Given the relative numbers of gender researchers, Swedish historians do not participate much in the interdisciplinary debate in Tidskrift för genusvetenskap ('Journal for Gender Studies') - participation meaning either publication in the journal, or a clearly stated position towards the field and references to interdisciplinary studies. Above all, it is historians of earlier periods who are notable by their absence. The same trend is also evident in international gender journals. The article examines the participation of Swedish gender historians in the leading Nordic interdisciplinary gender journal, Kvinnovetenskaplig tidskrift ('Women's Studies Journal'), which in 2007 was renamed Tidskrift för genusvetenskap, in the period from the 1980s to 2008. One hypothesis presented by researchers in Norway, who noted that Norwegian gender historians frequently elect to publish in history journals, is that the theoretical radicalisation of gender studies has proved problematic for historians with an empirical focus. They argue that post-structuralism and deconstruction sit ill with the discipline's conservative character. Their hypothesis is considered in this article, in which I also trace changes in the interdisciplinary field as a whole. In the period in question, Kvinnovetenskaplig tidskrift, and later Tidskrift för genusvetenskap, published articles on a vast range of perspectives, reflecting the full span from women's history to the history of gender difference, to difference as the engine of meaning creation. Theoretical debates came increasingly to the fore in the interdisciplinary gender debate in the 1990s. Once the true import of the subject of "differing from" and the study object in creating identity and inequality had been understood, gender history enjoyed considerable success in interdisciplinary gender research. However, with the shift to deconstructionism and the fuller understanding of difference in creating meaning, the revisiting of terms such as sex, gender, and gender differences, and the acknowledgement that differences within the subject were increasingly interesting for interdisciplinary gender research, it was other, more theoretical, disciplines that vitalized the field. Philosophy and literary history can be singled out. Admittedly, several Swedish gender historians were active in introducing to the field the shifts of perspective inspired by post-structuralism, yet it is evidently the case that there is a correspondence between the absence of historical, empirical studies from interdisciplinary gender journals in both Sweden and Norway, and the theoretical radicalisa-tion of gender studies. Naturally, publication in interdisciplinary gender journals cannot be taken as the only measure of researchers' participation in interdisciplinary studies, their knowledge of the interdisciplinary arsenal, or their awareness of cutting-edge international research. Recent articles in historical journals show ample evidence of all this -- even on the part of historians of earlier periods. I can only concur with the editors of Tidskrift för Kjannsforskning, Gro Hageman, Jorun Solheim, and Åse Røthing, that history on the one hand, and research inspired by post-structuralism and gender deconstructionism on the other, will be the poorer if it proves impossible to combine the two branches of knowledge. Indeed, I would go so far as to state that the realisation that differences create meaning is a necessary precondition for understanding of how inequality is (re)created. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]