Clothing can be divided into many kinds. Cecilia Busby’s analyse of South India and Melanesia found that, despite their similarities, there were many intrinsic differences in how they defined and categorised people. In South India gender is fixed, based on obvious bodily differences between men and women. While in Melanesian the definition of gender is not purely concerned with physical differences, rather, definitions depend on how people act and what they do. All parts of life therefore contribute to gender definitions such as ‘appearance, attributes and work’ (Busby. 1997; 267). In South India men are defined as being able only to act in a male way while women can only act in a female way. Men and women though do need each other to help define themselves as they ‘most effectively demonstrate and enact this gender difference in transactions with each other’ (Busby. 1997; 269). In Melanesia though gender cannot be known purely through the physical appearance; rather it must be ‘displayed, through the successful manipulation of relationships'(Busby. 1997; 269). South India and Melanesia also differ in their views of the formation the physical persons. Both state a shared responsibility between both parents towards the creation of the child as the result of mixing the semen and menstrual blood while it is the same gendered parent that gives the life force or spirit. The belief splits as in Melanesia ‘the male and female substances are identified with separate parts of the body, while in South India they merge and are indistinguishable’ (Busby. 1997; 270). This results in the idea in South India that ‘one finds a definitively (wholly) male or female person’ (Busby 1997; 270). While in Melanesia this idea is less rigid as it allows for seeing persons as non-gendered as the body is made up of identifiable male and female parts so an effort has to be made to present a person as gendered. The distinction is made between ‘persons in Melanesia, composed of relations, and persons in South India, separate and yet connected’ (Busby 1997; 274). Throughout India there is also the Hijras (neither gender) who are usually men who have been ritually castrated and are considered close to a Goddess. Hijras are unique from men and women as they stand out with usual definitions; tending to be defined in terms of what they are not. They are people ‘excluded from the normal activities of men and women and who occupy their own restricted niche’ (Busby. 1997; 265). It is from this that it is made clear the importance of the connection between ‘gender identity, bodily difference and the expression of gender through reproductive potential’ (Busby. 1997; 266). A primary view of the hijra is their that they lack reproductive ability what is crucial in the definition of maleness. It is entirely through their inability and lacking of category and position within society that the hijra gain their definitive idea of self and identity as people.