Boing Boing points us to a Gender Analyzer which asks the question, “Man or Woman: Who Is Writing That Blog?” The program is developed to use “Artificial Intelligence to determine if a homepage is written by a man or woman” using a “text classifier” that’s “been trained on 2000 blogs written by men and women.”

So, where does The Sexist’s writing fall on the gender spectrum?

Read More “I Write Like A Dude, Just Like Danielle Steel” »

Good morning, Washington. Your sex & gender links of the day:

* Jezebel considers telling off Columbus Day.

* How did big tobacco make smoking acceptable for women? It got cozy with women’s lib, writes Jennifer 8. Lee for the New York Times:

Recognizing that women were still riding high on the suffrage movement, [American Tobacco Company P.R. dude] Mr. Bernays used the equality angle as the basis for his new campaign. He convinced a number of genteel women, including his own secretary, to march in the 1929 Easter Day parade down Fifth Avenue and light up cigarettes in a defiant show of their liberation.

* Internet nerds plan nerd union with Twitter engagement. Nerds. [via Boing Boing].

* How long must you date IRL before txt breakups become uncouth? From This Recording, In Which You Autocomplete Me, by a Georgia Hardstark.

* The raddest 106-year-old Roman nun is voting for the first time since Eisenhower. Which whippersnapper does she support?

* A couple of breeders who cannot, themselves, breed tell homosexuals why same-sex marriage is unnatural: “Patricia and Wesley Galloway could not have children of their own. Yet for them, the essence of marriage is rooted in procreation,” write Ray Rivera and Christine Stewart for the New York Times.

NYT covers this angle—opposing gay marriage for biology, not religion—as if it’s a new trend, when homosexuals (women, non-gender conforming individuals, minorities of any kind) everywhere know this “nature” bullshit has always been used to perpetuate institutionalized discrimination even among the non-religious. It’s just a hop and a skip from “it’s just not how God made us” to “it’s just not how nature intended.” Laments Ms. Galloway, “Everyone who disagrees is automatically labeled a right-wing bigot.” Adds Mr. Galloway, “How can you be a bigot when you’re looking out for society as a whole?” Thanks, Mr. & Ms., for showing us two bigots who defy the odds to manage that just fine.

Oh, and let’s add some misogyny in there for good measure: “Mr. Galloway, whose father died when he was 3, said being raised solely by women—his mother and his aunts—hindered his development and altered his sense of self-worth.” Hi, mom!

* Donna Fish is tired of people telling her she can’t be a little bit pregnant when she’s had an embryo implanted invitro and she’s waiting to see if it turns into a real live baby, because apparently people tell her she can’t say she’s a little bit pregnant or she wouldn’t have written this blog post about the new trend of being a little bit pregnant. How about being a little bit baby crazy?:

For six years, my husband and I lost seven babies. Two of them in the sixth month, five in the first trimester. We tried everything. Doctors could offer us no further options, so we turned to adoption. One evening I threw caution to the wind and became pregnant. For reasons no doctor to this day can understand, my first daughter was born nine months later. My subsequent two pregnancies were also uneventful and lo and behold, we have our three daughters.

Attn. Mr. & Ms. Galloway: Some people are so into nature they only turn to adoption after losing their seventh baby, and the miracle of nature rewards them with three healthy pregnancies. Who really deserves to be married now?

Our daily roundup of sex and gender in the District and beyond.

* Melissa McEwan over at Shakesville says a cat’s place is in the cleavage:

this morning, after [the cat had] been driving me bananas for about an hour with this new routine, I tucked the bottom of the tanktop I was wearing up under my boobs to create a little pouch, then stuck her inside, where she promptly fell asleep for about three hours.

And yes, there is a photo.

* Over at The New Gay: A David Foster Wallace obit, from the perspective of someone who’s never read a book by David Foster Wallace.

* The District cracks down on clubs that have different age requirements for men and women, the G.W. Hatchet reported last week. Metro News Editor Alexa Millinger writes that it’s “not uncommon for bars and clubs to advertise events with a minimum entrance age of 18 for females and 21 for males,” and writes that ABRA community resource officer Cynthia Woodruff-Simms “said she knows of a few places in Adams Morgan, U Street and the Southeast Waterfront that use these practices”—all of which seems unnecessarily vague. Can we get the skinny on the effect on those “few places”?

* Via Feministing via Boing Boing: Sexist men make more money. Writes Vanessa:

Most of my friends who make a lot of cheese (finance, technology – all male-dominated fields mind you) seem to have experienced or witnessed more sexism than others. (The corporate world alone is enough to make one nauseous.) And what is there to be said for women who believe in traditional gender roles making less money than women who don’t?

* Via Slate: How the “Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood” made the case that “Bratz” dolls—along with “explicit music,” “rap videos,” and M&M flavored “lip gloss,” contribute to “eating disorders, low self-esteem, depression and poor sexual health.”

* Larry Craig is back: The Idaho senator has started a legal defense fund to aid in his attempt to overturn his guilty plea from a June 2007 “misdemeanor disorderly conduct” charge, the Idaho Statesman reports. Last February, the Senate Ethics Committee admonished Craig for spending over $200,000 of unused campaign funds to try to reverse the plea; now, he’s accepting donations after the fund, dubbed “The Fund for Justice,” was OK’d by the Ethics Committee.

* Larry Craig extra: While perusing the Senator’s Web site, I came across this page, wherein Larry Craig debunks common Internet rumors for his constituents. The page features a totally creepy photo of Craig who, through some feat of dark magick, appears to be balancing a man-sized Fabergé egg in his palm. My favorite of Craig’s “fact or fiction” crusades for truth, filed under “Tax on email“:

Some folks have contacted me about a possible five-cent tax on email. This is a hoax that began circulating on the Internet several years ago. An email message warns people that “House Bill 602P” will levy a five-cent surcharge on every email sent. It goes on to say that the bill is sponsored by Congressman Tony Schnell, and the funds would go to the U.S. Postal Service. Further, it refers to an “editorial” in the “March 6 issue” of The Washingtonian supporting the tax. . . . Let me assure you, there is no Bill 602P. There is no Member of Congress by the name of Tony Schnell, and the United States Postal Service has nothing to do with delivering email. The Washingtonian is a monthly magazine, and does not even have a “March 6″ issue. It is highly unlikely that a measure like this will ever come to the Senate floor for debate.

Glaring omission: That pesky Larry Craig gay rumor.