7 Sexuality

Module Learning Objectives (MLO)

  • MLO 9.1 Identify foundational concepts related to sexuality, fashion, identity, appearance, and dress. [CLO 1]
  • MLO 9.2 Identify different types of dress worn by queer communities in the United States to express their sexual identity. [CLO 1]
  • MLO 9.3 Identify queer people’s experiences in the United States wearing different dress object reflecting their queer identity. [CLO 2]
  • MLO 9.4 Identify different fashion brands that produce and sell dress objects for the queer community in the United States to affirm their sexual identities. [CLO 1]
  • MLO 9.5 Explain the role of dress and appearance in the development of one’s queer identity in the United States. [CLO 1]
  • MLO 9.6 Examine how dress and appearance of queer communities in the United States are represented in the fashion system (e.g. advertisements or retailers). [CLO 3]
  • MLO 9.7 Examine social justice issues related to dress and appearance of the queer community in the United States. [CLO 3]
  • MLO 9.8 Deconstruct your own perspectives and approach to understanding the dress and appearance of the queer communities in the United States. [CLO 4]
  • MLO 9.9 Identify the driving forces of transformative social justice change in the fashion system related to queer identities in the United States. [CLO 5]

In this chapter, we explore the scholarship examining the intersections of the queer community, identity negotiations, and dress. However, doing so is a tricky process because significant nuance lies in identity and the scholarship is not necessarily provided in clear categories, given identity’s fluidity and complexity. Therefore, while the work is presented under the different stable headings outlined below, the tensions are noted when they arise in the literature. Overall, the plethora of work written on these topics dissolves the stereotype that there is one monolithic aesthetic or style for different queer identities.

The Center for Educational Justice & Community Engagement Definition of Terms is a great resource to understand some of the concepts that intersect with the lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer, and other sexual minorities.

Gender identity

Although they interact in many ways, gender identity is distinct from sexual orientation. Just like not all cisgender people are straight, not all transgender people are gay or lesbian.

I either, I would say queer or bisexual depending on who asks. I like queer better, I like the vagueness and implications but bisexual is a word people know. I’m attracted to people of all genders.

Heterosexuality is the romantic attraction, sexual attraction, or sexual behavior between persons of the opposite sex or gender. Even though transgender people identify with the queer community, they can still be heterosexual. For example, a transgender woman in a relationship with a cisgender male would be considered a heterosexual couple.

There are many ways to identify in the queer community, and often, individuals will utilize various terms or switch between them. For example, one person described their sexuality as: “I either, I would say queer or bisexual depending on who asks. I like queer better, I like the vagueness and implications but bisexual is a word people know. I’m attracted to people of all genders.”

Queer sexual spectrum

On the queer spectrum, these questions may not align 1 to 1:

  • Sexual identity: “Who am I?”
  • Sexual orientation: “How am I attracted?”
  • Sexual behavior: “How do I engage sexually?”

Sexuality and signifiers

There are many overt symbols of sexuality that are used in the LGBTQIA+ community. Often, sexuality can influence appearance or dress in overt ways, though this is not always the case. For all individuals in the queer community, a common theme throughout history is the “pushing of gender boundaries.” The signs and symbols of sexuality for queer individuals change and shift over time.

Gaining momentum: Stonewall

The Stonewall Riots in 1969 marked a time period of great movement towards equality for the LGBTQIA+ community.  Read what the Stonewall Riots were here: History of the Stonewall Riots.

Following these riots and the formation of numerous groups such as the Gay Liberation Front, slogan badges and t-shirts became an important signifier of support or pride. Today, these items continue to act as signifiers of belonging in the queer community.

A young asian person links arms with other members of a March in New York, wearing a "Love is love" tshirt, various pins, and rainbow arm bands and bracelets.
Image Source: Elvert Barnes, CC BY SA

Nazi-occupied Germany

Overt signifiers of LGBTQIA+ identities have sometimes been forced upon members of the community. Gay men in Nazi concentration camps were forced to wear a uniform bearing a pink triangle as a designation of being homosexual. Similarly, women who did not conform to social roles, often believed to be lesbians, had to wear a black triangle.

A black and white photo of men in a line wearing striped uniforms with a large triangle over their chest.
Prisoners in the concentration camp at Sachsenhausen, Germany, 1938.

Today, triangles are sometimes incorporated into clothing and accessories as symbols of freedom rather than symbols of oppression. This is an example of reclamation, wherein a member of a community who is harmed by a term, phrase, or symbol might choose to use that signifier in a positive way to challenge the stereotypes  surrounding them.

Image Source:  Pride 86 TShirt, The Arquives. Permission requested for reuse.

Review Stigma and identity in the “Dress, Appearance, and Identity” chapter for more information about how members of a stigmatized community can reclaim or refute negative stereotypes.

Distinctions between drag and cross-dressing

Within discussions about the LGBTQIA+ community, newcomers often conflate the terms “drag” and “cross-dressing.” However, there are some important differences to distinguish between the two terms.


Drag refers to the conscious performance of femininity or masculinity, sometimes in an exaggerated manner, usually in a show or theatre setting. When individuals are performing femininity, they are referred to as queens, whereas individuals performing masculinity in the same way are referred to as kings.

Watch this short film to learn about Drag and terms related to drag:


In contrast to drag queens and kings, cross-dressers are individuals who wear clothes, makeup, and other forms of dress that are considered by their culture to be appropriate for another gender, but not their own. While drag is generally done for entertainment purposes, cross-dressing is done for personal reasons. The term “cross-dresser” falls under the umbrella term “transgender,” though not all cross-dressers consider themselves trans.

Not everyone who might engage in drag or cross-dressing considers themselves part of the LGBTQIA+ community.

Lesbian Identities and Dress

In a survey of mainstream popular press articles in the United States from 1960s to the 2010s, publications featured mostly White, thin, feminine lesbian aesthetics and styles (Reddy-Best & Jones, 2020). These mainstream representations lacked the nuance, tension (Kaiser, 2012), and variety of styles that lesbian-identifying women have embraced over time. Many of these styles are intricately related to gender negotiations; however, lesbian styles expand beyond the stereotypical notion of butch and femme often perpetuated in media.

Photo from the Cleveland Museum of Art, taken by Georges Brassai at Le Monocle in 1932. Currently under copyright and used here for educational purposes only.

Early documented evidence of women’s styles in same-gender relationships dates to the 18th century. Elanor Butler and Sarah Ponsonby, two Anglo-Irish women aristocrats who were thought to have been in a love relationship, often adopted a masculine style of clothing; more specifically, they routinely adopted riding habits, which was considered a subversive act because the outfits they wore for riding were not customarily worn by women at that time (Wilson, 2013). Anne Lister, a wealthy White woman from Yorkshire who died in the late 19th century, wrote in her diaries of her desires and relationships with other “mannish women,” and Lister also embraced an eccentric, masculine style of the time (Wilson, 2013, p. 171).

In the 1928 novel The Well of Loneliness, author Radclyff Hall crafted a lesbian identity in a masculine aesthetic (Geczy & Karaminas, 2013). Additionally, photographs by Albert Harlingue from the 1920s of women at Le Monocle, a lesbian club in Paris, depicted White-appearing women in the popular garçonne look, a fashionable women’s style in larger society (Farrell-Beck & Parsons, 2007), “which was characterized by an absence of feminine curves and very short hairstyles” (Steele, 2013, pp. 26–27). Harlingue’s images also featured women in highly feminine styles and wearing bias-cut dresses with a formfitting silhouette, longer hair, and makeup. Faderman (1991) discussed lesbian-dress aesthetics in the early part of the 20th century and explored these recognizable masculine and feminine norms, frequently referred to as “butch” and “femme,” which she argued emerged in 1940s bar culture, where butch and femme lesbians congregated. The popular novel Stone Butch Blues by Leslie Feinberg gave vivid descriptors of the mid-20th century butches and femmes. For example, Jess, the main character, related their experience when first entering a bar in Niagara Falls:

“What I saw there released tears I’d held back for years: strong, burly women wearing ties and suit coats. Their hair was slicked back. They were the handsomest women I’d ever seen. Some of them were wrapped in slow motion dances with women in tight dresses and high heels who touched them tenderly. Just watching made me ache with need.” (Feinberg, 1993, p. 28)

Rothblum (1994) argued lesbian communities have adopted styles and aesthetics that differ from those of mainstream society. One of the ways this has manifested is through embracing and negotiating a masculine aesthetic, sometimes referred to as butch. The butch, masculine-lesbian style is often recognizable within as well as outside the lesbian community (Maltry & Tucker, 2002; Taylor, 2007). A butch aesthetic may include comfortable shoes, little or no makeup, tattoos and piercings, alternative-style haircuts or hair colors, and masculine-leaning garments or accessories (Clarke & Spence, 2013; Clarke & Turner, 2007; Esterberg, 1996; Reddy-Best & Pedersen, 2014, 2015; Rothblum, 1994, 2010). While different lesbian styles, including the butch aesthetic, are often considered uniform, women adopt a masculine style in complex and varied ways (Levitt & Hiestand, 2004; McLean, 2008). For example, in Reddy-Best and Goodin’s (2020) research, their participant, Cyndi—a White, lesbian-identifying woman—claimed her overall style was masculine-leaning but said she felt like a “delicate flower on the inside” and preferred the phrase “soft butch” (p. 125). In Blake’s (2019) work, she analyzed Black androgynous lesbians from North Carolina:

“[I am] hesitant to essentialize Black lesbian styles of dress . . . instead of naming these gender presentations Black lesbian style, I call these articulations of Black lesbian androgyny BlaQueer Style because they represent—rather than essentialize—the racial and class politics illuminated by their dress.” (p. 11)


Screenshot from The Androgynous Model web series promo

Blake (2019) outlined the ways these women embraced masculinity and tensions surrounding their multiple subjectivities, with emphasis on their Black identity. Lane-Steele’s (2011) work examined studs, or Black lesbians who embrace masculinity; the studs she interviewed relayed that they dressed similarly to their Black male peers with “baggy pants and shirts, hats, high top shoes, Timberland boots, and fairly flashy jewelry” (p. 484). Lane-Steele (2011) drew connections between these women’s styles and “protest masculinity,” (p. 483) which Connell and Messerschmidt (2009) defined as

“[the] pattern of masculinity constructed in local working-class settings, sometimes among ethnically marginalized men, which embodies the claim to power typical of regional hegemonic masculinities in Western countries, but which lacks the economic resources and institutional authority that underpins the regional and global patterns.” (p. 848)

One way in which protest masculinity surfaces is through a hyper-masculine aesthetic—such as the one these Black lesbian women embraced.

In addition, much research has analyzed feminine-leaning aesthetics, sometimes referred to as femme, high-femme, or lipstick lesbian styles or identities. Feminine-leaning lesbians may adopt long hair, makeup, and feminine-coded clothing such as dresses or high heels (Hemmings, 1999; Levitt et al., 2003; Levitt & Hiestand, 2004; Levitt & Horne, 2002; Maltry & Tucker, 2002). Because of the long-standing association between femininity and heterosexuality, feminine-leaning lesbians are often misread as straight (Huxley et al., 2014; Levitt et al., 2003) and can experience assertions of not being “queer enough” within the LGBTQ+ community (Reddy-Best & Goodin, 2020). They may hide their lesbian identity until they are physically with their masculine-leaning partner (Rossiter, 2016).

Watch this short film on femme identity and dress.

While many folks adopt and embrace these stereotypical aesthetics that are thought to have developed out of the mid-20th century, there have been significant critiques and rejections of these styles altogether. As social movements gained traction in the latter part of the 20th century, some criticized these feminine- and masculine-leaning aesthetics for producing a heteronormative performance (Walker, 1993). In Freitas et al.’s (1996) study, participants related that they did not want to limit themselves to one particular type of style. Additionally, Hammidi and Kaiser (1999) theorized there was no single way to imagine beauty for lesbian women, and these negotiations are intertwined with ambivalence and tensions in everyday life. This notion is evident in a recent New York Times article titled “Hipsters Broke My Gaydar,” in which Burton (2016) asserted, “You’re all lesbians now, America . . . I’m sorry. But mostly for myself. Because it’s hard to tell who’s queer now” (paras. 23 & 25).

Watch this short film on queer women’s experiences with dress and appearance who live in the Midwest.

Watch this short research presentation about queer women’s identity and dress.

Gay Identities and Dress

Because of the stigmatization and criminalization of homosexual behavior in much of European–American modern history, gay men have frequently adopted coded simulacra to display their gay identity. These symbols have included adorning one’s lapel with green carnations and wearing red neckties or suede shoes.

This advertisement for the Arrow shirt collar by J.C. Leyendecker features a narrow red silk necktie, a signifier that likely went unnoticed by those who weren’t looking out for it. From the article: “Straight copying: How gay fashion goes mainstream.”

As legal progress has been made and the social climate for the LGBTQ+ community improved, the symbols shifted from knowledge among the few to commonplace, as in the case of dress that now includes rainbow flags, the inverted pink triangle, or an earring worn in the right ear (Cole, 2000; Reilly, 2010).

During the early modern gay liberation movement, gay men were mostly divided into two ideologies on how to present themselves through dress: to embrace traditional masculine gender presentation or to subvert it (Edwards, 1994). Cole (2013) noted the Gay Liberation Front of the 1970s employed “genderfuck” aesthetics, combining stereotypical masculine and feminine clothes, makeup, and styling into one form to subvert Western binary gender expectations in Britain and the United States to combat, question, and highlight gender’s artificial nature. These two philosophies and tensions—to embrace traditional Western gender presentation or to disrupt it—continue in contemporary post-postmodern forms of androgyny (Barry & Reilly, 2020).

The conflict over how to present one’s self resulted in the “butch shift” where gay men developed dress styles based on masculine archetypes (Humphries, 1985), such as leather men, bears, and Castro clones. Bears, noted for their hirsute, either muscular or husky/large/fat and blue-collar representation of masculinity, became visible in the 1980s during the early AIDS crisis and were eroticized for their perceived health as compared to the emaciated appearance of those suffering in the latter stages of AIDS. Mosher et al. (2006) argued leather identity is socially constructed and performative and both “bear and leather aesthetics can be understood as expressions of culturally valued traits and as a reconciliation of masculine and gay identities” (pp. 119–120).

A group of bearded men wearing sunglasses and leather sashes (some shirtless) at a pride parade.
“Leatherboys” at Cleveland Pride 2017. Image Source: Tim Evanson, CC BY SA

Cole (2000) noted the clones style emerged from American cowboy and blue-collar dress (e.g., jeans, plaid shirts, cowboy boots, construction boots, Levi 501 button fly jeans, T-shirts, short hair, and mustaches) and was symbolic of “toughness, virility, aggression, strength, [and] potency” (p. 128), although Levine (1998) argued the look was parody. Although clone aesthetics were patterned after heterosexual masculine styles, a knowing gay consciousness acknowledged the outfits were coordinated, perfected, and worn to show off the male physique. Cole (2000) further argued the clone image of masculinity influenced other gay men’s styles, including “queer nation” and “act-up” looks (e.g., T-shirts and jeans), gay skinheads, and gay rockabillies. The clone style assisted in redefining gay men as masculine. Other gay subcultures that embrace masculine aesthetics include muscle boys, scallies, and homothugs (Cole, 2008).

In contrast to masculine archetypes, other gay men, such as drag queens and punks, embraced camp, feminine, or androgynous aesthetics, including makeup and jewelry. Contemporarily, a result of the butch shift has been the tendency among some gay men to embrace femininity (Reilly, in press) and to incorporate apparel items marketed to both men and women into their wardrobe (Barry & Reilly, 2020; moore [sic], 2020). Per Barry and Martin (2015), gay men view contemporary aesthetics as more varied than previous generations, and gender identity, sexual orientation, and race intersect not only to express individuality but also to challenge binary gender norms by mixing traditionally feminine and masculine fabrics, textures, products, and other signifiers (Barry & Martin, 2016). Clarke and Turner (2007) similarly argued clothing is used to negotiate gay identity, but it is also used to express individuality; thus, there may be expectations when one “comes out” to dress a certain way, but enough room exists in the unwritten rules of gay aesthetics to show one’s persona in a multitude of ways.


Image Source: Dhemer Gonçalves

Gay men adopted other items that included a sailor’s uniform and sneakers. In England and France between the world wars, gay and bisexual men adopted the sailor’s uniform because of the outfit’s association with masculinity and voracious sexuality and its figure-revealing fit and silhouette. Use of the style faded when the sailor uniform was adapted into mainstream fashion (Stephenson, 2016). Scott (2011) proposed sneakers were important to gay men in three ways. First, sneakers can be viewed as feminine and are thus discouraged if one wants to appear masculine (e.g., biker and leather subcultures eschew sneakers and favor boots). Second, sneakers can be viewed as masculine among middle-class gay men and, as part of the butch shift, or as gay men assimilated (e.g., jocks and straight-acting mainstream masculinity). Third, sneakers are considered masculine but fetishized, as in the example of working-class subcultures or gay skinheads.

Much of the research on gay men’s dress has been conducted on White men, leaving significant opportunities for future research on other races and ethnicities. However, the research that has been conducted has yielded important findings. Cole’s (2019) work on gay Black men in Britain and the United States found gay Black men note attention to detail as important, considering age, race, class, and how one wanted to present oneself with consideration of time and place: “What constitutes gay men’s style and what constitutes Black gay men’s style raises questions about whether it is possible to identify gay styles broadly and black gay styles specifically at this time” (p. 54). Drummond (2005) argued gay Asian men have different styles of clothes for home, straight/mainstream, and gay spheres. Tan (2019) documented the dissemination of the bear style from the United States to Japan, through Northeast Asia, and into Taiwan and found bears in Taiwan cultivate their look to achieve sexual capital by using clothes—such as tank tops or bright colors on sleeves and torsos of shirts—to draw attention to their thick or beefy bodies. Last, Horton’s (2020) research on the regulation of flamboyant dress (or fabulousness) in India, from within its own gay communities, argued dress has become politicized: a matter of respectability politics rather than one of enjoyment of pushing boundaries.

Bisexual Identities and Dress

Some scholars have focused their research specifically on the ways in which bisexual-identifying individuals negotiate their identity through dress. Taub (2003) surveyed mostly White, bisexual-identifying women and reported a variety of ways these women fashioned their bodies; in their responses, there was significant discussion of negotiating societal gender norms and stereotypical lesbian appearance norms. Some of these women rejected dominant culture’s norms and created “personalized and affirming beauty ideas and practices” (Taub, 2003, p. 21), whereas others felt pressure to conform to lesbian norms such as the “soft butch” aesthetic (p. 21).

Hartman (2013) conducted interviews with mostly White, bisexual-identifying women. Participants frequently relayed a desire to make themselves visual as bisexual in public settings because of their belief that society often deems them invisible, sometimes referred to as bi-erasure (for discussions of bisexual invisibility, see Bradford, 2004; Firestein, 1996; Fox, 1995; Tabatabai & Linders, 2011). Participants used the terms attitude, androgyny, and a hybrid of heterosexual and homosexual aesthetics to describe a bisexual display, and participants placed significant emphasis on gender negotiations through style. The participants described their use of overt pride aesthetics, such as pins or slogan T-shirts—particularly those with the bi-pride colors (pink, blue, and purple). Although Hartman’s (2013) participants articulated specific aesthetics to highlight their bisexual identity, they also expressed it was “difficult to pin down such a description” (p. 49). Similarly, other researchers found a lack of distinct dress aesthetics for bisexual individuals (Clarke & Spence, 2013; Clarke & Turner, 2007; Hayfield, 2011; Hayfield et al., 2013; Holliday, 1999; Huxley et al., 2014).


A pile of plastic arm bands with pink, blue, and purple colors mixed and bi.org printed on the front.
Image Source: WeHoCity, CC BY NC ND

In a follow-up study, Hartman-Linck (2014) discussed the importance of bisexual signifiers in private or intimate spaces such as around close friends or family. Although not on the body directly, her participants related using aesthetics of the home, such as magnets or artwork with lesbian symbols, to signify their identity. Artwork or magnets are arguably not “hand-held objects” (Roach-Higgins & Eicher, 1992, p. 1), yet they are debatably an extension of the body in the context of these private spheres.

In one of the most recent studies, Daly et al. (2018) again examined bisexual women’s appearance and dress. Similar to the aforementioned studies, the bisexual participants’ appearance markers conformed to stereotypical lesbian aesthetics (or masculine-leaning styles), or they adopted mainstream gender norms by using feminine signifiers. The participant’s partner’s gender often motivated adoption of various styles. For example, some women in same-gender relationships adopted feminine aesthetics to avoid others assuming they identified as lesbian.

Duffin (2016) interviewed African American men who were behaviorally bisexual but chose to identify as straight and described themselves as “on the down low” or “DL” (p. 484). The down low or DL phenomenon is significant in the Black community because of the stigmatization of homosexuality; the phrase emerged in rap music lyrics in the 1990s (Cohen, 1999) and has been discussed in other popular press articles (Denizet-Lewis, 2014). In Duffin’s (2016) work, dress was not the research’s primary focus, but in one part of the results, he reported men often associated femininity with being gay. That is, these bisexually behaving men asserted their masculinity by wearing baggy or other stereotypically masculine styles. By contrast, one participant defined being gay as wearing “tight clothes, swish[ing] up and down the street, [and] act[ing] like a girl” (Duffin, 2016, p. 499).

Required reading

Huxley, C., Clarke, V. and Halliwell, E. (2014), Resisting and Conforming to the ‘Lesbian Look’: The Importance of Appearance Norms for Lesbian and Bisexual Women. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 24: 205-219. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.2161

Kelly L. Reddy-Best & Elaine L. Pedersen (2015) The relationship of gender expression, sexual identity, distress, appearance, and clothing choices for queer women, International Journal of Fashion Design, Technology and Education, 8:1, 54-65, DOI: 10.1080/17543266.2014.958576

To access these articles, read them on campus or look up the article’s titles on the University Library website and log in with your NetID and password.

The Fashion Industry and LGBTQ+ Identities

In the 2010s, there was a significant emergence of queer-focused brands in the fashion industry selling a variety of different products such as suits and suit coordinates, sportswear, accessories, swimwear, shoes, and undergarments or other objects worn near or against the skin (Reddy-Best et al., 2020; Reddy-Best, 2017, 2020; Reddy-Best & Goodin, 2018). Many of these brands garnered widespread attention in 2016 when HBO released Suited, a documentary about Bindle & Keep—a Brooklyn, New York-based company that produces suits and suit coordinates for gender-nonconforming people. Many of Bindle & Keep’s clients described feeling—for the first time in their life—comfortable in their suit and liking the way they looked in the mirror (Benjamin, 2016). Because many LGBTQ+ individuals push gender boundaries in their dress, they often have difficulty shopping for clothes that fit their bodies and desired gender and/or sexual presentations (Pierre, 2020; Reddy-Best & Pedersen, 2015); many of these queer-focused fashion brands emerged to address these issues.

Many of the entrepreneurs who started these businesses cited entering the industry because they were unable to find clothing that fit themselves or their partners (Benjamin, 2016; Reddy-Best, 2020; Reddy-Best et al., 2020). For example, Thúy of Thúy Custom Clothier asserted they could personally empathize with their clients and the inability to find masculine-leaning clothes, and this ability to empathize has created a trusting shopping environment for their customers (Reddy-Best et al., 2020). Bindle & Keep designer Rae Tutera recalled their first suit: “I just never felt so good about myself before. . . . It was just such a powerful experience for me. I couldn’t help but want to take it and adapt it to a landscape that welcomed people like me” (Benjamin, 2016, 5:14). Some brand owners may not personally have difficulty finding clothing, but a loved one might. For example, Abby Sugar was inspired to start Play Out because her ex-wife was unable to find masculine-style underwear (Reddy-Best et al., 2020).

The development of the Internet and the increase in LGBT+ rights in the United States were catalysts for the creation of some brands. For example, Saint Harridan, now closed, developed alongside the legalization of same-sex marriage and the need for masculine-leaning wedding attire for gender-nonconforming individuals (Reddy-Best, 2020). Additionally, with the changing retail landscape and the boost in e-commerce, designers are no longer required to pitch to wholesale buyers or generate the overhead to build and sustain a storefront (Worsley, 2011). Therefore, these brands can enter the market with little to no capital investment. Social media has also allowed brands to target and attract customers (Reddy-Best et al., 2020). For example, Rebirth Garments—a company that designs garments and accessories that promote queerness, disability, and fat identities—sells products from its Etsy store and accepts orders via direct messages on social media (Reddy-Best & Goodin, 2018). These virtual spaces have also allowed brands to politicize fashion by circulating imagery that challenges larger hegemonic gender norms. For example, Saint Harridan worked with Miki Vargas, a queer-fashion photographer, to capture gender-boundary-pushing aesthetics. As these images circulated on Saint Harridan’s social media, discussions often focused on “gender and identity politics,” “shifting ideologies surrounding gender,” and “signs of solidarity with other groups experiencing oppression,” such as people of color (Reddy-Best, 2020, p. 99).

Unfortunately, several brands have since closed (e.g., Saint Harridan stopped operations only four years after its founding in 2012 because of a lack of capital investment; Reddy-Best, 2020). Overall, these brands reflect the numerous ways individuals in the LGBTQ+ community fashion their bodies and will largely have a lasting impact as trailblazers of the queer-fashion brands movement in the early part of the 21st century.

Watch this research presentation on the development of queer and trans fashion brands in the 21st century.




Allen, M. P. (2010). Connecting body and mind: How transgender people changed their self-image. Women & Performance, 20(3), 267–283. https://doi.org/10.1080/0740770X.2010.529248

Barry, B., & Drak, D. (2019). Intersectional interventions into queer and trans liberation: Youth resistance against right-wing populism through fashion hacking. Fashion Theory, 23(6), 679–709. https://doi.org/10.1080/1362704x.2019.1657260

Barry, B., & Martin, D. (2015). Dapper dudes: Young men’s fashion consumption and expressions of masculinity. Critical Studies in Men’s Fashion, 2(1), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1386/csmf.2.1.5_1

Barry, B., & Martin, D. (2016). Gender revels: Inside the wardrobes of young gay men with subversive style. Fashion, Style & Popular Culture, 3(2), 225–250. https://doi.org/10.1386/fspc.3.2.225_1

Barry, B., & Reilly, A. (2020). Gender more: An intersectional perspective on men’s transgression of the gender dress binary. In A. Reilly & B. Barry (Eds.), Crossing boundaries: Fashion to deconstruct and reimagine gender (pp. 122–136). Intellect Books.

Beemyn, B. G. (2015). Genderqueer. GLBTQ: An encyclopedia of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and queer culture. http://www.glbtqarchive.com/ssh/genderqueer_S.pdf

Benjamin, J. (Director). (2016). Suited [Film]. A Casual Romance Productions.

Blackman, I., & Perry, K. (1990). Skirting the issue: Lesbian fashion for the 1990s. Feminist Review, 34(1), 67–78. https://doi.org/10.2307/1395306

Blake, D. A. (2019). “It ain’t he, it ain’t she, it’s we.” Dress: The Journal of the Costume Society of America, 45(1), 1–21, https://doi.org/10.1080/03612112.2019.1559529

Bourdieu, P. (1990). Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste. Harvard University Press.

Bradford, M. (2004). The bisexual experience: Living in a dichotomous culture. Journal of Bisexuality, 4(1/2), 7–23. https://doi.org/10.1300/J159v04n01_02

Burton, K. (2016, December 31). Lesbians invented hipsters. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/31/opinion/sunday/hipsters-broke-my-gaydar.html

Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. Routledge.

Catalpa, J. M., & McGuire, J. K. (2020). Mirror epiphany: Transpersons’ use of dress to create and sustain their affirmed gender identities. In A. Reilly & B. Barry (Eds.), Crossing boundaries: Fashion to deconstruct and reimagine gender (pp. 47–59). Intellect Books.

Cerankowski, K. J., & Milks, M. (2010). New orientations: Asexuality and its implications for theory and practice. Feminist Studies, 36(3), 650+. https://doi.org/10.2307/27919126

Clark, D. (1995). Commodity lesbianism. In E. K. Creekmur & A. Doty (Eds.), Out in culture (pp. 484–500). Duke University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1220htt.35

Clarke, V., & Spence, K. (2013). Will the real lesbian please stand up? Constructing and resisting visible non-heterosexual identities through dress and appearance. Psychology of Sexuality, 4(1), 25–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/19419899.2013.748240

Clarke, V., & Turner, K. (2007). Clothes maketh the queer? Dress, appearance and the construction of lesbian, gay and bisexual identities. Feminism & Psychology, 17(2), 267–276. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353507076561

Cohen, C. J. (1999). Boundaries of blackness: AIDS and the breakdown of Black politics. University of Chicago Press.

Cole, S. (2000). Don we now our gay apparel: Gay men’s dress in the twentieth century. Berg.

Cole, S. (2008). Butch queens in macho drag: Gay men, dress, and subcultural identity. In A. Reilly & S. Cosbey (Eds.), Men’s fashion reader (pp. 279–294). Fairchild.

Cole, S. (2013). Queerly visible: Gay men’s dress and style 1960–2012. In V. Steele (Ed.), A queer history of fashion: From the closet to the catwalk (pp. 135–166). Yale University Press.

Cole, S. (2019). The difference is in the detail: Negotiation black gay male style in the twenty-first century. Dress: The Journal of the Costume Society of America, 45(1), 39–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/03612112.2019.1557833

Connell, R. W., & Messerschmidt, J. (2009). Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the concept. Gender & Society, 19(6), 829–859. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243205278639

Cooley, C. H. (1902). Human nature and social order. Charles Scribner’s Sons.

Corwin, A. I. (2009). Language and gender variance:  Constructing gender beyond the male/female binary.  Electronic Journal of Human Sexuality, 12. Accessed December 7, 2017 from http://mail.ejhs.org/Volume12/Gender.htm

Daly, S. J., King, N., & Yeadon-Lee, T. (2018). ‘Femme it up or dress it down’: Appearance and bisexual women in monogamous relationships. Journal of Bisexuality, 18(3), 257–277, https://doi.org/10.1080/15299716.2018.1485071

Davis, F. (1992). Fashion, culture, and identity. University of Chicago Press.

Denizet-Lewis, B. (2014, March 20). The scientific quest to prove bisexuality exists. New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/23/magazine/the-scientific-questto-prove-bisexuality-exists.html?_r=0

Drummond, M. J. N. (2005). Asian gay men’s bodies. Journal of Men’s Studies, 13(3), 291–300. https://doi.org/10.3149/jms.1303.291

Duffin, T. P. (2016). The lowdown on the down low: Why some bisexually active men choose to self-identify as straight. Journal of Bisexuality, 16(4), 484–506. https://doi.org/10.1080/15299716.2016.1252301

Edwards, T. (1994). Erotics and politics: Gay male sexuality, masculinity, and feminism. Routledge.

Elman, R. A. (1996). Triangles and tribulations: The politics of Nazi symbols. Journal of Homosexuality, 30(3), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1300/J082v30n03_01

Entwistle, J. (2000). Fashion and the fleshy body: Dress as embodied practice. Fashion Theory, 4(3), 323–348. https://doi.org/10.2752/136270400778995471

Esterberg, K. G. (1996). “A certain swagger when I walk”: Performing lesbian identity. In S. Seidman (Ed.), Queer theory/sociology (pp. 259–279). Blackwell Publishers Ltd.

Faderman, L. (1991). Odd girls and twilight lovers: A history of lesbian life in the twentieth century. Penguin Books.

Farrell-Beck, J., & Parsons, J. (2007). Twentieth century dress in the United States. Fairchild.

Feinberg, L. (1993). Stone butch blues. Firebrand books.

Firestein, B. A. (1996). Bisexuality as a paradigm shift: Transforming our disciplines. In B. A. Firestein (Ed.), Bisexuality: The psychology and politics of an invisible minority (pp. 263–291). Sage.

Fox, R. C. (1995). Bisexual identities. In A. R. D’Augelli & C. J. Patterson (Eds.), Lesbian, gay, and bisexual identities over the lifespan (pp. 48–86). Oxford University Press.

Freitas, A., Kaiser, S. B., & Hammidi, T. (1996). Communities, commodities, cultural space, and style. In D. L. Wardlow (Ed.), Gays, lesbian, and consumer behavior: Theory, practice, and research issues in marketing (pp. 83–107). The Haworth Press.

Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Geczy, A. & Karaminas, V. (2013). Queer style. Bloomsbury.

Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Random House, Inc.

Griffin, G. (2017). Butch/femme. In A dictionary of gender studies. Oxford University Press. https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780191834837.001.0001/acref-9780191834837-e-45.

Hammidi, T. N., & Kaiser, S. B. (1999). Doing beauty: Negotiating lesbian looks in everyday life. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 3(4), 55–63. https://doi.org/10.1300/J155v03n04_07

Hartman, J. E. (2013). Creating a bisexual display: Making bisexuality visible. Journal of Bisexuality, 13(1), 39–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/15299716.2013.755727

Hartman-Linck, J. E. (2014). Keeping bisexuality alive: Maintaining bisexual visibility in monogamous relationships. Journal of Bisexuality, 14(2), 177–193. https://doi.org/10.1080/15299716.2014.903220

Hayfield, N. J. (2011). Bisexual women’s visual identities: A feminist mixed-methods exploration. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of the West of England.

Hayfield, N., Clarke, V., Halliwell, E., & Malson, H. (2013). Visible lesbians and invisible bisexuals: Appearance and visual identities among bisexual women. Women’s Studies International Forum, 40(8), 172–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsif.2013.07.015

Hemmings, C. (1999). Out of sight, out of mind? Theorizing femme narrative. Sexualities, 2(4), 451–464. https://doi.org/10.1177/136346099002004005

Hillman, B. (2015). Dressing for the culture wars: Style and the politics of self-presentation in the 1960s and 1970s. University of Nebraska Press.

Holliday, R. (1999). The comfort of identity. Sexualities, 2(4), 475–491. https://doi.org/10.1177/136346099002004007

Horton, B. A. (2020). Fashioning fabulation: Dress, gesture and the queer aesthetics of Mumbai Pride. South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies, 43(2), 294–307. https://doi.org/10.1080/00856401.2020.1716288

Humphries, M. (1985). Gay machismo. In A. Metcalf & M. Humphries (Eds.), The sexuality of men (pp. 70–85). Pluto.

Huxley, C., Clarke, V., & Halliwell, E. (2014). Resisting and conforming to the ‘lesbian look’: The importance of appearance norms for lesbian and bisexual women. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 24(3), 205–219. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.2161

Kaiser, S. B. (1990). The social psychology of clothing: Symbolic appearances in context (2nd ed.). Macmillan.

Kaiser, S. B. (1997). The social psychology of clothing: Symbolic appearances in context. Macmillan.

Kaiser, S. B. (2012). Fashion and cultural studies. Bloomsbury.

Katz, J. D. (2013). Queer activist fashion. In V. Steele (Ed.), A queer history of fashion: From the closet to the catwalk (pp. 219–232). Yale University Press.

Lane-Steele, L. (2011). Studs and protest-hypermasculinity: The tomboyism within Black lesbian female masculinity. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 15(4), 480–492. https://doi.org/10.1080/10894160.2011.532033

Lennon, S. J., Johnson, K. K. P., & Rudd, N. A. (2017). Social psychology of dress. Bloomsbury.

Levine, M. P. (1998). Gay macho: The life and death of the homosexual clone. University Press.

Levitt, H. M., Gerrish, E. A., & Hiestand, K. R. (2003). The misunderstood gender: A model of modern femme identity. Sex Roles, 48(3/4), 99–113. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022453304384

Levitt, H. M., & Hiestand, K. R. (2004). A quest for authenticity: Contemporary butch gender. Sex Roles, 50(9/10), 605–621. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:sers.0000027565.59109.80

Levitt, H. M., & Horne, S. G. (2002). Explorations of lesbian-queer genders. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 6(2), 25–39. https://doi.org/10.1300/J155v06n02_05

Maltry, M., & Tucker, K. (2002). Female fem(me)ininities. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 6(2), 89–102. https://doi.org/10.1300/J155v06n02_12

McGuire, J. K., & Chrisler, A. (2016). Body art among transgender youth: Marking social support, reclaiming the body, an creating a narrative identity. In Y. Kiuchi & F. A. Villarruel (Eds.), The young are making their world: Essays on the power of youth culture (pp. 97–118). McFarland & Company.

McGuire, J. K., Doty, J. L., Catalpla, J. M., & Ola, C. (2016). Body image in transgender young people: Findings from a qualitative, community based study. Body Image, 18, 96–107. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2016.06.004

McGuire, J., & Reilly, A. (in press). Aesthetic identity development among trans adolescents and young adults. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal. 

McLean, K. (2008). Silences and stereotypes: The impact of (mis)constructions of bisexuality on Australian bisexual men and women. Gay and Lesbian Issues and Psychology Review, 4(3), 158–165.

Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society. University of Chicago Press.

Milani, T. M., & Kapa, K. (2015). Ready-to-wear sexual politics: The semiotics of visibility on Wits pride t-shirts. Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics Plus, 46, 79–103. https://doi.org/10.5842/46-0-671

moore, m. [sic] (2020). Critical mascara: On fabulousness, creativity and the end of gender. In A. Reilly & B. Barry (Eds.), Crossing boundaries: Fashion to deconstruct and reimagine gender (pp. 192–200). Intellect Books.

Mosher, C. M., Levitt, H. M., & Manley, E. (2006). Layers of leather: The identity formation of leather men as a process of transforming meanings of masculinity. Journal of Homosexuality, 51(3), 93–123. https://doi.org/10.1300/J082v51n03_06

Pierre, D. (2020, September 15). New me, new wardrobe: A transformative makeover. Autostraddle. https://www.autostraddle.com/new-me-new-wardrobe-a-transformative-makeover/.

Rahilly, E. P. (2015). The gender binary meets the gender-variant child: Parents’ negotiations with childhood gender variance. Gender & Society, 29(3), 338–361. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243214563069h

Reddy-Best, K. L. (2017). Miki Vargas: Queer fashion photographer and The Handsome Revolution. Clothing Cultures, 4(2), 153–170. https://doi.org/10.1386/cc.4.2.153_1

Reddy-Best, K. L. (2020). The politicization of fashion in virtual queer spaces: A case study of Saint Harridan, one of the pioneering queer fashion brands in the twenty-first century. In A. Reilly & B. Barry (Eds.), Crossing boundaries: Fashion to deconstruct and reimagine gender (pp. 91–108). Bloomsbury Publishing.

Reddy-Best, K. L., & Baker Jones, K. (2020). Is this what a lesbian looks like? Lesbian fashion and the fashionable lesbian in the United States press, 1960s to 2010s. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 24(2), 159–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/10894160.2019.1685816

Reddy-Best, K. L., & Goodin, D. (2018). Queercrip fashion in the 21st century: Sky Cubacub and the queercrip dress reform. Clothing Cultures, 5(3), 333–357. https://doi.org/10.1386/cc.5.3.333_1

Reddy-Best, K. L., & Goodin, D. (2020). Queer fashion and style: Stories from the Heartland – Authentic Midwestern queer voices through a museum exhibition. Dress: The Journal of the Costume Society of America, 46(2), 115–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/03612112.2019.1686875

Reddy-Best, K. L., Goodin, D., & Streck, K. (2020). 21st century queer fashion brands: Oral history project. Iowa State University Digital Press. https://iastate.pressbooks.pub/queerfashionbrands/

Reddy-Best, K. L., & Pedersen, E. L. (2014). The relationship of gender expression, sexual identity, distress, appearance, and clothing choices for queer women. International Journal of Fashion Design, Technology, and Education, 8(1), 54–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/17543266.2014.958576

Reddy-Best, K. L., & Pedersen, E. L. (2015). Queer women’s experiences purchasing clothing and looking for clothing styles. Clothing & Textile Research Journal, 33(4), 265–279. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887302X15585165

Reilly, A. (2010). Gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered persons. In J. B. Eicher & P. G. Tortora (Eds.), Berg encyclopedia of world dress and fashion: The United States and Canada (pp. 508–513). Berg.

Reilly, A. (in press). The rise of the bottom: Counterdiscourse to challenge heteronormativity within the gay community. In V. Karaminas & A. Geczy (Eds.), Millennial masculinities: Queers, pimp daddies and lumbersexuals. Rutgers University Press.

Reilly, A., Catalpa, J., & McGuire, J. (2019). Clothing fit issues of trans people. Fashion Studies, 2(1), n.p. https://doi.org/10.38055/FS010201.

Roach-Higgins, M. E., & Eicher, J. B. (1992). Dress and identity. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal10(4), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887302X9201000401

Rossiter, H. (2016). She’s always a woman: Butch lesbian trans women in the lesbian community. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 20(1), 87–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/10894160.2015.1076236

Rothblum, E. (1994). Lesbians and physical appearance: Which model applies? In B. Greene & G. M. Herek (Eds.), Lesbian and gay psychology: Theory, research and clinical applications (pp. 84–97). Sage.

Rothblum, E. (2010). The complexity of butch and femme among sexual minority women in the 21st century. Psychology of Sexualities Review, 1(1), 29–42.

Schrock, D. P., Boyd, E. M., & Leaf, M. (2009). Emotion work in the public performances of male-to-female transsexuals. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38(5), 702–712. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-007-9280-2

Scott, D. T. (2011). Contested kicks: Sneakers and gay masculinity, 1964–2008. Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, 8(2), 146–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/14791420.2011.566275

Serano, J. (2007). Whipping girl: A transsexual woman on sexism and the scapegoating of femininity. Seal Press.

Snorton, C. R. (2009). “A new hope”: The psychic life of passing. Hypatia, 24(3), 77–92. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20618165

Steele, V. (2013). A queer history of fashion: From the closet to the catwalk. In V. Steele (Ed.), A queer history of fashion: From the closet to the catwalk (pp. 7–75). Yale University Press.

Stein, A. (1998). All dressed up. But no place to go? The style wars and new lesbianism. In C. K. Creekmur & A. Doty (Eds.), Out in culture: Gay, lesbian, and queer essays on popular culture (pp. 476–483). Duke University Press.

Stephenson, A. (2016). “Our jolly marin wear”: The queer fashionability of the sailor uniform in interwar France and Britain. Fashion, Style & Popular Culture, 3(2), 157–172. https://doi.org/10.1386/fspc.3.2.157_1

Tabatabai, A., & Linders, A. (2011). Vanishing act: Non-straight identity narratives of women in relationships with women and men. Qualitative Sociology, 34(4), 583–599. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-011-9202-4

Tan, C. K. K. (2019). Taipei gay “bear” culture as sexual field, or, why did Nanbu bear fail? Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 48(4), 563–585. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891241617742191

Taub, J. (2003). What should I wear? A qualitative look at the impact of feminism and women’s communities on bisexual women’s appearance. Journal of Bisexuality, 3(1), 9–22. https://doi.org/10.1300/J159v03n01_02

Taylor, Y. (2007). “If your face doesn’t fit . . .” The misrecognition of working-class lesbians in scene space. Leisure Studies, 26(2), 161–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/02614360600661211

Von Busch, O. (2009). Engaged design and the practice of fashion hacking: The examples of Giana Gonzalez and Dale Sko. Fashion Practice, 1(2), 163–185. https://doi.org/10.2752/175693809×469148

Walker, L. M. (1993). How to recognize a lesbian: The cultural politics of looking like what you are. Signs, 18(4), 866–890. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3174910

Wearing Gay History. (n.d.). About. https://wearinggayhistory.com/about

Wilson, E. (2013). What does a lesbian look like? In V. Steele (Ed.), A queer history of fashion: From the closet to the catwalk (pp. 167–192). Yale University Press.

Worsley, H. (2011). 100 ideas that changed fashion. Laurence King.


Representation of thinking and ideas being generated. Two black heads face eachother. One has question marks above the head. The other has yellow light bulbs above their head.

Sexuality Case Study

Step One: Become familiar with the case study

  1. The case study attached below is a word document and can be downloaded. It includes the task, evaluation, and template for the case study:

Sexuality Case Study [DOC]

Step Two: Submit your complete assignment on Canvas

  1. Format your document.
  2. Reminder to check the submission against the rubric.


Icon for the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

Dress, Appearance, and Diversity in U.S. Society by Kelly Reddy-Best is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book