Gender Categorisation Of Gender

binary sexuality categories is useful for understanding how heteronormativity impacts identity and influences anti-marriage equality sentiment.

Judith Butler (1990, 1993) argues against the binary categorisation of gender, asserting that gender materialises from a set of forced repeated actions that constitute a normalised performance. Butler’s conceptualisation of gender is not static; gender is made fluid through constant renegotiation and variance of performance (1990, 1993). Using the example of women, Butler argues that women cannot be thought of as a homogenous unified group because categorisation based solely on sex does not explain variations such as class or race (1990). Moreover, categorisation based on sex implies that a woman

This manifests itself in stereotypes, particular those associated with feminism that all feminists are women. Such stereotypes endorse a normative framework that implies that men cannot be feminists simply because they are men, limiting their beliefs and practices within the heteronormative matrix. Butler (1990, 1) concludes that “the very subject of women is no longer understood in stable or abiding terms”. This allows for non-binary gender terms to be discussed and legitimised as a way of living. The example of the term queers is exemplary of the attempt to move beyond static identity by dissolving binaries classifications and umbrella terms and instead conceptualising sexuality as a state of flux (Butler,1993, 226). However, the term has also been used as a derogatory noun or adjective for homosexuality until, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, queer was reclaimed by activists (Callis, 2009, 214). Thus, while there is legitimacy and agency in non-binary identity categories, the very nature of terming the non-binary creates a new binary between queer and normal which positions the heterosexual in the dominate normative position (cited in Callis, 2009, 5). This example of the failings of sex based categories