This paper considers text-based computer-mediated environments to be a type of virtual environment (Curtis, 1992).

“Gender polarization” is what Bem (1993) calls the process or effect of dividing the world into two opposing genders.

Although Lakoff's (1975) work has been criticized for reinforcing gender dichotomies, Lakoff acknowledges the existence of a binary gender system that punishes girls who speak in ways that signify masculinity and punishes women who speak in ways that signify femininity (p. 5–6).

Elements considered important to an interaction's context include: characteristics of interlocutors (gender, other status cues, and social group membership), purpose of the interaction, and physical setting.

Lakoff's (1975) and Fishman's (1978/1983) works exemplify the “dominance approach” to language because they attribute gendered speech patterns to power imbalances between men and women (Cameron, 1985/1992). In a later study Cameron (1996) argues that Lakoff's work represents the “deficit” model of language and gender because it portrays women's speech as weaker than men's. However, because Lakoff traces this weakness to power imbalances, not to women's predispositions (as does Jespersen, 1922/1990), her model is a dominance perspective. For simplicity's sake, I use Cameron's (1992) earlier description of Lakoff's model as a dominance approach.

Earlier studies also reflect this approach, but Tannen's (1990/1991) is considered the most widely-known. Difference models that precede Tannen's are found in Jones (1980), Maltz and Borker (1982), and Coates (1986).

Bem recognizes, however, that not all men in patriarchal societies have power. Bem defines “male power” historically, as that which has been held by “rich, white, heterosexual men” (p. 3).

Following Butler (1990), this paper uses “performance,”“construction,” and “production” interchangeably in conceptualizing gender. Bipolar gender discourse also helps reproduce the hegemonic ideology of “compulsory heterosexuality” (Rich, 1975) by associating gender identity (male or female) with object of desire (female or male, respectively).

Research which finds that CMC reduces social cues has collectively been called the “cues filtered out” approach (Culnan & Markus, 1987). Arguments that lack of social cues in CMC helps democratize communication can be found in Short, Williams, and Christie (1976), Kielser, Siegel and McGuire (1984), and Sproull and Kielser (1991).

Herring, Johnson, and DiBenedetto (1992) contend that Graddol and Swan (1989) argue that “the electronic medium is claimed to break down gender barriers” (p. 251). Herring (1993) also claims that Graddol and Swan's work contributes to “a strong a priori case for the democratic nature of CMC” (p. 3). Graddol and Swan, however, discuss contextual factors that upset the balanced communication between men and women in the electronic conference observed. Thus, Graddol and Swan do not portray CMC as optimistically as Herring et al. (1992) and Herring (1993) imply.

IRCers are expected to select a nickname that differs from their username (in IRC, one's default nickname is one's username). Failing to do so may elicit ridicule from others. When I entered an IRC channel without a handle, other users sarcastically commented on my creativity.

Kane (1994) offers this translation of “MUDs.” It is outside the scope of this paper to provide criticism of “cues filtered out” and “equalization” theories beyond that which research on gender and CMC suggests. Readers will find more detailed critiques of such perspectives elsewhere (Culnan & Markus, 1987; Walther & Burgoon, 1992; Spears and Lea, 1994). Witmer and Katzman cite the findings of Bate (1988), Quina, Wingard, and Bate (1987), and Mulac and Lundell (1986) which suggest that women's speech is perceived as exhibiting more emotion than men's. However, as a scholar on virtual reality suggests, “Perhaps women flame more in reaction to their oppression” (D. Gromala, personal communication, November 11, 1997). Women may express anger not because they are prone to emotional displays (as biologically essentialist arguments would suggest), but because they are angry at being censored and harassed on and off line.

No sustained conversations were found in: #buttery, #celtic, #cool, #dog, #gayfr, #McGill, #movies, #Nescafe, #pub, #surfers, #strange, #veggies.

The channel #truthdare hosts the game “truth or dare” in which participants choose between responding to questions or challenges posed by other players.

Savicki et. al (1996) also argue that findings cannot be generalized across CMC contexts unproblematically.

This question also facilitates and controls talk because conversation continues and focuses on ginger's going to bed (and related innuendoes). Thus, questions can do both facilitative and control work, in contrast to Fishman's claim that the feature only enables interaction.

Action descriptions describe an action, one's surroundings, or one's state of mind in IRC. On the screen action descriptions are denoted by a “*” and the user's nick preceding the statement. Although the user whose nick appears keys in the statement, the comment reads as a third person description of the user or of the user's surroundings.

Rafaeli and Sudweeks (1993) construct a similar binary between variables “FIRSTPER” and “FACT.”

While shouting seems to be one of the factors contributing to ginger's gaining response, yelling does not guarantee that one will receive attention.

Fishman (1978/1983), however, recognizes that gender is an “‘achieved’” rather than “‘ascribed’” characteristic and considers Garfinkel's (1967) description of Agnes’ passing as proof of gender's “continual, routine accomplishment” (p. 99). However, Fishman's construction of men's and women's speech as a binary suggests that she looks through the lenses of gender Bem (1993) and Freed (1996) discuss.

Of course, reading gender off of a name always requires some local knowledge. One must have a certain amount of knowledge about English-speaking cultures to know that “john” is a common male name.

Expressing masculinity and gender neutrality is “contradictory” if viewed through the lens of the binary gender system.

In discussing Mega-D's masculinity and gender neutrality, I use male pronouns for his masculine presentations and gender-neutral pronouns for its gender-ambiguous displays.

Thus, I disagree with Bechar's (1995) argument that in CMC interlocutors intentionally “give” but do not unintentionally “give off” information about themselves.

One would be correct to argue that the above analysis of Mega-D conflates sexuality, gender, and sex. This discussion, however, represents IRC players’ conflation of these constructions. When ginger asks Mega-D if it is “male” (one cannot be certain if she means gender or sex), it answers, “* Mega-D is just Mega-D *sex doesnt exist!*” (line 769). JKD interprets “sex” as “having sex,” when it says, “im sorry to hear that Mega-D” (line 780). Mega-D's reply indicates that it was not speaking about “having sex,” but about “sexuality.” Although sex, gender, and sexuality are not naturally linked, the two are linked in hegemonic ideologies within our culture (Rich, 1980; Butler, 1990). However, exposing such conflations as culturally constructed, as I am doing, helps disrupt the notion that such associations are natural or inevitable.

As I argued earlier, sex, gender, and sexuality are often conflated in various discourses. It may be no coincidence that several lines after Gump asserts that he is “still a guy” and ginger claims that she is “not a lesbian,” Mega-D defends its gender neutrality.

I am grateful to Margaret McLaughlin for pointing this out to me.

Of course, individuals may create and experience their gender as grounded in “biological” sex and may view gender as bipolar. As Kate Bornstein's case suggests, however, some do not.

Perhaps arguments that CMC changes and challenges gender construction can be explained by the access researchers have to gender production on the Net. It may be easier to study gender performances in virtual rather than in real environments because the former feels alien to researchers. As a result, the modes of gender construction may be less naturalized in computer-mediated than in FTF communication and thus, the practices of gender construction in CMC may be more critically approachable. That such environments are more approachable, however, does not mean that they are agents of change.