Continental feminism denotes an approach to feminist issues inphilosophy and the worldboth via figures and methods of whatis called the “Continental” tradition in philosophyand via critical interventions into this tradition.Continental tradition in philosophy today refers to a set ofnineteenth and twentieth century figures and theoretical traditionsfrom mainland Europe, arising as a way for English-speakingphilosophers in the United States to distinguish their approach tophilosophical questions from that of the analytic tradition. Byutilizing one or more of the signature schemas of the Continentaltradition, Continental feminists contribute to problem areas rangingfrom metaphysics, epistemology, aesthetics, ethics, and social andpolitical philosophy. Continental feminism thus refers to a body andstyle of work consisting of feminist interpretations of mainstreamContinental figures (largely from what is called “ContinentalEurope”, such as Hegel, Levinas, Derrida, Foucault); feministuses of psychoanalysis, phenomenology, deconstruction, genealogy, andcritical theory; and of interpretations of European feminists andfigures such as de Beauvoir, Irigaray, Arendt, and Kristeva. Note,however, that Europe is not and has never been a continent, and inthis sense, Continental feminism, like Continental philosophy, is moreof an imagined community of approaches, figures, and traditions, or anumbrella concept, rather than a precise term.

Elaine Miller points out that the term “Continentalfeminism” came into circulation in the United States in 2007(Miller 2017); as she defines it, Continental feminism

involves a commitment to the historicity of philosophical concepts,including the sometimes-uncomfortable contexts of their production, abelief that it is through the examination of texts that the genealogyof ideas can be traced and resources for critically responding to themcan be formulated, and that the “canon” is subject toconstant re-interrogation and reconfiguration. (Miller 2017: 154)

In Allison Stone’s terms,

describing the world as it really is—not as an aggregate ofstatic items but as an ever-shifting web of relations—calls forunfamiliar, difficult language. (Stone 2015: 4)

A distinguishing feature of Continental feminism, Miller and Stoneagree, is that it

embodies a refusal toprima facie privilege clarity andsuccinctness of argument over acknowledging through language thecomplexity, difficulty, and problematic nature of the issues beingaddressed. (Miller 2017: 154; Stone 2015: 2)

As a way of beginning to address the Euro- and U.S.-centric biases ofcontinental philosophy, a transContinental turn in Continentalfeminism proposed by Kyoo Lee and Alyson Cole aims to incorporate aglobal view of feminist issues and theories, where

“trans” serves as a marker for the constant geo-culturalflows of ideas in transit, as in “transatlantic”,“transpacific”, “transoceanic”, etc., as wellas for cutting-edge works, conversations, and debates intrans-critical, cultural, disciplinary, human, gender, genic, lingual,medial, national fields, etc., and as trans*feminist discourses. (Coleand Lee 2019: iv)

Accordingly, this entry will take Continental feminism to include thefollowing distinct yet related set of issues and areas: (1) thefeminist use of figures, traditions, and approaches ofphenomenology/existentialism, psychoanalysis, post-structuralism(deconstruction and genealogy), and critical theory; (2) criticalinterventions into the assumptions about sex, gender, class, race,ability, religion, and age endemic to European philosophy; and (3)interpretations of hitherto underrepresented figures and methods offeminism from a transContinental and transAtlantic perspective thatestablish new, abandoned, or previously delegitimated genealogies forfeminist thought.

It is important to note that not all Continental feminists arephilosophers or work in Philosophy departments; thus, Continentalfeminism is interdisciplinary and its practitioners come from variousfields. As this subfield developed in the early 2000s, there werealready disciplinary, intra-disciplinary and extra-disciplinaryprojects that explored feminist issues by utilizing phenomenological,psychoanalytic, deconstructive, and critical theoretical approaches.Rather than organizing this entry around the signature schemas of theContinental tradition and subsuming ongoing work that uses theseapproaches under them, this entry will locate crucial genealogies forContinental feminism in the work of Black feminists, post- anddecolonial feminists, women of color feminists, Asian Americanfeminists, trans feminists, and queer feminists. We take thesegenealogies as central to the past, present, and future of Continentalfeminism, and accordingly this entry is organized topically, in orderto outline the ways that Continental feminisms have developed inconversation and in tension with these interdisciplinary projects.These projects have been unearthing the cissexist,sexist/misogynistic, racist, heterosexist, classist, ageist, ableist,colonial commitments of philosophy as a discipline and a professionalfield as they are simultaneously expanding, transforming, and pushingthe concerns and methods of Continental thought in interdisciplinaryiterations. Indeed, what distinguishes Continental feminism clearlyfrom Analytic feminism are its call for interdisciplinarity and itsbelief that feminist omissions themselves can become sites from whichnew projects are launched, as will be highlighted throughout thisentry. As such, Continental feminism starts with the premise thatEuropean or Anglo-American norms and categories of thought can beinterpreted, critiqued, and re-envisioned or abandoned for feministpurposes.

• 1. Characteristics of Continental Feminism
• 2. Continental Feminism and Black Feminist Thought
• 3. Continental Feminism and Post- and Decolonial Thought
• 4. Continental Feminism and Queer Theory/Queer of Color Critique
• 5. Continental Feminism and Trans Studies
• 6. Continental Feminism and Asian American Feminist Thought
• 7. Conclusion and New Directions in Continental Feminism
• Bibliography
• Academic Tools
• Other Internet Resources
• Related Entries

1. Characteristics of Continental Feminism

Continental feminists share with other Continental thinkers aninterest in close reading that uses careful exegesis to unpack thedeep meanings of texts through attention to their linguistic andhistorical specificity. However, to utilize a philosophical traditionthat has largely presumed rather than explored the impacts of sex andgender on material life, continental feminists often read irreverentlyto focus on concerns that traditional philosophy might push to theside. While all feminist theorizing deals with questions of power,subjectivity, and culture, Continental feminist approaches to theseissues are oftencritical in the sense that they explore howexternal power dynamics affect the constitution of inner experiences,and in turn how embodied and subjective re-articulations of power canand should transform the world in the pursuit of justice. Thisfrequently involves taking lived experience as a crucial component ofcritical philosophy; as Gail Weiss puts it,

only by interrogating the “ordinary” dimensions ofexperience is it possible to arrive at an understanding of the dynamicforces that give meaning to individual lives and that are both theobstacle and the vehicle to achieving lasting social change. (Weiss2008: 5)

To present a broad sketch of characteristics of continental feminismthroughout its history, this section focuses on methods thatContinental feminists use to engage embodied experience in theirprojects. The gendered critique of the traditional Westernphilosophical tendency to dichotomize the body that feels and the mindthat thinks is an ongoing theme in continental feminism (see entry onfeminist perspectives on the body). The account presented here is not at all complete, as the specificaims and methods of such feminist projects differ widely, mostimportantly in terms of how an analysis of sex and gender is impactedby other aspects of embodied experience such as race, sexuality, andability. This section first addresses some ways that continentalfeminists trouble a mind-body distinction by engaging affect andemotion in their work. Next, it explores two examples of howcontinental traditions, psychoanalysis and phenomenology, are madeinto critical resources in Continental feminist projects. Finally, itpresents work that engages an ongoing critique of culture and everydayexperience as an important aspect of feminist theorizing.

Many Continental feminists focus on the overlaying of mental andphysical experience via the concepts of affect, emotion, and feeling.Affect is described by Teresa Brennan as “the physiologicalshift accompanying a judgment” (Brennan 2004: 5). The“transmission of affect” describes the way that one cancatch the mood of another; this experience is “social in originbut biological and physical in effect” (Brennan 2004: 3).Brennan describestransmission as when the “emotions oraffects of one person, and the enhancing or depressing energies theseaffects entail” pass from one person to another (Brennan 2004:3). Affect is thus one way to describe how social experience impactsthe corporeal life of subjects through the transference of energy. InBrennan’s case, affective states aredirectional; theyare not neutral but push or press on subjects. At the same time, termslike affect and feeling might be distinguished based on the extent towhich one considers affect to be already coded with or influenced bysocial significance for a subject (see Ahmed 2010: 230–231,Seigworth & Gregg 2010, esp. 5–8).

Continental feminist projects on emotion often analyze historicallycontextualized experiences. Ann Cvetkovich engages with trauma in away that

focuses on the everyday and the insidious…and situates it in asocial and cultural frame rather than a medical one. (Cvetkovich 2007:464)

She then presents a political account of depression thatdepathologizes such negatively-connotated emotional experiences sothat they can become more visible in public and thus create apotential foundation for community (Cvetkovich 2007: 460). InTheCultural Politics of Emotion, Sara Ahmed argues that emotion isgenerated when meaning is produced across social-politicalinteraction; these feelings create the boundaries of affinity groupsand impact self-understanding. In this analysis, emotions helpconstitute what a person understands as their objective condition, andthus

emotions are not “in” either the individual or the social,but produce the very surfaces and boundaries that allow all kinds ofobjects to be delineated. (Ahmed 2004 [2014: 10])

Because feeling is often ambivalent and multi-faceted, rather than inspite of this complexity, social critics who attend to how affects areemployed and manipulated in both textual and social-politicalargumentation can produce readings that trouble an easy dichotomybetween what is a “good” and what a “bad”experience.

Psychoanalytically-informed projects use concepts such as trauma,mourning, melancholia, and abjection to analyze embodied experience(Irigaray 1974 [1985]; Spillers 1996; Butler 1997; Felman 2002; Oliver2004; entry onpsychoanalytic feminism). They frequently engage aesthetics as an aspect of social critique(Chanter 2008; Kristeva 1980 [1982]; Miller 2014). This allows asymptomatic reading of feeling to be interpreted back against thesocial order, as is seen in Judith Butler’sFrames ofWar. In this text, Butler analyzes what makes a life grievableand argues that the questions of who appears as a human, whose lifeshould be protected, and who does not are all figured in advance ofany particular political decision through a pre-reflexive manipulationof affect (Butler 2009 [2016: 64]). Supplementing democratic theorywith Continental feminist interpretations, Noëlle McAfee deploysKristeva and the resources in her thought, as well as psychoanalysis,specifically on the issues of affect and the notion of the“political unconscious” (McAfee 2000 and 2008).

Critical phenomenologists draw on the methods of phenomenology todemonstrate “the multiple ways in which power moves through ourbodies and our lives” (Introduction, Weiss, Murphy, &Salamon 2020: xiv). Lisa Guenther understands critical phenomenologyas both a way of doing philosophy and a way of approaching politicalactivism (Guenther 2020: 15). Most characteristically, Guenther arguesthat critical phenomenology employs reworked versions of

Merleau-Ponty’s concept of the body schema to account forgendered and sexual schemas (Simone de Beauvoir, Iris Marion Young,Talia Mae Bettcher, Gayle Salamon), racialized schemas (Frantz Fanon,Lewis Gordon, Sara Ahmed, George Yancy, Alia Al-Saji), disabilityschemas (Kay Toombs, Lisa Diedrich, Havi Carel), and other aspects oflived experience. (Guenther 2020: 13–14)

A recent volume edited by Gail Weiss, Ann V, Murphy, and GayleSalamon, entitled50 Concepts for a Critical* Phenomenology(2020), shows that many of the central concepts of criticalphenomenology intersect with Continental feminism.

Finally, considering the social and political import of inner statesand the centering of quotidian experiences of power enable Continentalfeminists to explore culture as it develops. For instance, ShannonSullivan’sGood White People: The Problem with Middle-ClassAnti-Racism focuses on “the personal side of whiteness andwhite privilege” with attention to the embodied experience ofrace (S. Sullivan 2014: 19) to critique the ways through which whiteliberals set themselves up as altruistic, “good” whitepeople through, e.g., hypocritical modes of tolerance that maintainwhite domination (S. Sullivan 2014: 4). Robin James’Resilience & Melancholy explores pop music as a way toanalyze the impact of neoliberal biopolitics; she combines musictheory with psychoanalytic and Foucauldian philosophies to critiquecomplicity with multi-racial white supremacist patriarchy and arguesthat music, e.g., Rihanna’s, offer strategies for counteringthis oppressive power (R. James 2015). InIrony in the Age ofEmpire: Comic Perspectives on Philosophy and Freedom, CynthiaWillett engages film and stand-up comedy to articulate a libidinalunderstanding of freedom that can counter the liberal paradigms ofindividuality with a sense of freedom defined “in terms ofequality and solidarity” (Willett 2008: 14). Erin Tarveranalyzes practices of sports fans, with particular attention tofootball, baseball, and basketball fans in the American South, tobetter understand how individual and group identities are maintainedto “…shore up, reproduce, and very occasionally, subvertracial, sexual and gender hierarchies” (Tarver 2017: 3). Thiswork is often interdisciplinary, and some of these projects work atthe intersection between continental and pragmatist feminisms (seeentry onintersections between pragmatist and continental feminism).

Simultaneously reading carefully and irreverently, continentalfeminists deepen the philosophical account of experience byintegrating historically contextualized feeling into their projects,using and transmuting philosophical traditions and traditionalfigures, and interrogating everyday experiences in their embodied andcultural specificity. This work insists that meaning and social orderfunction through unrecognized cooptation, subordination or exclusionin various intersectional constellations. In general, continentalfeminisms are less concerned with changing a woman’s place in asymbolic or social system, and more focused on upending such systems,as will be explored in more detail in the following sections.

2. Continental Feminism and Black Feminist Thought

This section on the convergences between Black and Continentalfeminist thought begins with a discussion about the history of Blackfeminist scholarship utilizing existential/phenomenological,psychoanalytic, critical, and hermeneutic approaches. It thenintroduces intersectionality as the major heuristic for Black feministtheorizing, and concludes by highlighting emerging areas andintersections between Black studies and Black feminist Continentalthought.

Black women have long been contributors to the Continentalphilosophical tradition. One may argue that their contributions toprofessional philosophy started after the graduation of the firstBlack woman to earn the PhD in philosophy, Joyce Mitchell Cook, whocompleted the degree in 1965 from Princeton University. Even prior tothis date, however, Black women engaged in projects that we canrecognize as Continental feminist projects. Importantly,

many Black intellectuals in the United States going back (at least) tothe nineteenth century offered what are now described as existential,phenomenological, and/or genealogical analyses of race and racism.(Belle 2012, 329 fn. 1)

These contributions did not always occur in the form of traditionalphilosophical discussions, nor are they always created by those whohave professional degrees in philosophy, which is certainly true ofthe nineteenth and early twentieth century thinkers, Sojourner Truth,Maria W. Stewart, andAnna Julia Cooper.

Black feminists’ contributions to Continental philosophydemonstrate the ways in which their voices are crucial to both shapingand expanding the discipline. Kathryn Sophia Belle, Donna-DaleMarcano, and Maria del Guadalupe Davidson editedConvergences:Black Feminism and Continental Philosophy (del Guadalupe et al.2010), the only text at the publication of this entry that addressesboth these topics simultaneously. For the editors, the concept ofconvergence is demonstrated by the natural, historical, and necessaryengagement of Black women with Continental philosophy. Bellewrites,

Black feminist and womanist thinkers inevitably address the very sameissues of agency, identity, alienation, power, and so on that areraised in much recent Continental philosophy. Likewise, from ImmanuelKant to the feminist thinkers of the present, Continental philosophyhas engaged, to some extent, with issues of race and gender. (2010:5)

The Black feminist tradition in Continental philosophy demonstratesthat Black women are not strangers nor enemies of Continentalphilosophy; rather, their unique theoretical positioning affords themthe opportunity to utilize, challenge, and expand the tradition.

Black feminist thinkers contribute to Continental feminist thought inat least two ways. First, they engage directly with Continentalfigures and theories. For example, Lorraine Hansberry comments thatSimone de Beauvoir’sThe Second Sex (1949, translatedin 1953) was arguably the “most important work of thiscentury” (1957 [1995: 129 and 133]), and Antillean thinkerPaulette Nardal draws on both features of the Harlem Renaissance andexistentialist thinkers like Jean-Paul Sartre to provide aphenomenological and genealogical account of how the Black race, andAntilleans in particular, have come to understand their own notion ofrace consciousness in “The Awakening of RaceConsciousness” (1932). More recently, they engage with canonicalfigures and ideologies of Continental philosophy, as in the work ofKathryn Sophia Belle on Hannah Arendt (2014) or Kris Sealey onEmmanuel Levinas (2014). Second, regardless of their professionalPhilosophy degrees or lack thereof, Black feminist thinkers utilizethe tools of the Continental tradition as part of theirinterdisciplinary approaches, as in the use of Foucault in the work ofSylvia Wynter (2003) and the use of Freud, Lacan, and psychoanalysisin the work of Hortense Spillers (1996).

Black feminist thinkers have frequently used intersectionality as aneffective entry-point into conversations with the Continentaltradition. Intersectionality is a Black feminist theory that describesthe oppression that Black women experience as a result of lying at thenexus of simultaneously impactful identities, such as that of race,gender, class, and sexuality. As such, intersectionality can be usedas a phenomenological tool to describe Black women’s livedexperience of oppression. While legal theorist KimberléCrenshaw coined the term in 1989, the theory has been articulated atleast since the mid-nineteenth century in Sojourner Truth’sproclamation, “Ain’t I a Woman?” (1851). In thespeech, Truth highlights that Black women are treated with lessrespect than white women while bearing the same burdens of racism asBlack men. Anna Julia Cooper wrote that Black women are

confronted by a both a woman question and a race problem and is as yetan unknown or an unacknowledged factor in both. (1892 [1988: 134])

In their collective statement from April 1977, The Combahee RiverCollective argues that

Black feminism [is] the logical political movement to combat themanifold and simultaneous oppressions that all women of color face

and that

[t]here is also undeniably a personal genesis for Black feminism, thatis, the political realization that comes from the seemingly personalexperiences of individual Black women’s lives. (Taylor 2017: 15and 17)

Intersectionality is thus a hallmark of Black feminist thought becauseit prioritizes the lived experiences of Black women. In doing so, itsupplies the tools to think about the extent to which one’sconsciousness the world is informed by experiences of racism, sexism,classism, and homophobia.

In addition to its utility in explaining Black women’s livedexperience, intersectionality also provides tools for Black feministsto critique the presumed whiteness and bourgeois-class status offeminism and to combat various forms of oppression and violence. Thus,intersectionality is also key to critiquing phenomenological analysis,that is, analysis of lived experiences and feminist movements throughthe lens of sociopolitical identities such as race, sex, and class.Angela Davis’s textWomen, Race, & Class (1981) isan early model of this approach; it details the history of U.S.women’s movements and their consideration, or lack thereof, ofthe class-based and racial dimensions of womanhood. Texts such asPatricia Hill-Collins’sBlack Feminist Thought: Knowledge,Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment (1990 [2015])underscore the ways in which Black women create their ownepistemological standpoint as a result of their lived experiences. Inthe 1970s to 90s, when Black women’s contributions to academiareached its zenith, Black feminist scholars such as Barbara Christianin “The Race for Theory” (1988), Toni Morrison inPlaying in the Dark (1992), and Audre Lorde in “TheMaster’s Tools will Never Dismantle the Master’sHouse” (1984a) and “Age, Race, Class, and Sex: WomenRedefining Difference” (1984b) exemplified Black women’scritiques of theoretical approaches that adopt a “neutral”stance toward feminist movements where neutral meant presuming allwomen to be white, middle-class, young or middle-aged, andheterosexual (see also Hull, Bell-Scott, & Smith 1982).

Current Black feminist work centers Black epistemologies, practices,and concepts. The burgeoning scholarship of Black women philosopherscontinue to push the boundaries of Continental feminism, as in thework of Lindsey Stewart’s work on Black feminist practices offreedom (2017), Camisha Russell’s work on the issues of race andgender in assisted reproduction (2018), and Axelle Karera’swork, which focuses on the Anthropocene and antiBlackness (2019). Inaddition to engaging with the canonical figures of the Continentaltradition, Black thinkers harvest philosophy from their ownperspective and experience of the world as well as their theoreticalarchives. Much of this more recent work intersects with Black Studies.The work of Black thinkers from disciplines other than philosophy areintersecting with Continental philosophical and feminist approaches,as seen in the works of such as Saidiya Hartman (1997, 2007, and2019), Christina Sharpe (2016), Rizvana Bradley (2014 and 2018),Jennifer Nash (2019), Denise Ferreira da Silva (2007, 2014, and 2018),Riley Snorton (2017), Selamawit Terrefe (2020), and Zakiyyah ImanJackson (2020).

3. Continental Feminism and Post- and Decolonial Thought

Continental feminist approaches to questions on colonialism revolvearound two main sets of investigations: on the one hand, theinterrogation of the hegemony of the West as an abstract category thatis deployed strategically to exclude and inferiorize communitiesdeemed Non-Western (Spivak 1999; Narayan 1997; Mohanty 1984), and onthe other hand, the question of coloniality, which focuses on thepolitical and epistemic ordering of the globe starting with thecolonization of the Americas (Lugones 2003; Wynter 1995; Ortega 2016).To this end, these approaches both use schemas of the Continentaltradition (such as phenomenology, psychoanalysis, genealogy,deconstruction, and poststructuralism) and call into question thegeographic and racial assumptions that underlie Continentalphilosophy. For both of these approaches, an analysis of colonialismis inseparable from the political aim of challenging and undoing thecolonial world. This challenge entails deconstructing the categoriesof the colonially determined globe (such as East-West,Western-Non-Western, Developed-Underdeveloped, First World-ThirdWorld, North-South) through focusing on the concrete lived experiencesof individuals and communities. This section focuses on the generalcharacteristics of these two Continental feminist approaches taken upunder the rough categories of postcolonial and decolonial feminisms,with the former focusing on the Western-Non-western divide that markscolonial relations, and the latter on the North-South dialogues thatemerge within the relations of coloniality. It concludes byhighlighting coalitional thinking, a fundamental aspect of both post-and decolonial feminist approaches.

Postcolonial feminist approaches maintain that in order to interrogatethe hegemony of the West, it is necessary to deconstruct the ways inwhich it is deployed to exclude the non-Western subject. Furthermore,such deployment is always a strategic one, insofar as the“West” is not a concrete geographical category, and theparadigm of Western subjectivity is continuously built by demarcatingthose who do not fit in it. Postcolonial feminisms areinterdisciplinary and not limited to the field of philosophy, and theychallenge the inscription of the gender, racial, and geographiccategories that underlie the hegemony of the Western subject. In doingso, Continental feminist approaches engage with figures frompoststructuralism and critical theory (such as Foucault, Derrida,Deleuze and Adorno), and they deploy methods such as genealogy anddeconstruction (Spivak 1988; Mohanty 1984), in order to question theunderlying geographic and gendered assumptions of these methods. In“Can the Subaltern Speak?” for example, GayatriChakravorty Spivak engages with French poststructuralism and questionsthe paradigms of speech/reason that deny the very possibility ofcapacities such as resistance for those that do not fit within thegeographic, racialized, and gendered boundaries of WesternSubjectivity (Spivak 1988). In doing so, she highlights the ways inwhich poststructuralism relies upon the very categories (of speech,reason, or universal subjectivity) that it ostensibly critiques.

The tension highlighted by Spivak, in which the Western Subjectconstitutes both the dominant subject and the only subject capable ofresistance, underlies postcolonial feminisms’ critique of thealignment of the West with modernity and progress (McClintock 1995;Stoler 1995). Chandra Talpade Mohanty, in “Under WesternEyes”, criticizes the hegemony of Western approaches in definingthe scope and goals of feminist struggles. Issues such as the veildebate, in this sense, point to the political and phenomenologicalracialization of the Non-Western woman (Al-Saji 2010; Sheth 2006). Atthe same time, Uma Narayan draws attention to the risks of fetishizingthe category of the Non-Western and highlights how such afetishization remains within colonially determined divisions (Narayan1997; Narayan & Harding 2000). Namita Goswami, inSubjectsThat Matter, develops heterogeneity as a kind of conceptualcontinuity between feminism, philosophy, and postcolonial studies,which allows for an understanding of difference beyond oppositionaland antagonistic terms (Goswami 2019).

Decolonial feminisms emerge primarily from the U.S. Latina and Latinxcontexts and have a different genealogy, insofar as they are indialogue with Latin American Philosophy, Continental Philosophy,Anglo-American Thought, and especially U.S. Women of Color feminisms.Focusing on North-South dialogues, Latin American and Latina Feministphilosophers such as Ofelia Schutte engage with the work of figuressuch as Nietzsche, Kristeva, and Irigaray while developing LatinAmerican philosophy as a field in U.S. academic philosophy (Schutte1984; 1993; for more, see the entry onLatin American feminism). Linda Martín Alcoff, for example, brings Latin AmericanPhilosophy (particularly the work of Enrique Dussel) in dialogue withexistentialism and poststructuralism in order to develop the frameworkfor Latinx feminisms (Alcoff 2006, 2015).

One of the major frameworks of decolonial feminisms is “thecoloniality of power”, a term first introduced by AníbalQuijano, and defined as “the social classification of theworld’s population around the idea of race” (Quijano 2000:1). In this sense, the colonization of the Americas is not only ahistorical moment, but also the emergence of race and the subsequentreorganization of the globe in accordance with what Walter Mignolocalls “the colonial difference”, denoting the abstractpositioning of Europe as the global hegemonic power (Mignolo 2002).Decolonial feminisms take an intersectional approach to thecoloniality of power and investigate, as María Lugones says,“the emergence of hegemonic gender arrangements along‘racial’ lines” starting with the colonization ofthe Americas (Lugones 2007: 190). Decolonial feminists such as Lugonesand Wynter bring poststructuralist critique in dialogue with LatinAmerican philosophy and argue that dominant gender arrangementsthemselves are colonial; these arrangements, such as patriarchy,heterosexualism, or gender dimorphism mark concrete historicalprocesses of the racial inscription of gender norms, starting from andwith the coloniality of power (Lugones 2008;Oyěwùmí 2007; Wynter 2006).

Decolonial feminisms’ emphasis on historical critique isinseparable from a concern with the concrete lived experiences ofwomen of color (Moraga and Anzaldúa 1981 [2015]; Pérez1999; Lugones 2007, Sandoval 2000). Gloria Anzaldúa, inBorderlands/La Frontera, emphasizes bordered thinking as theunderlying logic of contemporary systems of oppression, and sheformulates the resistances of hybrid identities that emerge both outof and in response to such bordered thinking (Anzaldúa 1987).Mariana Ortega develops Latina feminist phenomenology in emphasizingboth the lived experience of borderlands and exile, and thepossibilities of resistance by developing “home-tactics”in and through these experiences (Ortega 2016).

Coalitional thinking is a fundamental aspect of both post- anddecolonial feminist approaches. Mohanty calls for coalitions acrossborders in thinking through the concrete lived experiences andemphasizes the importance of situated and local struggles inunderstanding hegemonic power relations. Moraga and Anzaldúa,in their coedited collectionThis Bridge Called My Back, callfor concrete and sustained coalitions that are based on anintersectional understanding of women’s lives, rather thanabstract calls for sisterhood. Decolonial feminists such as Lugones,Chela Sandoval, Ortega, and Emma Pérez, maintain thatcoalitional thinking cannot be an afterthought for any anti- ordecolonial struggles (Pérez 1999; Sandoval 2000).

As Continental feminism expands, it involves further conversationswith and in-between these approaches. The questions around the“continent” of Continental feminism, as well as how such acontinent is situated within the colonial geographic boundaries of theWest and the Global North, continue to be challenged. As spaces forsuch a flow of ideas open up, further conversations on the possibilityof coalition, as well as on challenging the limits of colonial thoughtcontinue to reshape the face of Continental feminism.

4. Continental Feminism and Queer Theory/Queer of Color Critique

The relationship between Continental feminism and queer theory issimultaneously productive and fraught. While far from exhaustive, thisentry will first highlight some of the overlapping figures andapproaches between the two fields, including examples of scholarshipat their intersections. It will then briefly introduce one account ofthe tension between them. Finally, it will close with some reflectionson the shared problems across these fields, including theirhistorically white and Anglo-Eurocentric approaches, as well as howrecent work in queer of color critique aligns with and points to newdirections in Continental feminism.

In the late 1980s and the early 1990s, “queer” emerged asa reclamation of a homophobic slur and a rallying cry for a coalitionof the marginalized against the tyranny of the normal (Barker &Scheele 2016; D. Hall & Jagose 2012; Warner 1993; Sedgwick 1993;Anzaldúa 1991 [2009]). Formed in the crucible of the AIDScrisis, which sharpened the need to understand the violenceexperienced by people excluded by norms related to gender andsexuality, “queer” was meant to bring attention to therange of sexual/gender practices deemed outside the purview of thenormal. In one genealogy of queer theory, the field develops thisearly activist reclamation of the term queer into a wide-reachingcritique of how norms operate in and through dominantconceptualizations of identity. Given this motivating impulse ofdeconstruction, or of denaturalizing categories such as sexuality, itis perhaps of no surprise that queer theory has historically been afield well-populated with figures (e.g., Lacan, Foucault, Derrida) andmethodological approaches (poststructuralism, psychoanalysis,phenomenology) that have been associated with Continental philosophy,especially twentieth century European philosophy.

Queer theory frequently draws on, critiques, and expands the ideas ofmany figures and approaches that are seen as early progenitors ofContinental feminism (e.g., Beauvoir, Irigaray, Kristeva, feministphenomenology, feminist poststructuralism, critical theory,psychoanalytic theory). As Jagose (2009) points out, however, thecritique of normative identity categories was not invented by queertheory, given that feminist scholarship has a rich history ofradically disrupting the category of women along lines of race andsexuality. Moreover, the lines between feminism and queer theory arehistorically blurred. For example, Judith Butler—who is oftencited as an originator of queer theory—explicitly marks herearly work as occurring in the intersection of these fields (as wellas a number of other critical discourses) (1997). InGenderTrouble (1990) andBodies that Matter (1993), Butlerdraws on Continental feminist figures such as Irigaray, Beauvoir, andKristeva, and methods ranging from psychoanalysis to poststructuralismand phenomenology to develop a simultaneously queer and feministtheoretical lens focused on understanding the relationship betweengender and sexuality, as well as the operation of norms and identitycategories more broadly (Salih 2002).

A second major figure in the relationship between Continental feminismand queer theory is Michel Foucault, who has been extensively used inboth queer and Continental (and specifically poststructuralist)feminist theory, but who (as opposed to Butler) did not explicitly usethe terms queer and feminist. While a larger account of the connectionbetween Foucault and queer theory is beyond the scope of this entry,the relationship is a rich one. In the late 1980s, Foucault’sTheHistory of Sexuality, Volume One was readheavily by activists and scholars questioning dominant narrativesaround sexuality and identity (Halperin 1995); Foucault’s workwas also influential not only for Judith Butler’sGenderTrouble (1990) but also for another text often cited asfoundational for queer theory, Eve Sedgwick’sEpistemologyof the Closet (1990 [2008]).

Foucault’s genealogical approach to identity, including hisexploration of the histories and models of power at work in modernconceptions of sexuality, has been important for a number ofcontemporary scholars working at the intersections of feminism andqueer theory (Huffer 2010 and 2020; Russell 2010; Sawicki 2005;Schotten 2018; Winnubst 2006). For example, Ladelle McWhorter (1999)takes up Foucault’s account of ethics as a practice of the self,or how we work on ourselves to become particular kinds of people,through a queer framework that resists expected developmentaltrajectories and normative timelines of a life (e.g., heterosexualcoupling resulting in marriage and children). And in a different vein,Jasbir Puar (2007) has drawn on Foucault’s theories of power (aswell as a wide range of interdisciplinary theory includingpostcolonial feminist theory) to analyze the relationship betweencontemporary biopower and homonationalism, or how certain“good” gay and lesbian subjects, by aligning themselveswith U.S. imperialism, are welcomed into the nation-state.

Figures associated with Continental feminism who do not necessarilymark themselves or their work as queer have also been used in queertheoretical projects, just as feminists have historically done withany number of non-feminist philosophers. For example, queer studiesscholars have explored the relative absence of Irigaray in queertheory, argued for the queer resources of her thinking (Huffer 2013;Winnubst 2006), called attention to the potential use ofIrigaray’s disruption of binaries for queer analyses of identity(Butler 1993: 36–39; Grosz 1989), and used Irigarayan conceptsto develop queer analyses of longstanding feminist issues, such as theexperience of breast feeding (R. Lee 2018).

Phenomenological methods can also track this traffic betweenContinental feminism and queer theory. For example, Sara Ahmed’sQueer Phenomenology (2006) explores the use of phenomenologyin queer studies by asking, among other questions, how to understandthe “orientation” of sexual orientation as the way bodiesare directed towards particular objects and away from others. Indeveloping this queer use of phenomenology, Ahmed acknowledges herdebt to feminist philosophers of the body such as Sandra Bartky, IrisMarion Young, Rosalyn Diprose, and Gail Weiss, as well as earlyphenomenologists such as de Beauvoir and phenomenologists of raceincluding Linda Alcoff, Frantz Fanon, and Lewis Gordon.

Given these examples of the overlap of figures and approaches inContinental feminism and queer theory, it is worth asking whatdistinguishes the approaches. One may be tempted to say that feminismfocuses more on gender (historically, within continental feminism,this may be more commonly discussed as sexual difference) and queertheory focuses more on sexuality (including questions of pleasure,desire, and eroticism). Yet many working within Continental feminism,especially as inflected with French theory, also focus on questionsrelated to sexuality such as pleasure, desire, and eroticism. Andthere are also reasons to be suspicious of how the gender-sexualitysplit is narrated as a feminist-queer split. While some have arguedthat there are good reasons to draw distinctions between these fieldsin order to do justice to their distinct concerns (G. Rubin 2011;Halley 2006), there have also been many challenges to overlyprogrammatic forms of this separation (Huffer 2013) and accounts ofhow this narrative can overlook the field’s mutual interest inunderstanding the complex relationship between gender and sexuality,as well as the possibility of a queer feminism (Jagose 2009).Nevertheless, despite the overlaps in figures and archives, as well asthe wealth of resources in queer theory on topics that Continentalfeminist philosophers hold dear (temporality, embodiment, identity,and desire, to name only a few), the relatively slow uptake of textsmarked explicitly as queer theory has been noticeable (Winnubst 2010).This is not to erase the important work done at the intersections ofthese fields but to acknowledge that the relationship is not aseamless one. In their introductory comments to a “Roundtable onContinental Feminism”, Lynne Huffer and Shannon Winnubst (2017)note the relative lack of engagement with queer theory among thecontributions, and they ask whether Continental feminism is capaciousenough to embrace queer theory, a question that has also been posed tophilosophy more broadly (Ahmed 2016b; Salamon 2009; Winnubst2010).

Finally, both Continental feminism and queer theory have also beenextensively critiqued for the whiteness and Anglo-Eurocentric natureof their archives. In one particularly well-known rendition of thiscritique, Cathy Cohen asks whether queer theory has lived up to itsanti-identitarian promise of creating coalitions across difference(2005). As a way to intervene in the whiteness of queer theory(Johnson and Henderson 2005), Roderick Ferguson (2004) coined the term“queer of color critique” to describe how variousintersections of race, gender, sexuality, and class operate innationalistic discourses of identity and belonging; it is, inFerguson’s words,

a heterogenous enterprise made up of women of color feminism,materialist analysis, poststructuralist theory, and queer critique.(Ferguson 2004: 149)

Other notable and early contributors to this sub-field includeJosé Muñoz, E. Patrick Johnson, Chandan Reddy, andGayatri Gopinath. Although the topics at work in queer of colorcritique concerning identity, embodiment, temporality, and affect havealso been topics of central interests to Continental feminists, theuptake of queer of color critique, as with queer theory, has been slowin Continental feminism. However, as Continental feminismexpands—as shown through this entry— the resources ofqueer theory and queer of color critique are waiting in the wings ascrucial, if at times under acknowledged, interlocutors.

Like Continental feminism, queer theory and queer of color critiquecontinue the longstanding feminist tradition of sending texts andideas in directions they were perhaps never intended to travel. Recenttrajectories at the crossroads of Continental feminism and queerstudies include attention to neoliberal capitalism (Winnubst 2015;McWhorter 2012), sex and gender in ancient Greek metaphysics (Bianchi2014); critical disability theory (Puar 2017; K. Hall 2014; Yergeau2018; and Gallop 2019), Latina feminism and existential phenomenology(Ortega 2016), affect and temporality (Ahmed 2019; Amin 2017; Freeman2019), and materialism and concepts of agency (Chen 2012). As exploredin the next section, another important interlocutor with bothContinental feminism and queer theory is transgender studies.

5. Continental Feminism and Trans Studies

A number of scholars have noted the complex interplay of shared anddistinct concerns between trans, feminist, and queer frameworks(Namaste 2000 and 2009; Prosser 1998; Heyes 2003; Salamon 2010a;Stryker 2004). Emerging in the 1990s as a distinct field of academicinquiry, trans studies shares many of the intellectual roots of queertheory yet also departs from queer studies through its explicit focuson trans experience, including both the non-monolithic nature of thatexperience and the importance of trans people speaking for themselvesabout their own lives. Likewise, while many of the theoreticalframeworks and figures at the heart of Continental feminism arepresent in trans studies (e.g., post-structuralism, phenomenology,Foucauldian genealogy, materialism), there have also been importantcritiques of how Continental feminist approaches can ignore orsideline trans experience. Significantly, many of the philosophersworking in Continental feminism and trans studies cited in this entrycross inter- and intra-disciplinary boundaries.

In exploring the relationship between Continental feminist and transstudies, it is crucial to acknowledge the forms that transphobia andtrans-exclusionary gestures can assume in feminist discourse moregenerally. For an extended overview of this history, see the entry onfeminist perspectives on trans issues. The entry explains points of terminology (trans, transgender, trans*,transsexual), as well as the historical emergence of transgenderstudies and the broader (i.e., non-Continental specific) relationshipbetween feminist and trans issues.

In one widely recognized form of feminist transphobia (found in thework of trans-exclusionary radical feminists such as Janice Raymond),trans women are portrayed as not “real” women and asthreats to feminist movements (Bettcher 2006, 2007; McKinnon 2018).However, there is another strand of feminist theory that has adistinct relationship to trans issues, and (importantly for presentpurposes) it is a lineage of feminism that draws heavily onContinental figures such as Butler. While there is no doubt thatButler’s work has been foundational in trans studies as well asin queer theory (Gerdes 2014; Salah 2007), it is also the case thather work has been critiqued for its selective use of trans experience(Prosser 1998; Namaste 1996; H. Rubin 1998; Draz 2022). Critics pointout that trans identity tends be affirmed in Butlerian queer feministdiscourse when it can be used to demonstrate the actualconstructedness of gender, or its lack of ontological necessity, butalso that some trans identity is portrayed as problematicallyessentialist when accompanied by claims to “really be” aman or a woman and/or demands for medical transition (Valentine 2012).While Prosser and Rubin both critique this rejection of claims togender realness from a phenomenological perspective (and Prosser(1998) from a psychoanalytic framework as well), Namaste (1996)focuses on the institutional reality of gender that is often sidelinedin these debates. In response, Jack Halberstam has argued that, whileProsser’s frustration with a selective use of trans identity inqueer and feminist theory is understandable, there are stillsignificant problems with the normativity inherent in the idea ofgendered realness (2005).

Notably, the proliferation of non-trans feminist writers working ontrans issues led to Jacob Hale’s “Suggested Rules forNon-Transsexuals Writing about Transsexuals, Transsexuality,Transsexualism, or Trans____” (1997), which became a cornerstoneof the emerging interdisciplinary field of trans studies and a guideto non-trans people about how to work on trans isues with epistemichumility [Other Internet Resources]. Perry Zurn has reflected on the significance of Hales’s“Suggested Rules” upon the 25th anniversary of itspublication (2023). Following Hale and the emergence of transgenderstudies, significant non-trans feminist philosophical analyses,including work by Cressida Heyes (2003) and Naomi Scheman (1997),articulate theoretical bases for solidarity between cis and transfeminists. There are also important instances of cis feministtheorists bringing trans issues directly into their own work asserious interlocutors, rather than as thought experiments (Ahmed 2016;Colebrook 2015; Shotwell 2012, Shotwell & Sangrey 2009) andcollaborating with trans theorists (Heyes & Latham 2018).

There have also been many new trajectories established at thecrossroads of Continental and trans philosophical approaches togender. A number of philosophers have written at the intersections ofphenomenology and trans studies, particularly in criticalphenomenology, which emphasizes questions of oppression and power inexamining how things appear to us in the world (Weiss, Murphy, andSalamon 2020). Ephraim Das Janssen uses phenomenology, including thework of Martin Heidegger, to examine what transgender experience tellsus about gender (2017). Megan Burke takes up Beauvoirian concepts toexplore androgyny, trans identity, and agender experience (2019) andcritiques trans-exclusionary ways that Beauvoir’s account ofbecoming a woman has been used (2024). Gayle Salamon draws on the workof Maurice Merleau-Ponty to develop a phenomenology of transphobia inThe Life and Death of Latisha King (2018a). Salamon merges atradition of earlier work in phenomenology and trans studies (H. Rubin1998; Prosser 1998) with critical phenomenology. Tamsin Kimoto (2018)has also used both Merleau-Ponty and Frantz Fanon to explore hormonaltransition and transphobia, while Ryan Gustafsson examines experiencesof homelessness among trans people (Gustafsson 2024).

Along similar lines, scholarship in psychoanalysis and trans studiesis also revising longstanding psychoanalytic approaches to sex andgender, including feminist approaches, and is using resources inpsychoanalysis to theorize trans experiences from a less pathologizingperspective (Breslow 2017; Coffman 2017; Stewart 2017; Cavanagh 2010,Elliot 2014). For example, Amy Ray Stewart uses Julia Kristeva’sconcept of “intimate revolt” to illuminate trans and queerexperiences of psychic life (2017). Patricia Gherovici (2017) haswritten about trans phenomena and the need to revise psychoanalyticconcepts using Lacanian theory and her own clinical experience workingwith trans people. Relying on both psychoanalytic and phenomenologicalframeworks, Salamon (2010a) has also defended Butler’s accountof gender against the aforementioned critiques of its treatment oftrans experience and developed her own psychoanalytic andphenomenological account of a dissonance between a felt sense ofgender and an external appearance of a body that is attuned to transexperience.

There is also a body of work that puts foundational figures inContinental feminism into conversation with trans studies. Marie Draz(2018) has placed feminist philosophical uses of Nietzsche, such as inthe work of Butler (1990) and Rosalyn Diprose (2002), intoconversation with trans scholarship on the institutionalization ofgender categories, while Tim Johnston (2015) has argued that althoughscholars of gender and sexuality have used Irigarayan resources fordiscussing trans and queer issues, Irigaray’s own claim thatontology is sexed and that there is an impassable limit between thesexes conveys an unsalvageable cissexism, or privileging of non-transexperience. In a similar vein, Oli Stephano (2019) critiques ElizabethGrosz’s emphasis on the irreducibility of sexual difference,showing that her ontology invalidates trans embodiment andsubjectivities. This critique of Grosz follows earlier work by EvaHayward (2017) on the transphobic implications of some ofGrosz’s feminist materialist arguments. Gayle Salamon alsocritically examines the way that sexual difference operates as a limitto the reimagining of embodiment and materiality in the work of bothIrigaray and Grosz (Salamon 2010a). María Lugones is anotherwidely cited figure in Continental feminism whose work, while notexplicitly about trans issues, has been regularly cited in transscholarship. Lugones’s concepts of world-traveling, multipleworlds of sense, the colonial/modern gender system, and thecoloniality of gender have been particularly influential in analysesof trans oppression and resistance (Bettcher 2014b; Draz 2017a;Malatino 2019, DiPietro 2019, Leo 2020). Finally, like Butler, the useof Foucault in trans studies has also changed dramatically over thelast several decades. For example, Foucault’s work on types ofmodern power has been used (alongside women of color feminism,indigenous scholarship, and numerous other sources) to examine theviolence caused by how state institutions administer legal gendercategories in sex-segregated institutions and identity documents(Spade 2011 [2015]). Foucauldian feminist accounts of prison andpunishment have also been put into conversation with scholarshiprooted in trans and gender non-conforming experience (Dilts 2017;Vitulli 2018; Zurn 2016, 2019).

More recently,Judith Butler’s Who’s Afraid of Gender?(2024) examines the remarkable global rise of anti-genderideology movements, including within feminism, with a particular focuson the U.S. and Britain. Anti-gender movements rely on the concept ofbiological sex as a foundation of their politics, rejecting conceptsof gender identity and social construction that have been central tofeminist and trans politics. While Butler’s book is written fora broad audience, Butler does use key insights from Continentalphilosophical traditions such as psychoanalysis to acknowledge thelimits of approaches that counter trans-exclusionary movements withlogic and rationality. In this vein, Butler elucidates how gender hasbecome an irrational “phantasm” that has linked together awide range of fears and anxieties. This phantasm, Butler argues,allows for many disparate elements to be subsumed into one thing (inthis case, “gender”) which serves to deflect from andcover over legitimate anxieties about current social and politicalrealities. In this analysis, Butler emphasizes how the landscape fortrans politics has shifted dramatically in the last decade, as a vocalglobal movement has increasingly and overtly targeted trans peoplewhile using the deflection offered by the phantasm of“gender” to bolster emerging forms of authoritariansim andfascism.

Trans studies continues, in different veins, many of the foundationalquestions of Continental feminism by bringing the tools of Continentalphilosophy to bear on questions of sex, gender, and sexuality, andvice versa, and it continually orients these conversations in newdirections. Much of this work is informed by other areas of criticaltheory (e.g., critical race theory and decolonial theory) and pushesthe traditional boundaries of Continental feminism. Recent scholarshipon blackness and trans history, for example, has articulated theimportance of developing frameworks capable of understanding thedimensions of racialized gender historically and today (Snorton 2017)and work on migration and Latinx trans people has highlighted the needto attend to both the limits of our political theory and theproductive capacities of trans people of color for generating newworlds (Pitts 2018). Current conversations about the relationshipbetween Continental feminism and trans studies must also involveattention to the material conditions of the academy itself, as thegrowing attention to trans experience in philosophy more broadly hasnot resulted in more trans voices and trans academics (Bettcher 2018(Other Internet Resources); Marvin 2019, 2020). Future directions inContinental feminism and trans studies will need to be attentive notonly to the intriguing philosophical questions occurring in theseconversations, but also how to better create the material conditionsthat allow trans scholarship and people to flourish.

6. Continental Feminism and Asian American Feminist Thought

This section explores the relationship between Continental feminismand Asian American feminist thought, both the tensions between the twoas well as new directions that this relation brings to Continentalfeminism. A major point of convergence between the two fields is thefocus on lived experience of Asian American women. This section beginsby discussing the hypervisibility that Asian American women experiencedue to the specific forms of oppression that they face, namely,orientalization and the Model Minority myth. It then highlights theparadoxical form of invisibility that Asian American feministphenomenologist trace in their body of work. Next, this sectionconsiders the historical position of Asian American women incoalitional feminist projects, especially focusing on the ways inwhich Asian American women have been relegated to a“tag-along” group. Finally, this section will highlightrecent scholarship in Continental feminism that engages with AsianAmerican feminist theory and draws upon both Eastern and Westerntraditions.

It must be noted from the outset that “Asian” is anexceptionally broad term, and the peoples that are consideredAsian/Asian American have often changed throughout history. Inaccordance with anthologies by Asian American women that respond tothis very issue, this section addresses the identities of women whotrace their roots back to East Asia, Southeast Asia, and the Indiansubcontinent (Asian Women United of California 1989; The Women ofSouth Asian Descent Collective 1993).

InThis Bridge Called My Back (Moraga & Anzaldúa1981 [2015]), Asian American thinkers such as Genny Lim, Merle Woo,Nellie Wong, and Mitsuye Yamada established their positions infeminist theorizing by exploring their own perspectives on topicssurrounding gendered identity, sexuality, silencing, the feeling ofnot-belonging, and living against stereotypes of Asian American womenas docile, quiet, agreeable, and submissive. Similarly, inThisBridge We Call Home (Anzaldúa & Keating 2002), Minh-haT. Pham, Shirley Geok-Lin Lim, and Jid Lee theorize from the specificexperiences that they face as Asian American immigrant women, such asexploring a connection to an Asian mother who emigrated to the UnitedStates, navigating the cultural connection they still hold to a landthat they may have never visited, and living in the face of the ModelMinority myth while also subverting the stereotype. Writings thatcenter the perspective of the Asian American and diasporic Asian womanare essential for Asian American feminist theorizing, for, as SoniaShah emphasized,

[a]n Asian American feminist movement isthe only movementthat will consistently represent Asian American women’sinterests. (1998: xix)

Two early anthologies were very important for the formation of AsianAmerican feminism:Making Waves (Asian Women United ofCalifornia [AWUC] 1989) andThe Forbidden Stitch (Lim &Tsutakawa 1989); they both include writings from different ethnic andnational backgrounds, specifically Chinese, Japanese, Filipino,Korean, Vietnamese, and Indian (Hill-Collins & Bilge 2016: 73). Ina recent volume entitledAsian American Feminisms and Women ofColor Politics, editors Lynn Fujiwara and Shireen Roshanravanpresent a series of articles emerging at the intersection of AsianAmerican feminist engagement with Women of Color coalition politics,organizing around concepts, methods, and epistemic principles centralto Women of Color feminist scholarship (Fujiwara & Roshanravan2018)

Hypervisibility of Asian American women is a central issue in mostAsian American feminist projects. Some Asian American feministtheorists, such as Robin Zheng, argue that Asian American women arehypervisible because they are hypersexualized, orientalized, andexoticized. Robin Zheng (2016) discusses the complexities ofhypervisibility “Why Yellow Fever Isn’t Flattering: A CaseAgainst Racial Fetishes”. Zheng argues that there is littledifference between what is known as “yellow fever”, theracial fetishization and preference of Asian women and men, and whatshe calls the “Mere Preference Argument”, which attemptsto claim that there is nothing morally wrong with preferring certainracialized phenotypic traits; as she shows, despite the origin of aracialized fetish, both yellow fever and other racialized fetishes“depersonalize and otherize” their subjects (2016: 412).Zheng shows that these fetishes are not just harmless personalpreferences, but a set of practices and thought patterns that resultin negative social impacts for Asian American women. Relatedly, AsianAmerican women are also hypervisible due to the “Model Minoritymyth”, that is, the myth that asserts that Asian Americans areuniquely hard-working and thus, the ideal “model”minority, especially in contrast with other minority groups. This mythmakes Asian American women hypervisible by making them a part of agroup of people who are defined by their ability to achieve upwardclass mobility (K. Lee 2014).

Paradoxically, Asian American women are also rendered invisible invarious feminist movements and discourses. Asian American feministdiscussions on invisibility differ from other discussions withinContinental feminism on visibility and feminine erasure due to theirdual existence as both invisible subjects and hypervisiblerepresentations of stereotypes. Poet and activist Mitsuye Yamadastates that Asian American women are “the visible minority thatis invisible” (1981b). Yamada means this claim in two ways:first, in regard to how Asian American women are rendered invisible inconversations surrounding women of color oppressions; and second, inregard to how the oppressions experienced by Asian American women areoften invisible to themselves. In order to carve out a space forthemselves in feminist theorizing, Asian American women in this bookshared their stories that demonstrate the struggle of becoming visibleto oneself while existing in a world that constantly demandsone’s invisibility. Yamada’s explains how she wasinvisible to herself because she practiced passive resistance whilebelieving that others did not see her as the stereotype of an AsianAmerican women. In order to become visible to herself and others, sherealized that she must act in ways, such as displaying anger inresponse to sexist and racist acts, that an oppressive gaze wouldclaim was “uncharacteristic” of her as an Asian Americanwoman (1981b: 40). At the same time, the Model Minority myth can alsoparadoxically render Asian American women invisible by making themhypervisible as successful paradigms that are perceived as lackingexperiences of oppression and violence and thus have no credibility tospeak to these lived experiences.

As a result of this specific form of invisibility, Asian Americanfeminists proposed new methods of political organization in order toinclude the voices of Asian American women in feminist coalitions. Thesimilarities between writings that span nearly two decades gesture toone of the many issues faced by Asian American feminism: AsianAmerican feminists have often been seen, and arguably still are seen,as a group in the background that is simply, as Yamada described,“tagging along” in feminist theorization againstoppressions (1981b: 40). In other words, Asian American women areoften seen as individuals who do not often experience oppressions thatare specific to their own identities and, therefore, have no place infighting oppression. In response to this, we can see activists such asGrace Lee Boggs, who have worked closely with other people of color inthe fight against different oppressions (Boggs & Boggs 1974; 1998[2016]; Boggs & Kurashige 2011); Lisa Lowe’s essay onheterogeneity, hybridity, and multipolicy of Asian Americanwomen’s experiences (Lowe 1991); and more recent Asian Americanfeminist projects that include Asian Americans women in liberatoryprojects in a manner that does not simply relegate them to tag-alongpositions (Shah 1998; Fujiwara & Roshanravan, 2018).

A growing number of recent works in Asian American feminism engagewith figures and themes in Continental feminism through the frameworkEastern philosophy and the Asian American women’s perspectiveand as such they provide new directions for a genuinelytransContinental feminism. For example, building on the discussionsconcerning gender in Continental feminisms, thinkers such as Kyoo Lee(2014) and Robin Wang (2016) have explored different ways that thegendered body has been discussed. Engaging with the concept of the“dark female animal” (xuapin) inDaodejing, Kyoo Lee explores the revolutionary potential ofxuapin, which she claims possesses a gender-bending power.Lee argues thatxuapin demonstrates

in a sense, superiority of femaleness and femininity –asthe norm, albeit invisible and inaudible

and that it is

gender-bending: female and not female at once, heterosexualized andnot at once. (K. Lee 2014: 59)

Wang investigates yin-yang gender dynamics through a variety of bothEastern and Western sources in order to answer whether yin-yang genderconstruction allows for gender equality. Alluding to Continentalfeminists who wrote on gender such as Simone de Beauvoir, JudithButler, and Luce Irigaray, Wang discusses an exploration of genderthrough a Chinese framework (the yin-yang) that does not make a cleardistinction between sex and gender. Wang argues that yin-yang genderconstruction offers a dynamic and fluid description of genderrelationships (Wang 2016: 224).

7. Conclusion and New Directions in Continental Feminism

This entry has listed a number of ways in which Continental approachesand figures are used to address feminist issues; we have attemptedboth to describe some of the ongoing research areas in Continentalfeminism and to point out new directions it has been taking over thepast decades. However, this list remains incomplete as we have beenunable to account for all of the important work underway. A morecomplete entry would need to include projects on the intersectionbetween Continental feminism and critical disability studies,indigenous feminisms, and new materialisms and humanisms. Furthermore,we do not mean to suggest that there is no overlap or intersectionbetween the topics or figures grouped under each section heading here.Lastly, there is certainly ongoing work of which we are not aware thatis already making an impact on the present and future of feministscholarship. We thus conclude here not with a summative statementdefining Continental feminism but rather by reflecting on the materialconditions of Continental feminism.

When Linda Martín Alcoff addressed the Eastern AmericanPhilosophical Association in 2012, she reflected on the tension andissues within disciplinary philosophy and urged philosophers to“apply our diagnostic impulses to ourselves” (Alcoff 2013:43). A necessary aspect of such praxis for Continental feminists inlight of the genealogies considered here is exemplified by Audre Lordewho, speaking on the “Personal is Political Panel” at theSecond Sex Conference in 1979, stated

I urge each one of us here to reach down into that deep place ofknowledge inside herself and touch that terror and loathing of anydifference that lives there. See whose face it wears. (Lorde 1984a:101)

Lorde calls feminists to enact a humble and frank confrontation withtheir own embodied lives and senses of self in the context of eachperson’s differential implication in racist, sexist,heterosexist, classist and ableist power. Rather than imagining thatone puts on one’s thinking hat and reflects “as atheorist” and then take it off and acts “as a regularperson”, Continental feminisms suggest that the subject whotheorizes is themself always an embodied subject: Kris Sealey remindsus that “Continental methods oftentimes refract differentlyacross race and gender axes” and that, for this reason,Continental feminists ought “to be intentional about therelationship they occupy, quite simultaneously, to racial and genderliberation” (Sealey 2017: 166). As this entry has shown, thediversity of Continental feminist thought has been developed throughthe thoughtful negotiation of many different struggles. For theimagined community of Continental feminism to continue to grow andsupport these projects, space must continually be made for newpractitioners. Since, as we put above, Continental feminism is lessconcerned with changing a woman’s place in a symbolic or socialsystem, and more on upending that system itself, members of thisacademic community must continue to do the work that will make itpossible to learn from each other. Only in this way Continentalfeminism can be opened up fully to its interdisciplinarypotential.

Bibliography

• Abel, Elizabeth, Barbara Christian, and Helene Moglen (eds.),1997,Female Subjects in Black and White: Race, Psychoanalysis,Feminism, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
• Ahmed, Sara, 2004 [2014],The Cultural Politics ofEmotion, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press; second edition,2014.
• –––, 2006,Queer Phenomenology:Orientations, Objects, Others, Durham, NC: Duke UniversityPress.
• –––, 2010,The Promise of Happiness,Durham, NC: Duke University Press Books.
• –––, 2016a, “An Affinity ofHammers”,TSQ: Transgender Studies Quarterly,3(1–2): 22–34. doi:10.1215/23289252-3334151
• –––, 2016b, “Interview with JudithButler”,Sexualities, 19(4): 482–492.doi:10.1177/1363460716629607
• –––, 2017,Living a Feminist Life,Durham, NC: Duke University Press Books.
• –––, 2019,What’s the Use? On the Usesof Use, Durham: Duke University Press.
• Aizura, Aren Z., Trystan Cotten, Carsten Balzer/Carla LaGata,Marcia Ochoa, and Salvador Vidal-Ortiz, 2014,“Introduction”, toDecolonizing the TransgenderImaginary special issue ofTSQ: Transgender StudiesQuarterly, 1(3): 308–319. doi:10.1215/23289252-2685606
• Al-Saji, Alia, 2010, “The Racialization of Muslim Veils: APhilosophical Analysis”,Philosophy & SocialCriticism, 36(8): 875–902.doi:10.1177/0191453710375589
• –––, 2014, “A Phenomenology of Hesitation:Interrupting Racializing Habits of Seeing”, in E. Lee 2014:133–172.
• –––, 2017, “Feminist Phenomenology”,in Garry, Khader, and Stone 2017: 143–154 (ch. 12).
• –––, 2018, “Material Life: Bergsoniantendencies in Simone de Beauvoir’s philosophy”, inDifferences: Rereading Beauvoir and Irigaray, Emily AnneParker and Anne van Leeuwen (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press,pp. 21–53.
• Alcoff, Linda Martín, 1991, “The Problem of Speakingfor Others”,Cultural Critique, 20: 5–32.doi:10.2307/1354221
• –––, 2000, “Merleau-Ponty and FeministTheory on Experience”, inChiasms: Merleau-Ponty’sNotion of Flesh, Fred Evans and Leonard Lawlor (eds.), Albany,NY: SUNY Press, pp. 251–271.
• –––, 1999, “On Judging EpistemicCredibility: Is Social Identity Relevant?”PhilosophicExchange, 29(1) Article 1. [Alcoff 1999 available online]
• –––, 2006,Visible Identities: Race, Genderand the Self, New York: Oxford University Press.doi:10.1093/0195137345.001.0001
• –––, 2013, “Philosophy’s CivilWars”,Proceedings and Addresses of the AmericanPhilosophical Association, 87: 16–43.
• –––, 2015,The Future of Whiteness,Cambridge: Polity.
• Alexander, M. Jacqui and Chandra Talpade Mohanty (eds.), 1996,Feminist Genealogies, Colonial Legacies, Democratic Futures,New York: Routledge.
• Amin, Kadji, 2017,Disturbing Attachments: Genet, ModernPederasty, and Queer History, Durham, NC: Duke UniversityPress.
• Anzaldúa, Gloria, 1987,Borderlands/la frontera: TheNew Mestiza, San Francisco, CA: Spinsters/Aunt Lute.
• –––, 1991 [2009], “To(o) Queer the Writer:Loca, escritoria y chicana”, inInVersions: Writing byDykes, Queers, and Lesbians, Betsy Warland (ed.), Vancouver, BC:Press Gang Publishers, 249–264; reprinted inThe GloriaAnzaldúa Reader, Ana-Louise Keating (ed.), Durham, NC:Duke University Press, 2009: 163–175.
• Anzaldúa, Gloria and AnaLouise Keating (eds.), 2002,This Bridge We Call Home: Radical Visions for Transformation,New York: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203952962
• Arendt, Hannah, 1963,Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on theBanality of Evil, New York: Viking Press.
• Asian Women United of California (ed.), 1989,Making Waves: AnAnthology of Writings by and about Asian American Women, Boston:Beacon Press.
• Aultman, B., 2014, “Cisgender”,TSQ: TransgenderStudies Quarterly, 1(1–2): 61–62.doi:10.1215/23289252-2399614
• Barker, Meg-John and Julia Scheele, 2016,Queer: A GraphicHistory, London: Icon Books.
• Bartky, Sandra Lee, 1990, “Foucault, Femininity, and theModernization of Patriarchal Power”, in herFemininity andDomination: Studies in the Phenomenology of Oppression, New York:Routledge, 63–82.
• Beauvoir, Simone, 1947 [1976],Pour une morale del’ambigüité, Paris: Gallimard. Translated asEthics of Ambiguity, Bernard Frechtman (trans.), New York:Citadel Press, 1976.
• –––, 1949 [1953],Le Deuxièmesexe, Paris: Editions Gallimard. Translated asThe SecondSex, H. M. Pashley (trans.), New York: Knopf, 1953.
• Belle, Kathryn Sophia (Kathryn T. Gines before 2014/2017), 2003,“Fanon and Sartre 50 Years Later – To Retain or Reject theConcept of Race”,Sartre Studies International, 9(2):55–67. doi:10.3167/135715503781800213
• –––, 2011, “‘The Man Who LivedUnderground’: Jean-Paul Sartre And the Philosophical Legacy ofRichard Wright”,Sartre Studies International, 17(2):42–59. doi:10.3167/ssi.2011.170204
• –––, 2012, “Reflections on the Legacy andFuture of the Continental Tradition with Regard to the CriticalPhilosophy of Race: Critical Philosophy of Race”,TheSouthern Journal of Philosophy, 50(2): 329–344.doi:10.1111/j.2041-6962.2012.00109.x
• –––, 2014,Hannah Arendt and the NegroQuestion, Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
• Benhabib, Seyla, 1986,Critique, Norm, and Utopia: A Study ofthe Foundations of Critical Theory, New York: Columbia UniversityPress.
• Benhabib, Seyla and Drucilla Cornell (eds.), 1987,Feminism asCritique: On the Politics of Gender, Minneapolis, MN: Universityof Minnesota Press.
• Benhabib, Seyla, Judith Butler, Drucilla Cornell, and NancyFraser, 1995,Feminist Contentions: A Philosophical Exchange,New York: Routledge.
• Berlant, Lauren, 2008,The Female Complaint: The UnfinishedBusiness of Sentimentality in American Culture, Durham, NC: DukeUniversity Press.
• Berruz, Stephanie Rivera, 2016, “At the Crossroads: LatinaIdentity and Simone de Beauvoir’sThe SecondSex”,Hypatia, 31(2): 319–333.doi:10.1111/hypa.12226
• –––, 2018, “Latin AmericanFeminism”, inThe Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy(Winter 2018 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2018/entries/feminism-latin-america/>
• Bettcher, Talia Mae, 2006, “Appearance, Reality, and GenderDeception: Reflections on Transphobic Violence and the Politics ofPretence”, in Felix Murchadha (ed.),Violence, Victims, andJustifications, New York: Peter Lang Press, pp.174–200.
• –––, 2007, “Evil Deceivers andMake-Believers: On Transphobic Violence and the Politics ofIllusion”,Hypatia, 22(3): 43–65.doi:10.1111/j.1527-2001.2007.tb01090.x
• –––, 2014a, “When Selves Have Sex: Whatthe Phenomenology of Trans Sexuality Can Teach About SexualOrientation”,Journal of Homosexuality, 61(5):605–620. doi:10.1080/00918369.2014.865472
• –––, 2014b, “Trapped in the Wrong Theory:Rethinking Trans Oppression and Resistance”,Signs: Journalof Women in Culture and Society, 39(2): 383–406.doi:10.1086/673088
• Bettcher, Talia Mae and Ann Garry (eds.), 2009,TransgenderStudies and Feminism: Theory, Politics, and Gender Realities(special issue) ofHypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy,24(3).
• Bianchi, Emanuela, 2014,The Feminine Symptom: Aleatory Matterin the Aristotelian Cosmos, New York: Fordham UniversityPress.
• Billingsley, Amy, 2015a, “Technology and Narratives ofContinuity in Transgender Experiences”,Feminist PhilosophyQuarterly, 1(1): art. 6. doi:10.5206/fpq/2015.1.6
• –––, 2015b, “Hope in a Vice: CarolePateman, Judith Butler, and Suspicious Hope”,Hypatia,30(3): 597–612. doi:10.1111/hypa.12156
• Bloodsworth, Mary K., 1999, “Embodiment and Ambiguity: LuceIrigaray, Sexual Difference, and ‘Race’”,International Studies in Philosophy, 31(2): 69–90.doi:10.5840/intstudphil199931216
• Boggs, Grace Lee, 1998 [2016],Living for Change: AnAutobiography, Minneapolis, MN: University of MinnesotaPress.
• Boggs, Grace Lee and Scott Kurashige, 2011,The Next AmericanRevolution: Sustainable Activism for the Twenty-First Century,Berkeley, CA: University of California Press; second edition,2012.
• Boggs, James and Grace Lee Boggs, 1974,Revolution andEvolution in the Twentieth Century, New York: Monthly ReviewPress.
• Bordo, Susan, 1993,Unbearable Weight: Feminism, WesternCulture, and the Body, Berkeley, CA: University of CaliforniaPress.
• Bow, Leslie, 2001,Betrayal and Other Acts of Subversion:Feminism, Sexual Politics, Asian American Women’sLiterature, Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press.
• –––, 2010,Partly Colored: Asian Americansand Racial Anomaly in the Segregated South, New York: New YorkUniversity Press.
• Bradley, Rizvana (ed.), 2014,The Haptic: Textures ofPerformance, special issue ofWomen and Performance: AJournal of Feminist Theory, 24(2–3).
• –––, 2018, “Ways of the Flesh: BarbaraHammer’s Vertical Worlds”,Barbara Hammer: EvidentiaryBodies, Staci Bu Shea and Carmel Curtis (eds.), Munich:Hirmer.
• Brennan, Teresa, 1992,The Interpretation of the Flesh: Freudand Femininity, London: Routledge.
• –––, 2004,The Transmission of Affect,Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
• Breslow, Jacob, 2017, “‘There Is Nothing Missing inthe Real’”,TSQ: Transgender Studies Quarterly,4(3–4): 431–450. doi:10.1215/23289252-4189910
• Brooks, Kinitra D., 2018,Searching for Sycorax: BlackWomen’s Hauntings of Contemporary Horror, New Brunswick,NJ: Rutgers University Press.
• Brown, Wendy, 2015,Undoing the Demos: Neoliberalism’sStealth Revolution, Brooklyn, NY: Zone Books.
• Burke, Megan M., 2019, “Beauvoirian Androgyny: Reflectionson the Androgynous World of Fraternité inThe SecondSex”,Feminist Theory, 20(1): 3–18.doi:10.1177/1464700118754751
• –––, 2025,Becoming a Woman: Simone deBeauvoir and the Politics of Trans Existence, Hoboken: PolityPress.
• Butler, Judith, 1990,Gender Trouble: Feminism and theSubversion of Identity, New York: Routledge.
• –––, 1991, “Imitation and GenderInsubordination”, inInside/Out: Lesbian Theories, GayTheories, Diana Fuss (ed.), New York: Routledge, pp.13–31.
• –––, 1993,Bodies that Matter: On theDiscursive Limits of “Sex”, New York: Routledge.
• –––, 1997,The Psychic Life of Power:Theories of Subjection, Stanford, CA: Stanford UniversityPress.
• –––, 2004,Undoing Gender, New York:Routledge.
• –––, 2005,Giving an Account ofOneself, New York: Fordham University Press,.
• –––, 2009 [2016],Frames of War: When IsLife Grievable? London; New York: Verso; reprinted 2016.
• –––, 2019, “Gender in Translation: BeyondMonolingualism”,philoSOPHIA: a Journal of transContinentalFeminism, 9(1): 1–25. doi:10.1353/phi.2019.0011
• –––, 2024.Who’s Afraid ofGender?, first edition, New York, NY: Farrar, Straus andGiroux.
• Carlson, Shanna T., 2010, “Transgender Subjectivity and theLogic of Sexual Difference”,differences, 21(2):46–72. doi:10.1215/10407391-2010-003
• Cavanagh, Sheila L., 2010,Queering Bathrooms: Gender,Sexuality, and the Hygienic Imagination, Toronto: University ofToronto Press.
• Césaire, Aimé, 2017,The Complete Poetry ofAimé Cesaire: Bilingual Edition, Clayton Eshleman and A.James Arnold (trans.), Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press.
• –––, 1950/1955 [1972],Discours sur lecolonialisme, Paris: Éditions Réclame; revisededition, Paris: Présence africaine, 1955. Translated asDiscourse on Colonialism, Joan Pinkham (trans.), New York:Monthly Review Press, 1972.
• Chanter, Tina, 1995,Ethics of Eros: Irigaray’sRewriting of the Philosophers, New York: Routledge.
• –––, 2008,The Picture of Abjection: Film,Fetish, and the Nature of Difference, Bloomington, IN: IndianaUniversity Press.
• –––, 2011,Whose Antigone?: The TragicMarginalization of Slavery, Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
• Chen, Mel Y., 2012,Animacies: Biopolitics, Racial Mattering,and Queer Affect, Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
• Christian, Barbara, 1988, “The Race for Theory”,Feminist Studies, 14(1): 67–79.
• Cixous, Hélène, 1975 [1976], “Le Rire de laMéduse”,L’Arc, 61: 39–54. Revisedand translated as, 1976, “The Laugh of Medusa”, KeithCohen and Paula Cohen (trans),Signs: Journal of Women in Cultureand Society, 1(4): 875–893.
• Code, Lorraine, 2007, “The Power of Ignorance”, in S.Sullivan and Tuana 2007: 213–230.
• Coffman, Chris, 2017, “Žižek’s Antagonismand the Futures of Trans-Affirmative Lacanian Psychoanalysis”,TSQ: Transgender Studies Quarterly, 4(3–4):472–496. doi:10.1215/23289252-4189929
• Cohen, Cathy, 2005, “Punks, Bulldaggers, and Welfare Queens:The Radical Potential of Queer Politics?” in E. P. Johnson andHenderson 2005: 21–51.
• Cole, Alyson and Kyoo Lee, 2019, “Editors’Introduction: A TransContinental Turn”,philoSOPHIA,9(1): iii–vi. doi:10.1353/phi.2019.0010
• Colebrook, Claire, 2000, “From Radical Representations toCorporeal Becomings: The Feminist Philosophy of Lloyd, Grosz, andGatens”,Hypatia, 15(2): 76–93.doi:10.1111/j.1527-2001.2000.tb00315.x
• –––, 2015, “What Is It Like to Be aHuman?”,TSQ: Transgender Studies Quarterly, 2(2):227–243. doi:10.1215/23289252-2867472
• Connell, Raewyn, 2012, “Transsexual Women and FeministThought: Toward New Understanding and New Politics”,Signs:Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 37(4): 857–881.doi:10.1086/664478
• Coole, Diana, and Samantha Frost (eds.), 2010,NewMaterialisms: Ontology, Agency, and Politics, Durham, NC: DukeUniversity Press Books.
• Cooper, Anna Julia, 1892 [1988],A Voice from the South,Xenia, Ohio: Aldine Printing House; reprinted New York: OxfordUniversity Press, 1988.
• Cooper, Brittney C., 2017,Beyond Respectability: TheIntellectual Thought of Race Women, Champaign, IL: University ofIllinois Press.
• Cornell, Drucilla, 1993,Transformations: RecollectiveImagination and Sexual Difference, New York: Routledge.
• –––, 1995,The Imaginary Domain: Abortion,Pornography, and Sexual Harassment, New York : Routledge.
• –––, 1998,At the Heart of Freedom:Feminism, Sex, and Equality, Princeton, NJ: Princeton UniversityPress.
• –––, 2002,Between Women and Generations:Legacies of Dignity, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Cornell, Drucilla and Kenneth Michael Panfilio, 2010,SymbolicForms for a New Humanity: Cultural and Racial Reconfigurations ofCritical Theory, New York: Fordham University Press.
• Crenshaw, Kimberlé, 1989, “Demarginalizing theIntersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique ofAntidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and AntiracistPolitics”,University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989:art. 8 (139–167). [Crenshaw 1989 available online]
• –––, 1991, “Mapping the Margins:Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women ofColor”,Stanford Law Review, 43(6): 1241–1299.doi:10.2307/1229039
• Cvetkovich, Ann, 2007, “Public Feelings”,SouthAtlantic Quarterly, 106(3): 459–468.doi:10.1215/00382876-2007-004
• Dalal, Neil, and Chloë Taylor (eds.), 2014,AsianPerspectives on Animal Ethics: Rethinking the Nonhuman, Abingdon:Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315796246
• Davis, Angela Y., 1981 [1983],Women, Race and Class, NewYork: Random House. Second printing, 1983.
• –––, 2003,Are Prisons Obsolete? NewYork: Seven Stories Press.
• De Lauretis, Teresa, 1994,The Practice of Love: LesbianSexuality and Perverse Desire, Bloomington, IN: IndianaUniversity Press.
• Del Guadalupe Davidson, Maria, 2010, “Rethinking BlackFeminist Subjectivity: Ann duCille and Gilles Deleuze”, DelGuadalupe Davidson, Gines, and Marcano 2010: 121–134.
• Del Guadalupe Davidson, Maria, Kathryn T. Gines, and Donna-Dale L.Marcano (eds.), 2010,Convergences: Black Feminism and ContinentalPhilosophy, Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
• Deutscher, Penelope, 2003, “Between East and West and thePolitics of ‘Cultural Ingénuité’: Irigarayon Cultural Difference”,Theory, Culture & Society,20(3): 65–75. doi:10.1177/02632764030203005
• –––, 2017,Foucault’s Futures:A Critique of Reproductive Reason, New York: ColumbiaUniversity Press.
• Dilts, Andrew, 2017, “Toward Abolitionist Genealogy: TowardAbolitionist Genealogy”,The Southern Journal ofPhilosophy, 55(S1): 51–77. doi:10.1111/sjp.12237
• DiPietro, Pedro J., 2019, “Beyond Benevolent Violence:Trans* of Color, Ornamental Multiculturalism, and the Decolonizationof Affect”, inSpeaking Face to Face: The VisionaryPhilosophy of María Lugones, Pedro J. DiPietro, JenniferMcWeeny, and Shireen Roshanravan (eds.), Albany, NY: SUNY Press, pp.197–216.
• Diprose, Rosalyn, 2002,Corporeal Generosity: On Giving withNietzsche, Merleau-Ponty, and Levinas, Albany, NY: SUNY.
• Dotson, Kristie, 2012a, “How Is This PaperPhilosophy?”,Comparative Philosophy: An InternationalJournal of Constructive Engagement of Distinct Approaches toward WorldPhilosophy, 3(1): art. 5.doi:10.31979/2151-6014(2012).030105
• –––, 2012b, “A Cautionary Tale: OnLimiting Epistemic Oppression”,Frontiers: A Journal ofWomen Studies, 33(1): 24–47.doi:10.5250/fronjwomestud.33.1.0024
• Draz, Marie, 2013, “The Stakes of the Real: Queer Feminismand the Challenge of Critical Trans Politics”, inAmericanPhilosophical Association Newsletter on Philosophy and LGBTIssues, 12(2): 8–13. [Draz 2013 available online (pdf)]
• –––, 2017a, “Born This Way? Time and theColoniality of Gender”,The Journal of SpeculativePhilosophy, 31(3): 372–384.doi:10.5325/jspecphil.31.3.0372
• –––, 2017b, “On Gender Neutrality: Derridaand Transfeminism in Conversation”,philoSOPHIA, 7(1):91–98. doi:10.1353/phi.2017.0006
• –––, 2018, “Burning It in? Nietzsche,Gender, and Externalized Memory”,Feminist PhilosophyQuarterly, 4(2): art. 1. doi:10.5206/fpq/2018.2.3479
• –––, 2022. “Realness as Resistance: QueerFeminism, Neoliberalism, and Early Trans Critiques of Butler”,Hypatia, 37(2): 364–83.
• DuCille, Ann, 1997, “The Occult of True Black Womanhood:Critical Demeanor and Black Feminist Studies”, in Abel,Christian and Moglen 1997: 21–56.
• Elliot, Patricia, 2014, “Psychoanalysis”,TSQ:Transgender Studies Quarterly, 1(1–2): 165–168.doi:10.1215/23289252-2399920
• Enke, A. Finn, 2012a, “The Education of Little Cis:Cisgender and the Discipline of Opposing Bodies”, in Enke 2012b:60–77.
• ––– (ed.), 2012b,Transfeminist Perspectivesin and Beyond Transgender and Gender Studies, Philadelphia, PA:Temple University Press.
• Feder, Ellen K., 2007,Family Bonds: Genealogies of Race andGender, New York: Oxford University Press.
• Felman, Soshana, 2002,The Juridical Unconscious: Trials andTraumas in the Twentieth Century, Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.
• Ferguson, Roderick A., 2004,Aberrations in Black: Toward aQueer of Color Critique, Minneapolis, MN: University of MinnesotaPress.
• Ferreira da Silva, Denise. 2007,Toward a Global Idea ofRace, Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
• –––, 2014, “Toward a Black FeministPoethics: The Quest(Ion) of Blackness Toward the End of theWorld”,The Black Scholar, 44(2): 81–97.doi:10.1080/00064246.2014.11413690
• –––, 2018, “Hacking the Subject: BlackFeminism and Refusal beyond the Limits of Critique”,philoSOPHIA, 8(1): 19–41.doi:10.1353/phi.2018.0001
• Foucault, Michel, 1961 [1965],Folie et déraison.Histoire de la folie à l’âge classique, Paris:Librairie Plon. Translated asMadness and Civilization: A Historyof Insanity in the Age of Reason, Richard Howard (trans.), NewYork: Pantheon Books, 1965.
• –––, 1963 [1973],Naissance de laclinique, Paris: Presses universitaires de France. Translated asThe Birth of the Clinic: An Archaeology of MedicalPerception, A.M. Sheridan (trans.), New York: Pantheon Books,1973.
• –––, 1966 [1970],Les mots et leschoses, Paris: Gallimard. Translated asThe Order of Things:An Archaeology of the Human Sciences, New York: Pantheon Books,1970.
• –––, 1969 [1972],Archéologie dusavoir, Paris: Gallimard. Translated asThe Archaeology ofKnowledge and The Discourse on Language, A. M. Sheridan, NewYork: Pantheon Books, 1972.
• –––, 1975 [1977],Surveiller et punir :naissance de la prison, Paris: Gallimard. Translated asDiscipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, London: AllenLane, 1977.
• –––, 1976 [1978],Histoire de lasexualité: La volonté de savoir, Paris: Gallimard.Translated asThe History of Sexuality, Vol. I: AnIntroduction, Robert Hurley (trans.), London: Allen Lane,1978.
• Freeman, Elizabeth, 2019,Beside You in Time: Sense Methodsand Queer Sociabilities in the American Nineteenth Century,Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
• Fujiwara, Lynn and Shireen Roshanravan (eds.), 2018,AsianAmerican Feminisms and Women of Color Politics (DecolonizingFeminisms), Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.
• Gallop, Jane, 2019,Sexuality, Disability, and Aging: QueerTemporalities of the Phallus, Durham, NC: Duke UniversityPress.
• Garry, Ann, 2018, “Analytic Feminism”, inTheStanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2018 Edition), EdwardN. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2018/entries/femapproach-analytic/>
• Garry, Ann, Serene J. Khader, and Alison Stone (eds.), 2017,The Routledge Companion to Feminist Philosophy, New York:Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315758152
• Gerdes, Kendall, 2014, “Performativity”,TSQ:Transgender Studies Quarterly, 1(1–2): 148–150.doi:10.1215/23289252-2399866
• Gherovici, Patricia, 2017,Transgender Psychoanalysis: ALacanian Perspective on Sexual Difference, New York:Routledge.
• Gossett, Che, 2016, “Žižek’s Trans/GenderTrouble”,Los Angeles Review of Books, 13 September2016. [Gossett 2016 available online]
• Goswami, Namita, 2019,Subjects that Matter: Philosophy,Feminism, and Postcolonial Theory, Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
• Grosz, Elizabeth, 1989,Sexual Subversions: Three FrenchFeminists, Sydney: Allen & Unwin Press.
• –––, 2012, “The Nature of SexualDifference: Irigaray and Darwin”,Angelaki, 17(2):69–93. doi:10.1080/0969725X.2012.701049
• Guenther, Lisa, 2013,Solitary Confinement: Social Death andIts Afterlives, Minneapolis, MN: University of MinnesotaPress.
• –––, 2020, “Critical Phenomenology”,in Gail Weiss, Ann Murphy, and Gayle Salamon (eds.),50 Conceptsfor a Critical Phenomenology, Evanston, IL: NorthwesternUniversity Press.
• Guilmette, Lauren, 2011, “Reading Butler Reading BeauvoirReading Sade: On Ethics and Eros”,Philosophy Today,55(supplement): 292–301.doi:10.5840/philtoday201155Supplement70
• Gustafsson, Ryan, 2024, “Thinking Trans Embodiment: OnContingent ‘Home’ and Trans Fatigue”, in P. Zurn,A.J. Pitts, T.M. Bettcher, & P. DiPietro (eds.),TransPhilosophy, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp.81–98..
• Guy-Sheftall, Beverly (ed.), 1995,Words of Fire: An Anthologyof African-American Feminist Thought, New York: The NewPress.
• Halberstam, Jack, 2005,In a Queer Time and Place: TransgenderBodies, Subcultural Lives, New York: NYU Press.
• Hall, Donald E. and Annamarie Jagose (eds.), 2012,TheRoutledge Queer Studies Reader, New York: Routledge.
• Hall, Kim Q., 2009, “Queer Breasted Experience”, in“You’ve Changed”: Sex Reassignment and PersonalIdentity, Laurie J. Shrage (ed.), New York and Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, 121–134.
• –––, 2014, “No Failure: Climate Change,Radical Hope, and Queer Crip Feminist Eco-Future”,RadicalPhilosophy Review, 17(1): 203–225.doi:10.5840/radphilrev201432614
• –––, 2014, “Toward a Queer Crip FeministPolitics of Food”,philoSOPHIA, 4(2):177–196.
• –––, 2015a, “Gender”, inKeywords for Disability Studies, Rachel Adams, BenjaminReiss, and David Serlin (eds.), New York: New York University Press,89–91.
• –––, 2015b, “New Conversations in FeministDisability Studies: Feminism, Philosophy, and Borders”,Hypatia, 30(1): 1–12. doi:10.1111/hypa.12136
• –––, 2017, “Feminist and QueerIntersections with Disability Studies”, in Garry, Khader, andStone 2017: ch. 33.
• Hall, Melinda, 2016,The Bioethics of Enhancement:Transhumanism, Disability, and Biopolitics, Lanham, MD: LexingtonBooks.
• Halley, Janet, 2006,Split Decisions: How and Why to Take aBreak from Feminism, Princeton, NJ: Princeton UniversityPress.
• Halperin, David, 1995,Saint Foucault: Towards a GayHagiography, New York: Oxford University Press.
• Hansberry, Lorraine, 1957 [1995], “Simone de Beauvoir andThe Second Sex: An American Commentary”, unpublishedmanuscript. Printed in Guy-Sheftall 1995: 128–142.
• Hansen, Jennifer, 2000, “Our ‘Salvation’:Women’s Intervention in Philosophy”,Journal for thePsychoanalysis of Culture and Society, 5(1): 77–85.
• Hansen, Sarah K., 2013, “Julia Kristeva and the Politics ofLife”,Journal of French and Francophone Philosophy,21(1): 27–42. doi:10.5195/JFFP.2013.572
• Haraway, Donna J., 2016a,Manifestly Haraway,Minneapolis, MN: Univ Of Minnesota Press.
• –––, 2016b,Staying with the Trouble: MakingKin in the Chthulucene, Durham, NC: Duke University PressBooks.
• Hartman, Saidiya, 1997,Scenes of Subjection: Terror, Slavery,and Self-Making in Nineteenth-Century America, New York: OxfordUniversity Press.
• –––, 2007,Lose Your Mother: A Journey Alongthe Atlantic Slave Route, New York: Farrar, Straus andGiroux.
• –––, 2019,Wayward Lives, BeautifulExperiments: Intimate Histories of Social Upheaval, New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
• Havis, Devonya N., 2009, “Blackness beyond Witness: BlackVernacular Phenomena and Auditory Identity”,Philosophy& Social Criticism, 35(7): 747–759.doi:10.1177/0191453709106239
• –––, 2012, “‘Seeing Black’through Michel Foucault’s Eyes: ‘Stand Your Ground’Laws as an Anchorage Point for State-Sponsored Racism”, inPursuing Trayvon Martin: Historical Contexts and ContemporaryManifestations of Racial Dynamics, George Yancy and Janine H.Jones (eds.), Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 117–128.
• –––, 2013, “The Parrhesiastic Enterpriseof Black Philosophy”,The Black Scholar, 43(4):52–58. doi:10.1080/00064246.2013.11413665
• –––, 2014, “‘Now, How YouSound’: Considering a Different Philosophical Praxis”,Hypatia, 29(1): 237–252. doi:10.1111/hypa.12069
• Hayward, Eva S., 2017, “Don’t Exist”,TSQ:Transgender Studies Quarterly, 4(2): 191–194.doi:10.1215/23289252-3814985
• Heiner, Brady T. and Sarah K Tyson, 2017, “Feminism and theCarceral State: Gender-Responsive Justice, Community Accountability,and the Epistemology of Antiviolence”,Feminist PhilosophyQuarterly, 3(1): art. 3. doi:10.5206/fpq/2016.3.3
• Heyes, Cressida J., 2003, “Feminist Solidarity after QueerTheory: The Case of Transgender”,Signs: Journal of Women inCulture and Society, 28(4): 1093–1120.doi:10.1086/343132
• –––, 2007,Self-Transformations: Foucault,Ethics, and Normalized Bodies, Oxford: Oxford University Press.doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195310535.001.0001
• Heyes, Cressida J. and J. R. Latham, 2018, “Trans Surgeriesand Cosmetic Surgeries”,TSQ: Transgender StudiesQuarterly, 5(2): 174–189. doi:10.1215/23289252-4348617
• Hill-Collins, Patricia, 1990 [2015],Black Feminist Thought:Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment,Boston: Unwin Hyman; reprinted of 2015.
• Hill-Collins, Patricia and Sirma Bilge, 2016,Intersectionality: Key Concepts, Malden, MA: PolityPress.
• Ho, Jennifer Ann, 2015,Racial Ambiguity in Asian AmericanCulture (Asian American Studies Today), New Brunswick, NJ:Rutgers University Press.
• Ho, Wendy, 1999,In Her Mother’s House: The Politics ofAsian American Mother-Daughter Writing (Critical Perspectives onAsian Pacific Americans Series), Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMiraPress.
• Hoff, Shannon, 2006, “Restoring Antigone to Ethical Life:Nature and Sexual Difference in Hegel’s Phenomenology ofSpirit”,Owl of Minerva, 38(1): 77–99.doi:10.5840/owl2006/2007381/28
• –––, 2012, “Inheriting Identity andPracticing Transformation: The Time of Feminist Politics”,philoSOPHIA, 2(2): 167–193.
• –––, 2015, “Translating Principle intoPractice”:,The Journal of Speculative Philosophy,29(3): 403–414. doi:10.5325/jspecphil.29.3.0403
• Hoagland, Sarah Lucia, 2007, “Denying Relationality:Epistemology and Ethics and Ignorance”, in S. Sullivan and Tuana2007: 95–118.
• Holland, Nancy J. and Patricia Huntington (ed.), 2001,Feminist Interpretations of Martin Heidegger, UniversityPark, PA: Pennsylvania University Press.
• hooks, bell, 2000,Feminist Theory: from Margin toCenter, Boston, MA: South End Press.
• –––, 2014,Ain’t I a Woman: BlackWomen and Feminism, New York: Routledge.
• Hua, Anh, 2005, “Diaspora and Cultural Memory”, inDiaspora, Memory, and Identity: A Search for Home, VijayAgnew (ed.), Toronto: University of Toronto Press, pp.171–86.
• Huffer, Lynne, 2010,Mad for Foucault: Rethinking theFoundations of Queer Theory, New York: Columbia UniversityPress.
• –––, 2013,Are the Lips a Grave?: A QueerFeminist on the Ethics of Sex, New York: Columbia UniversityPress.
• –––, 2020,Foucault’s StrangeEros, New York: Columbia University Press.
• Huffer, Lynne and Shannon Winnubst, 2017, “Introduction tothe Roundtable”,philoSOPHIA, 7(1): 137–139.doi:10.1353/phi.2017.0011
• Hull, Akasha (Gloria T.), Patricia Bell-Scott, and Barbara Smith,1982,All the Women are White; All the Blacks are Men, But Some ofUs are Brave, New York: The feminist Press at CUNY.
• Huseyinzadegan, Dilek, 2018, “For What Can the KantianFeminist Hope? Constructive Complicity in Appropriations of theCanon”,Feminist Philosophy Quarterly, 4(1): art. 3.doi:10.5206/fpq/2018.1.3
• Irigaray, Luce, 1974 [1985],Speculum de l’autrefemme, Paris: Éditions de Minuit. Translated asSpeculum of the Other Woman, Gillian C. Gill (trans.),Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1985.
• –––, 1977 [1985],Ce sexe qui n’en estpas un, Paris: Éditions de Minuit. Translated asThisSex Which Is Not One, Catherine Porter and Carolyn Burke(trans.), Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1985.
• –––, 1984 [1993],Ethique de ladifférence sexuelle, Paris: Éditions de Minuit.Translated asAn Ethics of Sexual Difference, Carolyn Burkeand Gillian C. Gill (trans.), Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press,1993.
• Islekel, Ege Selin, 2017, “Absent Death: Necropolitics andTechnologies of Mourning”,philoSOPHIA, 7(2):337–355. doi:10.1353/phi.2017.0027
• –––, 2018, “Totalizing the Open: Roots andBoundary Markers in Wynter and Glissant”,The CLR JamesJournal, 24(1): 107–123. doi:10.5840/clrjames201812756
• Jagose, Annamarie, 2009, “Feminism’s QueerTheory”,Feminism & Psychology, 19(2):157–174. doi:10.1177/0959353509102152
• Jackson, Zakiyyah Iman, 2020,Becoming Human: Matter andMeaning in an Antiblack World, New York: New York UniversityPress.
• James, Joy, 1996,Resisting State Violence: Radicalism,Gender, and Race in U.S. Culture, Minneapolis, MN: University ofMinnesota Press.
• –––, 1997,Transcending the Talented Tenth:Black Leaders and American Intellectuals, Abingdon:Routledge.
• ––– (ed.), 1998,The Angela Y. DavisReader, Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
• –––, 1999,Shadowboxing: Representations ofBlack Feminist Politics, New York: St. Martin’s Press.
• ––– (ed.), 2003,Imprisoned Intellectuals:America’s Political Prisoners Write on Life, Liberation, andRebellion, Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
• ––– (ed.), 2005,The New Abolitionists:(Neo) Slave Narratives and Contemporary Prison Writings, (SUNYSeries, Philosophy and Race), Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
• –––, 2015, “The Womb of Western Theory:Trauma, Time Theft, and the Captive Maternal”,CarceralNotebooks, 12(44): 253–296. [Joy 2015 available online (pdf)]
• James, Joy and Tracy Denean Sharpley-Whiting (eds.), 2000,TheBlack Feminist Reader, Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
• James, Robin, 2015,Resilience & Melancholy: Pop Music,Feminism, Neoliberalism, Winchester, UK: Zero Books.
• Janssen, Ephraim Das, 2017,Phenomenal Gender: WhatTransgender Experience Discloses, Bloomington, IN: IndianaUniversity Press.
• Johnson, Barbara, 1980,The Critical Difference: Essays in theContemporary Rhetoric of Reading, Baltimore, MD: The JohnsHopkins University.
• Johnson, E. Patrick and Mae G. Henderson, 2005,Black QueerStudies: A Critical Anthology, Durham, NC: Duke UniversityPress.
• Johnston, Tim R., 2015, “Questioning the Threshold of SexualDifference: Irigarayan Ontology and Transgender, Intersex, andGender-Nonconforming Being”,GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian andGay Studies, 21(4): 617–633.doi:10.1215/10642684-3123713
• Jones, Rachel, 2011,Luce Irigaray: Towards a SexuatePhilosophy (Key Contemporary Thinkers series), Cambridge: PolityPress.
• –––, 2012, “Irigaray and Lyotard: Birth,Infancy, and Metaphysics”,Hypatia, 27(1):139–162. doi:10.1111/j.1527-2001.2011.01236.x
• –––, 2014, “Re-Reading Diotima: Resourcesfor a Relational Pedagogy”,Journal of Philosophy ofEducation, 48(2): 183–201. doi:10.1111/1467-9752.12066
• –––, 2015, “Vital Matters and GenerativeMateriality: Between Bennett and Irigaray”,Journal of theBritish Society for Phenomenology, 46(2): 156–172.doi:10.1080/00071773.2014.963343
• –––, 2018, “Philosophical Métissageand the Decolonization of Difference: Luce Irigaray, Daniel Maximin,and the Elemental Sublime”,Journal of Aesthetics andPhenomenology, 5(2): 139–156.doi:10.1080/20539320.2018.1521569
• Karera, Axelle, 2019, “Blackness and the Pitfalls ofAnthropocene Ethics”,Critical Philosophy of Race,7(1): 32–56. doi:10.5325/critphilrace.7.1.0032
• Kimoto, Tamsin, 2018, “Merleau-Ponty, Fanon, andPhenomenological Forays in Trans Life”,APA Newsletter onLGBTQ Issues in Philosophy, 18(1): 16–21.
• King, Helen, 1993, “Once Upon A Text: Hysteria fromHippocrates”, inHysteria Beyond Freud, Sander L.Gilman, Helen King, Roy Porter, G.S. Rousseau, and Elaine Showalter(eds.), Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 3–90.
• Koyama, Emi, 2003,“The Transfeminist Manifesto”, inCatching a Wave: Reclaiming Feminism for the 21st Century,Rory Dicker and Alison Piepmeier (eds.), Boston, MA: NortheasternUniversity Press, pp. 244–259.
• –––, 2006, “Whose Feminism is it Anyway?The Unspoken Racism of the Trans Inclusion Debate”, in Strykerand Whittle 2006: 698–705.
• Kramer, Sina, 2017,Excluded Within: The (Un)Intelligibilityof Radical Political Actors, Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.
• Kristeva, Julia, 1974 [1984],La revolution du langagepoetique; l’avant-garde a la fin du XIXe siecle:Lautréamont et Mallarmé, Paris: Éditions duSeuil. Translated asRevolution in Poetic Language, MargaretWaller (trans.), New York: Columbia University Press, 1984.
• –––, 1980 [1982],Pouvoirs del’horreur: essai sur l’abjection, Paris:Éditions du Seuil. Translated asThe Powers of Horror: AnEssay on Abjection, Leon S. Roudiez (trans.), New York: ColumbiaUniversity Press.
• –––, 2000 [2002],Le Révolte intime :pouvoirs et limites de la psychanalyse, Paris: Fayard; translatedasIntimate Revolt: The Powers and Limits of Psychoanalysis,Jeanine Herman (trans.), New York: Columbia University Press.
• Labaton, Vivien and Dawn Lundy Martin, 2004,The Fire ThisTime: Young Activists and the New Feminism, New York: AnchorBooks.
• Lee, Emily S., 2010, “Madness and Judiciousness: APhenomenological Reading of a Black Woman’s Encounter with aSaleschild”, in Del Guadalupe Davidson, Gines, and Marcano 2010:183–200.
• ––– (ed.), 2014,Living Alterities:Phenomenology, Embodiment, and Race (SUNY Series, Philosophy andRace), Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
• –––, 2019, “A Phenomenology of Seeing andAffect in a Polarized Climate”, inRace as Phenomena:Between Phenomenology and Philosophy of Race, Emily S. Lee (ed.),Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 107–123.
• Lee, Jid, 2002, “The Cry-Smile Mask: A Korean-AmericanWomen’s System of Resistance”, in Anzaldúa andKeating 2002: 397–402.
• Lee, Kyoo, 2014, “On the Transformative Potential of the‘Dark Female Animal’ in Daodejing”, inAsian andFeminist Philosophies in Dialogue: Liberating Traditions,Jennifer McWeeny and Ashby Butnor (eds.), New York: ColumbiaUniversity Press, pp. 57–77.
• Lee, Robyn, 2018, “Breastfeeding and Sexual Difference:Queering Irigaray”,Feminist Theory, 19(1):77–94. doi:10.1177/1464700117742876
• Leo, Brooklyn, 2020, “The Colonial/Modern [Cis]Gender Systemand Trans World Traveling”,Hypatia, 35(3):454–474.
• Levy, Jacob T. and Iris Marion Young (eds.), 2011,Colonialismand Its Legacies, Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
• Lennon, Kathleen, 2019 “Feminist Perspectives on theBody”, inThe Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall2019 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2019/entries/feminist-body/>
• Lim, Genny, 1983, “Wonder Woman”, in Moraga andAnzaldúa 1981: 25–26.
• Lim, Shirley Geok-Lin, 2002, “Memory and the New-Born: TheMaternal Imagination in Diaspora”, in Anzaldúa andKeating 2002: 208–222.
• Lim, Shirley Geok-Lin and Mayumi Tsutakawa, 1989,TheForbidden Stitch: An Asian American Women’s Anthology,Corvallis, OR: Calyx Books.
• Lloyd, Genevieve, 1984,The Man of Reason: “Male”and “Female” in Western Philosophy, London:Methuen.
• Lorde, Audre, 1984a, “The Master’s Tools Will NeverDismantle the Master’s House”, comments at the Personaland Political panel, Second Sex Conference, New York, 29 September,1979, published in Lorde 1984c: 110–113.
• –––, 1984b, “Age, Race, Class, and Sex:Women Redefining Difference”, Paper given at the CopelandColloquium, Amherst College, April 1980, published in Lorde 1984c:114–123
• –––, 1984c,Sister Outsider: Essays andSpeeches, Berkeley, CA: Crossing Press.
• Love, Heather, 2014, “Queer”,Transgender StudiesQuarterly 1 (1–2): 172–76.
• Lowe, Lisa, 1991, “Heterogeneity, Hybridity, Multiplicity:Marking Asian American Differences”,Diaspora: A Journal ofTransnational Studies, 1(1): 24–44.doi:10.1353/dsp.1991.0014
• Lugones, María, 2003,Pilgrimages/Peregrinajes:Theorizing Coalition against Multiple Oppressions, Lanham, MD:Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
• –––, 2007, “Heterosexualism and theColonial/Modern Gender System”,Hypatia, 22(1):186–219. doi:10.1111/j.1527-2001.2007.tb01156.x
• –––, 2008, “The Coloniality ofGender”,Worlds and Knowledges Otherwise, 2(2):1–17. [Lugones 2008 available online (pdf)]
• –––, 2010, “Toward a DecolonialFeminism”,Hypatia, 25(4): 742–759.doi:10.1111/j.1527-2001.2010.01137.x
• Lugones, María C. and Elizabeth V. Spelman, 1983,“Have We Got a Theory for You! Feminist Theory, CulturalImperialism and the Demand for ‘the Woman’sVoice’”,Women’s Studies InternationalForum, 6(6): 573–581. doi:10.1016/0277-5395(83)90019-5
• MacDonald, Iain, 2013, “Between Normativity andFreedom”:,Symposium: Canadian Journal for ContinentalPhilosophy, 17(1): 1–9. doi:10.5840/symposium20131711
• Mader, Mary Beth, 2008 [2016], “Luce Irigaray andAnthropological Thought”, inEngaging the World: Thinkingafter Irigaray, Mary C. Rawlinson (ed.), Albany, NY: SUNY Press,215–230.
• –––, 2011,Sleights of Reason: Norm,Bisexuality, Development, Albany, NY: SUNY Press
• Malatino, Hilary, 2019, “Tough Breaks: Trans Rage and theCultivation of Resilience”,Hypatia, 34(1):121–140. doi:10.1111/hypa.12446
• Mann, Anika Maaza, 2010, “Race and Feminist StandpointTheory”, in Del Guadalupe Davidson, Gines, and Marcano 2010:105–120.
• Mann, Bonnie, 2006,Women’s Liberation and the Sublime:Feminism, Postmodernism, Environment, Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress. doi:10.1093/0195187458.001.0001
• –––, 2012, “Creepers, Flirts, Heroes andAllies: Four Theses on Men and Sexual Harassment”, in MargaretCrouch (ed.), issue on Sexual Harassment,The AmericanPhilosophical Association Newsletter on Feminism and Philosophy,11(2): 24–31. [Mann 2012 available online]
• –––, 2013, “Three White Men Walk into aBar: Philosophy’s Pluralism”,Radical PhilosophyReview, 16(3): 733–746.doi:10.5840/radphilrev201316354
• –––, 2014,Sovereign Masculinity: GenderLessons from the War on Terror, Oxford: Oxford University Press.doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199981649.001.0001
• Marcano, Donna-Dale L., 2003, “Sartre and the SocialConstruction of Race”, inRace and Racism in ContinentalPhilosophy, Robert Bernasconi (ed.), Bloomington, IN: IndianaUniversity Press, pp. 214–226.
• –––, 2010, “The Difference that DifferenceMakes: Black Feminism and Philosophy”, in Del GuadalupeDavidson, Gines, and Marcano 2010: 53–66
• –––, 2012, “The Color of Change inContinental Feminist Philosophy”,The Journal of SpeculativePhilosophy, 26(2): 211–215doi:10.5325/jspecphil.26.2.0211
• –––, 2014, “Race/Gender and thePhilosopher’s Body”, in E. Lee 2014: 65–78.
• Martin, Kameelah L., 2018,Envisioning Black Feminist VoodooAesthetics: African Spirituality in American Cinema, Lanham, MD:Lexington Books.
• Marvin, Amy, 2019, “A Brief History of TransPhilosophy”,Contingent Magazine, 21 September 2019. [Marvin 2019 available online]
• –––, 2020, “Transsexuality, the Curio, andthe Transgender Tipping-Point”, inCuriosity Studies: A NewEcology of Knowledge, Perry Zurn and Arjun Shankar (eds.),Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, ch. 11.
• McAfee, Noëlle, 2000,Habermas, Kristeva, andCitizenship, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
• –––, 2003,Julia Kristeva, New York:Routledge.
• –––, 2008,Democracy and the PoliticalUnconscious, New York: Columbia University Press.
• –––, 2019,Fear of Breakdown: Politics andPsychoanalysis, New York: Columbia University Press.
• McAuliffe, Jana, 2020, “Ethical Openness in the Work ofGayatri Chakravorty Spivak”,Feminist PhilosophyQuarterly, 6(2), Article 3. doi:10.5206/fpq/2020.2.7574
• –––, 2020, “She’s Making Profit Now:Neoliberalism, Ethics, and Feminist Critique”,philoSOPHIA:A Journal of transContinental Feminism, 10(1): 24–46.
• McClintock, Anne, 1995,Imperial Leather: Race, Gender andSexuality in the Colonial Contest, London: Routledge.
• McClintock. Anne, Amir Mufti, and Ella Shohat, 1997,DangerousLiaisons: Gender, nation, and Postcolonial Perspectives,Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
• McKinnon, Rachel, 2018, “The Epistemology ofPropaganda”,Philosophy and Phenomenological Research,96(2): 483–489. doi:10.1111/phpr.12429
• McWhorter, Ladelle, 1999,Bodies and Pleasures: Foucault andthe Politics of Sexual Normalization, Bloomington, IN: IndianaUniversity Press.
• –––, 2009,Racism and Sexual Oppression inAnglo-America: A Genealogy, Bloomington, IN: Indiana UniversityPress.
• –––, 2012, “Queer Economies”,Foucault Studies, 14: 61–78.doi:10.22439/fs.v0i14.3891
• Mignolo, Walter D., 2002, “The Geopolitics of Knowledge andthe Colonial Difference”,South Atlantic Quarterly,101(1): 57–96. doi:10.1215/00382876-101-1-57
• Miller, Elaine P., 2002,The Vegetative Soul: From Philosophyof Nature to Subjectivity in the Feminine, Albany, NY: SUNYPress.
• –––, 2014,Head Cases: Julia Kristeva onPhilosophy and Art in Depressed Times, New York: ColumbiaUniversity Press.
• –––, 2017, “Critique of ContinentalFeminism”,philoSOPHIA, 7(7): 149–156.doi:10.1353/phi.2017.0013
• Millett, Kate, 1970,Sexual Politics, Garden City, NY:Doubleday and Co.; reprinted 2000, Urbana, IL: The University ofIllinois Press.
• Mohanty, Chandra Talpade, 1984, “Under Western Eyes:Feminist Scholarship and Colonial Discourses”,boundary2, 12(3): 333–358. doi:10.2307/302821
• –––, 2003, “‘Under WesternEyes’ Revisited: Feminist Solidarity through AnticapitalistStruggles”,Signs: Journal of Women in Culture andSociety, 28(2): 499–535. doi:10.1086/342914
• Moraga, Cherríe and Gloria Anzaldúa (eds.), 1981[2015],This Bridge Called My Back: Writings by Radical Women ofColor, Watertown, MA: Persephone Press. Albany, NY: StateUniversity of New York Press; reprinted 2015.
• Morrison, Toni, 1992,Playing in the Dark: Whiteness and theLiterary Imagination, Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress.
• Murphy, Ann V., 2012,Violence and the PhilosophicalImaginary, Albany, NY: SUNY.
• Namaste, Ki [Viviane K.], 1996, “‘TragicMisreadings’: Queer theory’s erasure of transgendersubjectivity”, inQueer Studies: A Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual,and Transgender Anthology, Brett Beemyn and Mickey Eliason(eds.), Albany, NY: New York University Press, pp. 183–206;reprinted in Viviane K. Namaste (ed.),Invisible Lives: TheErasure of Transsexual and Transgendered People, Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 2000, pp. 9–23.
• –––, 2009, “Undoing Theory: The‘Transgender Question’ and the Epistemic Violence ofAnglo-American Feminist Theory”,Hypatia, 24(3):11–32. doi:10.1111/j.1527-2001.2009.01043.x
• Narayan, Uma, 1997,Dislocating Cultures: Identities,Traditions, and Third World Feminism, New York: Routledge.
• –––, 2003, “What’s a Brown Girl likeYou Doing in the Ivory Tower? Or, How I Became a FeministPhilosopher”, inSinging in the Fire: Stories of Women inPhilosophy, Linda Martín Alcoff (ed.), Lanham, MD: Rowman& Littlefield Publishers, pp. 81–92.
• Narayan, Uma and Sandra Harding (eds.), 2000,Decentering theCenter: Philosophy for a Multicultural, Postcolonial, and FeministWorld, Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
• Nardal, Paulette, 1932 [2001], “Eveil de la conscience derace/The Awakening of Race Consciousness” (in both French andEnglish),La Revue du Monde Noir, 6: 25–31; Englishversion reprinted inRace, Robert Bernasconi (ed.), Malden,MA: Blackwell, 2001, Chapter 6.
• Nash, Jennifer, 2019,Black Feminism Reimagined: AfterIntersectionality, Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
• Noble, Bobby, 2012, “Trans. Panic. Some Thoughts toward aTheory of Feminist Fundamentalism”, in Enke 2012b:45–59.
• Oliver, Kelly, 1995,Womanizing Nietzsche: Philosophy’sRelation to “the Feminine”, New York: Routledge,
• –––, 1997,Family Values: Subjects BetweenNature and Culture, New York: Routledge.
• –––, 2004,The Colonization of PsychicSpace: A Psychoanalytic Social Theory of Oppression, Minneapolis,MN: University of Minnesota Press.
• Oliver, Kelly, Lisa Madura, and Sabeen Ahmed (eds.), 2019,Refugees Now: Rethinking Borders, Hospitality, andCitizenship, Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
• Ortega, Mariana, 2001, “‘New Mestizas,’‘’World’-Travelers,’ and‘Dasein’: Phenomenology and the Multi-Voiced,Multi-Cultural Self”,Hypatia, 16(3): 1–29.doi:10.1353/hyp.2001.0043
• –––, 2006, “Phenomenological Encuentros:Existential Phenomenology and Latin American & U.S. LatinaFeminism”,Radical Philosophy Review, 9(1):45–64. doi:10.5840/radphilrev2006911
• –––, 2016,In-Between: Latina FeministPhenomenology, Multiplicity, and the Self, Albany, NY: SUNYPress.
• –––, 2017, “Sophia Is Still White …So Is Knowledge: Reflections on Visuality, Dialogic Possibilities, andthe Limits of Continental Feminism”,philoSOPHIA, 7(1):157–164. doi:10.1353/phi.2017.0014
• Ortega, Mariana and Linda Martín Alcoff (eds.), 2009,Constructing the Nation: A Race and Nationalism Reader,Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
• Oyěwùmí, Oyèrónkẹ́,2007,The Invention of Women. Making an African Sense of WesternGender Discourses, Minneapolis, MN: University of MinnesotaPress.
• Paris, William M., 2019, “‘One Does Not Write forSlaves’: Wynter, Sartre, and the Poetic Phenomenology ofInvention”,The Journal of Speculative Philosophy,33(3): 407–421. doi:10.5325/jspecphil.33.3.0407
• Park, Jin Y., 2009, “The Double: Merleau-Ponty and Chinul onThinking and Questioning”, in Jin Y. Park and Gereon Kopf(eds.),Merleau-Ponty and Buddhism, Lanham, MD: LexingtonBooks, pp. 97–112.
• Peña-Guzmán, David M., 2016, “Beauvoir’sReading of Biology in The Second Sex”,Journal of French andFrancophone Philosophy, 24(2): 259–285.doi:10.5195/JFFP.2016.726
• Pérez, Emma, 1998, “Irigaray’s Female Symbolicin the Making of Chicana LesbianSitios y Lenguas (Sites andDiscourses)”,Living Chicana Theory, Carla MariTrujillo (ed.), Berkeley, CA: Third Woman Press, 87–101.
• –––, 1999,The Decolonial Imaginary: WritingChicanas into History, Bloomington, IN: Indiana UniversityPress.
• Pham, Minh-ha T., 2002, “(Re)Writing Home: ADaughter’s Letter to Her Mother”, in Anzaldúa andKeating, 2002: 176–180.
• Pitts, Andrea J., 2016, “Gloria E. Anzaldúa’sAutohistoria‐teoría as an Epistemology ofSelf‐Knowledge/Ignorance”,Hypatia, 31(2):352–369. doi:10.1111/hypa.12235
• –––, 2018, “Embodied Thresholds ofSanctuary: Abolitionism and Trans Worldmaking”,APANewsletter on LGBT Issues in Philosophy, 18(1): 3–10.
• Prosser, Jay, 1998,Second Skins: The Body Narratives ofTranssexuality, New York: Columbia University Press.
• Puar, Jasbir K., 2007,Terrorist Assemblages: Homonationalismin Queer Times, Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
• –––, 2017,The Right to Maim: Debility,Capacity, Disability, Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
• Quijano, Aníbal, 2000, “Coloniality of Power,Eurocentrism, and Latin America”,Nepantla: Views fromSouth, 1(3): 533–580. [Translated by Michael Ennis; Anabridged version was published in the same year with the same title inInternational Sociology, 15(2): 215–232.doi:10.1177/0268580900015002005]
• Raghavan, Anjana, 2017,Towards Corporeal Cosmopolitanism:Performing Decolonial Solidarities, London: Rowman &Littlefield.
• Rakes, H., 2013, “Toward a Theoretico-PracticalAccountability to Difference and Relationality”,DisabilityStudies Quarterly, 33(4): art. 7.doi:10.18061/dsq.v33i4.3873
• –––, 2014, “Philosophical Happiness andthe Relational Production of Philosophical Space”, in NamitaGoswami et al (eds.),Why Race and Gender Still Matter,Namita Goswami, Maeve M. O’Donovan and Lisa Yount (eds.), NewYork: Routledge, ch. 11.
• Reynolds, Joel Michael and Anita Silvers, 2017, “Feminismand Disability”, inPhilosophy: Feminism, Carol Hay(ed.), Farmington Hills, MI: Macmillan Reference USA, pp.295–316.
• Rubin, Gayle S., 1975, “The Traffic in Women: Notes on the‘Political Economy’ of Sex”, inToward anAnthropology of Women, Rayna R. Reiter (ed.), New York: MonthlyReview Press, 157–210,
• –––, 1993, “Thinking Sex: Notes for aRadical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality”, inThe Lesbianand Gay Studies Reader, H. Abelove , M.A. Barale and D.M.Halperin (eds.), New York: Routledge, pp. 3–44.
• –––, 2011,Deviations: A Gayle RubinReader, Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
• Rubin, Henry S., 1998, “Phenomenology as Method in TransStudies”,GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies,4(2): 263–281. doi:10.1215/10642684-4-2-263
• –––, 2003,Self-Made Men: Identity andEmbodiment among Transsexual Men, Nashville, TN: VanderbiltUniversity Press.
• Russell, Camisha A., 2010, “Black American Sexuality and theRepressive Hypothesis: Reading Patricia Hill Collins with MichelFoucault”, in Del Guadalupe Davidson, Gines, and Marcano 2010:201–224.
• –––, 2018,The Assisted Reproduction ofRace, Indianapolis, IN: Indiana University Press.
• Ruíz, Elena Flores, 2014, “Musing: SpectralPhenomenologies: Dwelling Poetically in ProfessionalPhilosophy”,Hypatia, 29(1): 196–204.doi:10.1111/hypa.12066
• –––, 2016a, “Linguistic Alterity and theMultiplicitous Self: Critical Phenomenologies in Latina FeministThought”,Hypatia, 31(2): 421–436.doi:10.1111/hypa.12239
• –––, 2016b, “Existentialism forPostcolonials: Fanon and the Politics of Authenticity”,APANewsletter on Hispanic /Latino Issues in Philosophy. 15(2):19–22.
• Salah, Trish, 2018, “Undoing Trans Studies”,TOPIA: Canadian Journal of Cultural Studies, 17:150–155. doi:10.3138/topia.17.150
• Salamon, Gayle, 2009, “Justification and Queer Method, orLeaving Philosophy”,Hypatia, 24(1): 225–230.doi:10.1111/j.1527-2001.2009.00015.x
• –––, 2010a,Assuming a Body: TransgenderTheory and Rhetorics of Materiality, New York: ColumbiaUniversity Press.
• –––, 2010b, “Rethinking Gender: JudithButler and Feminist Philosophy”, inThe History ofContinental Philosophy, Volume 8: Emerging Trends in ContinentalPhilosophy, Todd May (ed.), Chicago: University of Chicago Press,ch. 1.
• –––, 2018a,The Life and Death of LatishaKing: A Critical Phenomenology of Transphobia, New York: NYUPress.
• –––, 2018b, “Gender Essentialism andEidetic Inquiry”, inRethinking Feminist Phenomenology:Theoretical and Applied Perspectives, Sara Cohen Shabot andChristinia Landry (eds.), Lanham, MD: Rowman and LittlefieldInternational, 33–50.
• Salih, Sara, 2002,Judith Butler, New York:Routledge.
• Sandoval, Chela, 2000,Methodology of the Oppressed,Minnesota, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
• Sawicki, Jana, 2005, “Queering Foucault and the Subject ofFeminism”, inThe Cambridge Companion to MichelFoucault, Gary Gutting (ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress, updated and revised edition, 379–400.doi:10.1017/CCOL0521840821.014
• Scheman, Naomi, 1996, “Queering the Center by Centering theQueer: Reflections on Transsexuals and Secular Jews”, inFeminists Rethink the Self, Diana Tietjens Meyers (ed.),Boulder, CO: Westview Press, pp. 124–162.
• –––, 2016, “Looking Back on‘Queering the Center’”,TSQ: Transgender StudiesQuarterly, 3(1–2): 212–219.doi:10.1215/23289252-3334403
• Schotten, C. Heike, 2018,Queer Terror: Life, Death, andDesire in the Settler Colony, New York: Columbia UniversityPress.
• Schutte, Ofelia, 1984,Beyond Nihilism: Nietzsche WithoutMasks, Chicago; London: The University of Chicago Press.
• –––, 1993,Cultural Identity and SocialLiberation in Latin American Thought, Albany, NY: StateUniversity of New York Press.
• –––, 2011, “Resistance to Colonialism: TheLatin American Legacy of José Martí”,Colonialism and Its Legacies, Jacob T. Levy with Iris MarionYoung (ed.), Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 181–204.
• Scott, Jacqueline, 2017, “Effortful Agon: Learning to Thinkand Feel Differently about Race”, inOxford Handbook ofPhilosophy and Race, Naomi Zack (ed.), New York: OxfordUniversity Press, 2017): pp. 411–419.
• Scott, Joan W., 1992, “Multiculturalism and the Politics ofIdentity”,October, 61: 12–19.doi:10.2307/778780
• Scott-Dixon, Krista (ed.), 2006,Trans/forming Feminisms:Transfeminist Voices Speak Out, Toronto, ON: Sumach Press.
• Scuro, Jennifer, 2018,Addressing Ableism: PhilosophicalQuestions via Disability Studies, Lanham, MD: LexingtonBooks.
• Sealey, Kris, 2014,Moments of Disruption: Levinas, Sartre,and the Question of Transcendence, Albany, NY: State Universityof New York Press.
• –––, 2017, “Reflections on the Status ofContinental Feminism”,philoSOPHIA, 7(1):165–170. doi:10.1353/phi.2017.0015
• Sedgwick, Eve Kosofsky, 1993, “Queer and Now”, in herTendencies, Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1–20.doi:10.1215/9780822381860-001
• –––, 1990 [2008],Epistemology of theCloset, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press; updatededition, 2008.
• Seigworth, Gregory J. and Melissa Gregg, 2010, “An Inventoryof Shimmers”, inThe Affect Theory Reader, MelissaGregg and Gregory J. Seigworth (eds.), Durham, NC: Duke UniversityPress, 1–25.
• Senghor, Léopold Sédar, 1991,The CollectedPoetry, Melvin Dixon (trans.), Charlottesville, VA: University ofVirginia Press.
• Shah, Sonia (ed.), 1998,Dragon Ladies: Asian AmericanFeminists Breathe Fire, Boston: South End Press.
• Sharp, Hasana and Chloë Taylor (eds.), 2016,FeministPhilosophies of Life, Montreal: McGill-Queen’s UniversityPress.
• Sharpe, Christina, 2016,In the Wake: On Blackness andBeing, Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
• Sharpley-Whiting, T. Denean, 1998,Frantz Fanon: Conflicts andFeminisms, Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
• –––, 1999,Black Venus: Sexualized Savages,Primal Fears, and Primitive Narratives in French, Durham, NC:Duke University Press.
• –––, 2002,Negritude Women,Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
• –––, 2007,Pimps Up, Ho’s Down: HipHop’s Hold on Young Black Women, New York: New YorkUniversity Press.
• Sheth, Falguni A., 2006, “Unruly Muslim Women and Threats toLiberal Culture”,Peace Review, 18(4): 455–463.doi:10.1080/10402650601030328
• –––, 2014, “Interstitiality: Making Spacefor Migration, Diaspora, and Racial Complexity”,Hypatia, 29(1): 75–93. doi:10.1111/hypa.12075
• –––, 2017, “Knocking Down the Gates:Reconsidering the Myopias and Borders of Continental FeministPhilosophy”,philoSOPHIA, 7(1): 141–147.doi:10.1353/phi.2017.0012
• Shotwell, Alexis, 2012, “Open Normativities: Gender,Disability, and Collective Political Change”,Signs: Journalof Women in Culture and Society, 37(4): 989–1016.doi:10.1086/664475
• Shotwell, Alexis and Trevor Sangrey, 2008, “ResistingDefinition: Gendering through Interaction and RelationalSelfhood”,Hypatia, 24(3): 56–76.doi:10.1111/j.1527-2001.2009.01045.x
• Snorton, C. Riley, 2017,Black on Both Sides: A Racial Historyof Trans Identity, Minneapolis, MN: University of MinnesotaPress.
• Snorton, C. Riley and Jin Haritaworn, 2013, “TransNecropolitics: A Transnational Reflection on Violence, Death, and theTrans of Color Afterlife”, in Stryker and Aizura 2013:66–76. [Snorton and Haritaworn 2013 available online]
• Söderbäck, Fanny (ed), 2010,Feminist Readings ofAntigone, Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
• Spade, Dean, 2011 [2015],Normal Life: AdministrativeViolence, Critical Trans Politics and the Limits of Law, Boston:South End Press; reprinted in 2015.
• Spelman, Elizabeth V., 2007, “Managing Ignorance”, inS. Sullivan and Tuana 2007: 119–131 .
• Spillers, Hortense J., 1987, “Mama’s Baby,Papa’s Maybe: An American Grammar Book”,Diacritics, 17(2): 64–81. doi:10.2307/464747
• –––, 1996, “‘All the Things YouCould Be by Now, If Sigmund Freud’s Wife Was Your Mother’:Psychoanalysis and Race”,boundary 2, 23(3):75–141. doi:10.2307/303639
• Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty, 1988,Marxism and theInterpretation of Culture, Cary Nelson and Lawrence Grossberg(eds.), Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 271–313.
• –––, 1999,A Critique of PostcolonialReason: Toward a History of the Vanishing Present, Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.
• –––, 2013,An Aesthetic Education in the Eraof Globalization, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Stephano, Oli, 2019, “Irreducibility and (Trans) SexualDifference”,Hypatia, 34(1): 141–54.doi:10.1111/hypa.12447
• Stewart, Amy Ray, 2017, “Transgender Subjectivity inRevolt”,TSQ: Transgender Studies Quarterly,4(3–4): 577–607. doi:10.1215/23289252-4189974
• Stewart, Lindsey, 2017, “Work the Root: Black Feminism,Hoodoo Love Rituals, and Practices of Freedom”,Hypatia, 32 (1): 103–118. doi:10.1111/hypa.12309
• Stoler, Ann Laura, 1995,Race and the Education of Desire:Foucault’s History of Sexuality and the Colonial Order ofThings, Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
• Stone, Alison, 2015, “The Politics of Clarity”,Hypatia, 30(3): 613–619. doi:10.1111/hypa.12143
• Stone, Sandy, 1991, “The Empire Strikes Back: APosttransexual Manifesto”, inBody Guards: The CulturalPolitics of Gender Ambiguity, Julia Epstein and Kristina Straub(eds.), New York: Routledge, pp. 280–304.
• Stryker, Susan, 1994, “My Words to Victor Frankenstein Abovethe Village of Chamounix: Performing Transgender Rage”,GLQ:A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies, 1(3): 237–254.doi:10.1215/10642684-1-3-237
• –––, 2004, “Transgender Studies: QueerTheory’s Evil Twin”,GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and GayStudies, 10(2): 212–215. doi:10.1215/10642684-10-2-212
• –––, 2008,Transgender History,Berkeley, CA: Seal Press.
• Stryker, Susan and Aren Z. Aizura (eds.), 2013,TheTransgender Studies Reader 2, New York: Routledge.
• Stryker, Susan and Stephen Whittle (eds.), 2006,TheTransgender Studies Reader, New York: Routledge.
• Sullivan, Nikki, 2003,A Critical Introduction to QueerTheory, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
• Sullivan, Shannon, 2006,Revealing Whiteness: The UnconsciousHabits of Racial Privilege, Bloomington, IN: Indiana UniversityPress.
• –––, 2014,Good White People: The Problemwith Middle-Class White Anti-Racism, Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
• Sullivan, Shannon and Erin Tarver, 2019, “IntersectionsBetween Pragmatist and Continental Feminism”, inTheStanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2019 Edition), EdwardN. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2019/entries/femapproach-prag-cont/>
• Sullivan, Shannon and Nancy Tuana (eds.), 2007,Race andEpistemologies of Ignorance, Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
• Tarver, Erin C., 2017,The I in Team: Sports Fandom and theReproduction of Identity, Chicago: University of ChicagoPress.
• Taylor, Chloë, 2017,The Routledge Guidebook toFoucault’s The History of Sexuality, Abingdon, UK:Routledge.
• –––, forthcoming,Foucault, Feminism, andSex Crimes: An Anti-Carceral Analysis, Abingdon, UK:Routledge.
• Taylor, Keeanga-Yamahtta (ed.), 2017,How We Get Free: BlackFeminism and the Combahee River Collective, Chicago: HaymarketBooks.
• Terrefe, Selamawit D., 2020, “The Pornotrope of DecolonialFeminism”,Critical Philosophy of Race, 8(1–2):134–164. doi:10.5325/critphilrace.8.1-2.0134
• Tremain, Shelley, 2016,Foucault and Feminist Philosophy ofDisability, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
• Truth, Sojourner, 1851 [1995], “Woman’s Rights”,in Guy-Sheftall 1995: 36-37.
• Tuana, Nancy, 2004, “Coming to Understand: Orgasm and theEpistemology of Ignorance”,Hypatia, 19(1):194–232. doi:10.1111/j.1527-2001.2004.tb01275.x
• Tyson, Sarah. 2018,Where Are the Women? Why Expanding theArchive Makes Philosophy Better, New York: Columbia UniversityPress.
• Valentine, David, 2012, “Sue E. Generous: Toward a Theory ofNon-Transexuality”,Feminist Studies, 38(1):185–211.
• Velez, Emma D., 2019, “Decolonial Feminism at theIntersection: A Critical Reflection on the Relationship BetweenDecolonial Feminism and Intersectionality”,The Journal ofSpeculative Philosophy, 33(3): 390–406.
• Vitulli, Elias Walker, 2018, “Dangerous Embodiments:Segregating Sexual Perversion as Contagion in US PenalInstitutions”,Feminist Formations, 30(1):21–45.
• Wang, Robin R., 2016, “Yinyang Gender Dynamics: LivedBodies, Rhythmical Changes, and Cultural Performances”, in AnnA. Pang-White (ed.),The Bloomsbury Research Handbook of ChinesePhilosophy and Gender (Bloomsbury Research Handbooks in AsianPhilosophy), London; New York: Bloomsbury Academic, pp.205–227.
• Warner, Michael, 1993, “Introduction”, inFear ofa Queer Planet: Queer Politics and Social Theory, Michael Warner(ed.), Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, pp.vii–xxxi
• Weheliye, Alexander G., 2014,Habeas Viscus: RacializingAssemblages, Biopolitics, and Black Feminist Theories of theHuman, Durham and London: Duke University Press.
• Weinstein, Jami, 2017, “Continental Feminism: Reclaiming theDark Continent”,philoSOPHIA, 7(1): 171–177.doi:10.1353/phi.2017.0016
• Weiss, Gail, 1999,Body Images: Embodiment asIntercorporeality, New York: Routledge.
• –––, 2008,Refiguring the Ordinary,Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
• Weiss, Gail, Ann Murphy, and Gayle Salamon (eds.), 2020,50Concepts for a Critical Phenomenology, Evanston, IL: NorthwesternUniversity Press.
• Whitney, Shiloh, 2016, “Affective Indigestion: Lorde, Fanon,and Gutierrez-Rodriguez on Race and Affective Labor”,TheJournal of Speculative Philosophy, 30(3): 278–291.doi:10.5325/jspecphil.30.3.0278
• Willett, Cynthia, 1995,Maternal Ethics and Other SlaveMoralities, New York: Routledge
• –––, 2008,Irony in the Age of Empire: ComicPerspectives on Democracy and Freedom, Bloomington, IN: IndianaUniversity Press.
• –––, 2014,Interspecies Ethics, NewYork: Columbia University Press.
• Willett, Cynthia and Julie Willett, 2019,Uproarious: HowFeminists and Other Subversive Comics Speak Truth, Minneapolis,MN: Minnesota University Press.
• Williams, Patricia, 1991, “The Death of the Profane: ACommentary on the Genre of Legal Writing”, in herTheAlchemy of Race and Rights, Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress, 44–51.
• Winnubst, Shannon, 2006,Queering Freedom, Bloomington,IN: Indiana University Press.
• –––, 2010, “Temporality in Queer Theoryand Continental Philosophy”,Philosophy Compass, 5(2):136–146. doi:10.1111/j.1747-9991.2009.00278.x
• –––, 2015,Way Too Cool: Selling out Raceand Ethics, New York: Columbia University Press.
• Women of South Asian Descent Collective (ed), 1993,Our FeetWalk the Sky: Women of the South Asian Diaspora, San Francisco,CA: Aunt Lute Books.
• Wong, Nellie, 1981a, “In Search of the Self as Hero:Confetti of Voices on New Year’s Night”, in Moraga andAnzaldúa 1981: 177–181.
• –––, 1981b, “When I Was Growing Up”,in Moraga and Anzaldúa 1981: 7–8.
• Woo, Merle, 1981, “Letter to Ma”, in Moraga andAnzaldúa 1981: 140–147.
• Wynter, Sylvia, 1990, “Beyond Miranda’s Meanings:Un/Silencing the ‘Demonic Ground’ of Caliban’s‘Woman’”, inOut of the Kumbla, Caribbean Womenand Literature, Carole Boyce Davies and Elaine Savory Fido(eds.), Trenton, NJ: Africa World Press, 355–370.
• –––, 1995, “1492: A New World View”,inRace, Discourse, and the Origin of the Americas: A New WorldView, Vera Lawrence Hyatt and Rex Nettleford (eds.), Washington,DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 5–57.
• –––, 2003, “Unsettling the Coloniality ofBeing/Power/Truth/Freedom: Towards the Human, After Man, ItsOverrepresentation—An Argument”,CR: The NewCentennial Review, 3(3): 257–337.doi:10.1353/ncr.2004.0015
• –––, 2006, “On How We Mistook the Map forthe Territory, and Re-Imprisoned Ourselves in Our Unbearable Wrongnessof Being ofDesêtre: Black Studies Toward the HumanProject”, in Lewis R. Gordon and Jane Anna Gordon (eds.),Not Only the Master’s Tools: African-American Studies inTheory and Practice, Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers:107–172.
• Yamada, Mitsuye, 1981a, “Asian Pacific American Women andFeminism”, in Moraga and Anzaldúa 1981: 71–75.
• –––, 1981b, “Invisibility Is an UnnaturalDisaster: Reflections of an Asian American Woman”, in Moraga andAnzaldúa 1981: 35–40.
• Yancy, George, 2018,Backlash: What Happens When We TalkHonestly about Racism in America, Lanham, MD: Rowman &Littlefield.
• Yang, Hyosil, 2019, “As a Translator and Reader of JudithButler in Korea”,philoSOPHIA, 9(1): 135–137.doi:10.1353/phi.2019.0002
• Yergeau, Melanie, 2018,Authoring Autism: On Rhetoric andNeurological Queerness, Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
• Young, Iris Marion, 1980, “Throwing like a Girl: APhenomenology of Feminine Body Comportment Motility andSpatiality”,Human Studies, 3: 137–156.doi:10.1007/BF02331805
• –––, 1990,Justice and the Politics ofDifference, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Zack, Naomi, 1993,Race and Mixed Race, Philadelphia, PA:Temple University Press.
• Zakin, Emily, 2011, “Psychoanalytic Feminism”, inThe Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2011Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2011/entries/feminism-psychoanalysis/>
• –––, 2017, “The Drama of Independence:Narcissism, Childhood, and the Family Complexes”, inTheBlackwell Companion to Simone de Beauvoir, Nancy Bauer and LauraHengehold (eds.), Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 99–110.
• Zambrana, Rocío, 2017, “Boundary, Ambivalence,Jaibería, or, How to Appropriate Hegel”, inCreolizing Hegel, Michael Monahan (ed.), (Creolizing theCanon), Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, ch. 1.
• –––, forthcoming,Colonial Debts: The Caseof Puerto Rico, Durham, NC: Duke University Press
• Zheng, Robin, 2016, “Why Yellow Fever Isn’tFlattering: A Case Against Racial Fetishes”,Journal of theAmerican Philosophical Association, 2(3): 400–419.doi:10.1017/apa.2016.25
• Zurn, Perry, 2016, “The Politics of Anonymity: Foucault,Feminism, and Gender Non-Conforming Prisoners”,philoSOPHIA, 6(1): 27–42.doi:10.1353/phi.2016.0008
• –––, 2018, “Puzzle Pieces: Shapes of TransCuriosity”,APA Newsletter on LGBTQ Issues inPhilosophy, 18(1): 10–16.
• –––, 2019, “Waste Culture and Isolation:Prisons, Toilets, and Gender Segregation”,Hypatia,34(4): 668–689. doi:10.1111/hypa.12498
• –––, 2023. “The Path of Friction: OnHale’s ‘Rules’ for Accountability to and withinTrans Communities.”TSQ: Transgender Studies Quarterly,10(1): 71–85.

Academic Tools

	How to cite this entry.
	Preview the PDF version of this entry at theFriends of the SEP Society.
	Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO).
	Enhanced bibliography for this entryatPhilPapers, with links to its database.

Other Internet Resources

• Bettcher, Talia Mae, 2018, “‘When Tables Speak’: On the Existence of Trans Philosophy”,Daily Nous, 30 May 2018.
• Hale, Jacob, 1997, “Suggested Rules for Non-Transsexuals Writing about Transsexuals, Transsexualism, Transsexuality, or Trans____”.
• Gender, Race, and Philosophy
• philoSOPHIA: Society for Continental Feminism
• Hansen, Jennifer, “Continental Feminism”,StanfordEncyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2020 Edition), Edward N. Zalta(ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2020/entries/femapproach-continental/>. [This was the previous entry on this topic in theStanfordEncyclopedia of Philosophy — see theversion history.]

Related Entries

aesthetics: existentialist |Affect Theory |Africana Philosophy |Beauvoir, Simone de |colonialism |Cooper, Anna Julia |critical theory |Derrida, Jacques |disability: critical disability theory |existentialism |Fanon, Frantz |feminist philosophy |feminist philosophy, approaches: analytic philosophy |feminist philosophy, approaches: intersections between analytic and continental philosophy |feminist philosophy, approaches: intersections between pragmatist and continental philosophy |feminist philosophy, approaches: Latin American feminism |feminist philosophy, approaches: pragmatism |feminist philosophy, approaches: psychoanalytic philosophy |feminist philosophy, interventions: bioethics |feminist philosophy, interventions: environmental philosophy |feminist philosophy, interventions: ethics |feminist philosophy, interventions: history of philosophy |feminist philosophy, interventions: metaphysics |feminist philosophy, interventions: political philosophy |feminist philosophy, topics: perspectives on class and work |feminist philosophy, topics: perspectives on disability |feminist philosophy, topics: perspectives on globalization |feminist philosophy, topics: perspectives on power |feminist philosophy, topics: perspectives on sex and gender |feminist philosophy, topics: perspectives on sex markets |feminist philosophy, topics: perspectives on the body |feminist philosophy, topics: perspectives on the self |feminist philosophy, topics: perspectives on trans issues |Foucault, Michel |Heidegger, Martin |hermeneutics |Husserl, Edmund |identity politics |Lacan, Jacques |Latinx Philosophy |Levinas, Emmanuel |Merleau-Ponty, Maurice |Négritude |Nietzsche, Friedrich |phenomenology |postmodernism

Acknowledgments

The SEP editors would like to thank Dilek Huseyinzadegan, JanaMcAuliffe, Tamsin Kimoto, and Jennifer Hansen for helping us toorganize the team of coauthors who contributed sections to this entry.We note their contribution and acknowledgments as follows. Theintroduction is authored by Dilek Huseyinzadegan, who thanks JanaMcAuliffe and Marie Draz; Section 1 (“Characteristics ofContinental Feminism”) is authored by Jana McAuliffe; Section 2(“Black Feminist Thought”) is authored by Jameliah IngaShorter-Bourhanou; Section 3 (“Post- and DecolonialThought”) is authored by Selin Ege Islekel; Section 4(“Queer Theory/Queer of Color Critique”) is authored byMarie Draz; Section 5 (“Trans Studies”) is co-authored byMarie Draz and Tamsin Kimoto; Section 6 (“Asian AmericanFeminist Thought”) is authored by Erika Brown, who thanks TamsinKimoto; Section 7 (“Conclusion and New Directions”) isco-authored by Jana McAuliffe and Dilek Huseyinzadegan. Authors alsothank Sarah Lee for helping with editing the penultimate version ofthe entry.