Can paradoxical or ambiguous sexual identities and practices change, or even go beyond, the meanings of masculinity and femininity? In other words: can the body be a source of social change? To answer this question I turn to the work of two theorists: Luce Irigaray and Judith Butler. After an account of their ideas, various sexual practices and identities will be described. The question is whether these practices and identities affect the meanings of masculinity and femininity. It will be concluded (...) that, even in our postmodern world with its technological opportunities the division into the two sexes is extraordinarily persistent. However, we can expect some change from the extension of the categories of masculinity and femininity, rather than from attempts to break free from them altogether. (shrink)

The distinction between ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ is challenged by arguments that ‘sex’ is equally a social construction, initiating a selfreflexive effort to return feminism to its foundational grounding. This article concerns intersexuality and transsexualism as two bodily forms that further suggest ‘sex’ as socially inscribed. I argue that feminist theory needs to ascertain whether the artificial emphasis on sexual difference, contra nature, is better able to effect social change than conjoined efforts to expose ‘sex’ as a construction intended to ground (...) divisions. Recent support for ‘multiple genders’ often remain dependent on a morphological notion of ‘sex’, and, as such, may not constitute a radical challenge to our current ‘sex’/‘gender’ system. (shrink)