Soapbox: About the Industry

Give Me A Closet

by Sandy Antunes
March 1, 2002

Recently, I saw a pitch asking for women freelancers, so as to give the work a woman's perspective. Naturally, as a writer, my first thought was "I can do that!" After all, the false truism goes: "Black people write about the black experience, women write women's fiction, white males can write anything".

I admit I used to have an edge in these things-- "Sandy" is an gender-ambiguous name to most and I've been called everything from "domineering bossy male" to "crunchy practical female". In writing, I guiltily think I probably scored a few gigs just because the editor thought "cool, a woman writer!".

So how much of a writer is rooted in their personal identity, and how far can we reach? Does the advent of email and the internet mean that a new era of writing anonymity exists?

In a face-to-face meeting, it takes less than three sentences for an editor to figure out someone's gender. "I met with Chris." "How is he?" "_She's_ fine."

Gender identity exists in the electronic world as strongly as in the real world, but in a far more malleable form. In internet culture there are ways to hide, ignore, or disguise identity because names are detached from the flesh of the person communicating. Names can be imposed by system managers, extracted from "real world" names, or made up on a whim by the user-- there are no conventions and the standard social recognition cues in names are invalid. A large segment of the net population is, by choice or accident of naming, gender-unknown.

Some make their sex (and often sexual preference) quite clear immediately, through .sig files and signoffs. A second group chooses gender to experiment or mislead-- gender-bending as the opposite sex to gain knowledge or thrills. Others, like myself, prefer to be Gender-Not: neither neuter nor male or female, but existing as a person. This is not asexual or coldly neuter, but simply gender-irrelevant.

On the net, face-to-face verification never takes place and people must either presume a gender identity for the speaker, or discard the notion and read the contents as gender-independent. Gender becomes a matter of speculation rather than fact within the internet community, and sex typecasting breaks down. And thus judging the work based on the author becomes more problematic.

But, really, this is no more unique than letter writing or the use of pseudonyms. A deeper look into gender has to examine the history of communication prior to the internet. The closest parallel to email and netnews would be the art of letter-writing, followed closely by cross-dressing and androgyny among the art set. These parallels break down when faced with the ease of anonymity and the speed of communication within the internet-- things just got easier.

There are two approaches towards gender identity, one for the sender and one for the receiver. For the receiver, the issue is a new subfield of communications theory. In the absence of gender clues, what do people guess gender to be? Is it possible to perceive someone as "of no particular gender"? Issues of interpretation versus the raw words are a good starting point to relate to how gender is perceived. Perception is rooted in culture, and the burgeoning Net culture is creating new modes of dealing with identity. As well as perception, however, the crucial issue of motive must also be resolved.

Is "hiding" one's gender an act of deception or simply free choice? The debate over privacy versus "right to know" is strong. For privacy's case, there are advantages to avoiding labels on the net. For one, it tends to encourage people to read your words more clearly, as they have a smaller set of preconceptions to use as shortcuts. Also, it reduces gender-based "flaming". Flames are much easier to ignore if they aren't very personal or miss the target entirely.

Further, choosing to keep net-life separate from real-life is much easier when your net-persona has a different name and different (or no) gender. As a writer, this provides the freedom to avoid being pigeonholed. R. Sean Borgstrom, he or she? Does it matter if the Noblis Redux columns are relevant and good? Is Sandy's business acuma in the columns more validated by RPGnet being woman-owned or not? Is Jocelyn just a hot chick who games?

However, some people refuse to deal with others unless they know who they "really" are. And many people will guess a gender for the speaker, then ascribe the speaker's views to this gender. Such reverse-labeling ("you write like a woman, therefore you are woman, therefore, you are just writing women's rhetoric") is common but fallacious thinking. Internet culture is still developing an awareness on how to communicate in these hidden electronic forums, and given the centuries of written tradition, probably is not reinventing these tendencies as fast as people think.

People can choose their gender or keep it private, and ignore or directly confront gender-based preconceptions that are forced upon them. In that respect, the internet provides, not the first, but the easiest proving ground for a society that recognizes people as individuals first, gender-types seconds. Myself, I like that I can have a gender closet for my identity as a writer. I want credit for my works, but I don't want my works to be "me".

But I still don't think this means I can apply for that "women only" freelancing gig.