 Given these examples of the overlap of figures and approaches in Continental feminism and queer theory, it is worth asking what distinguishes the approaches. One may be tempted to say that feminism focuses more on gender (historically, within continental feminism, this may be more commonly discussed as sexual difference) and queer theory focuses more on sexuality (including questions of pleasure, desire, and eroticism). Yet many working within Continental feminism, especially as inflected with French theory, also focus on questions related to sexuality such as pleasure, desire, and eroticism. And there are also reasons to be suspicious of how the gender-sexuality split is narrated as a feminist-queer split. While some have argued that there are good reasons to draw distinctions between these fields in order to do justice to their distinct concerns (G. Rubin 2011; Halley 2006), there have also been many challenges to overly programmatic forms of this separation (Huffer 2013) and accounts of how this narrative can overlook the field’s mutual interest in understanding the complex relationship between gender and sexuality, as well as the possibility of a queer feminism (Jagose 2009). Nevertheless, despite the overlaps in figures and archives, as well as the wealth of resources in queer theory on topics that Continental feminist philosophers hold dear (temporality, embodiment, identity, and desire, to name only a few), the relatively slow uptake of texts marked explicitly as queer theory has been noticeable (Winnubst 2010). This is not to erase the important work done at the intersections of these fields but to acknowledge that the relationship is not a seamless one. In their introductory comments to a “Roundtable on Continental Feminism”, Lynne Huffer and Shannon Winnubst (2017) note the relative lack of engagement with queer theory among the contributions, and they ask whether Continental feminism is capacious enough to embrace queer theory, a question that has also been posed to philosophy more broadly (Ahmed 2016b; Salamon 2009; Winnubst 2010).