~

1. Beside Oneself: On the Limits

of Sexual Autonomy

hat makes for a livable world is no idle question. It is not

W
. .. merely a question for philosophers. It is posed in various
idioms all the time by people in various walks of life. If that makes
. I...o...s.i E..•.~.r~_t!'~I!c-.m!!Il~~~onciusion I am happy to embrace.
r.IJ. em. all P h
Jt.pecomes /questlon for et~/think, not only when we ask the
personal ques' ,-wn:atiilakes my own life bearable, but when we
ask, from a position of power, and from the point of view of distrib-
utive justice, what makes, or ought to make, the lives of others bear-
able? Somewhere in the answer we find ourselves not only committed
---~
to,~£~3~-9!_~~is, and. what ~yhoulGk~~~~J2~~-
what constitutes the hl!man.1-_thearsfinctively human life, and what..-
~"~~'--~---~"--'~~~~"---".-'- '-"~'" ~~"'=~>~'~-----"'~'~~"----"-"""~--"'~'~-'~'''.~

qg.~$_.~Q!:. There is always a risk of. anthropocentrism here if one

assumes that the distinctively human life is valuable-or most valu-
able-or is the only way to think the problem of value. But perhaps
to counter that tendency it is ~~~~quest~fe ..
and of the human, and not to let them fully collapse into
.. __'_ "' "~""'~>"~""'~''-:'-_.l '''--'''''--'~''''----''-''--" ~W__ -'-~~'_'"'''~"~0=_~,~
one another. //-~... . . I .

I would like to start, and to end, with th~~estion of t~~!'l.l!~r.-(~~-/

of who counts as the human, and the related'cirrestinn-otwhose lives
count as lives, and with a question that has preoccupied many of us for
I
 '[Cil1V.~' f <)

years: what makes for a grievable life? I believe that whatev er differen
ces when we lose them, we lose our compo sure in some fundam ental
exist within the interna tional gay and lesbian commu nity, and sense:
there we do not know who we are or what to do. Ma1!Y.~eopJ~!tink
that
are many, we all have some notion of what it is to have lost somebo
dy. gric;ii~.J2!iy~-tha6~B-il.--sclit;lti
silt1a-ti;;~, ootJ think
And if we've lost, then it seems to follow that we have hac, that
we It expo~~ the onStltutlve SOCIalIty ~ the sdf, a bjlSJs-f-Q[ thmkm
have desired and loved, and struggl ed to find the conditi ons for g a
our politic al commu ni -.? com12L~:K-G-J:.ckr.
desire. We have all lost someo ne in recent decade s from AIDS,
but It is not just that I might be said to "have" these relatio ns, or
there are other losses that inflict us, other diseases; moreov er, we that
are, I might sit back and view them at a distanc e, enume rating
as a commu nity, subject ed to violence, even if some of us individ them,
ually explain ing what this friends hip means, what that lover meant or
have not been. And this means that we are constit uted politic means
ally in to me. On the contrar y, grief display s the way in which we are
part by virtue of the social vulnerability of our bodies; we are constit in the
uted thrall of our relatio ns with others that we cannot always recoun
as fields of desire and physic al vulnera bility, at once publicl y assertiv t or
e explain , that often interru pts the self-co nscious accoun t of ourselv
and vulnera ble. es
we might try to provid e in ways that challen ge the very notion
I am not sure I know when mourn ing is successful, or when of our-
one selves as autono mous and in contro l. I might try to tell a story
has fully mourn ed anothe r human being. I'm certain , though , about
that it what I am feeling, but it would have to be a story in which the
does not mean that one has forgott en the person , or that someth very
ing "I" who seeks to tell the story is stoppe d in the midst of the telling.
else comes along to take his or her place. I don't think it works
that The very "I" is called into questio n by its relatio n to the one to
way. I think instead that one mourn s when one accepts the fact whom
that I addres s myself. This relatio n to the Other does not precisely ruin
the loss one underg oes will be one that change s you, change s you my
pos- story or reduce me to speechlessness, but it does, invaria bly, clutter
sibly forever, and that mourn ing has to do with agreein g to underg my
o speech with signs of its undoin g.
a transfo rmatio n the full result of which you cannot know in advanc
e. Let's face it. We're undone by each other. And if we're not, we're
So there is losing, and there is the transfo rmativ e effect of loss,
and missing someth ing. 1£ this seems so clearly the case with grief, it
this latter cannot be charte d or planne d. I don't think, for instanc is only
e, becaus e it was already the case with desire. One does not always
you can invoke a Protes tant ethic when it comes to loss. You stay
can't intact. It may be that one wants to, or does, but it may also
say, "Oh, I'll go throug h loss this way, and that will be the be that ( '1 1
result, despite one's best efforts , one is undone , in the face of the other,
and I'll apply myself to the task, and I'll endeav or to achieve the by / . ';;1) Ii
res- the touch, by the scent, by the feel, by the prospe ct of the touch,
olution of grief that is before me." I think one is hit by waves, by JI{,tfl' J V
and the memor y of the feel. And so whe~Jlt my sexual l
that one starts out the day with an aim, a project , a plan, and ity_~
one or ~nde r, as we do (and-a-s-- vve mnst) we II1eafl-rome
finds oneself foiled. One finds oneself fallen. One is exhaus ted but th~
does plic~ by it. Neithe r 'of these is precisely a posse~sio~, butb()
not know why. S~~~~ t~ are
~ to be unders tood as modes of bemg dispossessed," "ways~r b~i~g
project , laf~ than one's own kIlowin g. Someth ing takes hold,1?
....,,-. -~- . ~ -~""~~~"''''~.,u~ ~ llt is /
.<"'"=,_---;, . ._" _ _~ _ _
..
~~-~ ,~~'~-~'~~'-~-.,--
,_._
anoth~LQr, indeecL-py virt~~f a.!lQlb~I':)t does not suffice to ...---
70r
say fEat
.. ..•-----,~ .,.~,•.......• _~-~~.... _ ,.-~

thi§~~S~i~!rOUL!h~~!C!~~IE:-~~~~,~::!~i~2"g~~~2~~~~e
.~~--""w.". " ~,~.,.-,,,", (,._ __-..,.,"__ ~_,._____" .~,~,=~,_,.~,~~,-_,-~._"...
..
~~ ,._~ .... . ~.'m'.~._._". __.._,.",,,,","_".... .__ ~ .. ~ __,, ~. __.. ~.~-~_.~, .._•..,__" .,.__ ~

I am pro~otil}~~,Xd~!!gl}~LYie\YQith~ self . ?ver a~~~tonomoll

re~ign whe~~~,~~:nc,s_l?~~:-~J~~gis~~g~~J:11~,~~~e? ~(~l1e,
What ~~!~~,escribe autOJll)~'~€'r~-=o{~~~I~tlorr~lity'='1=heter~
is it t~aims us at suCh mome ntsJuc h..:tha-t..w-e-ar..e..nnuhe master
L~,,,---"'---"----",-,·~'~--'-~·"'""~'~~~~"-=~-~
_·~~'--~~".~~-'
......
s. ----~- - _~.,'-"-,
re.1ati0!1~J. "'-/-fures the rupture in the relatio n we seek to describe, a
of ours:~\T~~~what are we tied? An_ciJ2y--yv~e. ~sized?
rup 'lire that is constit utive of identity itself. Thi~e
It may seem that one is underg oing someth ing tempor ary, but it could wUL__. .
have to approa ch th~~ ~~E. tual izin g_diS POS
be that in this experie nce someth ing about who we are is reveale S~~
. '
d, circumspection. One way of doing this is throug h the notion
something that delineates the ties we have to others, that..sho ecstasy. .!
~.t We tend to narrate the history of the broade r movem e
t~s cons~!:~~~~re~ and -
t~~ ual freedo m in such a way that ecstasy figures in the 60S and 7 0S
and
 20 Undoing Gender
persists midway through the 80S. But maybe ecstasy is more histori-
cally persistent than that, maybe it is with us all along. To be ec-static
means, literall·y, to be outside oneself, and this can have several mean-
ings: to be trans orted be oneself assion, but also 0 be beside
oneself with rage or grief. I think that if I can still speak to a "we,"
an~h.Id~~iT;~S:T~~o~seorus""~~ho-~
areTi vil}g....~i-n:~"~rs~elv.f!~,-;hecll~Lit.is_."i!!2~_~~l12~~
sion, or emotional grief, or poIi ticaLIag~-I-tr<:r"S~-frse-;-tlre-'p-r-@GiGarnent
--
is to understand-.-Wbat kind of community is composed of those who
~ - _..
are beside themselves. --:-.._-_.~-"" - that we cease to ~craims. We have to, we must. And I'm
We have an interesti pc;Ii'~1 predicament, since most of the time
when we hear abo "righ~{~/ we unckr.~tand them~pertill1!~1.0-
ingiv~~~Q£3h~;guefO[J2rotection~insLms.criminatioR,~.-_,
we argue as a group or a class. Al1d in that language and in that con-
text, we h~~~~~e~ni:=e;~i~·;··;s=bQ~~d_~~!~~~~~i~!L~c~LE':~~.~.= .._"...
nizable, delineated, subjects before the law, aco~mllnity definep by
~a~~~s~~i~d~ed:~weh~d-better be-a5re-to~'"t~h;tT~;guag~'~~~secure
legal protections and entitlements. But perhaps we make a mistake if
we take the definitions of who we are, legally, to be adequate descrip-
tions of what we are about. Although this language might well establish
our legitimacy within a legal framework ensconced in liberal versions
of human ontology, it fails to do justice to passion and grief and rage,
all of which tear us from ourselves, bind us to others, transport us,
us, and implicate us in lives that are not are own, sometimes
1 fatally, irreversibly.
/ It is not easy to understand how a political community is wrought
l from such ties. One spe:~~~",,~<~speaks for another, to another,
~nd yet there is no w~aY'6collapse tl\e distinction between the other
~rd myself. When w say "w~{do nothing more than designate
tfis as very problem ~do not solve it. And perhaps it is, and
(l)ught to be, insoluble. We ask that the state, for instance, keep its laws
~ff our bodies, and we call for principles of bodily self-defense and
bodily integrity to be accepted as political goods. Yet, it is through the
?~~.~~~~!~:Y_~~.e.:~os~_~.to
_~~~~~~:...~~E~~~~~.~._ ..
III ~~rocesses Illscnbed cultural norms;-afia apprehe~.de.~"~n
their;\.....social
"
meanings.
------_
.• .•
In
.•.•. ..,.,-.,----
a sense,
.
to be a b
.,.", -- "'Tsto~ given over to
~_.-
others even as a bQ..C;!Y~mpfiatically,.' .ne's o~n, "_..th'a.-!.~!er which
we ~mu$tCll~t:i..uL3JllJmQllJ}'~_IE1S"lS~true ~ th~ cla [fnS-~-;de-"'
'-...~.~.~...- .. ~.~.. ,.. . -
-··~·-,··¥'-"'-"~_·~"'~'-~,.-, ..~-~"""'___."._~_m.~-_"""'.,_._ "_~,,".~_~~
Beside Oneself: On the Limits of Sexual Autonomy 21
by lesbians, gays, and bisexuals in favor of sexual freedom as it is for
transsexual and transgender claims to self-determination; as it is for
intersex claims to be free of coerced medical, surgical, and psychiatric
interventions; as it is for all claims to be free from racist attacks, phys-
ical and verbal; and as it is for feminism's claim to reproductive freedom.
It is difficult, if not impossibl~..:!~,~makethese ~wtBh.Q,~t
to autonomy and, ,~peciftca1Iy, a se.n\e of~~q..pry.
autonomy, ho~~f, is a liv~~~~. I am not suggesting, though,
not saying that we have to make these claims reluctantly or strategi-
cally. They are part of the normative aspiration of any movement that
seeks to maximize the protection and the freedoms of sexual and
gender minorities, of women, defined with the broadest possible com-
pass, of racial and ethnic minorities, especially as they cut across all
the other categories. But is there another normative aspiration that
we must also seek to articulate and to defend? Is there a way in which
the place of the body in all of these struggles opens up a different
conception of politics?
fles~::::s~Yu~~ol~&:~::a~i~t ne;~~1j~~t~~dS~:v~:I~nt;ee
The body can be the agency and instrument of all these as well, or the
site where "doing" and "being done to" become equivocal. Although
we struggle fo..r rights o:'~~~_~~
westruggle are not quite evep"only our ow~>,The body has its invaria5Ty~"-'
~-- ..-. ~,"~,~.~_.~~. ~~'''-
. .._~,-. _.. ..."."--,~ •."._,,,--,~ ,-,
puDTiCClirn:~sio~;.s~Qn~jin!!~~L as·-~__~~~,ia.lJ2h~nomenon ~ln the pub 1ic
SPh;;~~-;ny ~dy'is and is not mine. Given over from the start to the
world of others, bearing their imprint, formed within the crucible of
social life, the body is only later, and with some uncertainty, that to
which I lay claim as my own. Indeed, if I see~S2A~~~:_,f?-ct _~:__
my body relates me-against my will ancLtro.!!L!.he ~tan==..~others I
.,,~.~~.~"-~,-,-,~"'_.,,~~._~~_.~-_ .. "'~~~~~'_.,---------. ,- -~---_._.".. "~"~ .. " ~~
do nof~clioose to ~ave in E!S»(imity tomyse~f (the subway or the tube '"
are excelrem"'~~-m~i~fofthi~"d1n~~'~~~'";f'"~~~iality),and if I build a
notion of ~~/on the basis,~~~~~.deni~~_~f_t~is spher~_or a _~/
primarYCl~1l~"\\Tillt:ciJ1hY~i~al Qf9~imity~ith others," thenctoT precisely
~
\
deny the socia:! and political conditions of ;~:;0~b-;d'iment in the name i
of a utonomy? If I am s~gg1ill.E_LC?!_1l.!ltQnOIll¥~_Ll1m,E~t:sLI9~~~~_.-J
strugglingJ'?-E.~~.~~lliIiigdg;_~l~~~ll~~coE~<:P~.~gI}Q,LI]y-s~LCl§j!:l~Cl
..ri - I
__,"
ablY~lncommunity, impressed upon by others, impressing them as well, \
 22 Undoing Gender
and in ways that are not always clearly delineable, in forms that are
not fully pre~ictable?
Is there a way that we might struggle for autonomy in many spheres
but also consider the demands that are imposed upon us by living in
a world of beings who are, by definition, physically dependent on one
another, physically vulnerable to one another. Is~_!-4.lli~~~_~Y'\~§!y.~~
of imagining community in such a way that it becomes i:~lcuillR!ent
'l;i to ~~~sfde~--~~;;-yc;~~iully~E~;-~~d wh~~~e engage violen~
;~lel1c~~f~n-exi?lQrtatl<i"n:_~0f=th8.iprimarY~i~;th~!p~~!ila£y
way in ~4ichweare;--a&-bBclies,~Q_l!tS.!Q~_9_l!~~~~~~~,f or one another.
If we might t~ return to the :t2K.2.!?lem of grief, to the.-mom~JE
which one undergoes something outside of one's control and ~.~cl_~l~.~t
oIl~~nat at one w~~~~_~~~L~~~ins
within it the possibility of apprehending the fundamental so.ciality--O-f___
embo~e~ili~we are from the start, and by virtue
of being a bodily be~alreaCIy-giVen over, beyond ourselve~;li-
._--_.~
cated in lives that are not our own. Can this situation, one that is so
dramatic for sexual minorities, one that establishes a very specific polit-
ical perspective for anyone who works in the field of sexual and gender
politics, supply a perspective with which to begin to apprehend the
contemporary global situation?
Mourning, fear, anxiety, rage. In the United States after September I I,
2001, we have been everywhere surrounded with violence, of having
perpetrated it, having suffered it, living in fear of it, planning more of
it. VL~is sur~ a touch of the w~~st order, a way in which the
____. '"-----~--~-"--.M-. ~_"*~ •..*~~_,
human vulnerability to other humans is exposedffirts-most terrifyi.ng
way, a way in which we are given over, without control, to the will of
another, the way in which life itself can be expunged by the willful
action of another. To the extent that W€-ettl'fifIliLYicl.@fl€€-,-W..e-are acting
- ' - - - - .-'---"",-1
upo~_a~~~k,ca~~!~~J::s.In a
waYL~~alll~ wi~this 12..articular vulnerability, a vulnerability to the
other that ~ J i f e , but this vulnerability becomes highly
exacerbated under certain so~and political conditions. Although the
dominant mode in the United States has been to shore up sovereignty
and security to minimize or, indeed, foreclose this vulnerability, it can
serve another function and another ideal. The fact that our lives are
dependent on others can become the basis of claims for nonmilitaristic
political solutions, one which we cannot \-vill away, one which we must
Beside Oneself: On the Limits of Sexual Autonomy ')
-)
~
attend to, even abide by, as we begin to think about what politics might
be ilnplied by staying with the thought of corporeal vulnerability itself.
Is there som 0 b , a r r in with.
~ie~rem~in~pare~era~li~~deavoringl
to seeKa resolutIOn for grief through violence? Is there something to \
be gained in the political domain by maintaining grief as part of the~
framework by which we think our international ties? If we stay with
the sense of loss, are we left feeling only passive and powerless, as
!
some fear? Or are we, rather, ret~s_e.--e.f.-.h-u..r:r.l.a~~:\
bi~~~~E9E~~.!2Q~.tx!?_r the phY~i.~~!JLy~"~one\
anorher? The attempt to foreclose that vulnerability, to banish it, to I
~ i
make ourselves secure at the expense every other human consideration, ( /
__ is surely also to eradicate one of the most important resources from l l\t
which we must take our bearings and find our way. -r
To grieve to make rief itself i resource for olitics, is
not to be resi to a simple p~y or powerlessness. It is, rather,
to allow oneself to extrapolate rom t IS expenence of vulnerability to
the vulnerability that others suffer through military incursions, occu--
pations, suddenly declared wars, and police brutality. That our ver)
survival can be determined by those we do not know over
t~no Mat c5iitiOfiJleans that life-~ecaiious,-'anatEat~"p"oGtic'
mu~nsiderwh~formsorso~i;"ra"~"~rp~olitlc;ro~ganiza tion seek bes t
to sustain precarious lives across the globe.
There is a more general conception of the human at work here, onl
in which we are, from the start, given over to the other, one in whicl.
we are, from the start, even prior to individuation itself, and by virtUte
of our embodiment, given over to an other: this makes us vulnera ble
to violence, but also to another range of touch, a range that include
the eradication of our being ~t rJ...", one end, and the physical suppOr'>
for our lives, at the od!- r.
'~e cannot endeavo~ to "rectify" this situation. And we cannOl
recover the source of this vulnerability, for it precedes the formatiol
of ' 1." This condition of being laid bare from the start, dependent 01
those we do not know is, one with which we cannot precisely argue_
We come into the world unknowing and dependent, and, to a certain
\---~-- .------
d~~~re~ftU!1at ~~~We c~n~2 fror::_~the_point~.!-view
---------,
0:
auton~.t,!1~~~arg~~~t~i.~sit~!~!l~~~~J?§map0j~
not dangerous, when we do. Of course, we can sav that for som-e this
 24 Undoing Gender Beside Oneself: On Sexual Autonomy 25

primary scene is extraordinary, loving, and receptive, a warm tissue of come in? On the lev~~;scourse, tain live~_~~.~~_
relations that ~upport and nurture life in its infancy. For others, this liv~ a' e~ominantframe tor
is, however, a scene of abandonment or violence or starvation; they the human, and t eir deh anization occurs first, at this level. This
are bodies given over to nothing, or to brutality, or to no sustenance. level then gives rise to a physical violence that in some sense delivers
No matter what the valence of that scene is, however, the fact remains the message of dehumanization which is already at work in the
that infanc~~es~~fte€essar~.i~£~ndency, o ne that we never fully culture. /
le~v:e b~~d.L.. Bodies still must be appreE:enaed"as"=grvenover.P~-;tof So ~~.dis~~~.!-n which there is no frame {
understanding the oppression of lives is precisely to understand that and no story an9 no name G such a life, or that ~ ~ \
there is no way to argue away this condition of a primary vulnerability, to~l~~Violence against those who are a!readx J
of being given over to the touch of the other, even if, or precisely when, ~~i~;ateof su~~life.and \
not quite
there is no other there, and no support for our lives. _c_=____--......___--
To counter death, ,1~~~::L~~~~-there
~~~~a di_sc0::E~~2iLi~
oppression re uires that one understand that lives are ~~orted_an~ and melancholi~~K~rehave been nQ.liY-eS.,.zn.cluol9sses.L~~\
ma~ntained differential that t erem radica11L4ffere~ w<ry~.~0 there ~~~.b.eeH'-iT~ic~_~~ditign.1. no~~~ln~~ity~_t~at )
wh~~h!!!!!.~~.J?l~Y~~iJin:_.i~.~~~~~~~~~b~_g.l()_?e. serves as the basis for an apprehension of our commonality, and there /
Certain lives will be highly protected, and the abrogation of their has been no sundering of that commonality. None of this takes place /
claims to sanctity will be sufficient to mobilize the forces of war. And on the order of the event. None of this takes place. How many lives /
other lives will not find such fast and furious support and will not even have been lost from AIDS in Africa in the last few years? Where are
qualify as "grievable." the media representations of this loss, the discursive elaborations of
What are the cultural contours of the notion of the human at work what these losses mean for communities there?
here? And how do the contours that we accept as the cultural frame I began this chapter with a suggestion that perhaps the interrelated
for the human limit the extent to which we can avow loss as loss? movements a~9l1}odesofinquiry·--t.hatcollect here might need to con-

)
Thi§J:~~lY a question that lesbia~, and l:i:.studies has asked in sider autQHO"iny as one dimen~io~oftheir nOI~l1}ative aspirations, one
relatio~_to viole~ against~:"ual ~_~d
~_ _= . __ ~ •. __. . .- _-_........ '-........ . . _ . "••••....• ~..•.... ·······~····_. . . .o • • •

. minOlities, and that value to realize.whenweo·asK-·ourselves, in what direction ought we to

people have asked -as they have been singled out for harassment and
I sometimes murder, and that intersexed people have asked, whose form-
r ative years have so often been marked by an unwanted viqlence against
\ their bodies in the name of a normative notion of human morphology.
This is no doubt as well the basis of a profound affinity between move-
ments centered on gender and sexuality with efforts to counter the nor-
mative human morphologies and capacities that condemn or efface
those who are physically challenged. It must, as well, also be part of
the affinity with antiracist struggles, given the racial differential that
undergirds the culturally viable notions of the human-ones that we
see acted out in dramatic and terrifying ways in the global arena at
proceed, and what kinds of values ought we to be realizing? I suggested
as well that the way in which the body figures in gender and sexuality
studies, and in the struggles for a less oppressive social world for the
otherwise gendered and for sexual minorities of all kinds, is precisely
to underscore the value of being beside oneself, of being a porous
boundary, given over to others, finding oneself in a trajectory of desire
in which one is taken out of oneself, and resituated irreversibly in a
field of others in which one is not the presumptive center. The partic-
ular sociality that belongs to bodily life, to sexual life, and to becom-
ing gendered (which is always, to a certain extent, becoming gendered
for others) establishes a field of ethical enmeshmencwith others and a
"''1"''''-'''''-~'---"~'''~-~_ -=-~-,~=-.~,~."~. ---"--~~ .---.

the present time. sense of disorientation for th.ehrst-person, that is, the perspectIveooar--
the ego. A~.~ngJlli)~.ggth~~ ..
than,()urselves. To articulate this '!o~Lan e!1ti~lel1}~ntis not~lways easy,
but pe~~p;notimpossible:--it~~~~~:-f;;~i~~~an~:~~~' ~.~~. . ~
~_---~~_'~'~' '_~_'._"_" __ "'~'_'_'~~k'~,.,_,~ . ,~"'-~'''''~ __- - - .~-------.....:~------"-
..... ,--_-~---~.~,---
 26 Undoing Gender Beside Oneself: On the Limits of Sexual Autonomy 27

is not a luxury, but one of the very conditions and prerogatives of free- and losses less than "true" loves and "true" losses. The derealization of
dom. Indec:d, the kinds of associations we maintain importantly take this domain of human intimacy and sociality works by denying
many forms. It will not do to extol the marriage norm as the new ideal and truth to the relations at issue.
for this movement, as the Human Rights Campaign has erroneously The ~ ~ ~ H ~ ~eaC;~d~~ is
done. No doubt, ro.ax:~-sexJlom~~erships
I
should endya q eStior1611Gio=w:t-e4~>But it is also, as Mi,~~":rnall)es
cert.ainly be available as Ql2Ii9Jl~,j;?,JJ.LtQJ!121~:LI~i1b~I~(i_L~_J!lodeLfor
.,-~"-_._." ' . . . " . ---_.- , .. - _._--- .. -. ,", - "'. '.~._~
plaiiJ., question of~\Yer)Having or bearing' truth.'" and~~ is
sexual legitimacy is precisely t?~Qllstr~it:l:~1~~QQ(il!tyQLth~~ ?()dy in an enor powertufprerogative within the social world, one way
acceptable·~~~rn~Iigh~~T;erl;usly&~aging judicial decision~~galnst that power dissimulates as ontology. Accordmg/to Foucault, one of the
secondP;~adoptions in recent years, it is crucial to expand our first tasks of a radical critique is to discern ~elation .:b~tween mech-
anisms of coercion and elements of knowledge." Here~onted
2
notions of kinship beyond the heterosexual frame. It would be a mistake,
,- ~ . - --~~~

however, to reduce ki~~~!~~_~a.!-J1,lL_~Jl~~ning
community and friendship ties are extrapolations of kin relations.
I make the ~ n "Is Kins~S-Alr~()sexua.I" "--
in this volume that kinship ties that bind persons to one apother may
well be no more or less than the intensification of community ties, may
or may not be based on enduring or exclusive sexual relations, may well
~ the limits of whatls knowable, limits that exercise a certain force,
but are not grounded in any necessity, limits that can only be tread or
"",,--_.~-.;,.
interrogated by risking a certain security through departing from an
established ontology: "[N]othing can exist as an element of knowledge !
I
if, on the one hand, it .. ':CIO~ro-aset of ruTeS8Jl(rcon- (
st~in_~~· ---~cteris. hc,-Ior example,~Ofa~glve.n rypeoCsoennfic ···di~··;;;Se\\
_.~~_.~~~.~-~--'.~~.~-.----~-_.~--~._-------='"

c~~nlovers, friends:...~?E:1.!E:.~I!ity me.:nb~r.~. The in a g~~i2_~anc!Jf, on~?~2...i!_9oe.s.nQLp~~_ess the .effects )

relations of kinship ~_!b~J~.s>undaries between community and of cO~!fiQll.QL_.~~!I,!h~jncentiY~~~whgIj~jfie1i~: !
family and sometimes redefine the meaning~Tfriendiliip~s~fI.When
--~".,~.~.----~_.-._"---'''--'--~ ,. __ ~_,_-"_,_,~~~~_,"~_."~,~.m-.,_=",-_",,,~=,, ,,,,,,"~_
idate~__QJ:.. si@pIL~£i~~§lL~~p1Y generally accepted, etc." 3 /~~~
these modes of intimate association produce sustaining webs of reJla- and pQYLer are Qot £ i ~to~~ther to/~ab~\
tionships, they constitute a "breakdown" of traditional kinship that of sUb!!~_.~J~.d~2~E_5~~~eriafor t~inking t~~~~fefor~ot \
displaces the presumption that biological and sexual relations structure a matter of descr' ing what knowledge is ~hat power is and how i
f

kinship centrally. In addition, the incest taboo that governs kinship ties, one would repress he other or how ;fle()ther would abuse the one, but I
producing a necessary exogamy, does not necessarily operate among rather, a nexus of kno - ower has to described so that we can J I
friends in the same way or, for that matter, in networks of communities. grasp ~~_c:!,~~~!!~!itutes.lhe ~~bil~ty of a _,system .... "4 //

Within these frames, sexuality is no longer exclusively regulated by the What this means is that one looks bo~· the conditions by
rules of kinship at the same time that the durable tie can be situated
-----._.~-
which the obje~t~_fiel~lis const~ed, and for the limits of those con-
-
outside of the conjugal frame. Sexuality becomes open to a number of ditiQE.£Tbeli~its are to be fou~here the reproducibiutyof the
social articulations that do not aI;;.ys
~.-~--~~~-_.~_._--"._"'-_.,
imply binding relatio~~;
. _~--_._.~-_.~---_._._--~-_."'-~-'-'~=-'-'~~"--""-"''''-~'''''''-~--''-~'''-'-~~-"---''
conditions is not secure, the site where conditions are contingent, !
ju~hat not all of our relations last or are meant to, however, transformable. In Foucault's ter~~allyspeakillg:-we h~~1
does not mean that we are immune to grief. On the c?~~.2~~
"--'-----
perpetual mobility, essential fragility or rather the complex interplay
ity o~ the field of m~noga~..elLm.a-y"ope~s to a~fferent sense between \-.rhat replicates the same process and what transforms it." 5
of community, inte~~~~:mof where one finds enduring To inte ' name 0 ormation means precisely to
ties, and so become the condition for an attunement tolOsses that rupt what has become settled knowledge a ~ ~ ~
exceed a discretely private realm. to u~, as it were, one's unreility to m~n~therwise
Nevertheless, those who live outside the conjugal frame or maintain or illegible claim. I ~ r e a llays claim to reality,
or enters into its domain, something other t ~assimi"iart6Ti"':>
modes of social organization for sexuality that are neither monogamous
nor quasi-marital are more and more considered unreal, and their loves
----- --------~-,_._~~---
into prevailing norms can and does take place. The normsThernselves
 28 Undoing Gender
can become rattled, display their instability, and become open to
resignifica.ti 0 n.
I~~years, t~Rder-pt>:l-iti€S-has-offeJ;e-4-B.-l::1~l:1:_~~£h~l­
leng~s from transgendered and tra~al peopl~~~!~~,,~~!~~!~shedfemi-
nist and lesbian/ga f meworks, and the intersex movement has
rendered more complex the concerns and demands 0 sexlial rights
advocates. If some on the Left thought that these concerns were not
properly or substantively political, they have been under pressure to
rethink the political sphere in terms of its gendered and sexual pre-
suppositions. The suggestion that butch, femme, and transgendered
lives are not essential referents for a refashioning of political life, and
for a more just and equitable society, fails to acknowledge the violence
that the otherwise gendered suffer in the public world and fails as well
to recognize that embodiment denotes a contested set of .norms gov-
ernin who will . ~~ sub'ect within the sphere of politics.
Indeed, if we consider t at human bodies are not experienced without
reCourse to some ideality, some frame for experience itself, and that
is is as true for the experience of one's own body as it is for expe-
riencing another, and if we accept that that ideality and frame are socially
articulated, we can see how it is that embodiment is not thinkable with-
out a relation to a norm, or a set of norms. '[!.1e struggle to rework~
th~ norms b . bo' re eX~~~~~~~_~~!E:t:~~<::~~~£ial no!.~.~!yJ:O
dis~i!~!~yt!Q.l~}nterse~_l:~~nt~
they contest forcibly imposed ideals of what bodies ought to be like.
~~'-- ----~--"--_.,_.~
The embodiea relation to tne norm exercises a transformative poten-
tial. TO.J1.Q§it possibilities bey:on.d. the n o r ~ ~ ~ e
for the norm itself, is part of the work of fantasy when we understand
fantasy as taking the body as a point of departure for an articulation
that is not always constrained by the body as it is. If we accept that
altering these norms that decide normative human morphology give
differential "reality" to different kinds of humans as a result, then we
are compelled to affirm that transgendered lives have a potential and
actual impact on political life at its most fundamental level, that is,
who counts as a human, and what norms govern the appearance of
"real" humanness.
M~~~~~a!ti~~~Eio~.~5~.~.~!.h~.J2ossible;it
mo~ beyond what ~merely actua~ prese~into~..~~.~!~~~
possi~ility, the n~~~he no~._~.~tualizable.!~_~.~!Euggle
~'-'<"~'"'="'~'~'-"'-' '~~_ _... ~ ••. ".,~ .... ""'A',~,,",.,,,,,.,,~,
Beside Oneself: On the Limits of Sexual Autonomy 29
to~~~~ is not re_ally s~arable~~.~~~!~~LlifegLfanm~YL.'1nd
the foreclosuE~_<?tfugtas~==JhrQJ!~:~~~J.:§Jl!Q?~9~gr~a..deliQlh.Q.L~!h~r
>means-is-(;ne strateg~.J~Pfovidingfor)the social death of persons.
Fan..t~~g;JlQ£.!h~~os~:.~~!~~~re~~~El.for_C:f19~~~L.~~d,
'as a result, it depnes the
/ ~ ..
limits otr-eality,
~-~.~ .. _-
constituting
.. _ ..
it .<l~ its consti-
_---_., .- - .
__ ._._-_._--,.-::/._'--~.," ----'~.- ~_.,
tU~ive ?utside. (The criti~l/~mise ~f ,fantasy, whe~ and w~ere it
eXists, IS to chaHeng.eA11e contlngent lImIts of what WIll and WIll not
be called reality. Fantasy is what allows us to imagine ourselves and
others otherwise; it establishes the possible in excess of the real; it points
and when it is embodied, it brings the elsewhere home.
How do drag, butch, femme, transgend.er, transse.xu.al perso.n,.. s enter!
into the political field? They make us not only question what is real,
and w~ilieyalso show ~~~~~ern
conte~_s of reality can be questioned and ~_~
mod~~Q~!!§!it!l1~g_~_.Thes~
ne~~de~~ity_~~~~~~" ir:.R~:!-!!gg.uglLt_~~.sc~~ofembodi-
ment' where the body is not understood as a static and accomplished
fact, but as an aging process, a mode of becoming that, in becoming
otherwise, exceeds the norm, reworks the norm, and makes us see
how realities to which we thought we were confined are not written
in stone. Some peopl~J!_~__~~~~!!!~~!~=:Q:€:::-i~~in[~
po_~§_!l?ili-ti-es--f~~~J~.lld.tQ __ ~L~~~£: __ ~ssibility is .1l~!J!.: l_lQC~lg:x~ it /
as ~S ~~~~_a~~c~~~g~ I think w~_ should~~~!!!!~L~!L~~~_,~!l3_Lj.b_e_j_.
tIi<5iigfit o!_the Qossible does -fOr t.hQ~~~o~~hQ.m,_th~.Yer¥.-isslle_QL
survival j§~!!1-9stl;lrgent.If the answer to the question, is life possible,
is y~;:that is ~~~eiy-~oillething significant. It cannot, however, be taken
for granted as the answer. That is a question whose answer is some-
times "no," or one that has no ready answer, or one that bespeaks
an ongoing agony. For many who can and do answer the question in
the affirmative, that answer is hard won, if won at all, an accom-
plishment that is fundamentally conditioned by reality being structure/(
or restructured in such a way that the affirmation becomes possiblf·
One 8.t.thu~ntr_'!Ltasks of les-hia~~~x..intertl~~~~~t~
:~-~~~n~~ ~~:~~,a:: £a~~~:; ;rac ri:~::u~fa~o::;~i~11~~
----.::..
t
.. , •. _'
ing features of the social world in its very intelligibility. In other
._---------------------------------.-----'---_.:::::.-_~
----------_.~
words, it is one thing to assert the reality of lesbian and gay lives as
a reality, and to insist that these are lives worthy of protection in
 3° Undoing Gender Beside Oneself: On the Limits of Sexual Autonomy 31

their specificity and commonality; but it is quite another to insist that valuable and those that are not? I would_sa~9~tion
the very public assertion of ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ merely of producing a new fut!lre for genders that do not y~t_e~i~t.~
r~ty and w~~~~_a-h1.tm~!~~Indeed, the task of interna- genders I have m ~;b;;-m~~i~l:T~e:b~t they
tionallesbian and gay politics is nQ_Iess t!lau.. a rem~king oLreality, a
---.._---_.
----="~,,---""""- .~_.--~,-'~"<' . - - - - = : : " ._ _ . ~~
have not been admitted into t e terms thatg~;~s a ques-
reconstituting of the human, and"~"!2roker~of the question, what is tion of-aeveloping Within law, psyc~nd literary theory a new
and is not livable? So what is ~ust~P~Q~_~$J).£h"~!Vork? I legitimating lexicon for the gender complexity that we have been living
'iwould put it this way: to be called unreal and to have that call, as it ,for a long time. Because the norms governing reality have not admitted
(were, institutionalized as a form of differential treatment, is to become these forms to be real, we will, of necessity, call them "new."
eother against whom (or against which) the human is made. It is What place does the thinking of the possible have within political
}he inhuman, th~eyoEi the human~ the les_~I?: human, th~~~r
------- :theorizing? Is the problem that we have no norm to distinguish among
that se~ur_~s the humanj!! its ostensible reality.. To!Je called a copy, to kinds of possibility, or does that only appear to?a:prOl3'~em if we
be calTid u~G§ '~e ~hi£~~~-~~-·b~·oppressed,but con- fail to comprehend "possibility" itself as a norm?~ibil~s an as~
sider that it is more fundamental than that. To be£p'~d means ration, something we might hope will be equitably distributed, something
that yo~-~subj.ect~Qffi~0~u are the~Stlie"~ that·Iillg11t~~~om~thln:g·th;rt~CannOf·b~e~ta:k~;~f;r
-- ...
visibl~~!1d oppressed-Othed9~lh~~_~jec!~._as a poss!.ble ~pIDten-
...
~ ""~.~_ _~._-,
granted,~espeC1aIfYitlr'lliapprenenQeQphe~~~~~'~ToglCaTIy~~fh"e'p-oT~~
tial subject, but to be unreal is something else again. To be oppDessed is not to prescribe new gender norms, as if one were under an obliga-
you must fu§il~IP~.intell!K~Q.le. To find that you are fundamentally to supply a measure, gauge, or norm for the adjudication of com-
unintelligible (indeed, that the laws of culture and of language find you peting gender presentations. Th~_s.spi.ta!ion '!..t WQfJ~.~~~
to be an impossibility) is to find that you have not yet achieved access to do with the ability to live and breathe and move and would no --
to the human, to find yourself speaking only and always as if you were dotilit~Q~~ere
_ _=-<__
~,_-'" ~
III wha~
__ is ~loso~h:y
"'~-'" __
~.~~"~,,"~
of~Treeaom:-~
"_'"~- W~ '~~'· . -~,,-_"_,~,_~~~-_., "-~
. . . . "~_,=

human, but with the sense that you are not, to find that your language
is hollow, that no recognition is forthcoming because the norms by
which recognition takes place are not in your favor.
We might think that the question of how one does one's genger i~
a~!:rlY~1 q~'estio;-:Or an Indulgence on the part
of those who
iJ?isist on exercisi~rgeoisfreedom in excessive dimensions. To say,
The thought of a possible life is only an indulgence for those who
already know themselves to be possible. For those who are still looking
to becom~~O&Si~~ possibility is a necessity.
It w~~ho claimed that every human be~~ili~
sist in . o~n being, a~d he .made. this ~:~I"l<:iple"~~~~~,//
the onat~;~ Into the baSIS of hIS ethICS ~,.m~~~~!.~J?_~J£s. When(

:
howeve5.!h~L~~~j~LPe~!i~iS_not§im~!~.i!l-Sist on . a rig~~ !:I~~I?~~~~~a~~~, he
D/J.~i produce a pleasurable and subversive spectacle but to allegorize the was, in a way, extrapolating upon this Spinozistic point, telling us, ~
ill
v
s I ectacular
- ..""..".__
.~~"._
and" consequential
_..
_"~~
ways in which rea
•._ __.._."._.•..._._-•." ..- -
~" ~"
ity is both reprodilCed
__•. .. .
~ ~~. ~._
effectively, tha!~~istjrLQ1!~'§""Jlwn~~~J~~~~~._
ap.d contested. This has consequences for how gender presentations con<~~,"~~n tha~.~~.are_~~,!~giIL~~~~~~!!.d..Qf!~Eigg_f.~.~ggnitiQJ1. If I
~e criminalized and pathologized, how subjects who cross gender we' are not re~nizable2 if there are no norJD.S.-Qf~ti()_~~chl
Irisk internment and imprisonment, why violence against transgendered we are recognizable, then it is not possible to persist in one's 0wr··~"
subjects is not recognized as violence, and why this violence is sometimes being, and we are not possible beings; we have been foreclosed fro1p1
inflicted by the very states that should be offering such subjects possibility. We think of norms of recognition perhaps as residing
~rotection from violence. . . already in a cultural world into which we are born, but these norms
1)1 What if new forms of ~~ible? How does this affect the change, and with the changes in these norms come changes in what
ways that we live and the concrete needs oTme human community? And does and does not count as recognizably human. To twist the Hegelian
how are we to distinguish between forms of gender possibility that are argument in a Foucaultian direction: norms of recognition function to
 32 Undoing Gender
produce and to deproduce the notion of the human. This is made true
in a spe~ific way when we consider how international norms work in
the context of lesbian and gay human rights, especially as they insist
that certain kinds of violences are impermissable, that certain lives are
vulnerable and worthy of protection, that certain deaths are grievable
and worthy of public recognition.
To say that the desire to persist in one's own being depends on
norms of recognition is to say that the basiS-Q[ one's autonomy, one's
pe~e as an "I" through time, depends fundament;ITy on a social
norm that exceeds that "I," that positions that "I" ec-statically, outside
of itself in a world of complex and historically changing norms. In
effect, our lives, our very persistence, depend upon such norms or, at
least, on the possibility that we will be able to negotiate within them,
derive our agency from the field of their operation. In our very ability
to persist, v;r~~~~~~~~~QrL~J2road~L,~
soci~'lud~~~~~~"~~~~§~_QLJ2llL_elJdura~~aw:Lsur­
vivability. W~~n""~e-1l~~~~$ w~~~~an(! we ~"~~t,~~_are
not carvin~~~21~~e for ~~~aut~~~my:-i!pY~~!9!!91n~e mean
a stert~lndividuation~taken as self-persisting prior to and apa~t~frOm
any relations of dependency on the world of others. We do not nego-
tiate with norms or with Others subsequent to our coming into the
world. We ~into the~rld on the co!!di~e social world is
~~~""_"~~"~""~C"
alre~_t~ere-Jaying the gr~lJ~07~ f~"rEis implies that I.cannot
persist Without norms of recogmtIOn that support my persIstence:
the sense of possibility pertaining to me must first be imagined from
somewhere else before I can begin to imagine myself. ~~" is,=
not" only socially mediated, but socially constituted. I cannot be who I
am with~~ponthe socialiryof normsihatpreceae ana exceecr'"
me. In th!s sen~_I.-anL outsi<kJn¥selLf.rorn-tk-outsel)-£illilnl1:!st be,iJ}
order to ",s~~~]r(j~~Q~nt~Lint~!he~"E~~lID"QLtQ~~l?"Q;~11~:~ ~~M""
To~t sexual r~n, takes on a specific meaning against
this bac ground. It means, for instance, that when w~truggle~:=
rights, we are not simply struggling fot r~ts that attach to my person,
~~~~_~~ .~ __ ~ ~ = ~ - - , , _ ..
_.w,_~·-----,_~, .. ~-_-"'----'
but, we~JQ be C:Q!:"ceived as pe!!!2ns~ And there is a ~dif-
~"/" ---"---"'"'-"""- ~~-~.".~-
ference between the former "and the latter. If we are struggling for rlgJl1:s~
that a;t;ch, ~sh~cl~t;Cli~t(;"mypersonhood, then we assume that
personhood as already constituted. But if we are struggling not only
to be conceived as persons, but to create a social transformation of
Beside Oneself: On the Limits of Sexual Autonomy 33
very meaning of personhood, then the assertion of rights bec~mes
.w~illnteW€H:J,ln~ini_<Lt~-pditr~~~
uman is articulated.!nternati?~~lh~mal1" righ!s is alwa}[£itLthe
t'oc~~f .~~§~~~~~E~~~!hi~E~~.~ri~t~Cie~te]iii!iQr!~~d~~~t!.ation~It"~~~·~
obilizes"tIie human in the service of rights, but also rewrites the human
nd rearticulates the human when it comes up against the cultural limits
f its working conception of the human, as it does and must.
~lLesbian and gay human rights takes sexuality, in some sense, to be
~ts .issue. Sexuality is not simply an attribute one has or a dispositio
----.....--~"''""' __ ~_~~~'~'''''~~c~~
or patterned set of inclinations. It is a mode of being disposed towar
,,~ . _ . , ~ " " - - - _ _- ~,~~. • ~~.---.c
others, including in the mode of fantasy, and sometilTIes only in th
,."~--"------",""-"--~,-~--,,,--~,,",,,".,-,",,,---
mode ot fantasy. If we are outside of ourselves as sexual beings, given
?'~---;
:,over. from the start, crafted in part through primary relations Of
,dependency and attachment, then it would seem that our being beside
,ourselves, outside ourselves, is there as a function of sexuality itself,
where sexuality is not this or that dimension of our existence, not their
l/~\
,key or bedrock of our eXistence.,
~rleau-Ponty once ~~:PEY_~ug~ted.~ .._"
c. _~~.'ra~h.~~as" '2.~xt emLv_e",",,,,.w,,,,,,!,~.".~I., r.,
.•_. .,
/
I.1 ..
I have tried here to argue tnat our.~e of personhQ2Q.,,~~_ I' , /
i
'"
linked to the desire for recognition,_and that desire places us outside"--Y
._,,~.=-
o~ a realm of social norms that we do not fully choose, but
.- . . ~~ ~""._ ~~-~'~'-O-"'"-.,;""".".,.-~'-
"th~provides ~'~;izon and the resource for any sense of choice that
"we have. This me~!!l3:1-1b~c-s~~-£~ar~E.~C!L~_~:~~Eig~,!~~e~=
essential to the possibility of persisting as human. In this sense, we can
see"-fiow-sexrraT nghtSEnngs togel:1ferrw6-~rerateaQom;:t""'ffrsof ec-stasy,
two connected ways of being outside of ourselves. As sexual, we are
dependent on a world of others, vulnerable to need, violence, betrayal,
compulsion, fantasy; we project desire, and we have it projected onto
us. To be part of a sexual_~i!1gri!L~IJ.~,"_m,QSL~~J2h,~tica!!X?_~~~:,,::ve
are q1So ction QLp.uhlkaIld~pr:i:v:a4e-~on
legal.~~lRQt~-Safegmrrds-ei-¥arioiis-"~,
institution~lJQnd~~nst unwanted3~ession,ilTIJLQs~d_upo~~Il~
._~~'-_~~~"-_~_,~,~~_=-
the viole];t actionS"lheT~IOO~es. iB:St-i:gfrte:--In-,this--~eu~~"L<:>llr very
lives, and the persistence of our desire, depend on there being norms
of recognition that produce and sustain our viability as human. Thus,
when we k about sexua ts we are J}91-m,er:el)':,_tlJk!JJ~_ab()ut
rights .~~_E~!1airL~~.~~~~i~£~i_~~!to_~h.~_gQIIDSOD_~!~~~~"
our very indi,:,iduafuy depends. That means that the discourse of rights
e'-' ~~ .. _~"
 34 Undoing Gender
avows our dependency, the mode of our being in the hands of others,
a mode 9f being with and for others without which we cannot be.
I served for a few years on the board of the International· Gay and
Lesbian Human Rights Commission, a group that is located in San
Francisco. It is part of a broad international coalition of groups and
individuals who struggle to establish both equality and justice for sex-
ual minorities, including transgender and intersexed' individuals as well
as persons with HIV or AIDS.? What astonished me time and again
was how often the organization was asked to respond to immediate
acts of violence against sexual minorities, especially when that violence
was not redressed in any way by local police or government in various
places in the globe. I had to reflect on what sort of anxiety is prompted
by the public appearance of someone who is openly gay, or presumed
to be gay, someone whose gender does not conform to norms, someone
whose sexuality defies public prohibitions, someone whose bodly does
not conform with certain morphological ideals. What motivates those
who are driven to kill someone for being gay, to threaten to kill some-
one for being intersexed, or would be driven to kill because of the
public appearance of someone who is transgendered?
The desire to kill someone, or killing someone, for not conforming
to the gender norm by which a I?~J;oon~posed" to live suggests
that life itself requires a set O~in~ and thaUO-~_'!.";tsiQ1'"
it, to live outside it, is to court eat. The person.. who th£~a!~nuiolence
---~ ..
.. ,.~.,., ~.~-_. •. ....,-- ..~ -""
proceeds from the anxious and rigid belief that a sense of world and
a sense of self will be radically undermined if such a being, uncatego-
rizable, is permitted to live within the social world. The negation,
through violence, of that body is a vain and violent effort to restore
order, to renew the social world on the basis of intelligible gender, and
to refuse the challenge to rethink that world as something other than
natural or necessary. This is not far removed from the threat of death,
or the murder itself, of transsexuals in various countries, and of gay
men who read as "feminine" or gay women who read as "masculine."
These crimes are not always immediately recognized as criminal acts.
Sometimes they are denounced by governments and international agencies;
sometimes they are not incll!ded as legible or real crimes against
humanity by those very institutions.
If .~5~!his~iQl~~~:_~!lwe O?~.~~_e it in the,~~~me?L~~.~
What is the alternative
.•..
~""''''-----..
to this viol~e~ 'and fu?-wnar
,.''-~--. , ~~ _.._..
, ,-.~
transform::1tion
-. , _-~ , ~._
Beside Oneself: On the Limits of Sexual Autonomy 35
~~~;~--~"
/
social world do I call? T IS' ce~-p~
~sire \£J<ee the order of bina mc:kr,..nat.\!ml or necessar~ to make ..
!fit a~t~!,~her nat\,lraL~lJltuE1..Qr bot1h..th.at-no~Il}~!l5an
ppose, and~~~!Lr.!.main human. If a ~~~~!llS-.o£-bina~
ender not-just by ~lngacrrtrcal point of view about them, but by
corporating norms critically, and that stylized opposition is legible,
~n it seems that violence emerges precisely as1h~ demand ~ndo
at~~.Sl~rtS ~1;lIit¥;:~en£kL.it-~~,J;eaLan(Limpos- _.
ble in the face of its appearance to the contrary. This is, then, no
mple difference in points of view. To counter that embodied opposi-
on by violence is to say, effectively, that this body, this challenge to
naccepted version of the world is and shall be unthinkable. The effort
enforce the boundaries of what will be regarded as real requires
taIling what is contingent, frail, open to fundamental transformation
·n the gendered order of things.
An ethical query emerges in light of such an analysis: how might
e encounter the difference that calls our grids of intelligibility into
question without trying to foreclose the challenge that the difference
delivers? What might it mean to learn to live in the anxiety of that
challenge, to feel the surety of one's epistemological and ontological
anchor go, but to be willing,in.tQ.e name bi the human, to allow the
human to become sOIp-ething other than yvhat it is traditionally 1
assumed to be? This/m.~ans that we must leain to live and tO~J7.ace---..{
~e~.~.~--._t~~~~. ~._~p-.~~~e. ~';.~./
_~
capacIOUS and, nally,~~orra:Lnotkno~.!.!"!K}Q,_~.dvancewhat ((f
preci~m our umannes.§.~s·andwill It means ~~ must be I
ta-f;-
open t~its permutat~ame-2Tnonvl~-As-Adriana I
Cavarero points out, paraphrasing Arendt~.t~~.q~-e.gti:eR,wepose to the
Other is simple and unanswerable:)Y~h~ are . ; 8 The violent
re po . the one t does ~__
wants to shore up what it knows, to expunge what threatens it with
not-knowing, what forces it to reconsider the presuppositions of its
world, their contingency, their malleability. The nonviolent response
~_
lives ~~~~iggneSS-~~E:~Q~herj!l~.ili~l~~.~g.~~~<?!.~.~r, .
_
....-..- .........
~ ..
sinct·sustaining the bond that the question opens is finally more valu-
able than knowing in advance what holds us in common, as if we already
have all the resources we need to know what defines the human, what
~ _ _- ,
its future life might be.
 36 Undoing Gender
That we cannot predict or control what permutations of the human
might a~ise does not mean that we must value all possible permutations
of the human; it does not mean that we cannot struggle for the real-
ization of certain values, democratic and nonviolent, international and
antiracist. The point is only that to struggle for those values is precisely
to avow that one's own position is not sufficient to elaborate the spec-
trum of the human, that one must enter into a collective work in which
one's own status as a subject must, for democratic reasons, become
·lsoriented, exposed to what it does not know.
The point is n~o applY.~"~~~~"~J~~~cial inst~nces, to
orde~em(as Foucault has criticized), nor ~ d justi- ,~
fi~atory mechanisms for the gro~~~~that are extra-
social (even as they operate under the name of the social). There are times
when both of these activities do and must take place: we level judgments
against criminals for illegal acts, and so subject them to a normalizing
procedure; we consider our grounds for action in collective contexts and
"try to find modes of deliberation and reflection about which we can
agree. But neither of these is all we do with norms. Through recourse to
norms, the sphere of the humanly intelligible is circumscribed, and this
circumscription is consequential for any ethics and any conception of
social transformation. We might try to claim that we must first knQw-th
.ft.m: entals the human in o~E~serve~~~life
~~_~~. But :vhat if 0~~~ies olJhe-hYIDaH-ha,ye
f excl~lCr5ed~ibed_~!!~~~~~~~s?
What if those who ought to belong to the human do not operate within
the modes of reasoning and justifying validity claims that have been prof-
fered by western forms of rationalism? Have we ever yet known the
human? And what might it take to approach that knowing? Should we
be wary of knowing it too soon or of any final or definitive knowing?
If we take the field of the human for granted, then we fail to think crit-
ically and ethically about the consequential ways that the human is being
produced, reproduced, and deproduced. This latter inquiry does not
exhaust the field of ethics, but I cannot imagine a responsible ethics or
"~eory of social transformation operating without it.
~
/ The necessit of keeping our n~~E:1~~~"!"~~f~I~
rti~~nJla tOJ:~~j~. ~ i~!~~:~"~lh!lJ!la!Lfig~
/ iSl;:ourse and politics;,. We see this time andagain when the very notion
/of the human is presupposed; the human is defined in advance, in terms
Beside Oneself: On the Limits of Sexual Autonomy 37
~hat are distinctively western, very often American, and, therefore, par-
tial and parochial. When we start with the human as a foundation,
hen the human at issue in human rights is already known, already
efined. And yet, the human is supposed to be the ground for a set of
ghts and obligations that are global in reach. How we move from
e local to the international (conceived globally in such a way that it
pes not recirculate the presumption that all humans belong to estab-
hed'nation-states) is a major question for international politics, but
'takes a· specific form for international lesbian, gay, bi-, trans-, and
tersex struggles as well as for feminism. An anti-imperialist or, min-
ally, nonimperialist conception of international human rights must
~all into question what is meant by the human and learn from the var-
ious ways and means by which it is defined across cultural venues.
U'his means that local conceptions of what is human or, indeed, of what
e basic conditions and needs of human life are, must be subjected to
reinterpretation, since there are historical and cultural circumstances
in which the human is defined differently. Its basic needs and, hence,
basic entitlements are made known through various media,
(various kinds of practices, spoken and performed.
A reductive relativism would say that we cannot speak of the
human or of international human rights, since there are only and
always local and provisionatunderstandings of these terms, and that
the generalizations themselves do violence to the specificity of the
"meanings in question. This is not my view. I'm not ready to rest there.
.Ind~~~~~~~~L2:E_ci._9l:_:'he
international, and to find out in particular how human rights do and
- ~ . . .~ ..~,~~"."~~~_. ---~"",~~."""""""".,~~--,--~"~,,,~,,,,," ..., ",._.-~'---~'~..... ~.
do no~5YQrt2~:._~.~~_iG!voLqJ~~~, ..Q[.~h,~g!IJ,e~E~~.~
what t~ty.~s>!.~.B~-t!.<:>§~~~~~~}~.~nd ~o~.~~~.E?~so~~~!.:~.~~s­
formatl~.~~_~3:J:!1e...q£~Q~1]:~~~",--~.~~~~..E~~~ ..~EI!1~l
demoSE3:~:9~t.!"1oreover, the category of women has been used
differentially and with exclusionary aims, and not all women have been
included within its terms; women have not been fully incorporated into
the human. Both categories are still in process, underway, unfulfilled, I /
thus we do not yet know and cannot ever definitively know in what I/
the human finally consists. ThisE:!eans th~t we ~1Gw-~\
p~t~ ir:..p.2litics: we_must use ~~~~.J.a-a~Ft--aB--e-fl.~iflem@lLt.Q )
conditionsclITfe
, _
in
~t--.......~ the .c().nsti_~utive
affirm __. . . . - -"~.. --._
role _"~of ._sexuality
_ ~ I
/
and gender-- in political life, and _we
._.~--,._. ---~_.~~-~-_ ...__
must also subject
--_
.. ----"~-----------_._-_._-- -
_--
our--------.very
._-
.'"-_._---_._._~_.,-"---~_.~.~--~~-_ .. -_._--_.,.,,-- .•.., .. ... --_ •.. -----, ..., .. , ... ... -_ ..................•... __ ._------.. __
 38 Undoing Gender Beside Oneself: On the Limits of Sexual Autonomy 39

~'!t~oiti~~~Futi~~ We must find out the limits of their inclu- ut one in which the human stands a chance of coming into being
sivity aFld translatability, the presuppositions they include, the ways in ew.
whict1-~~~!~~~~~.~~.~.~!!:QY~E~~9£-£~~~E~:~~~~.~£~.£~
.. ~!1£.~~­ \Wh~n~~t mak~..~J~~~J21~.~~~ing ~~~~rt~. in
~~~d o~~ up w~~hu!!!an.~nd.~!1sle~.~e United r~~..tiy~£!!di~~~J;~~:f~le_dloIJi!~~gLQe~QmeJ!f(_~~,_ nd
Nations conference at Beijing met a few years ago, there was a dIScourse there are at least 'senses of life~the one that refers to the in-
on "women's human rights" (or when we hear of the International Gay um biological form Q_ Vlll and another that intervenes at the start,
and Lesbian Human Rights Commission), which strikes many people hkh e~~mumconditions for·;~e1:tfu-with-reg;rdto
{.,..... . - - -_ _ -~..- - .~-~._~,~ _*w_
.~'"~,r~'''_ _'','''~~-_.

as a paradox. Women's human rights? Lesbian and gay human rights? umctn Jife. 9 And this does not imply that we can 3isregard the merely
-~"
But think about what this coupling actually does. It performs the iving in favor of the livable life, but that we must ask, as we asked
human as contingent, a category that has in the past, and continues gout gender violence, what humans r e q u i ~ nand
~-~- --~-_.~
in the present, to define a variable and restricted population, which 'eproduce the condition~~!peirown livability And what are our pol-
Iics such~~~ln wha~;;'-;Y;-possj];10oth'co~~~tualiz­
1/ mayor may not include lesbians and gays, mayor may not include
women, which has several racial and ethnic differentials at work in its
I operation. It says that such groups have their own set of human rights,
ng the possibility of the livable life, and arranging for its institutional
Upport? There will always be disagreement about what this means,
··~that what human may mean when we think about the humanness of nd those who claim that a single political direction is necessitated by
women is perhaps different from what human has meant when it has irtue of this commitment will be mistaken. Bu.Lthi~~ .
. I functioned as presumptively male. It also says that these terms are

\defined, variably, in relation to one another. And we could certainly

'--._-
(j live is to live a life politically, in relation to power, in relation to
- ._--~~~--,,~-,---,--,-,~--~-,,-,.~--

)the~~J-~~he aC~.9f assuffimg-res~.Y~_~ive future.1'o

Jmake a similar argument about race. Which populations have qualified ssume responsibilitYr6rafutUre: however, is not to know its direction
/ as the human and which have not? What is the history of t~is category? ully in advance, since the future, especially the future with and for
1 Where are we in its history at this time? others, requires a certain openness and unknowingness; it imJ;21ies tr". ~ __

\ I would suggest that in this last process, we can only rearticulate l3e~ming ~ of a process the outcome o~~ch nE one su!?j~~_~an.
or resignify th~~~!lJg~._gf~~~fbeing urelYJ2redict. It also imphes that a ~~rtain agonism and c@ntestation
gen~.ere9~_Qf~~~~jy_~~·nl~t~.}~~.te~_lh~LJ:y~_~y£mit pver '~th~e of directionwilla~cl~~~~ein:=Pli~~I'ltestatl0n­
our~e£..tQ..a~~~)The point is not to assim- musrtFTnpr~ifu~·-'to~b-e~~medemocratic. De~~~racy does
ilate foreign or unfamiliar notions of gender or humanness into our llOt speak in unison; its tunes are dissonant, and necessarily so. It is
own as if it is simply a matter of incorporation alienness into an estab- .hot a predictable process; it must be undergone, like a passion must
lished lexicon. Cultural translation is also a process ofJielding our
,,~,.,.-~---~-~---~------"--'~--~~~. -~----=----
be undergone. It may also be that life itself becomes foreclosed when
---------------
most. fundamental categories, that is, s.~~iI?:g how and why they break
-"".,- _.~~----~, ,._,~~-~_. --~_-~---~-_._------
up, re~ resignification when.~!hey ~~ncoun!R the . limits of an
.. ... . ....
'the right way is decided in advance, when we impose what is right for
everyone and wi~!J.oufhnding;a way to enter into community, and to
'--..•.•. ,.._~.... . .~=-.-_~"'_ _
. _"'••~_""""-"."..~_~ .•,._.. ~ ~._~'" __ e" ~_"_~._ ~ ~_ _. ~

available episteme: what is l:!nknown~.noL~,.Qwn. It is crucial to disco'ver ther~/d{e "ri~,h~~l~ t~e.Il1idst of cultural translation. It may
recognize that the notion of the human will only be built over time in be 'that wha~HthVnatisg09d~01L.staY"~~!!.lQ~~~",
anQ by the process of cultural translation, where it is not a translation tensL()J!s-thaLb~£e.u.hk-.lllQg~L~~~~E:E~!~,~~g~i:~,,~~_.~eg~ire,
in
..
If~I1 ~9.Janguages~tharstay--enc~~--umfied;i3ut ..ftff~ knowing unl<no~_.o£ ....what~_kri9.wr~:yhat we
~a!!!!:!...~ig..1J will compel each lC!!!guage to change in .order.to ap£reh~i need, andl!!...l~~~~gfJ~_whatwe undergo without
t-~and this apprehension, at the limitof what is familiar, certainty about what will come. ----
parochial, and already known, will be the occasion for both an ethical
and social transformation. It will constitute a loss, a disorientation,