The exchange of information in today’s society is based around a degree of plausibility. This holds especially true in relation to the identities that are formed from the bodies we live in. For queer bodies the line of plausibility is very narrow in regard to creating forms of normative gender and sexed identities in relation to mainstream popular culture and today’s society. Due to the heterocentrism of the society in which we live in, many forms of gender expression and sexes that deviate from the norm are viewed with suspicion, questioned and often shunned. So how does plausibility interact with queer bodies creating forms of sexed identity expressed in today’s heterocentric society? To explore plausibility ‘The Veridiction Contract’ by Algirdas Julien Greimas (1980) will be discussed, furthering this by looking at realness and suspicion through ‘Masquerade and Identities’, Efrat Tseelon (2001) and ‘Bodies that Matter’, Judith Butler (1993). Finally, to highlight perceptions of sex and gender, ‘Gender & Popular Culture’ by Katie Milestone and Anneke Meyer (2012) and ‘Sex and Suits’, Anne Hollander (1994). To support this case, we will be looking at an interview from 2009 conducted by ‘Heat’ magazine questioning Lady Gaga Sex filmed by ‘The Sun’. 

The veridiction contract is the perfect place to start discussing plausibility. Plausibility is a certain viewpoint of reality that seems reasonable, a concept that is not only structured culturally but also individually through many different methods including linguistics and extralinguistics. Plausibility is built from gained knowledge and as such is viewed as adult rationality. For something to be plausible it needs to be rationally probable, for something to be viewed as rationally probable the chances are it will fit into a given norm. If something was to be viewed as abnormal and thereby improbable then it could be perceived as being implausible. Constructed social norms give us a certain concept of what our given reality is, what is right and what is wrong, what is true, what is false. However, we then need to consider the fact that the truth is also a construction. (Greimas, 1989: 651-657). So, when thinking about Plausibility in terms of gendered and sexed bodies, we are talking about the norm of these constructs. The norm being that you were born male or female with the associated genitalia, and that your gender, man or woman, matches the appropriate sex. Of course, we know that this is not necessarily true, one can be born intersex meaning being born with both sets of genitalia in a varying degree, that everyone’s gender identity doesn’t necessarily match the sex, and that people can be transgendered. This is where we start to build the idea that queer bodies fall out of the prescribed norms, highlighting the link that plausibility has to discourse in terms of gender and sex.

Moving forward to describe queer bodies in terms of gender, sex and plausibility, an interview from 2009 will be used to illustrate a relevant conversation that arose at the start of Lady Gaga’s career. For some time, people questioned what genitalia Lady Gaga had. Questions arose as to whether she had a penis or vagina or both. Many of these questions that arose were very socially clumsy, misogynistic and homophobic. The example at hand, transcript below, sees an interviewer from ‘Heat’ Magazine ask Lady Gaga very bluntly whether she has a penis or not just after complimenting her Marc Jacobs dress, a typically feminine piece of clothing. As we discussed more about plausibility and how it ties into this interview and the sexing of Lady Gaga’s body overall, we will view the interview deeper. However, for now the key points to take away from the transcript is simply the surface level question that was being asked of Lady Gaga. 

TRANSCRIPT: 

Lady Gaga being interviewed by an unnamed reporter from ‘Heat’ magazine in an open forum format, filmed by ‘The Sun’. Lady Gaga is sat in front of the reporters in a pink, white and black Marc Jacobs dress. After the interview replies, Lady Gaga continues to answer questions as the interview is escorted out of the interviewing room.    

Interviewer: ‘I’m interviewing for Heat and, first of all I love your Marc Jacobs dress and the other thing…’

Lady Gaga: ‘Thank you, I’ll let him know.’

Interviewer: ‘We are wondering about; do you have a penis or not?’

Lady Gaga: ‘You know, my beautiful vagina is very offended by that question.’

Interviewer: ‘Really, so you’ve got a vagina. Now we all know that, thank you.’  

(My Beautiful Vagina Is Very Offended, 2009) 

The question very specifically asked about Lady Gaga’s genitalia, and thus referring to Lady Gaga’s Sex not her gender. Had the question been ‘Are you a man?’ the connotations would have been very different, due to the fact that the question would be about Lady Gaga’s gender and not her sex. Whether the ‘Heat’ interviewer understood the meaning behind the words they used or not is beside the point, as by asking the question in the first place they already exhibited a lack of mutual understanding. This means that the equilibrium between Lady Gaga and the interviewer is not present. Furthermore, this highlights societies view of the relationship between sex and gender and how they are often used as interchangable terms even though then are not.    

Moving from this point on I would like to outline plausible and implausible as realness and suspicion. Within queer culture, especially the drag scene, these two words as opposite ends of the plausibility spectrum. ‘Suspicious’ referring to Transgendered woman not fulfilling gender norms well enough to ‘pass’ as a female, later adopted by Drag queens. ‘Realness is the effect you compel belief’ (Butler, 1993:88) on the other hand, mean that you ‘pass’ as a female. Both of these terms originated in the Harlem Ballroom scene starting in the 1920s, however these terms are no longer used by the gay community as they are seen as transphobic and misogynistic as they imply a given criteria for ‘passing’ as Female. For the sake of exploring plausibility from the viewpoint of a heterocentric society we will use these two terms to help explain the questions that arose around Gaga’s sex. This is due to the fact that the questions put across to Gaga were as a result of suspicious around her Sex and her ‘realness’ as a female. Furthermore, this suspicious lead to assumptions that group Lady Gaga in with queer culture and the idea of a queer body. There is no questioning how socially clumsy and rude it was of anyone to ask Gaga questions via an interview forum about her genitalia.   

‘Everyone hates to look like a fool’, (Hollander 1994:174) however in many ways that’s how Lady Gaga started her career. Her sense of style was loud and camp, hyper feminine and not a world away from that of a drag queen. When comparing Gaga’s eye-catching sense of style to other pop music artists of 2009, such as Beyoncé and Taylor Swift, it is almost as though she did not fit into the mould of a female pop star of the time. On top of her daring style choices, a name like Lady Gaga turned heads. Not many artists in 2009 had stage names that were bizarre and as theatrical as hers. Already it is becoming evident how Lady Gaga did not fit into the norms of not only a female pop star but into the social norms of being female. However, this abnormal has consequence in today’s heteronormative society. This is where suspicion starts to step in, rising from not a lack of gendered realism but a hyper-gendered bodied. The huge wigs and crazy silhouettes, the camp stage name and overly constructed persona pointed away from the typical pop star of 2009 and the given social constructs of a woman and a Female. Ultimately, Gaga caused suspicion to arise by deviating too far from the norm. ‘These modes of Veridiction result from the two-fold contribution of the sender and receiver’ (Greimas 1989:653), highlighting how assumptions about Gaga’s sex started to surface. The objected truth is not always equal to that of veridiction. It was more plausible to the people to believe Lady Gaga to have a penis through the assumptions produced from the suspicion a hyper-gender body produces. ‘For it to be accepted as ‘true’, it must appear ‘secret’ (Greimas 1989:658) Gaga was too hyper feminine, calling herself ‘Lady’, over feminising her image. It was basically a Drag performance and read as such. Via lack of gained knowledge of what Lady Gaga was really trying to portray, it felt as if Lady Gaga was trying too hard to prove her gender. People had reason to believe she could have been a male in drag and in place were predetermined constructs that would make this plausible, ‘high concentration of… male homosexuals in the theatre and the entertainment industry’ (Tseelon, 2001:39). Sex was brought into questions due to a number of reasons including a lack of knowledge and use of correct lexicalization from the mainstream media at the time, thus spending misinformation. Furthermore, it was attached onto the plausibility of Gaga being a Male homosexual drag queen, supported by her extralinguistic behaviours. The reality of the situation was Lady Gaga was trying to rebel against an inherently misogynist industry, the music industry. Producers were telling Lady Gaga she needed to be more ‘lady-like’ to find the mould of the Female pop star of 2009 and as an act of satire she hyper-feminised her image.

Plausibility is similar in many ways to realism. Realism relies on what is ‘real and reality.’ Looking at its linguistic roots as a word, and its broader meaning, ‘Realism was an assertion of the absolute and objective existence’, (Williams, 1976:257)  In this sense realism is rooted in truth, however viewed through ‘the Veridiction Contract’ we find that the worldview’s truth doesn’t always correspond with the objective true. ‘Truth is an object of communication and requires fiduciary ratification’ (Greimas, 1989:659) The trust of the receiver of the information, be it visual or verbal, is ultimately the deciding factor of realism. If realism is rooted in reality but decided by ‘fiduciary ratification’ of both parties involved, then something that is ‘real’ and ‘true’ could be faced with suspicion. This is what happened involving Lady Gaga. The extralinguistic information being communicated by Lady Gaga didn’t fit the given norm of a female pop star in 2009 in a heterocentric society, thus was met with suspicion through lack of plausibility. Suspicious led to assumption. The idea of Gaga having a penis was then a case of people ‘believing-to-be-certain’. If the information that Lady Gaga was communicated was accepted via the trust of the receiver through plausibility it would be a case of people ‘knowing-to-be-true’, however the ‘gap between knowing and believing’ (Greimas, 1989:659) is what causes suspicion, as it allows room for ‘fake truths’. This highlights that realism as a given construct is very narrow and has a very specific criteria that can be over and under fulfilled, that even when met requires a stamp of approval from a heterocentric society, the receiver of the information. This ‘fake truth’ can obscure an objective truth/reality, thus showing how arbitrary plausibleness can be without correct knowledge or just simply misinterpretation. This misinterpretation can be a result of lack of learned rationality and due to an unstable equilibrium of contribution of truths (Greimas, 1989:853).    

The way in which hyper-gendered and hypo-gendered bodies are viewed is through a layer of suspicion founded around their abnormalities, contributing to an unstable equilibrium of trust. Often these abnormalities are linked with homosexuality, thus the link to queer bodies is made. Staying with Lady Gaga as an example, in 2009 the stage persona she created was hyper-gendered, overly feminine. The suspicion that this installed in people made them produce assumptions about her sex in likeness to that of a homosexual male drag queen. Hyper-femininity is used by drag queens to conceal their true sex, the illusion of being female aligned as a woman. It’s often to hear biological females who align as women make statements such as ‘I don’t want to wear those fake lashes, they’ll make me look like a drag queen’ or ‘not so heavy on the blush, I’m not a drag queen’, which highlights a correct amount of femininity to ‘pass’ as a ‘real’ woman: realness. Say for example though, that Lady Gaga as a stage persona was hypo-feminine, wore little to no makeup, wore typical masculine articles of clothes, adorned a short haircut and spoke with a deeper voice. As this is not the case it is hard to say absolutely, however it is likely that this kind of abnormality would have led to implausibility regarding possibly her sex but more likely her sexuality. Hypo-feminine attributes on a female body often allow room of people to assume that female is a lesbian. This is again due to a lack of knowledge about the individual but also due to predefined societal expectations, Stereotypies of the ‘butch look’ lesbian. The extralinguistic information that a ‘butch look’ communicate on behalf of the body allows heteronormative viewers to label that body as queer. Whether this is an objective truth or not does not necessary matter, as it plausible when founded on a heterosexual concept of society and reality. Again, this works back round to Lady Gaga’s hyper-feminine body, as for any hyper/hypo-gendered body. The objective truth of a person’s sex when attached to a hyper/hypo-gendered body will not necessary hold the same weight as that of the plausible truth that is constructed from a heteronormative gaze.

The role of the ‘woman pop star’ in 2009 fell into this very specific amount of femininity. It was a Britney Spears spaced mould. This didn’t just include visual aesthetic however, it also applied to the lyrics the pop stars choose to sing and the characters that they formed in interviews. Any deviation from this familial hetronormative persona would lead to suspicion. Lady Gaga was very aware of this fact and cleverly layered in her persona and lyrics a saticital value, mocking the music industry.             

The gap between knowing and believing, where there is no stable equilibrium between giver and receiver, is the space in which lack of plausibleness leads to suspicion creating assumptions. If knowing and believing are equal, there is a trust founded between the two halves of the conversation, then plausibleness leads to an idea of realness through believing. What this would mean is that there would have to a trust installed into Queer bodies on behalf of ‘straight’ receivers. Lady Gaga, despite presenting feminine, had to verbally confirm the existence of her vagina to build a sense of plausible between herself and the heterocentric interviewer. Looking specifically at how the question was answered as well, the adjective ‘beautiful’ was attached to the truth she was trying to communicate. It felt as a justification as though the information she was giving was somehow fictitious. ‘The fact that a given discourse can be qualified as ‘true’ per se cannot fail to pose the problem of its exact status’ (Greimas, 1989:652), the information that Lady Gaga was linguistically communicated could have been ignored by the interview and disregard on grounds of subjective truth or lack of plausibility. Again, it relies on the trust of the receiver and the criteria they put forward. It is important to mention as well that this interaction removed the chance of a fiduciary balance as this question was rude and out of place, meaning Lady Gaga would have lost trust in the communication relationship. It is a two way street, Lady Gaga installed trust into the interview by allowing the forum for questions to be opened and the interview betrayed this trust, supported by the fact the interview is shortly escorted out after asking the question.            

The extent at which queer presenting bodies are able to successful communicate their sex through gendered identities is impended by the implausibility that heterocentric society couples with the world view of queer people. Queer bodies have to work to a near impossible standard to match a given social construct of sex and gender to confront preconceived suspicions of the abnormal.            

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Butler, J. (1993). Bodies That Matter. New York: Routledge.

Greimas, A,J. (1989). New Literary History Vol.20 No.3 Greimassian semiotics, Baltimore: the John Hopkins University Press. 

Hollander, A. (1994). Sex and Suits. The Evolution of Modern Dress. Brinkworth: Claridge Press.

My Beautiful Vagina Is Very Offended (2009) [Online Video] At: http://ww.youtube.com/watch?v=rfSXuKQKjl (Accessed 05/03/2020)

Tseelon, E. (2001). Masquerade and Identities, London: Routledge.  

Williams, R. (1976). Keywords. A vocabulary of culture and society. London: Fontana Press.