The interrogation of this cross-dressed person caught in a sodomitical act suggests that laws based on clear and apparent sex difference, that is, heterosexually based laws--laws regulating prostitution, for example, that presume that only women act like women--are irrelevant or inadequate in the face of queer desires or queer truths about the inessentiality of gender, the inadequacy of binary gender categories of heterosexuality, and the resistance of bodies to their official gender constitution and categorization. Finally, Rykener's feminine gender performance demonstrates that at least fundamentally--in regard to the fundament, that is--masculine and feminine are indistinguishable, and this is what may make him/her a nightmare for not only civil but also ecclesiastical authorities, as well as for dissenters such as the Lollards. The Wife of Bath, another sex/gender anomaly created at about this time, in her Prologue addresses the agendas behind the clerical regulation of gender behavior and constitution of normative anatomy; but the inconclusiveness of Rykener's court proceedings may be a sign of a momentary failure of such laws and agendas, such failure the result of his/her queer and queering presence.
There seems to have been no pursuit of a formal legal case
beyond this interrogation. But we can be certain that Rykener's queerness was not celebrated on
those Guildhall premises. The inconclusiveness of the case and the technical inapplicability of the
law of course do not preclude danger to him/her; the silence of the records re