Gender in general is a “process” that varies wildly throughout cultures and times, and even within cultures and times. (Nick Thodal)

Gender can then be used as a tool to interpret history, or a “category of analysis” through which historical events and experiences can be understood. However, Boydston argues that this perspective, which confines the historical study of gender to our modern understandings of it, can actually limit our understanding of history. (Cameron Spivy)

Bydston's claim in the article is that Gender is a topic which is different from more definite ones like weapons and government. She claims Gender is a topic that isn't as simple as “masculine” and “feminine” but rather is a thing which is in constant, less identifiable, flux. Therefore, she claims, that categorizing Gender as a field of study in the same way as previously mentioned examples of topics is the incorrect way of going about studying Gender. (Henry Prior)

'Gender history', like any other means of historical analysis, is not a neutral scientific instrument. Rather, gender history as a way of analyzing history is a lens that “reflect[s] and replicate[s] our own understandings of the world”. As such, gender historians must be careful to limit the extent to which their understanding of their own culture and time period's genders colors their understanding of diverse, historical genders. (Nick Thodal)

'History of masculinity' as a field has its roots in histories of gender more broadly, which was a field born to address the sidelining of women's experiences in the histories. The first gender historians argued that femininities fundamentally shaped the lived experiences of women, which led later scholars to conclude that masculinities must shape the lived experiences of men to a similar extent. (Nick Thodal)

Early literature on gendered experiences in history placed an emphasis on explaining the processes that lead to society's current understandings of gender. In the context of women's history, this prompted a focus on moments of oppression and liberation. However, Bydston points out that only considering these events fixes our understanding of gender and power as one constantly characterized by an “oppositional binary”. (Cameron Spivy)

Boydstroms argument specifically is that discussion of gender has often been historically narrow and overgeneralized (and specifically only talked about under the preface of binary opposition). This approach shaped how the west approached the proliferation of the idea of gender and women's studies, especially in the west. The binary is often assumed rather than questioned. The gender binary for the purposes of this reading was that it was historically specific, but also not universal. (Tea Aliu)

Instead of using gender as a category of analysis, Boydston advocates for a more nuanced and fluid understanding of gender, both in the concept itself as well as the role that it played historically. (Cameron Spivy)

“ “genderqueer-ness,” a concept meant to convey a rejection of gender categorisation altogether” — I agree with the idea of redefinition, but this term has a connotation that is closely connected to the discourse of sexuality. I think that the relation between gender and sexuality in this context would also be one of contextual and historically contingent factors. Thus, genderqueer-ness would suffer from a similar mechanism of exclusion as the traditional gender binary. - Nikolai Kotkov

Boydston points out that this focus on an oppositional binary creates an assumption that gender is not only the primary social category of a society, but that the gendered nature of power is exercised in a Foucauldian manner. She specifically questions this framework as it was articulated by Joan Scott. (Cameron Spivy)

Joan Scotts argument that gender is the social organization of a societies perceived sexual differences and a function of the exercise of power within that society. To build on this idea, Oyewumi critiques this concept and says that if gender is a social construct, then it is not universally understood in the same ways. Especially in societies where social hierarchy is not organized though the male/female difference. Therefore, the idea of gender is built around culturally (speficifc) constructed concepts.-(Tea Aliu)

Keeping the wide variety of historical contexts in mind, Boydston encourages an intersectional approach that examines other cultural origins of power such as seniority, age, and property. (Cameron Spivy)

“The primaryness of gender in a given situation should be one of our questions, rather than one of our assumptions” — I wonder if there is a possibility to use this argument as an extension to potentially deconstruct other “categories of analysis” such as class, race, ethnicity, etc. Obviously, these categories are not strictly binary, but it is also possible that they are used with some preconceived assumptions about power dynamics (rich vs. poor and so on). - Nikolai Kotkov