The history of sexuality has existed as long as the writing of history. Only in the nineteenth century, however, did the topic shift from moralism and begin to challenge male, heterosexual, and cisgender hegemonies as natural human conditions. Pioneers in women’s history and the histories of sexual and gender minorities detailed past oppressions while offering historical examples of alternative models for human gender and sexual roles. Throughout the twentieth century and since, historians of sexuality have drawn from varied academic discourses—feminist, sociological, anthropological, linguistic, psychological, geographical, queer and trans—to explore the sexual past from diverse perspectives. The women’s and gay liberation movements also prompted increased explorations of history, both to understand the roots of inequality and discrimination and to uncover exceptions to these rules. And from a decidedly modern and Western focus and an obvious emphasis on white, upper- or middle-class, able-bodied, and adult subjects, historians of sexuality have increasingly searched for answers to questions about why things are the way they are in the histories of premodern and worldwide societies and in the lives of persons of colour, working-class individuals, those with disabilities, and the young and the old.

Performative inquiry – studies of doing and its consequences for being – is a prominent feature of research projects in exploring gender and sexuality, especially when gender and sexuality are closely tied to linguistic practices. Moreover, because performativity of doing unfolds in specific social and temporal contexts, performative inquiry shows how gender and sexuality become inflected variously in relation to intersectionalities and inequalities, and how language use connected to gender and sexuality becomes inflected in similar terms, as well. Performative inquiry is also concerned with assumptions about normative (or ideological) assumptions that regulate “commonsense” distinctions between valued and not-so-valued practices of doing and being. This chapter’s case studies and discussion show how gender and sexuality are shaped by performative practices and how language use is entailed within these gendered and sexual performative formations.

We challenge the idea that the human rights of women and the right to culture are in opposition. First, the ideas that all human beings have the same rights and that these rights cannot be selectively abridged are fundamental to a diversity of cultures – though they often co-exist with discriminatory ideas and practices. Second, the idea of opposition between women’s rights and cultural rights is grounded in the myth that cultures are homogenous, bounded, and static. All cultures include a diversity of values; cultures also constantly mix and evolve. Third, the idea of opposition between women’s rights and cultural rights overlooks the power dynamics that make it difficult for women to influence their culture. Fourth, contraposing women’s rights and cultural rights splits experiences of oppression and privilege by gender and culture, instead of recognizing their intersectionality. Finally, the selective use of arguments against the universality of human rights in women’s case reveals bias. The universality of human rights is not questioned when men’s rights are at stake. In conclusion, it is critical to recognize and resist oppressive interests and practices disguised under the cloak of culture. The universality-of-human-rights principle demands essential protections and freedoms for all human beings.