It’s Apparently in the Writing, But Not Really

I discovered an interesting test on Language Log tonight called Gender Genie. It is an algorithm that allows you to paste some text you've written and then it will identify your gender based on the writing.

Well, I jumped at the opportunity, of course, and found out that, based on my Jan. 11 post, I am male. Then female from another post by a close margin. Then male again. (I think the key may be not to do it more than once.)

I specified that these were blog entries. Then I decided to do a different kind of entry. So I took the conclusion of my Passing paper and it overwhelmingly declared me female. Then I took the conclusion from my black militancy paper. Based on this, I was overwhelmingly male again. Whatever. It's fun if nothing else.

I think I mildly sprained my thumb. I'm not sure whether I did it grabbing a stack of files or putting my laundry in a bag this morning (which is still sitting on the floor unclean). It started hurting when I grabbed the clothes and now it hurts more. I can't extend it all the way without feeling a twinge. Hope it goes away.

I cooked salmon tonight. I didn't eat it, though, because Cornelia ordered Bene and I can't turn down their pasta. But I had to cook the fish because it had been sitting out. It was the first time I cooked salmon, not really being a big fan of it. It actually tastes pretty good. It won't tomorrow, I'm sure, when I eat it cold.

Cornelia told me she was appalled at my lack of knowledge about fish. I kept questioning her about the white stuff in the middle. Big deal. So I've never been a big fish eater.... As long as she was the one tasting it to make sure it was done and not me.

And I'm sorry, I'm not going to be able to let go of "The L Word." I would if not for stupid shit like this I found in a CNN article:  Viewers looking for the stereotypical lesbian will be disappointed: There's not an unfashionably dressed, bulky or macho woman in "The L Word" bunch. "I don't mean to disparage anyone," writer-executive producer Chaiken said. "But I think there's one image of lesbians that's been put out to the world at large, and it's nice to be able to get a chance to take it on."

Um. I don't even know where to begin. One of the things I've always been interested in was stereotypes. Why do they exist? What do they mean? How do they influence the production of meanings of specific identities? I immediately sent a quick e-mail to a friend of mine expressing my frustration at such sentiments.

Her response directed me to other stereotypes that exist in popular media -- the television shows on or even the very existence of UPN -- as well as historical uses of stereotypes -- the minstrel show. I saw her point and it is valid.

I am just unwilling to accept the complete, intentional erasure of real individuals because they're "stereotypes." I can't say a whole lot because I haven't seen the show. Erin's girlfriend will record it every week, so I will see episodes eventually.

I did see an ad for it tonight on television. I heard a sound bite referring to the straight girls who want to, but yet may be afraid to, dabble in a little girl-on-girl action: "Sexuality is fluid; just go with it." Now, I'm all for that. So that will be a good topic, I suppose.

Maybe they'll all come out of the wood work and we can do away with labels once and for all. Ok, so that won't happen. And if anything, this show won't make it happen. But my friend said that this show is a start. And she is right. Hopefully it will spark some dialog. But I also hope that this "one image" that people know will become something that the writers won't feel they have to "take on."

The tone of that is offensive and it is divisive. There is already a rift in the dyke community between the "straight appearing" ones and the intelligible, easily recognizable ones. This won't help. It will only perpetuate further erasure.

The reason this "stereotype" (which I fit) exists in part because of the visibility of those who wear its markers. It's not the work of the stereotyped individual. It is the reluctance of people to look beyond what they see to accept that, yes, Nicole Kidman could very well be a lesbian. She's not. But you get my point. I can dream.

Let me flip-side this for a bit. One thing that will come out of this obviously is the presentation of women who don't fit a stereotype. This is important and can definitely be a way to raise awareness that, to put it simply, one can never tell just by looking. Nevertheless my concern remains that an entire population of dykes is being punished, interestingly being made invisible, for something over which they have little influence. Wouldn't a true exploration of all dyke types serve to question the reason the stereotype exists and then even give the L-word invisible ones a chance to represent fully rather than be relegated to the "unfashionably dressed, bulky or macho woman"? In a way, this is almost frightening because it rejects the notion of female masculinity, gender fluidity. If they can be open to fluid sexuality in the show, then why close the door on gender? Fuckers. I'm pissed now. I'm gonna go read Freud.