Fashion, Dress, and Gender

Jo B. Paoletti

Bibliographical guide

DOI: 10.5040/9781474280655-BG002

Dress scholars have long been fascinated by differences between men’s and women’s clothing and appearance—before the introduction of the concept of “gender” as a socially constructed pattern separate from biological sex. In fact, it is impossible to study dress without considering gender. When a garment is accessioned into a museum collection, one of the first categories into which it is sorted is “sex of the wearer,” an echo of the midwife’s announcement of the sex of a newborn. The task facing any dress scholar, then, is not whether to consider gender, but how. What methodological approach or theoretic model should be used? What other factors must be considered along with gender? Within a given trend or tradition, how does gender interact with religion, race, age, class, or other identities? This article will first suggest basic works that provide a general understanding of the current state of the study of gender, and then illuminate some well-established paths through the territory of dress and gender; finally, it will point out a few promising new directions in scholarship. While the emphasis is on books, articles in scholarly journals are both abundant and valuable, especially for examples of methodology.

Understanding Gender

In academic literature, the words “sex” and “gender” have specific meanings that are interchangeable in popular usage. To the scholar, “sex” is used to denote biological categories (male, female); “gender” is used for distinctions in role, appearance, and behavior that are cultural in origin, but stemming from an individual’s sex (masculinity and femininity). In practice, these classifications are more complex; recent scholarship has begun to take into consideration the fact that biological sex is not binary (either-or), with 1 in 100 adults having genetic or physical characteristics other than “standard” male or female, including as many as 1 in 1,500 intersex babies. Because many cultural manifestations of “masculinity” and “femininity” are based on a binary, heteronormative view of sex, they have also tended to reflect the sense that men and women are opposites or complements of each other, and that heterosexual attraction is the ideal form of desire.

The concept of “gender”—in the sense of the acquired cultural traits associated with one’s biological sex—is quite new, having been introduced to scientific literature in 1955 by the sexologist John Money. This distinction between sex and gender has never been easy to grasp, or even generally accepted; in everyday speech, “gender” is now frequently used to mean biological sex. In the 1960s, second-wave feminism and the sexual revolution brought questions about gender to the forefront, and research into gender differences emerged in a range of disciplines, including psychology, sociology, anthropology, and history, and in many of the nascent interdisciplinary fields such as American Studies and Women’s Studies. With all of this activity, one might expect the popular understanding of gender to have advanced considerably over the last fifty years. Unfortunately, popular binary models of masculinity and femininity (or maleness and femaleness) as opposites lag behind the current thinking among sexologists and gender studies scholars, which views both sex and gender as substantially more complex and—in the case of cultural expressions of gender—fluid.

If sex is not binary, then it follows that “gender,” being based on sex, is not binary, either. For this reason, some familiarity with the history and recent works in gender studies is recommended for anyone wishing to explore this aspect of dress and fashion. The proliferation of theoretical and methodological approaches to the study of sex, gender, and sexuality places a significant burden on scholars wishing to explore dress through any of these lenses. Regardless of their own preferred methodology, they must also develop a facility in synthesizing and adapting the insights of multiple disciplines, including the sciences.

Vern Bullough (1994) offers a thorough overview of the history of sex research, including the important early work of psychologists Ann Constantinople and Sandra Bem, who challenged bipolar models of masculinity and femininity. Bem introduced a new psychological test for the study of gender, the Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI), which classified test subjects into one of four categories—masculine, feminine, androgynous, or undifferentiated—rather than the usual two. She also argued that androgynous and undifferentiated subjects, who would have been clustered together on a bipolar scale, were actually quite different in gender expression and personality, with androgynous individuals combining very masculine and very feminine traits, and undifferentiated individuals having low scores in both categories.

For a more recent overview of the current scientific study of gender, the work of neuroscientists Anne Fausto-Sterling (2000), Lise Eliot (2009), and Cordelia Fine (2011) are recommended. All three of these scholars are examining the interplay between biological and sociocultural forces, from disciplinary locations in the sciences. Fausto-Sterling offers a less binary view of nature and nurture, positing instead that they work together to produce gendered behaviors. Eliot argues for greater attention to the variations among members of each sex than to group differences between the sexes, while Fine is particularly critical of interpretations of scientific studies which promote the idea that men or women are “hardwired” for certain characteristics or behaviors.

In the humanities, the most influential gender theorist has been Judith Butler, whose canonical book Gender Trouble contributed the concept of gender performativity. This theory argues that seemingly stable gender expressions are actually the result of constant negotiations between an individual’s sense of self and the feedback acquired through social interactions, in a context of signs and symbols that are constantly subject to change.

Gender and Dress

Because dress provides so many of the visual cues for gender, it offers a particularly rich site for its study. While it is possible to consider the work on fashion, dress, and gender as a subset of dress studies, it is important to understand that it is just as much a subset of gender studies. Dress scholars have contributed significantly to the evolution of gender studies, not only through scholarly books and articles produced for an audience of specialists, but also through exhibits and popular works that have translated academic research for a broader public. Even before the emergence of the modern concept of gender, dress scholars in anthropology, sociology, psychology, and art history noted the differences between male and female adornment and connected them to the social and cultural roles of men and women. The diversity of gender expression in dress, revealed through historical or cross-cultural study, tended to challenge prevailing models of masculinity and femininity as stable, polar-opposite categories. The elaborate fashionable clothing worn by men during the Italian Renaissance, for example, was difficult to reconcile with the insistence of early psychologists that masculine nature was practical and instrumental, while women’s was emotional and expressive. Since the scientific community started to reject the binary model of gender, dress studies have played an increasingly important role in understanding the complexity of gender expression and symbolism. There has been considerable interest among dress scholars in the social and behavioral sciences examining and critiquing the cultural features of masculinity and femininity. New perspectives on gender have emerged from linguistics, cultural studies, and interdisciplinary fields since the late 1970s, many of them explicitly challenging the assumption that sex and gender are binary opposites.

Classic and Foundational Works

There are several valuable works available that offer a starting point for students beginning to explore this topic. Michael Carter, in Fashion Classics: From Carlyle to Barthes (2003), provides an overall introduction to fashion study through the seminal works from a range of disciplines, nearly all of which deal with gender distinctions. These range from Thorstein Veblen’s consideration of the role of women’s fashions in conspicuous consumption to Roland Barthes’s work on the semiotics of fashion. The early works, although based on models of gender as simple opposites, are still useful to the student of dress. They are important historically because they laid the foundation for later scholars, including those who challenged or rejected their models. A more significant reason for including them is that this view of gender is still widely accepted by the general public, and prevalent in the mass media and consumer culture.

The late 1980s and early 1990s marked the appearance of several works that significantly influenced the scholarship in both gender studies and dress studies. As sometimes happens, the first major works took the form of museum exhibitions, accompanied by catalogs or companion publications. “Jocks and Nerds” at the Museum of the Fashion Institute of Technology in New York (1989) represented a groundbreaking departure from fashion studies’ nearly exclusive focus on women’s dress. Between them, the exhibition and Richard Martin and Harold Koda’s book highlighted the weakness of prevailing constructions of masculinity by providing historical perspective and documenting the diversity of contemporary men’s fashions. That same year, the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, DC, launched a major exhibition—“Men and Women: A History of Costume, Gender, and Power” accompanied by two publications, both now unfortunately out of print but available in libraries. Besides a companion volume by curator Barbara Clark Smith and Kathy Peiss, the Smithsonian also published Men and Women: Dressing the Part, edited by Claudia Kidwell and Valerie Steele, a richly illustrated collection of essays covering such topics as sexy dressing for women, the Bloomer costume and dress reform, and gender distinctions in baby and toddler fashions.

Just as these exhibits and their companion publications revealed the transitory and diverse nature of gender norms in American and European fashion, Ruth Barnes, an art historian and Joanne Eicher, an anthropologist (1991), used ethnographic fieldwork to consider dress and gender through a comparative cultural lens. While this may seem to be an unusual starting point for someone wishing to study gender expression in a modern setting—Latino hip-hop fashion in Los Angeles, for example—Barnes and Eicher provide the antidote for any tendency to make sweeping generalizations about power, modesty, sensuality, or other characteristics that are often gender stereotyped. The individual chapters also demonstrate how gender intersects with other identities, including religion and class.

Sociologist Fred Davis (1992) offered an introduction to the larger subject of fashion with considerable emphasis on aspects of dress and gender, including chapters on gender identity and on sexuality. His argument that we use clothing to reconcile tensions between our inner and social selves connects powerfully with useful concepts in dress and gender studies such as performativity, intersectionality, and embodiment.

Performativity, as conceived by Judith Butler, refers not to the way that dress expresses our social role—which she would call simply “performance”—but to the process by which our interactions with societal norms produce our gender as we experience it. For example, a little girl paying dress-up may be playing the imaginary role of a princess, but that activity is also a way for her to look “feminine” and “pretty” and to experience internal and external reactions to her appearance. Those experiences help shape her gender identity and the way she interacts with other children and adults, even when she is not dressed as a princess. Performance, Fashion and the Modern Interior (Fisher et al. 2011) offers an excellent example of how this concept may be applied to clothing, interior design, and public behavior.

Intersectionality refers to the interaction of various cultural patterns of oppression, for example gender, race, class, ability, or sexual orientation. Emerging from feminist sociology, proponents of intersectionality challenged the framing of specific practices as oppressive to women as a group, arguing that women of different races or classes did not share the same experience. For example, affluent women might reject makeup and beauty culture as oppressive because it glorified youth or elevated a woman’s appearance over her intellect. But to blue-collar women, beauty culture represented an opportunity for self-expression and even a way to confound class structures by “passing” as a more affluent person. Monica Miller (2010) employs an intersectional lens in her historical study of black men’s use of elite fashions to perform both race and gender.

Cultural Studies scholar Elizabeth Wilson has been particularly influential for her focus on the postmodern nature of fashion and for her work on embodied cognition, or embodiment. This term, in psychology, refers to the role that the body plays in shaping the mind, but Wilson has argued for greater attention to the importance of dress to our perfection of bodies, whether others’ or our own. Her seminal work, Adorned in Dreams: Fashion and Modernity (2007), and her edited work (with Joanne Entwistle, 2001), constitute a thorough introduction to the concept of embodiment as applied to fashion in a variety of historical and cultural contexts.

How Is Research Conducted in Fashion, Dress, and Gender?

Some dress scholars focus on the wearer, through ethnography or psychology; others analyze what is worn, using techniques from material culture studies, art history, or media studies. Others study gendered dress through the eye of the creator or the beholder (journalist, critic, or advertiser). A few combine approaches, shifting their focus between the wearer and the clothing, from producer to consumer. Because each perspective has advantages and drawbacks, multiple approaches can be beneficial, if possible. Diana Crane (2000) combined social history with focus groups of women to examine the multiple meanings of clothing and how individuals use clothes to communicate class and identity. Art historian Anne Hollander is known for her acute visual analyses; in Sex and Suits (2002), she uses representations of a single garment—the suit—to “read” how masculine and feminine norms are expressed and even subverted.

What Are the Primary Areas of Research in Fashion, Dress, and Gender?

Dress study offers a powerful means for exposing the underlying patterns of gender distinctions. Research projects may be structured one of three ways: to focus on male or female dress alone, to compare them, or to consider instances where gender norms are transgressed or challenged.

Even when gender is not an explicit dimension of analysis, many works on the history of fashion may be read to reveal a gendered subtext. Fashion participation has been very much a matter of gender for nearly two centuries, since the masculine renunciation of luxury and display in the early Victorian period. Women are expected to be aware of fashion, and even today comprise the buyers of most clothing, not only for themselves but also for men. Through the Wardrobe: Women’s Relationships with Their Clothes (Guy et al. 2001), an edited collection of essays, offers an ideal entry point to the subject of women’s clothing and gender very broadly, and avoids simple binary constructions. There is an abundance of scholarship on the tension between modesty and eroticism in female dress. James Laver (1969) suggested that one reason for changing trends was to shift the emphasis to different areas of the body, or erogenous zones. Valerie Steele has brought a curator’s eye and journalist’s skill with the interview to her many works on the erotic dimensions of women’s fashions, beginning with Fashion and Eroticism (1985), and including detailed studies of shoes (1999), corsets (2001), and other garments and accessories. For a more sweeping study, Jill Fields (2007) provides an overview of twentieth-century lingerie, including marketing approaches and the influence of Hollywood in setting popular trends.

The history of various reform movements is of particular importance for students wishing to examine feminine dress. In Pantaloons and Power, Gayle V. Fischer (2001) provides a detailed and insightful historical and material culture analysis of nineteenth-century dress reform in the United States.

Scholarly interest in masculinity emerged in the 1970s, led by psychologists Joseph Pleck and Jack Sawyer, who organized a “Male Liberation Festival” in 1971. Their groundbreaking anthology Men and Masculinity (1974) inspired decades of academic interest in male sex roles, though the field has never enjoyed the visibility or influence of women’s studies. ⁠ Similarly, compared with women’s dress, the topic of men’s fashions has been studied much less. Wealthy European and American merchants and nobles prior to the nineteenth century were very engaged in fashion, using the latest clothing to express their affluence and power. The most distinctive feature of American and European masculine dress has been its conservatism, a characteristic that dates to the British dandies of the early nineteenth century. Between them, David Kuchta’s work on English men’s fashions from 1550–1850 (2002) and Brent Shannon’s on dress from 1860–1914 provide a foundation for any discussion of modern masculine dress. The Men’s Fashion Reader (Peter McNeil and Vicky Karaminas, eds) is an edited collection of works on topics raging from bow ties to zoot suits, each article offering an entry point for further study.

Not surprisingly, the study of masculine dress is driven by different questions from those that animate research on women’s fashions. Perhaps most notable is the influence of intersectionality; there are proportionately more works on men of color, gay men’s fashion, and male cross-dressing than on their female counterparts. Monica Miller’s work on black dandies has already been identified as an example of this work. Lloyd Boston’s Men of Color: Fashion, History, Fundamentals (1998), while not an academic work, picks up where Miller leaves off, emphasizing the years since World War II. Shaun Cole (2000) offers a historical overview of gay men’s fashion, from the subtle cues used by men whose sexual orientation made them vulnerable to persecution and arrest, to subcultural trends and today’s more open expressions. This complex work challenges many stereotypes about gender and sexuality, including opening up the construction of “masculinity” itself.

One approach to studying gender expression in dress is to examine mainstream trends among wearers who conform to prevailing norms. Another, significant alternative is to focus on the areas of transgression and resistance. The groundbreaking work of Shakespearean scholar Marjorie Garber (1992) on the history of cross-dressing remains an essential starting point. In it, she exposed the rich tradition of gender “transgression” as public performance and private fetish. Considering both male and female cross-dressing, she raises important questions about assumed connections between gender expression and orientation, and the difference in power between masculine and feminine dress. Charlotte Suthrell’s ethnographic treatment of cross-dressing (2003), which argues deliberately and persuasively against the binary model of gender, is a helpful companion to Garber’s work. Drawing on field research from a wide range of cultures, Suthrell also strikes a blow against the essentialism of gender roles, demonstrating the variety of norms present in cultures outside of Europe. Two 2013 volumes — Queer Style (Karaminas and Geczy) and A Queer History of Fashion (edited by Valerie Steele) — not only expanded the conversation to include lesbians, but also broke new ground by examining the fashion industry as a site of queer cultural production. Claudine Griggs’s personal and ethnographic examination of the experiences of male-to-female and female-to-male transsexuals is an especially thought-provoking treatment of the acquisition and performance of gendered appearance.

Emerging Research

Despite the abundance of literature on dress and gender, there are still exciting frontiers and unexplored territories for the new or seasoned researcher. There are under-studied populations and subcultures not only in Europe and America, but globally, including women of color, lesbians, and working-class men and women. One promising dimension is the exploration of gender identity and expression across the lifespan. With its habitual attention to the young, dress studies sometimes misses the opportunity to observe cultural change as individuals experience it over years and decades. Emerging works offer starting points at opposite ends of the lifespan: childhood and old age.

Although we begin to learn gender norms in childhood, children’s dress has only recently been the focus of study, rather than a subcategory of male or female dress. Susan B. Kaiser’s work combining social psychology and cultural studies has been very influential, and her 2002 essay (with Kathleen Huun) is an excellent introduction to a behavioral science perspective on the construction of gender in childhood. For a history of gender distinctions in American infant and toddler clothing, Jo Paoletti’s Pink and Blue: Telling the Boys from the Girls (2012) offers a detailed overview of the construction of differences in color and style.

The work on dress and aging has, so far, focused on women. Samantha Holland (2004) has examined how individual women reinterpret and resist dominant scripts for feminine expression as they age. Gerontologist Julia Twigg’s Fashion and Age sheds additional light on this important emerging topic from a clinician’s point of view.

Beyond These Sources

This only skims the surface of this vast and complicated topic. Additional selected works are listed after the references, and even more may be found in scholarly journals on dress studies (especially these four: Fashion Theory, Dress, Costume, and Fashion, Style and Popular Culture). Sources for emerging work in gender studies include Feminist Studies, Feminist Theory, Journal of Gender Studies, and Men and Masculinities.

References and Further Reading

Find in Library Arvanitidou Z., and M. Gasouka. ““Dress, Identity and Cultural Practices”.” International Journal of the Humanities 9, no. 1 (2011): 17–25.

Find in Library Barnes Ruth, and Joanne B. Eicher. Dress and Gender: Making and Meaning in Cultural Contexts. Oxford: Berg, 1991.

Find in Library Boston Lloyd. Men of Color: Fashion, History, Fundamentals. New York: Artisan, 1998.

Find in Library Bullough L. Science in the Bedroom: A History of Sex Research. New York: Basic Books, 1994.

Find in Library Butler Judith. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York: Routledge, 1999.

Find in Library Carter Michael. Fashion Classics: From Carlyle to Barthes. Oxford and New York: Berg, 2003.

Find in Library Cole Shaun. “Don We Now Our Gay Apparel”: Gay Men’s Dress in the Twentieth Century. Oxford and New York: Berg, 2000.

Find in Library Crane Diana. Fashion and Its Social Agendas: Class, Gender, and Identity in Clothing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.

Find in Library Davis Fred. Fashion, Culture, and Identity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992.

Find in Library Edwards Tim. Cultures of Masculinity. London and New York: Routledge, 2006.

Find in Library Eliot Lise. Pink Brain, Blue Brain: How Small Differences Grow into Troublesome Gaps—and What We Can Do About It. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2009.

Find in Library Entwistle Joanne, and Elizabeth Wilson, eds. Body Dressing (Dress, Body, Culture). Oxford and New York: Berg, 2001.

Find in Library Fausto-Sterling Anne. Sex/Gender: Biology in a Social World. (The Routledge Series Integrating Science and Culture.) New York: Routledge, 2012.

Find in Library Fausto-Sterling Anne. Sexing the Body: Gender Politics and the Construction of Sexuality. 1st edn. New York: Basic Books. 2000.

Find in Library Fields Jill. An Intimate Affair: Women, Lingerie, and Sexuality. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007.

Find in Library Fine Cordelia. Delusions of Gender: How Our Minds, Society, and Neurosexism Create Difference. 1st edn. New York: W. W. Norton, 2010.

Find in Library Fischer Gayle Pantaloons and Power: Nineteenth-Century Dress Reform in the United States. Kent, OH: Kent State University Press, 2001.

Find in Library Fisher Fiona, Trevor Keeble, and Patricia Lara-Betancourt. Performance, Fashion and the Modern Interior: From the Victorians to Today. Oxford: Berg, 2011.

Find in Library Garber Marjorie. Vested Interests: Cross-Dressing and Cultural Anxiety. New York: Routledge, 1992.

Find in Library Griggs Claudine. S/He: Changing Sex and Changing Clothes (Dress, Body, Culture). Oxford and New York: Berg, 1998.

Find in Library Groeneveld Elizabeth. ““ ‘Be a Feminist or Just Dress Like One’: BUST, Fashion and Feminism as Lifestyle”.” Journal of Gender Studies 18, no. 2 (2009): 179–190.

Find in Library Guy Ali, Maura Banim, and Eileen Green, eds. Through the Wardrobe: Women’s Relationships with Their Clothes (Dress, Body, Culture). Oxford and New York: Berg, 2001.

Find in Library Harper Catherine. Fabrics of Desire: Sex in Textiles and Fashion. Oxford: Berg, 2008.

Find in Library Holland Samantha. Alternative Femininities: Body, Age, and Identity (Dress, Body, Culture). New York: Berg, 2004.

Find in Library Hollander Anne. Sex and Suits. Brinkworth: Claridge Press, 2002.

Find in Library Huisman Kimberly. ““Dress Matters”.” Gender & Society 19, no. 1 (2005): 44–65.

Find in Library Jobling Paul. Man Appeal: Advertising, Modernism and Menswear. Oxford: Berg, 2005.

Find in Library Kaiser B., and Kathleen Huun. “Fashioning Innocence and Anxiety: Clothing, Gender, and Symbolic Childhood.” In Symbolic Childhood, edited by Daniel Thomas Cook. New York: Peter Lang, 2002.

Find in Library Karaminas Vicki, and Adam Geczy. Queer Style. London and New York: Bloomsbury, 2013.

Find in Library Kates Gary. ““Fashioning Gender: Introduction”.” Eighteenth-Century Studies 30, no. 1 (1996): 1.

Find in Library Kessler Suzanne, and Wendy McKenna. Gender: An Ethnomethodological Approach. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985.

Find in Library Kidwell Claudia Brush, and Valerie Steele, eds. Men and Women: Dressing the Part. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1989.

Find in Library Kuchta David. The Three-Piece Suit and Modern Masculinity: England, 1550–1850. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002.

Find in Library Laver James. Modesty in Dress: An Inquiry into the Fundamentals of Fashion. London: Heinemann, 1969.

Find in Library Martin Richard, and Harold Koda. Jocks and Nerds: Men’s Style in the Twentieth Century. New York: Rizzoli, 1989.

Find in Library McNeil Peter, and Vicki Karaminas, eds. The Men’s Fashion Reader. Oxford and New York: Berg, 2009.

Find in Library Miller L. Slaves to Fashion: Black Dandyism and the Styling of Black Diasporic Identity. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2010.

Find in Library Nixon Sean. Hard Looks: Masculinities, Spectatorship and Contemporary Consumption. London: UCL Press, 1996.

Find in Library Paoletti Barraclough. Pink and Blue: Telling the Boys from the Girls in America. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2012.

Find in Library Pleck H., and Jack Sawyer. Men and Masculinity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1974.

Find in Library Shannon Alan. The Cut of His Coat: Men, Dress, and Consumer Culture in Britain, 1860–1914. Athens: Ohio University Press, 2006.

Find in Library Smith Clark, Kathy Lee Peiss, and National Museum of American History. Men and Women: A History of Costume, Gender, and Power. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1989.

Find in Library Steele Valerie. Fashion and Eroticism: Ideals of Feminine Beauty from the Victorian Era to the Jazz Age. New York: Oxford University Press, 1985.

Find in Library Steele Valerie. Shoes: A Lexicon of Style. New York: Rizzoli, 1999.

Find in Library Steele Valerie. The Corset: A Cultural History. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001.

Find in Library Steele Valerie, ed. A Queer History of Fashion: From the Closet to the Catwalk. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013.

Find in Library Stewart Mary Lynn. ““The Politics and Spectacle of Fashion and Femininity”.” Journal of Women’s History 17, no. 1 (2005): 192–200.

Find in Library Suthrell Charlotte. Unzipping Gender: Sex, Cross-Dressing and Culture. Oxford: Berg, 2003.

Find in Library Twigg Julia. Fashion and Age: Dress, the Body and Later Life. London: Bloomsbury, 2013.

Find in Library Wilson Elizabeth. Adorned in Dreams: Fashion and Modernity. London: I. B. Tauris, 2007.

See Also:

Find in Library Carter Michael. Fashion Classics: From Carlyle to Barthes. Oxford and New York: Berg, 2003.

Find in Library Cole Shaun. “Don We Now Our Gay Apparel”: Gay Men’s Dress in the Twentieth Century. Oxford and New York: Berg, 2000.

Find in Library Entwistle Joanne, and Elizabeth Wilson, eds. Body Dressing (Dress, Body, Culture). Oxford and New York: Berg, 2001.

Find in Library Griggs Claudine. S/He: Changing Sex and Changing Clothes (Dress, Body, Culture). Oxford and New York: Berg, 1998.

Find in Library Guy Ali, Maura Banim, and Eileen Green, eds. Through the Wardrobe: Women’s Relationships with Their Clothes (Dress, Body, Culture). Oxford and New York: Berg, 2001.

Find in Library Holland Samantha. Alternative Femininities: Body, Age, and Identity (Dress, Body, Culture). New York: Berg, 2004.

Find in Library Suthrell Charlotte. Unzipping Gender: Sex, Cross-Dressing and Culture. Oxford: Berg, 2003.