CİNSİYET FARKLARININ İNŞASINDA VE BU FARKLARIN AŞILMASINDA CİNSİYET İFADESİNİN ROLÜ

Yıl 2020, Sayı: 11, 82 - 114, 10.06.2020

Meral Gezici-yalçın , Veysi Tanriverdi

Öz

Bu yazının amacı, cinsiyet ifadesi kavramını ele almak, bunun yanı sıra cinsiyet farklarının inşasında
ve bu farkların aşılmasında cinsiyet ifadesinin rolünü tartışmaktır. Cinsiyet ifadesi, bireyin kendini
cinsiyet vasıtasıyla dışavurma biçimidir. Bu dışavurum, giyim ve konuşma tarzı, saç kesimi, mimik ve
jestler gibi cinsiyetlendirilmiş bedenlerin edimleri vasıtasıyla gerçekleşir. Alanyazında oldukça sınırlı
bir şekilde ele alınmış olan cinsiyet ifadesi kavramını tartıştığımız bu yazıda, öncelikle tarihsel
belirlenimli cinsiyet edimi anlayışı özetlenmiş, daha sonra, bu kuramsal çerçeve ışığında cinsiyet
şeması, cinsiyet kategorileri ve cinsiyet rolleri gibi sosyal psikoloji kuramları gözden geçirilmiş ve
bunların cinsiyet ifadesiyle ilişkisi üzerinde durulmuştur. Sonraki bölümde, önyargılar, ayrımcılık ve
olumsuz tutumlar sebebiyle belirli bir cinsiyetle uyumsuz olacak şekilde cinsiyeti dışavurmanın
zorluğundan bahsedilmiş, ancak her şeye rağmen, cinsiyet ifadesinin çeşitlenmesinin iki cinsiyetli
kategorilemeyi çeldireceği ve böylelikle cinsiyet kalıpyargılarını aşmaya katkıda bulunacağı savı
ortaya atılmıştır. Bununla tutarlı bir şekilde, davranışsal nöroendokrinoloji ve sinirbilim araştırma
bulgularının iki cinsiyetli sistemi desteklemediğinden bahsedilmiştir. Son olarak, cinsiyet ifadesinin
Türkiye’deki zamansal ve mekânsal izi sürülerek politik etmenlerin önemi vurgulanmıştır. Gelecekte
yapılacak araştırmalarda, cinsiyet ifadesinin hem cinsiyetten hem de cinsiyetle ilgili diğer
değişkenlerden (cinsiyet kimliği, cinsiyet rolleri, vb.) ayrı bir şekilde incelenmesi önerilmiştir. Bu öneri
doğrultusunda, gelecek çalışmalar için yol gösterici olabileceği düşünülen bazı sorulara yer
verilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Cinsiyet İfadesi, Cinsiyet Edimi, Cinsiyet Farkları, Cinsiyet Kategorlieri, Sosyal Psikoloji

THE ROLE OF GENDER EXPRESSION ON THE CONSTRUCTION AND DECONSTRUCTION OF GENDER DIFFERENCES

Öz

The aim of this paper is, first, to introduce the concept of gender expression, and second, to discuss
its role on the construction and destruction of gender differences. Gender expression is a reflection
of a person via gender. It is reflected via gendered bodily performatives such as, way of dressing and
speech, hair style, mimics and gestures. To discuss gender expression, which has not been
extensively focused on in the literature so far, first, Floyd’s (2018) historically determined concept
of geonder performativity was shortly summarized. Then, social psychological theories such as
gender schema, gender categorization, and gender roles were reviewed and their congruences with
gender performativity were dwelled on. Furthermore, the diffficulty in asserting gendernonconforming
gender expression due to prejudice, discrimination and negative attitudes was
mentioned. Nevertheless, the assumption that diversity in gender expression can lead to
transformation of gender binary and gender stereotypes was put forward. In this context, research
on behavioral neuroendocrinology and neuroscience were referred to as not supporting the gender
binary view. Finally, time-space tracks of gender expression in Turkey were traced, and the
importance of political factors was attenuated. Gender expression is suggested to be investigated
as an independent variable that is distinct from gender or other gender related variables (gender
identity, gender roles, etc.). According to this suggestion, some leading questions for further studies
were addressed.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Gender Expression, Gender Performativity, Gender Differences, Gender Categories, Social Psychology

Kaynakça

• American Psychological Association (APA, 2015). Guidelines for psychological practice with lesbian, gay, and bisexual clients, American Psychologist, 70(9), 832-864.
• Atay, T. (2004). Erkeklik en çok erkeği ezer!, Toplum ve Bilim, 101, 11-30.
• Avşar, S. (2018). Toplumsal cinsiyet rolleri bağlamında tarihsel rollerini yitiren erkekliğin çöküşü: Küllerinden ‘yeni erkek’liğin doğuşu, Kadın ve Demokrasi Derneği Kadın Araştırmaları Dergisi, 3, 224-241.
• Aypar, G. ve Tanyaş, B. (2017). İstanbul’da yaşayan transların dışlanma ve ayrımcılık deneyimleri üzerine nitel bir çalışma, İstanbul Kemerburgaz Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 2(1), 71-90.
• Banaji, M. R. & Greenwald, A. G. (1995). Implicit gender stereotyping in judgments of fame, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(2): 181-202.
• Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155–162.
• Bem, S. L. (1981). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing, Psychological Review, 88(4), 354-364.
• Bem, S. L. (1995). Dismantling gender polarization and compulsory heterosexuality: Should we turn the volume down or up? Journal of Sex Research, 32(4), 329-334.
• Bohan, J. S. (1996). Psychology and sexual orientation: Coming to terms. London: Routledge.
• Bolak-Boratav, H., Okman-Fişek, O. ve Eslen-Ziya, H. (2017). Erkekliğin Türkiye halleri. İstanbul: Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları. Bullough, V. L. & Bullough, B. (1993). Cross dressing, sex, and gender. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
• Burgess, D. & Borgida, E. (1999). Who women are, who women should be: Descriptive and prescriptive gender stereotyping in sex discrimination, Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 5, 665–692.
• Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York, NY: Routledge.
• Casey, L. S., Reisner, S. L., Findling, M. G. et al. (2019). Discrimination in the United States: Experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer Americans, Health Services Research, Special Issue: Experiences of Discrimination in America, 1-13.
• Clarke, V., Ellis, S. J., Peel, E., & Riggs, D. W. (2010). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans & queer psychology: An introduction. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
• Connell, R. W. (1995). Masculinities. Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Connell, R. W. Toplumsal cinsiyet ve iktidar (C. Soydemir, Çev.). İstanbul: Ayrıntı Yayınları.
• Davis, F. (2009). Osmanlı Hanımı (Bahar Tırnakçı, Çev). İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları.
• Deaux, K. (1984). From individual differences to social categories: Analysis of a Decade's research on gender, American Psychologist, 39(2), 105-116.
• Deaux, K. & Laurie L. L. (1984). Structure of gender stereotypes: Interrelationships among components and gender label, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(5), 991-1004.
• Devor, A. H. (1989). Gender blending: Confronting the limits of duality. Indiana University Press.
• Direk, Z. (2018). Cinsel farkın inşası: Felsefi bir problem olarak cinsiyet. İstanbul: Metis.
• Düğer, S. (2015). Batılı kadın seyyahlar imgeleminde Osmanlı kadını, Kocaeli Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 29, 71-90.
• Düzkan, A. (2007). Eşcinsel genç adam komşudaki ev kadınıyla ne konuşur?, Kaos GL Feminizm ve Eşcinsellik Özel Sayısı, 20-21.
• Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.
• Eagly, A. H. & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders, Psychological Review, 109(3), 573–598.
• Eagly, A. H. & Wood, W. (2013). The nature–nurture debates: 25 years of challenges in understanding the psychology of gender, Perspectives on Psychological Science, 20(5), 1–18. Eagly, A. H. & Wood, W. (2012). Social Role Theory. P. van Lange, A. Kruglanski, & T. E. Higgins, (Eds.), Handbook of theories in social psychology (458–476). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
• Eagly, A. H. & Wood, W. (1999). The origins of sex differences in human behavior: Evolved dispositions versus social roles. American Psychologist, 54, 408–423.
• Fausto-Sterling, A. (2000). Sexing the body: Gender politics and the construction of sexuality. New York: Basic Books. Fiske, S. T. & Stevens, L. E. (1993). What’s so special about sex? Gender stereotyping and discrimination. London: Sage Publications.
• Fiske, S. T, Cuddy, A. M. J., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition, Journal of Personality and Social Psycholgy, 82(6), 878-902.
• Floyd, K. (2018). Arzunun şeyleşmesi: Queer Marksizme doğru. İstanbul: NotaBene Kaos GL. Flowers, P. & Buston, K. (2001). ‘I was terrified of being different’: Exploring gay men’s accounts of growing-up in a heterosexist society, Journal of Adolescence, 24(1), 51–65.
• Fontmagne, L. B. D. D. (1977). Kırım Harbi sonrasında İstanbul (C. Altuntaş, Çev.). İstanbul: Tercüman Yayınları.
• Fredrickson, B. L. & Roberts, T. A. (1997). Objectification Theory: Toward understanding women's lived experiences and mental health risks, Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21(2), 173-206.
• Freud, S. (1913/1996). Totem ve tabu (K. Şipal, Çev.). İstanbul: Sosyal Yayınları.
• Gettler, L. T., McDade, T. W., Alan, B. F., & Christopher, W. K. (2011). Longitudinal evidence that fatherhood decreases testosterone in human males, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108(39), 16194–16199.
• Gerstenfeld, P. B. (2019). Hate crimes against the LGBTQ Community. The Encyclopedia of Women and Crime. Gezici-Yalçın, M. ve Tanriverdi, V. (2018). ‘Kavanozu açan’ erkeklerle ‘kafasını kullanabilen’ kadınlar: Erkek üniversite öğrencilerinin erkeklik müzakereleri, Masculinities: A Journal of Identity and Culture, 9-10, 129-167.
• Goodwin, G. (1997). Osmanlı kadınının özel dünyası (S. Gül, Çev.). İstanbul: Sabah Kitapları, Olaylar ve İnsanlar Dizisi 26.
• Göregenli, M. (2006). Gruplararası ilişki ideolojisi olarak homofobi, Kaos GL, Geylerin ve Lezbiyenlerin Sorunları ve Toplumsal Barış İçin Çözüm Arayışları İçinde(ss. 142-148). Ankara: Kaos GL Kitapları.
• Hammock, G. S. & Richardson, D. R. (1992). Predictors of aggressive behavior, Aggressive Behavior, 18(3), 219-229.
• Haraway, D. (1989). Primate visions: Gender, race and nature in the worls of modern science. London: Routledge.
• Haraway, D. (1997). Modest_Witness@Second_Millenium. FemaleMan©_Meets_OncoMouseTM. Feminism and Technoscience. London: Routledge.
• Harris, A. C. (1994). Ethnicity as a determinant of sex role identity: A replication study of item selection for the Bem Sex Role Inventory, Sex Roles, 31(3-4), 241-273.
• Heilman, M. E. (1983). Sex bias in work settings: The lack of fit model. B. Staw, & L. Cummings, Research in organizational behavior (pp. 269–298). Greenwich, CT: New York University Press.
• Heilman, M. E. (2012). Gender stereotypes and workplace bias, Research in Organizational Behavior, 32, 113–135.
• Herek, G. M. (1986). On heterosexual masculinity: Some psychical consequences of the social construction of gender and sexuality, American Behavioral Scientist, 29(5), 563-577.
• Herek, G. M. (1993), The context of antigay violence: Notes on cultural and psychological heterosexism. L. D. Garnets & Kimmel D. C. (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on lesbian and gay male experiences (pp. 90–107). New York: Columbia University Press.
• Hyde, J. S., Rebecca S. B., Joel, D., Charlotte C. T., & van Anders, S. M. (2019). The future of sex and gender in psychology: Five challenges to the gender binary, American Psychologist, 74(2), 171-193.
• Isacco, A. & Morse, J. Q. (2015). Male graduate students at a ‘women’s college’: Examining the roles of academic motivation, support, connection, and masculinity ideology, Sex Roles, 72, 321–334.
• Işın, E. (1988). Tanzimat, kadın ve gündelik hayat. Tarih ve Toplum, 19(51), 22-27.
• Jackson, P. A. (2000). An explotion of Thai identities: Global queering and re-imagining Queer Theory, Culture, Health and Sexuality, 2(4), 405-424.
• Jetten, J., Branscombe, N. R., Iyer, A. & Asai, N. (2013). Appraising gender discrimination as legitimate or illegitimate: Antecedents and consequences, R. K. Michelle & Branscombe, N. R. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of gender and psychology (pp. 306–322). London: Sage.
• Joel, D. (2011). Male or female? Brains are intersex, Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience, 5, 1-5.
• Joel, D. (2012). Genetic-gonadal-genitals sex (3G-sex) and the misconception of brain and gender, or, why 3G-males and 3G-females have intersex brain and intersex gender, Biology of Sex Differences, 3, 1-6.
• Joel, D. & McCarthy, M. M. (2017). Incorporating sex as a biological variable in neuropsychiatric research: Where are we now and where should we be?”, Neuropsychopharmacology, 42(2), 379-385.
• Joel, D., et al. (2015). Sex beyond the genitalia: The human brain mosaic, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(50), 15468-15473.
• Karaosmanoğlu, Y. K. (1922/1987). Kiralık konak. İstanbul: İletişim.
• Katz, P. A. & Ksansnak, K. R. (1994). Developmental aspects of gender role flexibility and traditionality in middle childhood and adolescence, Developmental Psychology, 30(2), 272-282.
• Kinney, T. A., Smith, B. A., & Bonny, D. (2001). The influence of sex, gender, self-discrepancies, and self-awareness on anger and verbal aggressiveness among U.S. college students, Journal of Social Psychology, 141, 245–275.
• Kite, M. E. & Deaux, K. (1987). Gender beliefs systems: Homosexuality and Implicit Inversion Theory, Psychology of Women Quarterly, 11, 83–96.
• Kite, M. E., & Deaux, K. (1986). Attitudes toward homosexuality: Assessment and behavioral consequences, Basic and Applied Psychology, 7, 137-162.
• Kitzinger, C. & Wilkinson, S. (1995). Transitions from heterosexuality to lesbianism: The discursive production of lesbian identities, Developmental Psychology, 31(1), 95-104.
• Kitzinger, C., Wilkinson, S., & Milton, M. (1998). Towards lesbian and gay psychology, The Psychologist, 11(11), 529-533.
• Koç, F. ve Koca, E. (2009). Geleneksel giysi tarzlarının değişimi ve Türk modasının oluşumunda İstanbul, Uluslararası Türk Kültürü Kongresi ve Dünya Konferans metni.
• Lacquer, T. (1990). Making sex: Body and gender from The Greeks to Freud. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Laner, M. R. & Laner, R. H. (1979). Personal style or sexual preference: Why gay men are dislike, International Review of Modern Sociology, 9, 215–228.
• Laner, M. R. & Laner, R. H. (1980). Sexual preference or personal style? Why lesbians are disliked, Journal of Homosexuality, 5(4), 339-356.
• Liening, S. H., Stanton, S. J., Saini, E. K., & Schultheiss, O. C. (2010). Salivary testosterone, cortisol, and progesterone: Two-week stability, interhormone correlations, and effects of time of day, menstrual cycle, and oral contraceptive use on steroid hormone levels, Physiology & Behavior, 99(1), 8-16.
• Lorenzi-Cioldi, F. (1996). Psychological androgyny: A concept in search of lesser substance, towards the understanding of the transformation of a social representation, Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 26(2), 137-155.
• Lucács, G. (1923/1998). Tarih ve sınıf bilinci. İstanbul: Belge.
• McDonald, A.P. & Games, R. G. (1976). Some characteristics of those who hold positive and negative attitudes toward homosexuals, Journal of Homosexuality, 1, 9-27.
• McCreary, D. R. (1994). The male role and avoiding femininity, Sex Roles, 31, 517–531.
• Meriç, N. (2007). Âdâb-ı muâşeret: Osmanlı’da gündelik hayatın değişimi (1894-1927) (2. Baskı). İstanbul: Kapı Yayınları.
• Mishel, E. (2016). Discrimination against queer women in the U.S. workforce: A résumé audit study, Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World, 2, 1-13.
• Morgenroth, T. & Ryan, M. K. (2018). Gender trouble in social psychology: How can Butler’s work inform experimental social psychologists’ conceptualization of gender?, Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1320.
• Morrow, D. F. & Messinger, L. (2006). Sexual orientation and gender expression in social work practice: Working with gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people. Columbia: Columbia University Press.
• Moscovici, S. (1988). Notes towards a description of Social Representations, European Journal of Social Psychology, 18 (3), 211-250.
• Musahipzade C. (1992). Eski İstanbul yaşayışı. İstanbul: İletişim.
• Navaro, L. (1996). Tapınağın öbür yüzü: Kadınlar ve erkekler üzerine (vol. 431). İstanbul: Varlık/Özel.
• Nussbaum, M. C. (1995). Objectification, Philosophy & Public Affairs, 24(4), 249-291.
• Öngen, A. G. (2015). Cumhuriyet dönemi modernleşme politikasının erkek giyim tarzına etkisi, Akdeniz Sanat Dergisi, 8(15), 1-11. Özcan Elçi, D. (2018). Ayrımcılık, nefret söylemi/suçları ve transfobi ile damgalanan trans kadınlar, Uluslararası Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 11(55), 533-542.
• Özeren, E. ve Aydın, E. (2016). What does being LGBT mean in the workplace? A comparison of LGBT equality in Turkey and the UK. K. Alain et al. (Eds.), Research handbook of international and comparative perspectives on diversity management (pp. 199-226). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
• Papadaki, E. L. (2010). Feminist perspectives on objectification. Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-objectification/ (Erişim tarihi: 7.11.2019).
• Parrott, D. J. & Zeichner, A. (2003). Effects of hypermasculinity on physical aggression against women, Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 4 (1), 70 –78.
• Pratto, F. & Walker, A. (2004). The bases of gendered power. A. H.Eagly, A. E. Beall, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The psychology of gender (pp. 242–268). New York: Guilford Press.
• Pratto, F. & Pitpitan, E. V. (2008). Ethnocentrism and sexism: How stereotypes legitimize six types of power, Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(6), 2159-2176.
• Pratto, F. & Stewart, A. L. (2012). Group dominance and the half‐blindness of privilege, Journal of Social Issues, 68(1), 28-45. Pratto, F. (2015). On power and empowerment, British Journal of Social Psychology, 55(1), 1-20.
• Prentice, D. A., & Carranza, E. (2002). What women and men should be, shouldn’t be, are allowed to be,and don’t have to be: The contents of prescriptive gender stereotypes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26, 269–281.
• Reicher, S. D., Spears, R., & Haslam, A. S. (2010). The Social Identity Approach in social psychology. M. Wetherell & C. T. Mohanty (Eds.), Sage identities handbook (pp. 45-62). London: Sage.
• Reidy, D. E. et al. (2009). Men who aggress against women: Effects of feminine gender role violation on physical aggression in hypermasculine men, Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 10(1), 1-12.
• Rudman, L. A. (1998). Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: The costs and benefits of counterstereotypical impression management. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(3), 629–645.
• Ruigrok, A. N. V. et al. (2014). A metaaAnalysis of sex differences in human brain structure, Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 39, 34-50.
• Sancar, S. (2014). Türk modernleşmesinin cinsiyeti: Erkekler devlet, kadınlar aile kurar. İstanbul: İletişim.
• Sancar, S. (2009). Erkeklik: İmkansız iktidar. İstanbul: Metis.
• Sakallı-Uğurlu, N. ve Uğurlu, O. (2004). Eşcinsellik ve eşcinselliğe ilişkin tutumlar: Önyargı ve ayrımcılık, Kaos GL, Geylerin ve lezbiyenlerin sorunları ve toplumsal barış için çözüm arayışları (ss. 51-63). Ankara: Kaos GL Kitapları.
• Sakallı-Uğurlu, N., Türkoğlu, B., Kuzlak, A., & Gupta, A. (2018). Stereotypes of single and married women and men in Turkish culture. Current Psychology, 1-13.
• Saxbe, D. E., Edelstein, R. S., Hannah, M. L. et al. (2017). Fathers’ decline in testosterone and synchrony with partner testosterone during pregnancy predicts greater postpartum relationship investment, Hormones and Behavior, 90, 39-47. Schein, V. E. (1973). The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics, Journal of Applied Psychology, 57(2), 95–100.
• Schein, V. E. (2001). A global look at psychological barriers to women’s progress in management, Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 675–688.
• Sedgwick, E. K. (1994). Tendencies. London: Routledge.
• Selek, P. (2012). Sürüne sürüne erkek olmak. Ankara: İletişim.
• Skevington, S. & Baker, D. (Eds.) (1989). The social identity of women. London: Sage.
• Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organism: An experimental analysis. New York: Appleton-Century.
• Spence, J. T. (1993). Gender-related traits and gender ideology: Evidence for a multifactorial theory, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(4), 624-635.
• Steffens, M. C., Niedlich, C., Kachel, S., & Methner, N. (2016). Impression formation of applicants differing in sexual orientation: An attempt to integrate theoretical models and a review of the empirical evidence. E. Frances (Ed.), Sexual orientation: Perceptions, discrimination and acceptance. New York: Nova Science Publishers.
• Şah, U. (2011). Türkiye’deki gençlerin cinsel yönelimlere ilişkin sosyal temsilleri, Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 14(27), 88-99.
• Şah, U. (2012). Eşcinselliğe, biseksüelliğe ve transseksüelliğe Iilişkin tanımlamaların homofobi ve LGBT bireylerle tanışıklık düzeyi ile Iilişkisi, Psikoloji Çalışmaları, 32(2), 23-49.
• Tate, C. C., Youssef, C. P., & Bettergarcia, J. N. (2014). Integrating the study of transgender spectrum and cisgender: Experiences of self-categorization from a personality perspective, Review of General Psychology, 18(4), 302-312.
• Terman, L. M. & Miles, C. Cox (1936). Sex and personality. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
• Tezcan, Hu. (1988). Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun son yüzyılında kadın kıyafetlerinde batılılaşma, Sanat Dünyamız, 37, 48-49. Thornhill, N. W. (1991). An evolutionary analysis of rules regulating human inbreeding and marriage, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14(2), 247-293.
• Tompkins, K. W. (2015). Intersections of race, gender, and sexuality: Queer of color critique. S. Herring (Ed.), Cambridge companion to gay and lesbian literature (pp. 173–189). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
• Turan, N. (2005). 16. Yüzyıldan 19. Yüzyıl sonuna dek Osmanlı Devletinde gayri müslimlerin kılık kıyafetlerine dair düzenlemeler, Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, 60(4), 239-267.
• Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A Self-categorization Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.
• Unger, R. & Crawford, M. (2003). Women and gender: A feminist psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill. Ünal, G. (2004). Bir grup üniversiteli gençte çekingenlik, aleksitimi ve benlik saygısının değerlendirilmesi, Klinik Psikiyatri Dergisi, 7, 215-222.
• Yardımcı, S. ve Güçlü, Ö. (Der.) (2013). Queer tahayyül. İstanbul: Sel.
• Yüksel, A. A. (1999). Toplumsal cinsiyet olgusu ve Türkiye’deki toplumsal cinsiyet kalıplarının televizyon dizilerindeki yansımaları. Eskişehir: Anadolu Üniversitesi Yayınları.
• van Anders, S. M. (2010). Chewing gum has large effects on salivary testosterone, estradiol, and secretory immunoglobulin a assays in women and men, Psychoneuroendocrinology, 35(2), 305-309.
• van Anders, S. M., Katherine L. G., & Patty X. K. (2011). The steroid/peptide theory of social bonds: Integrating testosterone and peptide responses for classifying social behavioral contexts, Psychoneuroendocrinology, 36(9), 1265-1275.
• van Anders, Sari M., Richard M. Tolman, ve Brenda L. Volling (2012), “Baby Cries And Nurturance Affect Testosterone in Men”, Hormones and Behavior, 61 (1): 31-36.
• van Os, N. (2002). Milli kıyafet: Müslüman Osmanlı kadını ve kıyafetinin milliyeti (B. Keneş, Çev.), Türkler, 14, 133-145. Voci, A. (2010). Decategorization. J. M. Levine & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Encylopedia of Group Processes & Intergroup Relations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Warren, M. A. (1982). Is androgyny the answer to sexual stereotyping? M. Witterling-Bragin (Ed.), “Feminity”, “masculinity”, and “androgyny” (pp. 170-196). Totowa: Littelfield, Adams & Co.
• West, C. & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender, Gender & Society, 1(2), 125-151.
• West, C. & Zimmerman, D. H. (2009). Accounting for doing gender, Gender & Society, 23(1), 112-122.
• Wilkinson, S. (1997). Constructing a critical feminist psychology (Doctoral Thesis). London: Loughborough University.
• Yetmen, G. (2011). Türk toplumunda 1960’lı yılların yaşam tarzı dinamiklerinin kadın dış giyim modasında etkileri. İzmir: Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sanatta Yeterlik Tezi.