Gayle Salamon Essay

389 Words2 Pages
In her article, "Boys of the Lex", Gayle Salamon argues that "how we embody gender is how we theorize gender, and to suggest otherwise is to misunderstand both theorization and embodiment" (576) Salamon strengthens her argument through her analysis of a calendar which focuses on gay "boys" gender performance. Through this analysis, Salamon argues that the boys of the Lex demonstrate that gender is theorized in how gender is lived and embodied. Yet when a distinction is placed between the theorizing and the performance of gender expression, Salamon questions the purpose of this distinction. Salamon supports her argument by challenging Leslie Feinburg's assumption that gender can simply be explained through the social construction of language. In order to understand Salamon's argument however it is first necessary to provide a clear analysis of Feinburg's theory. Feinburg argues that transgendered people have been historically subjected as invisible by a society that rejects gender difference. Through this observation, Feinburg suggests that theory has a key part in helping with the circulation of social change because it can steer action. With this in mind, Feinburg claims that the relation between history and theory are simple through the idea that gender can be explained through the social construction of languages. To illustrate this idea, Feinburg (2010) states, 'History is the record of past experience. Theory is the generalization of that experience. Its that simple"(579). Salamon on the other hand argues that Feinburg's view is too simple in the sense that sie views social construction as simple and lived gender as complex. Salamon suggests that Feinberg's view of social construction is an adjective that wants to modify both social and construction. As a result, Salamon (2010) states, "The social realm that produces gender oversimplifies it by legislating

More about Gayle Salamon Essay

Open Document