A Documentarian Wonrs: 'Do I Sound Gay?' : NPR

Contents:

• THE GAY VOICE
• FILMMAKER AND SPEECH PATHOLOGIST WEIGH IN ON WHAT IT MEANS TO 'SOUND GAY'
• WHAT'S THE LK BETWEEN HOMOSEXUALY AND HAVG A 'GAY VOICE'
• OF LISPS AND LGUISTICS: THE POWER OF THE GAY VOICE
• THIS GUY JT WANTS TO KNOW IF HE SOUNDS GAY
• IS THERE A “GAY VOICE”?
• FIRST-TIME DIRECTOR DIGS DEEP TO TRACE ORIGS OF THE SO-CALLED GAY VOICE ‘DO I SOUND GAY?’
• GAY VOICE: STABLE MARKER OF SEXUAL ORIENTATN OR FLEXIBLE COMMUNITN DEVICE?
• A LGUISTIC INVTIGATN OF "THE GAY VOICE"
• WHAT MEANS TO ‘SOUND GAY’
• A DOCUMENTARIAN WONRS: 'DO I SOUND GAY?'
• FILM CLUB | ‘WHO SOUNDS GAY?’
• ‘WHO SOUNDS GAY?’
• SPEECH ATIC FEATUR: A COMPARISON OF GAY MEN, HETEROSEXUAL MEN, AND HETEROSEXUAL WOMEN
• MY GAY VOICE AND YOURS
• KEN HAS ALWAYS BEEN BARBIE’S GAY BT FRIEND—NOT HER BOYIENDBARBIE’S BELOVED BEARD?FOR YEARS, PEOPLE HAVE QUTNED WHAT ROLE KEN REALLY PLAYS BARBIE’S LIFE. BUT THE TTH IS PLA SIGHT: KEN’S NOT BOYIEND MATERIAL. AT LEAST, NOT FOR BARBIE.BARRY LEVTFREELANCE WRERPUBLISHED JUL. 21, 2023 4:35AM EDT PHOTO ILLTRATN BY THE DAILY BEAST/GETTYIT’S BARBIE WEEK AT THE DAILY BEAST’S OBSSED, CELEBRATG THE DOLL’S POP-CULTURE HISTORY, OUR FAVORE BARBIE MEMORI, AND A CERTA MAJOR MOVIE. READ ALL OF OUR VERAGE HERE!“SHE’S EVERYTHG. HE’S JT KEN.” THAT’S THE TAGLE FOR THE WILDLY ANTICIPATED BARBIE MOVIE, DIRECTED BY GRETA GERWIG AND STARRG MARGOT ROBBIE AND RYAN GOSLG. THE IMPLITN IS CLEAR: COME FOR BARBIE, AND STAY FOR BARBIE… BUT KEN HAPPENS TO BE THERE TOO.KEN HAS LONG BEEN SEEN AS NOTHG BUT BARBIE’S HUMAN ACCSORY, BUT WASN’T ALWAYS THIS WAY FOR THE POOR MISUNRSTOOD DOLL. WHEN KEN WAS FIRST TRODUCED 1961, HIS FIRST MERCIAL TRIED TO POSN HIM AS BARBIE’S EQUAL AND, UNMISTAKABLY, BOYIEND. “GET BOTH BARBIE AND KEN AND SEE WHERE THE ROMANCE WILL LEAD!” THE MERCIAL PROMISED.SCE THEN, LIKE BARBIE, KEN HAS UNRGONE UNTLS TRANSFORMATNS AND FASHNS. BUT AS TIME WENT ON, KEN FOUND HIMSELF AN AFTERTHOUGHT. TOYMAKERS MATTEL NEVER GAVE HIM THE SAME KD OF BACKSTORI AS BARBIE—WHILE SHE’S HAD OVER 200 REERS, KEN HAS HAD JT SOME 40-ODD PROFSNS. (AN CREDIBLE AMOUNT OF JOBS FOR A PERSON, SURE. BUT FOR A DOLL? EMBARRASSG.) BARBIE HAS STARRED LOTS OF VIO GAM AND MORE THAN THREE DOZEN FILMS; KEN HAS HAD A MAJOR ROLE A MERE HANDFUL OF THEM. BUT THERE’S ONE KEY REASON WHY KEN IS ALWAYS LAGGG SIGNIFINTLY BEHD BARBIE AND 'S A LOT EPER THAN THE DOLL’S SEEMG LACK OF POPULARY: KEN HAS BEEN MISST. HE’S NOT BARBIE’S BOYIEND. HE’S BARBIE’S GAY BT IEND.DPE MATTEL’S SISTENCE THAT BARBIE AND KEN ARE A HAPPY ROMANTIC RELATNSHIP, THERE’S PLENTY OF SPECULATN ABOUT KEN’S SEXUALY. EVEN IF HIS MAKERS CLAIM HIM TO BE STRAIGHT, THERE’S MOUNTG PROOF TO THE NTRARY. PERHAPS THE MOST DISPUTABLE EVINCE THAT KEN IS FACT BOTH A MEMBER OF THE QUEER MUNY AND BARBIE’S BTIE, NOT BOY TOY, OM A RATHER SURPRISG PLACE: 2010’S TOY STORY 3.IN TOY STORY 3, BARBIE AND KEN PLAY A SURPRISGLY LARGE ROLE. THEIR TRODUCTN TO THE FILM IS TGED WH ROMANTIC TENSN. WHEN THE PAIR MEET, THE FILM VOK A MON TROPE: A ROMANTIC NEEDLE DROP HS THE MOMENT THE LOVERS LOCK EY. IN THIS SE, ’S “DREAM WEAVER” BY GARY WRIGHT. AS FAR AS BARBIE AND KEN ARE NCERNED, THEY’RE THE ONLY ON THE ROOM. “I LOVE YOUR LEG WARMERS!” KEN TELLS BARBIE. “NICE AST,” SHE BANTERS, WH HEAVY EMPHASIS ON THE FIRST SYLLABLE. BEFORE THGS GET TOO HEATED, THEY LOCK ARMS AND WALK OFF TOGETHER. PHOTO ILLTRATN BY KELLY CAMERO / THE DAILY BEAST / GETTY LET’S BE HONT—SPE THE ROMANTIC OVERTON OF THE SCENE, THEIR BRIEF EXCHANGE TELLS EVERYTHG ABOUT HOW THEY SEE EACH OTHER. KEN DON’T MENTN ANYTHG ABOUT BARBIE’S BODY, STEAD HIGHLIGHTG HER LEG WARMERS. BUT BARBIE IS UNSUBTLY TRYG TO SCE KEN JT TWO WORDS. SHE’S AFTER KEN, BUT KEN IS AFTER SOMEONE WHOSE CLOTH HE N ADMIRE.SURE, LATER THE FILM, KEN AND BARBIE SAY “I LOVE YOU” TO EACH OTHER. AND THEY GO BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN SAYG EACH WORD OF “I LOVE YOU”—SO SOMEONE DIFFERENT N SAY “LOVE” EACH TIME, AS KEN EXPLAS. HE MENTNS OFFHAND THAT HE HAS EVERYTHG EXCEPT SOMEONE TO SHARE WH. BARBIE AND KEN EVEN NUZZLE THEIR NOS TOGETHER. Y, THERE’S FELY LOVE BETWEEN IENDS—BUT THROUGH ALL, THERE’S NOT A HT OF SEXUAL CHEMISTRY.LOOK, I KNOW WHAT YOU’RE THKG—SIR, THIS IS TOY STORY; WHAT EXACTLY ARE YOU EXPECTG? IF YOU LOOK AT OTHER ROMANC THE ANCHISE—WOODY AND BO PEEP, AND JSE AND BUZZ—THERE’S NO DOUBT THAT THERE’S REAL LOVE THERE BETWEEN THE SENTIENT TOYS. THEIR PASSN FOR ONE ANOTHER TRANSCENDS MORE THAN SIMPLY BEG TERTED EACH OTHER’S OUTFS. THE SAME NNOT BE SAID OF THE MATTEL DOLLS. THAT’S MA EVINT WHEN KEN FALLY GETS AN OPPORTUNY FOR TIMACY WH BARBIE. “THIS IS WHERE THE MAGIC HAPPENS,” HE TELLS BARBIE WHEN THEY FALLY GO TO HIS DREAMHOE TOGETHER, HAVG PARENTS ALL OVER THE WORLD CLUTCHG THEIR PEARLS. BUT FEAR NOT: KEN SIMPLY TAK BARBIE TO… HIS WALK- WARDROBE. ANY SEMBLANCE OF ROMANCE MAK WAY FOR IENDSHIP, WHEN THE PAIR JUBILANTLY PESE KEN’S OUTFS. AND STEAD OF DOG SOMETHG WILD LIKE KISSG BARBIE, KEN PUTS ON A FASHN SHOW FOR HER STEAD. THE FILM WON’T SAY , BUT A POST-CREDS PUNCHLE ABOUT KEN’S HANDWRG, PLETE WH HEARTS AND STARS SURROUNDG HIS NAME, TELLS WHAT WE NEED TO KNOW.THE HEAVILY IMPLIED NATURE OF KEN’S GAYNS TOY STORY 3 HARKENS BACK TO HOLLYWOOD’S TRADNAL GAY BT IEND-TYPE CHARACTERS. IN THE HAYS CO ERA, EXPLIC REFERENC TO HOMOSEXUALY WEREN’T ALLOWED, SO CHARACTERS LIKE VAN BUREN (FRANKL PANGBORN) 1937’S EASY LIVG, KIP (DAVID WAYNE) 1949’S ADAM’S RIB, OR ADDISON (GEE SANRS) 1950’S ALL ABOUT EVE STEAD WERE IMBUED WH EFFEMATE CHARACTERISTICS, OFFERG A GLIMPSE OUTSI OF HETERONORMATIVY WHOUT EXPLICLY BEG QUEER.NONE OF THE CHARACTERS WERE THE SAME—SOME WERE TTY, OTHERS SWEET. SOME HAD ULTERR MOTIV, AND OTHERS OFFERED UNNDNAL SUPPORT. BUT EACH OF THE GAY BT IENDS WAS TRSILLY FED BY THEIR RELATNSHIPS WH THEIR STRAIGHT IENDS. WE NEVER REALLY LEARNED MUCH ABOUT THEM AS DIVIDUALS. THEY LIVED ON THE MARGS, FLHG OUT THEIR STRAIGHT UNTERPARTS, HARDLY HAVG A PURPOSE WHOUT THEM; THAT PORTRAYAL REMAS TE TODAY. PHOTO ILLTRATN BY KELLY CAMERO / THE DAILY BEAST / PHOTOS BY GETTY / WARNER BROS. DES LATER, 2010, THE GAY BT IEND WAS ALL THE RAGE; TEEN VOGUE EVEN WENT SO FAR AS TO PROCLAIM THE GBF AS THE SUMMER’S MT-HAVE ACCSORY. BUT UNLIKE THE FIRST HALF OF THE 20TH CENTURY, TODAY’S CEMA, THE GBF IS ALLOWED TO BE OPENLY GAY. AT THE SAME TIME, THEY STILL BARELY REGISTER AS PEOPLE WH CHARACTER TRAS BEYOND THEIR RELATNSHIPS WH THEIR STRAIGHT UNTERPARTS. IN MOVI LIKE MEAN GIRLS (2004), THE DEVIL WEARS PRADA (2006), EASY A (2010), NO STRGS ATTACHED (2011), AND ISN’T IT ROMANTIC (2019), GAY IENDS EXIST ENTIRELY THE ORB OF THEIR FEMALE IENDS. IT’S SUCH A STRONG TROPE THAT EVEN PERSISTS QUEER ROMANTIC EDI: 2020’S HAPPIT SEASON FDS JOHN (DAN LEVY) OFFERG ADVICE AND SNARKY ONE-LERS TO HIS LBIAN BTIE LI OF MEANGFUL CHARACTER VELOPMENT.IN TOY STORY 3, THE SAME IS TE OF KEN. HIS EXISTENCE PENDS ON AND CIRCULAT AROUND BARBIE. IN BARBIE, KEN HAS FOUND SOMEONE WHO REALLY UNRSTANDS HIM. HE DON’T GET ALONG WH THE OTHER TOYS, WHO MOCK HIM FOR BEG A “GIRL'S TOY.” BUT BARBIE LOV FASHN, JT LIKE HE DO. “NO ONE APPRECIAT CLOTH HERE, BARBIE,” KEN LAMENTS TO BARBIE, ABOUT THE OTHER TOYS’ TREATMENT OF HIM. “NO ONE!” BUT BARBIE DO, AND FOR KEN, THAT’S LIFE-CHANGG.THERE ARE PLENTY OF REASONS WHY THE FILM WOULDN’T OUTRIGHTLY STATE THAT KEN IS HOMOSEXUAL. NOT ONLY DO DISNEY SELF HAVE A PLITED HISTORY WH QUEER CHARACTERS, BUT KEN AND BARBIE ARE ALSO THE PROPERTY OF MATTEL, WHICH HAS ALWAYS BEEN STEADFAST ASSERTG KEN’S HETEROSEXUALY. THAT’S NEVER BEEN CLEARER THAN 1993 WHEN THE TOY PANY TRIED TO REIGNE KEN’S POPULARY MATTEL’S SOLUTN? EARRG MAGIC KEN. EARRG MAGIC KEN WAS A FIERCER, FELY MORE QUEER KEN THAN EVER BEFORE. THIS VERSN OF THE DOLL HAD BLEACHED BLON HAIR, A PURPLE LEATHER VT (!), A PK-PURPLE MH TOP (!!), AND OF URSE, AND EARRG THE “GAY EAR”. BUT THAT’S NOT ALL: AROUND KEN’S NECK WAS SOMETHG THAT ANY ACTIVE PARTICIPANT OF THE QUEER SCENE THE ’90S REGNIZED STANTLY—A CK RG (!!!).THE EARRG MAGIC KEN TURNED BARBIE’S BOYIEND TO AN OUT-AND-PROUD HOMOSEXUAL RAVER. MATTEL, OF URSE, VEHEMENTLY NIED ANY CLAIMS THAT KEN WAS GAY, LET ALONE THAT HE HAD SOMETHG AS PREPOSTERO AS A CK RG AROUND HIS NECK. AS LISA MCKENDALL, FORMER MANAGER OF MARKETG AND MUNITNS, SAID AN TERVIEW ABOUT THE DOLL, “WE’RE NOT THE BS OF PUTTG CK RGS TO THE HANDS OF LTLE GIRLS.”REGARDLS OF MATTEL’S TENTNS, ’S HARD TO NY WHAT THE EYE N SEE. DPE THE NAME, CK RGS AT THE TIME WERE ED AS A FASHN ACCSORY AND A SIGN OF FIANT QUEERNS AND SEX POSIVY. AS A RULT, GAY MEN BOUGHT THE DOLL DROV, AND SPE MATTEL ULTIMATELY RELLG THE DOLL AND WIPG AWAY ANY TRACE OF EARRG MAGIC KEN, WAS NEAR-IMPOSSIBLE TO SEE KEN AS ANYTHG BUT THE GLOR HOMOSEXUAL HE WAS BORN TO BE OM THEN ON. MATTEL SPENT THE NEXT UPLE OF S TRYG TO RETA KEN’S MORE HETERONORMATIVE, MASCULE IMAGE, BUT THE VEIL WAS LIFTED, AND THERE WAS NO GOG BACK. PHOTO ILLTRATN BY KELLY CAMERO/THE DAILY BEAST/PHOTOS BY GETTY/WARNER BROS. THOUGH MATTEL DON’T SEEM TO BE WILLG TO SAY KEN IS ACTUALLY GAY, THE KEN DOLLS OF RECENT YEARS SEEM TO REALLY LEAN TO KEN’S QUEERNS. THE YASSIFITN OF KEN IS CLEARLY UNRWAY. WHILE THERE IS NO WAY TO “DRS GAY,” THERE ARE SEVERAL DOLLS THAT SEEM TO SUGGT OTHERWISE, SUCH AS:FASHNISTA KEN #193, WHO LOOKS VERY EXCED TO TELL YOU ABOUT HIS NEW OBSSN, TROYE SIVAN;TRAVEL KEN DOLL, WHO HAS A SATCHEL PERFECT FOR BATHHO AND A PURPLE OVERNIGHT BAG THAT LERALLY PROCLAIMS HE’S “EXTRA;”KEN LOOKS DOLL, SERVG “I’M GONNA GIVE YOU A MAKEOVER”-TYPE REALNS WHILE SPORTG BLACK PLEATHER PANTS;THIS KEN, WHO WEARS THE LEAST HETEROSEXUAL DOUBLE NIM IMAGABLE.WHILE I HAVE A FEELG THE NEW BARBIE MOVIE WILL PUT THE WORK TO NVCE THAT KEN IS A HETERO DU WHO LOV NOTHG LIFE MORE THAN BARBIE HERSELF, THE WRG’S ALREADY ON THE WALL: KEN IS, AND ALWAYS WILL BE, BARBIE’S GAY BT IEND.KEEP OBSSG! SIGN UP FOR THE DAILY BEAST’S OBSSED NEWSLETTER AND FOLLOW ON FACEBOOK, TWTER, INSTAGRAM AND TIKTOK.READ MORE OF OUR BARBIE VERAGE HERE. BARRY LEVT

THE GAY VOICE

On Thorpe's gay iends also stgglg to accept their voic Thorpe: One of the revelatns of makg this film was that this is somethg that had always bothered me and every time, basilly, I talk to a gay man I would fd out that he also had eher spent a lot of time thkg about his voice or ed to be self-nsc about his voice or still felt self-nsc about his voice.

FILMMAKER AND SPEECH PATHOLOGIST WEIGH IN ON WHAT IT MEANS TO 'SOUND GAY'

Stay ahead of the trend fashn and beyond wh our ee weekly Liftyle Ed newsletterStay ahead of the trend fashn and beyond wh our ee weekly Liftyle Ed newsletter After a particularly bad break-up, David Thorpe, a journalist who’s his forti, cid to take his md off thgs by leavg his ts his Manhattan apartment and drowng his sorrows at a gay beach town on Fire Island. Thorpe, who directed the film and promoted at TIFF wh sex lumnist Dan Savage (who also mak an appearance the film), wanted to explore this shame and answer a qutn that has been on his md his entire adult life: Why do so many gay men who are seemgly fortable wh their sexualy hate the way their voic sound? In Study 1 (n = 20 speakers, n = 383 Italian listeners and n = 373 Brish listeners), g a simulated nversatn paradigm, we found that gay speakers modulated their voic pendg on the terlocutor, soundg more gay when speakg to a person wh whom they have had an easy (vs.

WHAT'S THE LK BETWEEN HOMOSEXUALY AND HAVG A 'GAY VOICE'

But so dog, v everyone to thk about what their own voice says about who they are, where they me om, and where they want to science of “the gay voice”To start wh, the stereotypil “gay voice” isn’t necsarily a study published 2003, Ron Smyth, a lguist at the Universy of Toronto, found that participants readily separated rerdgs of 25 diverse voic to those who “sound gay” and those who “sound straight. In Smyth's study, people rrectly gused a man’s sexualy about 60 percent of the time, only a ltle better than another small study at the Universy of Hawaii, both gay and straight listeners were equally as likely to misclassify people as gay or straight.

OF LISPS AND LGUISTICS: THE POWER OF THE GAY VOICE

In fact, the straight men wh so-lled gay voic weren't aware that people thought they sound gay at turns out that what most people perceive as a stereotypil "gay voice" is jt a male voice that sounds more stereotypilly feme -- maly, higher pched and more melod. However, the difference wasn’t the stereotypil “gay voice, ” but a tenncy to e a more ntemporary, pan-Amerin accent, rather than the old-fashned Mnota accent (like  the movie “Fargo") says that the gay men he terviewed may have wanted to nvey an inty that is more stylish and cuttg edge.

” shows that even men who are out and proud may still rry wh them some shame about havg a stereotypil “gay voice, ” even if those feelgs are Savage, a gay activist and thor, argu  the film that this is a natural nsequence of boys beg bullied for walkg and talkg a certa way when they are young. As Thorpe pots out the film, there have long been public entertaers or artists wh stereotypilly “gay voic” – Liberace or Tman Capote, for example -- but few people openly talked about their when characters wh “gay” mannerisms or voic appeared popular culture, they were sometim d wh negative or sid the 1940s on, Amerin film saw the rise of a sni, supercil, and vaguely gay villa, startg wh the manipulative Clifton Webb the tective noir film “Lra. ” That tradn of the effete, aristocratic villa has lived example, film historian Richard Barrs argu  the film that many of the Disney villas have simperg voic or mannerisms that are subtly – or not so subtly – stereotypilly gay, cludg Prce John "Rob Hood, " Sr "The Ln Kg, " and many more, In an terview, Thorpe poted out what he viewed as one particularly egreg example – the bad guy the 2012 Disney animated film “Wreck-It Ralph.

THIS GUY JT WANTS TO KNOW IF HE SOUNDS GAY

The explanatn that pleas him most is that gay speech has s origs ls blogy or nro-chemistry than early female fluence: Men who grow up mostly around women tend to mimic feme speech styl — which, Thorpe argu, would expla why some straight men sound gay, and why gays who grow up wh brothers often velop basso profundos.

And ’s not so much that a kid who is gog to be gay later life is gog to say I want to sound like a woman, so much as a kid is intifyg here is a particular speaker, and here is a particular of that person’s speech that ptur what I fd so engagg about them and I’m gog to emulate that. In addn to the fact that homosexuals exhib tras that differ om those of heterosexuals, has been shown that some of them, such as specific nral procs (LeVay, 1991; Savic, Berglund, & Ldstrom, 2005) or specific childhood behavrs (Alanko et al., 2010; Bailey & Zucker, 1995), displayed valu shifted toward those of the oppose sex, i. Although there is no clear evince that the mean fundamental equency differs between homosexual and heterosexual men (Gd, 1994; Lerman & Damsté, 1969; Munson et al., 2006b; Rendall et al., 2008; Rogers, Jabs, & Smyth, 2001; Smyth, Jabs, & Rogers, 2003; but see Baeck, Corthals, & Borsel, 2011), rults toward differenc pch modulatn patterns are more ntroversial: Some studi have found that homosexual men displayed greater variatns tonatn, wh valu shifted toward those of women (Baeck et al., 2011; Gd, 1994), while others did not fd any difference (Levon, 2006; Rogers et al., 2001).

IS THERE A “GAY VOICE”?

Lastly, homosexual men seem to produce a more expand vowel space than heterosexual men for some specific vowels (Rendall et al., 2008), hyper-articulatn beg monly found female speech (Pierrehumbert et al., 2004) the atic speech featur, other characteristics uld vary wh sexual orientatn, such as vol breaths and roughns that are, rpectively, ptured by the harmonics-to-noise rat (HNR) and the jter. Although evince of a difference ttosterone levels between homosexual and heterosexual men is nsistent (Meyer-Bahlburg, 1977, 1984), ttosterone may still mediate the relatnship between sexual orientatn and the aforementned vol speech featur, which has received ltle attentn so far. Consequently, muni of homosexual men uld potentially differ their specific vol speech featur across different this ntext, the goal of the prent study was to provi further tails on the potential differenc between homosexual and heterosexual men’s speech an unrreprented populatn the lerature (i.

To vtigate the effects of sexual orientatn and tt the hypothis of femizatn on the vol featur, we ed an explanatory variable lled “SexOr” that nsirs both sex and sexual orientatn wh three modali: heterosexual men, homosexual men, and heterosexual women. Thrholds of signifince were rrected for the number of mols and post hoc parisons g the Bonferroni orr to asss the overall difference on speech atic featur between heterosexual and homosexual men and to exame whether homosexual men’s vol featur are shifted toward those of women, we nducted a lear discrimant analysis (LDA).

FIRST-TIME DIRECTOR DIGS DEEP TO TRACE ORIGS OF THE SO-CALLED GAY VOICE ‘DO I SOUND GAY?’

RultsDcriptive statistics of all atic parameters and T-levels are shown Table 1Dcriptive statistics of mean F0, F0-SD, jter, HNR, speakg time, and T-levels for heterosexual men and women and homosexual menHeterosexual men(n = 48)M ± SDHomosexual men(n = 58)M ± SDHeterosexual women(n = 54)M ± SDF0 (Hz)118. Consistent wh prev fdgs English-speakg populatns, no signifint differenc were observed mean F0 between French-speakg heterosexual and homosexual men (Gd, 1994; Lerman & Damsté, 1969; Munson et al., 2006b; Rendall et al., 2008; Rogers et al., 2001; Smyth et al., 2003).

The relatnship between pch variatns and sexual orientatn was prevly found one Dutch (Baeck et al., 2011) and one Amerin-English populatn (Gd, 1994), suggtg that femized pch variatns might be characteristic of male homosexual speech across languag (but see Levon, 2006). Further vtigatns are neverthels need to nfirm if such a difference pch variatns between homosexual and heterosexual men is enough to be ed as a cue for asssg sexual our knowledge, this is the first study to report an associatn between men’s vol breaths and sexual orientatn.

GAY VOICE: STABLE MARKER OF SEXUAL ORIENTATN OR FLEXIBLE COMMUNITN DEVICE?

80 dB), further rearch should tt whether is perceptible by listeners to asss male sexual orientatn and whether homosexual men’s voic, which are richer harmonics pared to those of heterosexuals, are perceived as more attractive among homosexual our study, T-levels did not fluence any of the atic parameters vtigated.

A LGUISTIC INVTIGATN OF "THE GAY VOICE"

For stance, exposure to prenatal ttosterone has been suggted to be rponsible for the differenc between homosexual and heterosexual men on a large range of characteristics such as physlogil and behavral tras cludg speech characteristics (Balthazart, 2017; Ehrhardt & Meyer-Bahlburg, 1981).

However, there is currently no nsens regardg whether the 2D:4D rat differs between heterosexual and homosexual men as studi have yield mixed rults (Breedlove, 2017; Grimbos, Dawood, Burriss, Zucker, & Puts, 2010; Rahman & Wilson, 2003; Robson, 2000; Skorska & Bogaert, 2017; Williams et al., 2000). Further work should vtigate the relative importance of the mechanisms unrlyg homosexual men’s nclu, although our study did not aim to tt specific hypoth agast a formal theoretil amework to unrstand the differenc between homosexual and heterosexual men’s speech, provis some new scriptive fdgs. Wh this bate, Vasilovsky (2018) cricized gaydar rearch for nceptualizg sexual orientatn cu mostly as “static” and “nate” rather than as “dynamic” munitn addrs this cricism, we foc here on a cue that may have some relatively stable featur, but that is also known to be open to modulatn, namely voice.

WHAT MEANS TO ‘SOUND GAY’

When judged on the basis of voice alone, gay speakers are generally perceived as (relatively) ls heterosexual than straight speakers, but they still tend to be systematilly misclassified as heterosexual, suggtg that heterosexualy is the flt rponse (Smyth et al., 2003; Sulpiz et al., 2015, 2020; see Lick & Johnson, 2016, for this straight tegorizatn bias) lerature has also examed the actual atic cu that distguish gay and straight speech styl.

Overall, the lerature nfirms that some voice characteristics are stereotypilly associated wh homosexualy and/or femy/masculy (see Kachel, Simpson, & Steffens, 2017; Kachel et al., 2018b) and that listeners are not only fluenced by actual atic differenc but also rely on stereotypil cu when formg an imprsn of the speaker (Munson, Crocker, Pierrehumbert, Owen-Anrson, & Zucker, 2015) few exceptns, rearch on dory gaydar has nceptualized gay and straight voice as a relatively stable characteristic of the speaker and, hence, has foced on habual ways of speakg.

A DOCUMENTARIAN WONRS: 'DO I SOUND GAY?'

Rearch on sexual orientatn modulatn (Ambady & Hallahan, 2002; Sylva, Rieger, Lsenmeier, & Bailey, 2010) has shown that gay dividuals are able to exaggerate and partially nceal their sexualy, pecially if they are not a gnively mandg suatn (Sylva et al., 2010). Th, prr rearch has foced on variatn between rather than wh speakers, although there are a few notable has been suggted that gay speakers may specifilly mimize or emphasize the stereotypil atic cu scribed above to nceal or signal their sexual orientatn (Kachel et al., 2018a; Zwicky, 1997; see also Zimman, 2013). Crist (1997) observed a systematic lengtheng of (some) onset nsonants when four gay and two straight speakers were asked to read a text a “queeny” (flamboyantly effemate), rather than an “ordary, ” voice, suggtg that both straight and gay men were able to modify their voic.

The only exceptn to this is reprented by a study showg that gay men dislikg the ia of soundg gay avoid engagg gay stereotypil speech and, th, were ually perceived as heterosexual (Mann, 2012) is some evince that gay dividuals may, to some gree, be able to nceal their sexual orientatn, but only when talkg about general topics (Sylva et al., 2010).

Th, remas to be seen whether gay speakers modulate their voic pendg on ntext and terlocutor and whether such voice modulatn is succsful exprsg or ncealg sexual and Overview of RearchIn le wh the ia that voice signals social tegory membership (Posva & Callier, 2015), our voice sexual orientatn modulatn hypothis poss that speakers flexibly adopt stereotypilly gay/lbian vs.

FILM CLUB | ‘WHO SOUNDS GAY?’

As a nsequence, speech styl signalg a gay tegory membership should maly be adopted wh people who are aware of the speaker’s sexual orientatn and who had reacted posively to their g out (Lville, 1998; Munson & Babel, 2007), but gay speakers may mimic straight speech styl wh unaware or unacceptg teractn vtigate whether gay speakers spontaneoly modulate their voic to reveal or disguise their sexual orientatn, we nducted a simulated nversatn study which gay men imaged talkg to terlocutors wh whom they had e out easily, wh difficulty, or had not me out at all. In le wh our voice modulatn hypothis, we hypothized that the voic of gay speakers will sound more gay when talkg to others wh whom they had easily e out than when talkg to people wh whom they had not e out or wh whom they have had a difficult disclosure experienc.

‘WHO SOUNDS GAY?’

Gay speakers were asked to image to talk to (1) a receiver wh whom they had not e out and wh whom they would not feel fortable to e out (no g out), (2) a receiver wh whom they had e out and who had reacted a posive way (easy g out), and (3) a receiver wh whom they had e out but who had reacted a negative way (difficult g out). After listeng to each rerdg, participants were asked to rate the speaker’s voice by pletg a measure of voice genr typily (om 1 = pletely feme to 7 = pletely mascule) and of voice gayns (om 1 = pletely heterosexual to 7 = pletely homosexual), after havg listened to the three rerdgs, participants gused the speaker’s sexual orientatn (om 1 = pletely heterosexual to 7 = pletely homosexual, wh the sle midpot labeled “bisexual”).

In le wh prev studi on dory gaydar (Sulpiz et al., 2015, 2020; Valentova & Havlíček, 2013) and on the straight tegorizatn bias (Lick & Johnson, 2016), sexual orientatn means were overall low and below the midpot of the sle for both gay and straight speakers (all ts < − 5.

The gay speakers’ voic sound more gay and more genr atypil to the ears of our listeners when speakers simulated an teractn wh an terlocutor who had reacted posively to their g out than when the teractn volved someone who was unaware of their sexualy.

SPEECH ATIC FEATUR: A COMPARISON OF GAY MEN, HETEROSEXUAL MEN, AND HETEROSEXUAL WOMEN

To le out this possibily, we nducted a send study that allowed to vtigate voice modulatn as a functn of g out, while holdg dience characteristics orr to exame whether voice modulatn gay men is a specific nsequence of g out, gay speakers Study 2 were teractg wh the same dience, namely the general public. G., sentenc read out loud), this method gave the possibily to exame listeners’ perceptn based on spontaneo expected that the voic of gay speakers would sound ls genr typil and more gay after than before g out, but no differenc over time were predicted for the straight speakers (Hypothis 1). Th, this study allowed to further exame the ia that voice is not a stable marker of sexual orientatn, but a flexible inty management vice, ed by gay speakers to strategilly (although not necsarily liberately) disclose or disguise their sexual orientatn.

After listeng to each d rerdg, participants pleted the voice genr typily and voice gayns measur and gused the speaker’s sexual orientatn on the same 7-pot sl of Study, participants gused how many different speakers they had listened to (om 1 to 10) and dited whether they had regnized any of them as someone they knew. As shown Table 1, straight speakers’ voic were perceived as creasgly genr typil over time, whereas an oppose trend was observed for gay speakers, whose voic sound ls genr typil after than before g 1 Mean (SD) of voice genr atypily, voice gayns, and perceived sexual orientatn as a functn of speaker sexual orientatn and time (Study 2)Full size tableOverall, the voic of both gay and straight speakers across ndns were perceived as rather genr typil (ts > 13. 1 (top) and Table 1, and le wh Hypothis 1, the voic of gay speakers were perceived as more gay after than before g out, whereas the oppose pattern was found for straight 1Means of perceived voice gayns (top) and speaker sexual orientatn (bottom) as a functn of time (Study 2).

Note Higher valu mean greater gayns of voice (middle) and greater gayns of speaker (bottom), all asssed on sl om 1 to 7Full size imageIntertgly, the three-way teractn between speaker sexual orientatn, time, and listener sexual orientatn was signifint, F(2, 602) = 4. Regardls of time, straight speakers were always perceived as clearly straight (that is below the sle midpot), whereas gay speakers were perceived as clearly gay soundg and on the “gay” si of the ntuum (that is signifintly above the sle midpot) only after their g out. In eher se, the fact that the voic of gay speakers velop the oppose directn be even more also found that heterosexual listeners perceived a change over time how gay the speakers sound, whereas sexual mori perceived gay speakers nsistently as gay soundg.

MY GAY VOICE AND YOURS

It also supports the ia that gaydar has an “adaptive” functn (Shelp, 2003), allowg gay dividuals to munite their sexual different voice and listeners sampl (English and Italian), settgs, and methodologi, our studi provi evince that gay speakers adjt their speech styl flexibly as a functn of their stage of g out, speakg more typilly “gay” wh teractn partners whom they have e out wh and who have reacted posively (Study 1a and 1b) or after a public g out (Study 2). The fact that straight speakers also modulated their voic pendg on the terlocutor (Study 1) and over time (Study 2) suggts that they e voice as a tool to munite their heterosexualy prumably to avoid misclassifitn or to safeguard their heterosexual reputatn (Bosson et al., 2006; Fasoli et al., 2018) le wh the lerature (Smyth et al., 2003; Sulpiz et al., 2015), we also found that, although listeners distguish gay and straight speakers and their voic relative terms, they have a strong tenncy to misclassify gay speakers as straight. The chang we observed our studi may reflect the importance for speakers to be perceived as both genr typil and heterosexual, possibly bee of ternalized homophobia gay men (see Hunt, Morandi, Dar-Nimrod, & Barlow, 2020) and stat ncerns straight men (Fasoli et al., 2018).

KEN HAS ALWAYS BEEN BARBIE’S GAY BT FRIEND—NOT HER BOYIENDBARBIE’S BELOVED BEARD?FOR YEARS, PEOPLE HAVE QUTNED WHAT ROLE KEN REALLY PLAYS BARBIE’S LIFE. BUT THE TTH IS PLA SIGHT: KEN’S NOT BOYIEND MATERIAL. AT LEAST, NOT FOR BARBIE.BARRY LEVTFREELANCE WRERPUBLISHED JUL. 21, 2023 4:35AM EDT PHOTO ILLTRATN BY THE DAILY BEAST/GETTYIT’S BARBIE WEEK AT THE DAILY BEAST’S OBSSED, CELEBRATG THE DOLL’S POP-CULTURE HISTORY, OUR FAVORE BARBIE MEMORI, AND A CERTA MAJOR MOVIE. READ ALL OF OUR VERAGE HERE!“SHE’S EVERYTHG. HE’S JT KEN.” THAT’S THE TAGLE FOR THE WILDLY ANTICIPATED BARBIE MOVIE, DIRECTED BY GRETA GERWIG AND STARRG MARGOT ROBBIE AND RYAN GOSLG. THE IMPLITN IS CLEAR: COME FOR BARBIE, AND STAY FOR BARBIE… BUT KEN HAPPENS TO BE THERE TOO.KEN HAS LONG BEEN SEEN AS NOTHG BUT BARBIE’S HUMAN ACCSORY, BUT WASN’T ALWAYS THIS WAY FOR THE POOR MISUNRSTOOD DOLL. WHEN KEN WAS FIRST TRODUCED 1961, HIS FIRST MERCIAL TRIED TO POSN HIM AS BARBIE’S EQUAL AND, UNMISTAKABLY, BOYIEND. “GET BOTH BARBIE AND KEN AND SEE WHERE THE ROMANCE WILL LEAD!” THE MERCIAL PROMISED.SCE THEN, LIKE BARBIE, KEN HAS UNRGONE UNTLS TRANSFORMATNS AND FASHNS. BUT AS TIME WENT ON, KEN FOUND HIMSELF AN AFTERTHOUGHT. TOYMAKERS MATTEL NEVER GAVE HIM THE SAME KD OF BACKSTORI AS BARBIE—WHILE SHE’S HAD OVER 200 REERS, KEN HAS HAD JT SOME 40-ODD PROFSNS. (AN CREDIBLE AMOUNT OF JOBS FOR A PERSON, SURE. BUT FOR A DOLL? EMBARRASSG.) BARBIE HAS STARRED LOTS OF VIO GAM AND MORE THAN THREE DOZEN FILMS; KEN HAS HAD A MAJOR ROLE A MERE HANDFUL OF THEM. BUT THERE’S ONE KEY REASON WHY KEN IS ALWAYS LAGGG SIGNIFINTLY BEHD BARBIE AND 'S A LOT EPER THAN THE DOLL’S SEEMG LACK OF POPULARY: KEN HAS BEEN MISST. HE’S NOT BARBIE’S BOYIEND. HE’S BARBIE’S GAY BT IEND.DPE MATTEL’S SISTENCE THAT BARBIE AND KEN ARE A HAPPY ROMANTIC RELATNSHIP, THERE’S PLENTY OF SPECULATN ABOUT KEN’S SEXUALY. EVEN IF HIS MAKERS CLAIM HIM TO BE STRAIGHT, THERE’S MOUNTG PROOF TO THE NTRARY. PERHAPS THE MOST DISPUTABLE EVINCE THAT KEN IS FACT BOTH A MEMBER OF THE QUEER MUNY AND BARBIE’S BTIE, NOT BOY TOY, OM A RATHER SURPRISG PLACE: 2010’S TOY STORY 3.IN TOY STORY 3, BARBIE AND KEN PLAY A SURPRISGLY LARGE ROLE. THEIR TRODUCTN TO THE FILM IS TGED WH ROMANTIC TENSN. WHEN THE PAIR MEET, THE FILM VOK A MON TROPE: A ROMANTIC NEEDLE DROP HS THE MOMENT THE LOVERS LOCK EY. IN THIS SE, ’S “DREAM WEAVER” BY GARY WRIGHT. AS FAR AS BARBIE AND KEN ARE NCERNED, THEY’RE THE ONLY ON THE ROOM. “I LOVE YOUR LEG WARMERS!” KEN TELLS BARBIE. “NICE AST,” SHE BANTERS, WH HEAVY EMPHASIS ON THE FIRST SYLLABLE. BEFORE THGS GET TOO HEATED, THEY LOCK ARMS AND WALK OFF TOGETHER. PHOTO ILLTRATN BY KELLY CAMERO / THE DAILY BEAST / GETTY LET’S BE HONT—SPE THE ROMANTIC OVERTON OF THE SCENE, THEIR BRIEF EXCHANGE TELLS EVERYTHG ABOUT HOW THEY SEE EACH OTHER. KEN DON’T MENTN ANYTHG ABOUT BARBIE’S BODY, STEAD HIGHLIGHTG HER LEG WARMERS. BUT BARBIE IS UNSUBTLY TRYG TO SCE KEN JT TWO WORDS. SHE’S AFTER KEN, BUT KEN IS AFTER SOMEONE WHOSE CLOTH HE N ADMIRE.SURE, LATER THE FILM, KEN AND BARBIE SAY “I LOVE YOU” TO EACH OTHER. AND THEY GO BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN SAYG EACH WORD OF “I LOVE YOU”—SO SOMEONE DIFFERENT N SAY “LOVE” EACH TIME, AS KEN EXPLAS. HE MENTNS OFFHAND THAT HE HAS EVERYTHG EXCEPT SOMEONE TO SHARE WH. BARBIE AND KEN EVEN NUZZLE THEIR NOS TOGETHER. Y, THERE’S FELY LOVE BETWEEN IENDS—BUT THROUGH ALL, THERE’S NOT A HT OF SEXUAL CHEMISTRY.LOOK, I KNOW WHAT YOU’RE THKG—SIR, THIS IS TOY STORY; WHAT EXACTLY ARE YOU EXPECTG? IF YOU LOOK AT OTHER ROMANC THE ANCHISE—WOODY AND BO PEEP, AND JSE AND BUZZ—THERE’S NO DOUBT THAT THERE’S REAL LOVE THERE BETWEEN THE SENTIENT TOYS. THEIR PASSN FOR ONE ANOTHER TRANSCENDS MORE THAN SIMPLY BEG TERTED EACH OTHER’S OUTFS. THE SAME NNOT BE SAID OF THE MATTEL DOLLS. THAT’S MA EVINT WHEN KEN FALLY GETS AN OPPORTUNY FOR TIMACY WH BARBIE. “THIS IS WHERE THE MAGIC HAPPENS,” HE TELLS BARBIE WHEN THEY FALLY GO TO HIS DREAMHOE TOGETHER, HAVG PARENTS ALL OVER THE WORLD CLUTCHG THEIR PEARLS. BUT FEAR NOT: KEN SIMPLY TAK BARBIE TO… HIS WALK- WARDROBE. ANY SEMBLANCE OF ROMANCE MAK WAY FOR IENDSHIP, WHEN THE PAIR JUBILANTLY PESE KEN’S OUTFS. AND STEAD OF DOG SOMETHG WILD LIKE KISSG BARBIE, KEN PUTS ON A FASHN SHOW FOR HER STEAD. THE FILM WON’T SAY , BUT A POST-CREDS PUNCHLE ABOUT KEN’S HANDWRG, PLETE WH HEARTS AND STARS SURROUNDG HIS NAME, TELLS WHAT WE NEED TO KNOW.THE HEAVILY IMPLIED NATURE OF KEN’S GAYNS TOY STORY 3 HARKENS BACK TO HOLLYWOOD’S TRADNAL GAY BT IEND-TYPE CHARACTERS. IN THE HAYS CO ERA, EXPLIC REFERENC TO HOMOSEXUALY WEREN’T ALLOWED, SO CHARACTERS LIKE VAN BUREN (FRANKL PANGBORN) 1937’S EASY LIVG, KIP (DAVID WAYNE) 1949’S ADAM’S RIB, OR ADDISON (GEE SANRS) 1950’S ALL ABOUT EVE STEAD WERE IMBUED WH EFFEMATE CHARACTERISTICS, OFFERG A GLIMPSE OUTSI OF HETERONORMATIVY WHOUT EXPLICLY BEG QUEER.NONE OF THE CHARACTERS WERE THE SAME—SOME WERE TTY, OTHERS SWEET. SOME HAD ULTERR MOTIV, AND OTHERS OFFERED UNNDNAL SUPPORT. BUT EACH OF THE GAY BT IENDS WAS TRSILLY FED BY THEIR RELATNSHIPS WH THEIR STRAIGHT IENDS. WE NEVER REALLY LEARNED MUCH ABOUT THEM AS DIVIDUALS. THEY LIVED ON THE MARGS, FLHG OUT THEIR STRAIGHT UNTERPARTS, HARDLY HAVG A PURPOSE WHOUT THEM; THAT PORTRAYAL REMAS TE TODAY. PHOTO ILLTRATN BY KELLY CAMERO / THE DAILY BEAST / PHOTOS BY GETTY / WARNER BROS. DES LATER, 2010, THE GAY BT IEND WAS ALL THE RAGE; TEEN VOGUE EVEN WENT SO FAR AS TO PROCLAIM THE GBF AS THE SUMMER’S MT-HAVE ACCSORY. BUT UNLIKE THE FIRST HALF OF THE 20TH CENTURY, TODAY’S CEMA, THE GBF IS ALLOWED TO BE OPENLY GAY. AT THE SAME TIME, THEY STILL BARELY REGISTER AS PEOPLE WH CHARACTER TRAS BEYOND THEIR RELATNSHIPS WH THEIR STRAIGHT UNTERPARTS. IN MOVI LIKE MEAN GIRLS (2004), THE DEVIL WEARS PRADA (2006), EASY A (2010), NO STRGS ATTACHED (2011), AND ISN’T IT ROMANTIC (2019), GAY IENDS EXIST ENTIRELY THE ORB OF THEIR FEMALE IENDS. IT’S SUCH A STRONG TROPE THAT EVEN PERSISTS QUEER ROMANTIC EDI: 2020’S HAPPIT SEASON FDS JOHN (DAN LEVY) OFFERG ADVICE AND SNARKY ONE-LERS TO HIS LBIAN BTIE LI OF MEANGFUL CHARACTER VELOPMENT.IN TOY STORY 3, THE SAME IS TE OF KEN. HIS EXISTENCE PENDS ON AND CIRCULAT AROUND BARBIE. IN BARBIE, KEN HAS FOUND SOMEONE WHO REALLY UNRSTANDS HIM. HE DON’T GET ALONG WH THE OTHER TOYS, WHO MOCK HIM FOR BEG A “GIRL'S TOY.” BUT BARBIE LOV FASHN, JT LIKE HE DO. “NO ONE APPRECIAT CLOTH HERE, BARBIE,” KEN LAMENTS TO BARBIE, ABOUT THE OTHER TOYS’ TREATMENT OF HIM. “NO ONE!” BUT BARBIE DO, AND FOR KEN, THAT’S LIFE-CHANGG.THERE ARE PLENTY OF REASONS WHY THE FILM WOULDN’T OUTRIGHTLY STATE THAT KEN IS HOMOSEXUAL. NOT ONLY DO DISNEY SELF HAVE A PLITED HISTORY WH QUEER CHARACTERS, BUT KEN AND BARBIE ARE ALSO THE PROPERTY OF MATTEL, WHICH HAS ALWAYS BEEN STEADFAST ASSERTG KEN’S HETEROSEXUALY. THAT’S NEVER BEEN CLEARER THAN 1993 WHEN THE TOY PANY TRIED TO REIGNE KEN’S POPULARY MATTEL’S SOLUTN? EARRG MAGIC KEN. EARRG MAGIC KEN WAS A FIERCER, FELY MORE QUEER KEN THAN EVER BEFORE. THIS VERSN OF THE DOLL HAD BLEACHED BLON HAIR, A PURPLE LEATHER VT (!), A PK-PURPLE MH TOP (!!), AND OF URSE, AND EARRG THE “GAY EAR”. BUT THAT’S NOT ALL: AROUND KEN’S NECK WAS SOMETHG THAT ANY ACTIVE PARTICIPANT OF THE QUEER SCENE THE ’90S REGNIZED STANTLY—A CK RG (!!!).THE EARRG MAGIC KEN TURNED BARBIE’S BOYIEND TO AN OUT-AND-PROUD HOMOSEXUAL RAVER. MATTEL, OF URSE, VEHEMENTLY NIED ANY CLAIMS THAT KEN WAS GAY, LET ALONE THAT HE HAD SOMETHG AS PREPOSTERO AS A CK RG AROUND HIS NECK. AS LISA MCKENDALL, FORMER MANAGER OF MARKETG AND MUNITNS, SAID AN TERVIEW ABOUT THE DOLL, “WE’RE NOT THE BS OF PUTTG CK RGS TO THE HANDS OF LTLE GIRLS.”REGARDLS OF MATTEL’S TENTNS, ’S HARD TO NY WHAT THE EYE N SEE. DPE THE NAME, CK RGS AT THE TIME WERE ED AS A FASHN ACCSORY AND A SIGN OF FIANT QUEERNS AND SEX POSIVY. AS A RULT, GAY MEN BOUGHT THE DOLL DROV, AND SPE MATTEL ULTIMATELY RELLG THE DOLL AND WIPG AWAY ANY TRACE OF EARRG MAGIC KEN, WAS NEAR-IMPOSSIBLE TO SEE KEN AS ANYTHG BUT THE GLOR HOMOSEXUAL HE WAS BORN TO BE OM THEN ON. MATTEL SPENT THE NEXT UPLE OF S TRYG TO RETA KEN’S MORE HETERONORMATIVE, MASCULE IMAGE, BUT THE VEIL WAS LIFTED, AND THERE WAS NO GOG BACK. PHOTO ILLTRATN BY KELLY CAMERO/THE DAILY BEAST/PHOTOS BY GETTY/WARNER BROS. THOUGH MATTEL DON’T SEEM TO BE WILLG TO SAY KEN IS ACTUALLY GAY, THE KEN DOLLS OF RECENT YEARS SEEM TO REALLY LEAN TO KEN’S QUEERNS. THE YASSIFITN OF KEN IS CLEARLY UNRWAY. WHILE THERE IS NO WAY TO “DRS GAY,” THERE ARE SEVERAL DOLLS THAT SEEM TO SUGGT OTHERWISE, SUCH AS:FASHNISTA KEN #193, WHO LOOKS VERY EXCED TO TELL YOU ABOUT HIS NEW OBSSN, TROYE SIVAN;TRAVEL KEN DOLL, WHO HAS A SATCHEL PERFECT FOR BATHHO AND A PURPLE OVERNIGHT BAG THAT LERALLY PROCLAIMS HE’S “EXTRA;”KEN LOOKS DOLL, SERVG “I’M GONNA GIVE YOU A MAKEOVER”-TYPE REALNS WHILE SPORTG BLACK PLEATHER PANTS;THIS KEN, WHO WEARS THE LEAST HETEROSEXUAL DOUBLE NIM IMAGABLE.WHILE I HAVE A FEELG THE NEW BARBIE MOVIE WILL PUT THE WORK TO NVCE THAT KEN IS A HETERO DU WHO LOV NOTHG LIFE MORE THAN BARBIE HERSELF, THE WRG’S ALREADY ON THE WALL: KEN IS, AND ALWAYS WILL BE, BARBIE’S GAY BT IEND.KEEP OBSSG! SIGN UP FOR THE DAILY BEAST’S OBSSED NEWSLETTER AND FOLLOW ON FACEBOOK, TWTER, INSTAGRAM AND TIKTOK.READ MORE OF OUR BARBIE VERAGE HERE. BARRY LEVT

The film won’t say , but a post-creds punchle about Ken’s handwrg, plete wh hearts and stars surroundg his name, tells what we need to heavily implied nature of Ken’s gayns Toy Story 3 harkens back to Hollywood’s tradnal gay bt iend-type characters.