opposed to a societal/cultural construct an unstable equilibrium is formed between the trans sender, that of an authentic gender identity, and the cis-gendered receiver, that’s trapped in an unimaginative world of binarism. Where does this leave masculine trans-women and feminine trans-men? This gender presentation is completely separate to that of a feminine trans-woman and a masculine trans-man, which in essence are blocked from being truly gender conforming due to the cis-gendered criteria of conforming with heterosexuality (Sichler, 2010:53). These alternative gender expressions are forced into the category of Queerness through cis-gendered conforming when, in reality, the Gender identity of the trans individual who doesn’t conform isn’t different to that of the trans individual who leans into gender conforming. For a trans individual to even come close to being perceived as plausibly gender conforming, they must fit into such a restricted form of gender conformability, almost as though in the example of a trans-woman you can’t be at all masculine as it confuses the het audience into assigning you to your dead gender, while at the same time you can’t be too feminine, as then it is not plausible that you are a conforming woman. Vice versa with trans-men. Again, we see the effect that the veridiction

contract has the pairing of an individual to a linguistically expression of gender.      

(Figure 5). Amanda Lepore. 2013. Source: https://sg.style.yahoo.com/blogs/show-buzz/hits-misses-social-star-awards-red-carpet-045620587.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuYmluZy5jb20v&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAILLfwgjnqxw7iGdyavqKHD835g7Xt3PFXV-7ZQP3_IMR_f2CblWp9x8cfYQaZI-dpw7P-0HDPL6EaXaM2owQcjQBBsgUiQyBYbOX_gu67OfKL6dy2ZwH7se4jKk6DMKz-TR52OJKQBAQ1CCzomxiR0lzIMHvSPcjxE-ou-_Favn

We are now looking at Gender Compliance, a term we’ll use to explain how hyper-genderism is separate from Gender Conforming; however, that the criteria of conforming actually acts as a specific way in which hyper-genderism, excessive gender expression, can be achieved. See Figure 5 of Trans, queer nightlife legend, Amanda Lepore: a quintessential example of Gender Compliance. As a queer individual, I understand what Lepore is trying to communicate and, for much of the queer community, that expression is understood. Lepore is an expression of a satire, caricature of womanhood, instigating the conversation in the queer community about what makes a woman, how is womanhood measured, and comments on the obscurity of gender as a social construct (Butler,1993). More so it is important to understand that this expression is far from drag. Amanda Lepore’s gender expression is purely performative, constantly being reinforced, there are no pictures of her without make-up. She does burlesque, ‘‘a form of ridiculing caricature which is different from comedy’’ (Rose, 1993:57), which could be confused for a drag performance via aestheticism. With this in mind and maintaining an appropriation of the heterosexual matrix, lets view the gender props exhibited in this image. Head-to-toe the look is hyper feminine, from the pink dress to the red lipstick. But the fact the dress is covered in glitter, the over stylisation of the outfit from the matching clutch bag, large earrings with matching rings, the corset used over the dress in matching fabric, heavy eye makeup and drawn eyebrows makes the dress surpass gender conforming. It is no longer plausibly just feminine, it’s now hyper-feminine (Sontag 1964:276). And it is not just the dress, looking at Lepore’s physical attributes as well: the platinum blonde hair styled in an up-do, her extended eyelashes, her full lips, the cheek filler, her cartoonishly perfect breasts, the way she is holding herself with the slight pout. It is as though she processed a checked list of feminine stereotypes and just fulfilled every item on that list, she didn’t just conform to the criteria prescribed by heterocentric society, she complied to every single one. It is a hyper gender expression that reinforces every assumption made about femininity. Although the intention is to allow viewers to question ideals of gender expression and its link to gender identity, the heterosexual gaze perverts and appropriates (Dyer, 2002) this better fortifying the strict requirements of gender conformism (Sichler, 2010:53). Here Lepore’s Gender expression matches her authentic gender identity and as such is a compliance to gender norms, albeit with intentions to subvert from cis-gendered binarism[2]. As such the heterosexual, cis-gendered receiver imbued with power from a societal construct has the position to pervert that message, to further support transphobic assumptions defining ‘real women’ and ‘real men’ by a need to conform to gender via a criteria that doesn’t allow space for alternatives to cis-genderisms. 

Understanding this ability for heterosexual culture to pervert communication via veridiction, the gender identity expressed as non-binary is fragile in regard to its standing in a world dominated by gender binarism. By communicating your gender as non-binary you assume that the heterosexual receiver can accepted that there is no natural link between sex, gender identity and gender expression. From this conversation we can understand that in a cis-gendered world the assumed congruency of gender carries a huge weight in the plausibility of communicated gender. By using the term non-binary, there is an understanding that there is a socially constructed binary in place, however from a position of lack of power the queer identity tries to produce a tertiary position. Have you ever wondered why now on forms it often says ‘Man – Woman – Custom -Prefer not say’ instead of non-binary? What does ‘custom gender’ actually mean, as ‘custom’ looks like a term used to nullify a subversive idea, as though “personalized identities are eventually realigned upon a spectrum, with masculine on one end and feminine on the other’’ (Sichler, 2010:46). The prevailing cis-gendered society is dismissing non-binary gender identities as a preference and not an

(Figure 6). Jonathan Van Ness. 2019. Source: https://extra.ie/2018/11/26/entertainment

identity. Figure 6 shows non-binary celebrity Johnathan Van Ness at a red-carpet event. As we can see they are using a range of masculine and feminine gender props, contrasting heavy facial hair with a skirt, and sheer fabric with a visible male presenting chest. This isn’t Gender non-conforming as they are using both types of gender props as defined by the gender binary to create a sense of ‘other’ opposed to the contradiction of gender non-conforming to gender conforming, “Even gender-Divergent people – who have the discourse of negation gender binarism – use these categories to identify” (Baggio, 2019:653, our translation). This expression value that is trying to negotiate gender binarism into a type of spectrum actually is unable to do that, due to the way it is received by the heterosexual audience. This is a completely unstable contract between non-binary sender and heterosexual cis gender receiver, and this is why we see the term ‘custom’ being used on forms or straight people tweeting ‘I sexually identify as an attack helicopter’ (Jaroszewski, 2018). When you identify as non-binary, due to the breakdown of the veridiction contract you are leaving your gender identity to be interpreted as the heterosexual receiver pleases. Often the heterosexual receiver ignores their communication and will pervert the way the non-binary individual has used gender props, assess if there are more masculine or feminine props and if these props correlate ‘correctly’ to an assumption the heterosexual will form on the individual sex and in turn this will construct an assumption of ‘normative’ gender that the receiver will label the non-binary sender with.

It is clear that the majority of the power can be found with the heterosexual receiver. This power dynamic is due to the prevailing heterocentric society we live in which places a large focus on gender congruency and binarism (Butler, 1990). As such conforming is an ideal that queer people are expected to meet by cis-gendered individuals, however if this is not achieved, the gender expression being displayed will still be perverted by the heterosexual receiver into a plausible gender identity regardless of how the queer individual identifies. Thinking of masculinity and femininity in this way is trying to understand how they work together to produce meaning, moreover “to carry out a semiotic reading of these identities as texts” (Baggio, 2019:662, own translation). Via this analysis supported by the visual analysis of the gender expressions above, the articulation of conforming gender identities starts to form the semiotic square, noting the veridiction of gender taking place, as seen in figure 1.       

Chapter 2: Queer and Subversion  

Queer is a multifaceted term in current western culture, due to societal constructs that rely on such a term to constitute the idea of ‘otherness’ without a specific identity (Jagose, 1996). This sense of ‘otherness’ in itself is a value that can be expressed in a range of different ways, in particular gender expression, and Deviance from a prescribed norm, “Queer, then, is an identity category that has no interest in consolidating or even stabilising itself” (Jagose, 1996). Gender expression is a tool that can help to build or destroy stable relationships between ‘others’ and the normal, the queer sender and the heterosexual cis-receiver. It is important we reflect on how far an unstable equilibrium of veridiction effects subversion and how this equilibrium, in turn, pushes back against subversive forces.

Contrariety to Gender conforming, Gender non-conforming is best described as masculine women and feminine men. This shows an understanding and a disregard for ‘normative’ relations between gender identity and gender expression. We understand that masculinity is not exclusively owned by men and women do not own femininity, and even in normative gender identities we can see these mixes of expressive traits, showing gender as discursive and a cultural construct caused by the heterosexual matrix (Baggio, 2019:654). Here sexuality will also be questioned, caused by this ‘incorrect’ correlation, assumptions that the individual is homosexual will be produced via the heterosexual matrix trying to produce conformity through the sense of ‘otherness’ connecting ‘other’, ‘queer’ as ‘wrong’. Here we start to see the collapse of the veridiction between the non-conforming sender and the heterosexual receiver.                                              

(Figure 7). Harry Styles performance of “Falling” at the BRIT Awards in London (2020) Source: https://www.wonderwall.com/style/harry-styles-most-playful-fashion-moments-3022093.gallery?photoId=1075194

Looking at figure 7 of Harry Styles, popular musician and fashion model, we see the image of a feminine man. Styles is smart in using a dandy era aesthetic to build a brand for himself that is current while raises relevant questions about gender, reflecting specific subcultures of fashion history and culture. The use of a white lace, typically feminine material, and specific styling choices such as the androgynous haircut, dainty lace gloves, puff sleeves, high waisted trousers, work to create the personae of femininity albeit on a body that self-identifies as a man. What separates this idea of gender non-conforming from gender queerness? The heterosexual receiver is exposed to this image of Styles, broadcasted on the Brit Awards 2020, for mainstream pop music. Furthermore, not only the popularity of Styles but also his sexuality allows him to step into heterosexual privilege to explain his gender expression and views on this otherwise queer gender expression. As a character and a brand, Styles is able to separate his gender identity from his gender expression and many heterosexual receivers allow this. Initially, Styles sexuality was brought into question and is still by some people in which he was unable to build a stable equilibrium with. It is commonplace to see people comment under pictures of Styles, ‘Faggot’ or ‘Queer’ and this is what starts to blur the line between gender non-conformity and gender queerness. Gender queer is a value that is unnegotiable via the veridiction contract. Gender non-conforming allows for a bridge to be built via explanation from the ‘other’ to the heterosexual receiver, providing the heterosexual receiver is open to information that is not only visual, allowing a space for the ‘other’ to denounce there queer as individual expression and separate from homosexuality. Gender Queer is a value in which there is no ability to negate expression as experimentation or questioning but instead is looked into a value of authentic affiliation to homosexuality and queer culture, “only masculine and feminine identities achieve mainstream acknowledgment and, thus, intelligibility” (Sichler, 2010:46). To illustrate, in contrast to Styles, who we have highlighted as an appropriation of queer identity via intent to examine non-conforming gender expression, see figure 8 of YUNGBLUD, an openly queer musician from alternative sub-culture who expresses as gender queer in this image via the use of feminine gendered props such as red lipstick and eyeshadow, fishnet gloves and uni-sex briefs, paired with a fitted black latex blouse shirt. This mix of queer and alternative

(Figure 8). YUNGBLUD and Paloma Faith at the Attitude Magazine Awards. 2020. Source: https://www.instagram.com/p/CIQaukDA863/

usage of gendered props opens up the value of gender queer to a spectrum of different expressions that stray from absolutely feminine and masculine and start to produce different gender expressions (Jagose, 1996), almost like these gender queer punks that feel removed from costume and completely authentic, a sense of realism is added into gender expressions that make use of masculinity and femininity to create a queer body, “Realism was an assertion of the absolute and objective existence” (Williams, 1976:257). In some ways as well this gender expression feels very naive to what it is creating in a way that gender conforming/non-conforming cannot access. This identity is separate from non-binary gender due to gender Queerness’ lack of regard for the binary albeit stemming from the same ability to negate gender binarism that produces non-binary gender identities (Baggio, 2019:655). 

(Figure 9). Divina De Campo. 2020. Source: https://www.popsugar.co.uk/entertainment

/photo-gallery/46523928/image/46523942/Davina-De-Campo

Neither of these values are subversive, however. They function around the current power structure and have little to no impact on the power in which gender conformity has in today’s society. This is due to the heterosexual privilege that allows the heterosexual receiver to somewhat dismiss alternative gender expression as irrelevant via queerness’ impact on the veridiction contract. The other way the heterosexual receiver can respond to alternate gender presentation is by perverting this communication. Suspicious gender is a value at which the heterosexual receiver perceives the gender presentation as a lie (Griemas, 1982:309). Suspicious gender expression is layered in miscommunication, unstable veridiction and assumptions on both the receiving and sending end. The best example of this suspicious gender value is drag. Figure 9 shows an image of Divina De Campo, a British Drag queen. This particular image of De Campo has been chosen to highlight a more traditional and campy side to drag which arguably differs from a more fashion forward style of drag that has been produced in recent years as a result of the surfacing of drag subculture into mainstream light via RuPaul’s Drag Race. The size and styling of the wig and the grandness of the costume jewellery alludes to the camp stylisation, reinforced by the use of a cheap silver glitter dress with a dramatic front slit and an over the top burlesque styled boa. Here we see a type of drag that is sure of its camp intentions in not trying to become the image of womanhood but surpassing that as a form of parody, more specifically burlesque (Rose, 1993:55), aided by the grand intentions of camp fashion. The Queer artist understands that the communication of the camp dress is that of costuming a parody for the sake of queer entertainment, less about embodying an identity. So how can this process be subversive to a binary structure when it entirely relies on parodying the same binary for entertainment? Simply it cannot due to the structure of the binary as we have previously explained. At best drag and suspicious gender expression diverts from gender expectations and norms and is allowed to do so due to the queer audience’s ability to have conversation about gender (Sichler, 2010). Heterosexual receivers will pervert the communication of suspicious gender to reinforce gender binarism, whether it’s through labelling these gender expressions as abnormal, unnatural, or alternatively by Appropriation of cross dressing. We see this in Heterosexual media all the time such as in films like Mrs Doubtfire, “(camp) used definitely by Queers against straightness, but it is easily taken up by straight society and used against us” (Dyer, 2002:51). The image of ‘a man in a wig and a dress’ is the same for a heterosexual audience and a queer audience; however, the discourse around it is completely different and thus the value can be perverted. Think about a stag do, where the groom to be is forced into drag as a form of humiliation or as insult comedy, “Something happens to camp when taken by straights; it loses its cutting edge its identification with the gay experience” (Dyer, 2002;60) . This lack lustre, misogynist, heterosexual portrayal of womanhood can arguably be a form of suspicious gender as much as Queer drag performance such as Divina De Campo. This is an example of the limitations of the analysis of societal gender constructs and the way in which it signifies value. In many ways this analysis of gender negates its fluidity and the possibility for individuals to have a complex relationship with a range of values (Jagose, 1996). This is further complicated by the veridiction contract which we can clearly see taking effect here. The way in which suspicious gender is treated and its ability to communicate divergence from binary gender is specifically linked to the receiver being able to negate the heterosexual matrix. 

(Figure 10). Salvia surreal drag artist. 2018. Source: https://designyoutrust.com/2018/01/salvia-surreal-drag-artist-channelling-alien-glamour/

Though we have commented on the complexity of gender expression and its link to gender identity which in turn is far more complex than the binary it is assigned to, we have to highlight the strict criteria and requirements of a gender identity that is produced from an expression of subversion. Though it is in contradiction to the value of Gender conforming, the way in which Gender Subversion is accessed is similarly limited to a set of signs that are incredibly specific. Let’s start by separating subversion from non-conforming and suspicious. As we have already mentioned non-conforming and suspicious, and for that matter of fact queerness is not subversive to the gender binary, though that may be the intent of many individuals, for example many queer people like to think they are subverting the binary by being openly gender queer, by being non-binary, by highlighting the fragility of gender props via drag and other suspicious gender (Papoulias, 2006:231). But now we can come to understand that due to the heterosexual perversion of these communications via heterosexual privilege and appropriation, these forms of queer expression can often result in the refortification of the current binarism (Butler, 1993). Even those expressions that have the discourse to negate the binary either still used gender props via appropriation (Baggio, 2019:655), alternatively are perverted by the binary view of the receiver creating a nullification of intent. This exact mechanism is what makes it so hard for any form of gender expression or identity to become subversive to the binary that constitutes gender. Looking at figure 10 of Salvia we see what the closest possible form of expression to Gender subversion is arguably, described as Surreal Drag, this is not an adequate description of the performance of gender that Salvia is able to portray. Salvia is so successful in subverting the power of the gender binary due to the way they build another worldly, almost alien body. There is very little in case of any form of gendered dress in this image, the colours are neutral as is the material, the hair line and styling choices are so abnormal and void of fashion’s influence that they become signifies of this possibility of an otherness that doesn’t rely on the binary but feels as though it is part of a set of rules that the heterosexual viewer is not privy too, somewhat ignoring the fact “Gender has become a verb, a state of being one inhabits” (Sichler, 2010:52). The distortion of Salvia’s face via make-up and prosthesis further enforces this identity via an expression that is not reliant on any current mainstream gender props. Editing the image to create otherworldly characteristics such as the additional teeth in their mouth doesn’t only distort the ability to preserve gender from this image but starts to space the character away from ‘human’ traits. This is where the viewer gains footing in being able to turn this subversion of gender back into an expression that is unable to reach a space in which it can remove power from the current norm. The viewer can perceive this image as less a gender expression and more of a costume or art, removing the image of Salvia from the being of Salvia. As the viewer starts to make assumptions due to a misalignment between the presentation of Salvia and gained knowledge that the heterosexual viewer has about the absolute nature of the cis-gender binary. The viewer will have pre-decided opinions, for example the viewer may make a logical connection in their mind that ‘Make up is for women, Salvia is clearly wearing makeup, under all that make-up must be a woman. See how this then perverts the otherwise subversive queer gender presentation into something that is palatable of the heterosexual audience by assigning the image to part of a binary that makes the audience comfortable.

The semiotic square, Figure 1, shows these values of subversive queer gender identities, that not only many heterosexual individuals overlook but also identities that many queer people do to, solidifying unstable equilibrium which continues to pervert queer gender expression even today. The square is produced by taking into consideration the way these gender deviant expressions negate the gender binarism and the equilibrium they form as a result of veridiction.   “The effort to meet the criterion for subversiveness will always fail, and ought to” (Butler, 1999: xxiii) shows a viewpoint as to how the value of subversive gender is widely seen as impossible to reach. Though, this is mainly true, I believe it is due to a lack of ability to negate gender binarism by the audience tainted by the heterosexual matrix. Due to the unstable equilibrium, there is a space in which the audience can disregard the possibility of something that is wholly separate from the known norm, as though the ‘other’ is fiction (Greimas, 1989:659). Gender as a socially constructed binary does not allow room for expression that is of a queer nature and this is mainly due to the heterosexual’s viewers inability to engage in discourse about the queer, thus blocking the queer value being truly subversive.             

Conclusion 

To recap the outcome of the visual analysis performed on the images throughout this text, we see the grouping of gender identities within queer subcultures. Gender identity as a complex social construct, entwined with gender expression, sex and sexualities, can be articulated into set semes around a semiotic square, however this is purely a theorization of gender as a semio-narrtive structure. Upon closer examination of gender theory as a discursive phenomenon, in relation to the veridiction contract and the heterosexual matrix’s impact on queer bodies, we see that these seemingly set values are actually a spectrum of possible outcomes and visual identities. The conversation around these set values differs between queer subculture and the heteronormative society in which we live in, ultimately dampening the subversive impact of queer bodies, as we understand from the queer gender theories we looked into. The issue of gender veridiction clashes with the identity of an authentic gender due to the misalignment of queer identity in the heteronormative world viewed by the cis-gendered heterosexual audience. Though the semiotic square articulates the values produced as a result of this analysis, these values fail to illustrate the notation of self-identification in gender, within individual scenarios, and is a generalisation of given reality. For example, although through analysis we found the images of Miller (figure 2) and Delevingne (figure 3) to be gender conforming, there is space for the individual, not the image, to inhabit other gender values through changing their gender expressions. The same can be said of all images we analysed.       

This begins to show how queer bodies can inhabit alternative gender values as artilated on the square. By viewing these values as a spectrum and not as set values constituted by a heterosexual binaries, the ability for gender identities to be queer and resulatantly  subversive becomes a possibility. However, we must remember that the power lies within the privileging societal norms, that of a heterosexual martix, thus resulting in subversion being a highly unlikely outcome (Butler, 1999). Furthermore, the issue of verdicition means that gender identities that fall outside of the spectrum can be dismissed as fiction due to suspicion and gained knowledge (Greimas, 1989), as analysed via Salvia (figure 10) and Divina De Campo (figure 9). Across both chapters we see the constraints of analysing gender expression through the heterosexual lens due to dependence of alligning gender on a scale of masculine and feminine. 

In retrospect of this analysis, there is so much context that has been ignored throughout this essay, such as the impact of racism on the viewing of gender identities of black queer people, the effect of ‘rainbow washing’ on the perception of non-conforming gender identities, the intersex body and their place in the queer community etc. This conversation about the queer gender identity, its place in the world and the possibility of subverting gender is one that is not only happening theoretically, moreover is evolving at a similar rate to the world around it. Though I have offered the values as seen in figure 1, there is room for these values to change meaning and expression as understanding of gender is explored by society. Similarly, as in all aspects of queer theory, these terms may become outdated as better forms of identification are born from a more self-aware queer community. There is space for this conversation, that during this text resulted in the production of figure 1, to be furthered and more comprehensive in many regards. For now, a clear understanding has been built that gender, especially queer gender, is a complex form of identification that owes its existence to linguistics, the ability to negate gender binarism, and veridiction of different genders in today’s society.   

[1] Further discussion of the hair is a separate conversation that deserves its own space to be discussed. Black woman’s hair is layered with conversations that cross section racism issues and gender presentation issues, however for the sake of not doing it justice and for sticking to the topic of queer culture, we’ll highlight the need for a separate discussion but not have it currently (St. Louis, 2019).

[2] Important to note that it is not only queer individuals who suffer under this matrix, as many groups of heterosexual people can feel the need to ‘’prove’’ their gender. An example of this is older, post-menopausal women who are denied their gender as woman due to misogynist links between women and the female ability to reproduce. Often older women will be hyper feminine to conform to that gender they are being denied by society (Church Gibson, 2000). Here we can end up seeing this resultant hyper-genderism again as heterosexual people try to over conform to their gender identity in an attempt to be seen as gender congruent, and not due to an attempt to allow to questioning of the gender binary such as Lepore’s intent.

Illustration list:

FIG 1: Semiotic square constructed by semantic values of gender identities in queer subculture. [Diagram] In Possession of: the author: Epsom.  

FIG 2: Unknown (2016) Wentworth miller model. [Photography] https://weheartit.com/entry/234229365 (Accessed 02/12/2020)

FIG 3: Style du monde (2019) Paris FW 2019 Street Style: Cara Delevingne. [Photography] https://www.styledumonde.com/2019/02/paris-fw-2019-street-style-cara-delevingne/ (Accessed 01/12/2020)

FIG 4: Unknown (2017) Emmy-nominated actress Laverne Cox. [photography] https://www.colorado.edu/today/2017/01/12/ emmy-nominated-actress-laverne-cox-speak-jan-25-cu-boulder (Accessed 01/12/2020)

FIG 5: Unknown (2013) Amanda Lepour. [Photography] https://sg.style.yahoo.com/blogs/show-buzz/hits-misses-social-star-awards-red-carpet-045620587.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuYmluZy5jb20v&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAILLfwgjnqxw7iGdyavqKHD835g7Xt3PFXV-7ZQP3_IMR_f2CblWp9x8cfYQaZI-dpw7P-0HDPL6EaXaM2owQcjQBBsgUiQyBYbOX_gu67OfKL6dy2ZwH7se4jKk6DMKz-TR52OJKQBAQ1CCzomxiR0lzIMHvSPcjxE-ou-_Favn (Accessed 01/12/2020)

FIG 6: Rob Latour (2019) Jonathan Van Ness is bringing his first ever stand-up show to Ireland!. [Photography] https://extra.ie/2018/11/26/entertainment /entertainment-news/queer-eye-jonathan-van-ness-ireland (Accessed 01/12/2020) 

FIG 7: David Fisher (2020) A creamy white head-to-toe lace ensemble by Gucci — complete with suspenders, matching lace gloves and his signature pearls — was Harry’s sartorial choice for his performance of “Falling” at the BRIT Awards in London in February 2020. [Photography] https://www.wonderwall.com/style/harry-styles-most-playful-fashion-moments-3022093.gallery?photoId=1075194 (Accessed 01/12/2020) 

FIG 8: Elliott Morgan (2020) immaculate conception. Tune in to the @attitudemag awards tonight to see us both perform! Watch on their YouTube channel from 9pm GMT ✨. [Photography] https://www.instagram.com/p/CIQaukDA863/ (Accessed 02/12/2020) 

FIG 9: BBC (2019) Divina De Campo. [Photography] https://www.popsugar.co.uk/entertainment /photo-gallery/46523928/image/46523942/Davina-De-Campo (Accessed 01/12/2020)  

FIG 10: Unknown (2018) Salvia Is The Surreal Drag Artist Channelling Alien Glamour. [Photography] https://designyoutrust.com/2018/01/salvia-surreal-drag-artist-channelling-alien-glamour/ (accessed 01/12/2020)

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Ahmen, S. (2006). Queer Phenomenology. Orientation, Object, Others. Durham and London: Duke University Press.  

Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble. Oxon: Routledge. 

Butler, J. (1993). Bodies That Matter. New York: Routledge.

Church Gibson, P. (2000).  Fashion Cultures. Theories, Explorations and Analysis. London and New york: Routledge. 

De Beauvoir, S. (2009) the Second Sex. London: The Random House Group

Dyer, R. (1993). The matter of images. Essays on representation. London and New York: Routledge.

Dyer R. (2002). The Culture of Queers. London: Routledge

Greimas, A.J.; Courtés, J. (1982). Semiotics and Language. An analytical Dictionary. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Greimas, A,J. (1989). New Literary History Vol.20 No.3 Greimassian semiotics, Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press. 

Hollander, A. (1994). Sex and Suits. The Evolution of Modern Dress. Brinkworth: Claridge Press.

Hooks, B. (2006). Outlaw Culture. London: Routledge.

Jagose, A. (1996). ‘Queer Thoery’ in: the Australian Humanities Review. At: http://australianhumanitiesreview.org/1996/12/01/queer-theory/ (Accessed: 29/12/2020) 

Jakobson, R 1981, Verbal Art, Verbal Sign, Verbal Time, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. Available from: ProQuest Ebook Central. [8 January 2021]. Created from westminster on 2021-01-08 02:00:27. 

Jaroszewski, S. Et Al. (2018). “Genderfluid” or “Attack Helicopter”: Responsible HCI Research Practice with Non-binary Gender Variation in Online Communities in: CHI ’18: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems pp. 1-15 At: https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3173574.3173881 (Accessed: 29/12/2020)  

Oxford Languages. (2010) Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 

Papoulias, C. (2006) ‘Transgender’ in: Problematizing Global Knowledge – Body pp. 231-233. At: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/026327640602300250 (Accessed: 29/12/2020) 

Rose, M.A. (1993). Parody: Ancient, Modern, and Post-Modern, Cambridge: the University of Cambridge. 

Sichler, K. (2010) ‘Post Queerness: Hyperreal Gender and the End of the Quest for Origins’ in: Post Identity Janani Subramanian, editor, Spectator 30:2 (Fall 2010) pp. 46-56. At: https://cinema.usc.edu/archivedassets/101/16193.pdf (Accessed: 05/01/2021)

Sontag, S. (1994). Against Interpretation. Reading: Cox & Wyman Limited.

Tulio Baggio, A. (2019). Proposition d’un modèle sémiotique pour les études de genre, Paris: Universidade Tecnológica Federal do Paraná. 

Williams, R. (1976). Keywords. A vocabulary of culture and society. London: Fontana Press.  

Wolf, N. (2002). The Beauty Myth. New York: Perennial.