GAYDAR Meang - What do GAYDAR stand for?

Contents:

• GAYDAR: DO YOU HAVE IT?
• THE TTH ABOUT ‘GAYDAR’
• IS ‘GAYDAR’ REALLY A THG?
• HAVG A ‘GAYDAR’ MEANS THAT YOU WILL EASILY REGNIZE WHO IS GAY
• GAYDAR
• GAYDAR
• WHAT DO GAYDAR MEAN?
• TT YOUR GAYDAR
• DEFN OF GAYDAR
• MEANG OF GAYDAR ENGLISH
• GAYDAR
• GAYDAR MEANG

GAYDAR: DO YOU HAVE IT?

Gaydar has been the subject of a fair amount of scientific ntroversy as of late. People talk about ‘gaydar’ as the abily to terme whether someone is gay based on their tun about the person.

Most scientific studi of gaydar suggt that there’s somethg to this ia. The wi-rangg fdgs suggt that gaydar n potentially pick up on everythg om one’s looks to movements to speech patterns.

In fact, when people are asked to thk refully before makg a sexualy judgment, gaydar actually be ls accurate. In other words, the more people thk about , the worse their gaydar is!

THE TTH ABOUT ‘GAYDAR’

For stance, people who hold anti-gay views typilly perform worse gaydar studi; by ntrast, sexual mori and people who have more faiary.

In a particularly fascatg study, rearchers found that women’s gaydar was more accurate when they were ovulatg than when they weren’t. Put another way, when women are at peak fertily, their abily to distguish men who are gay om those who are straight appears to improve. Most studi of gaydar volve askg people to make eher/or judgments: is this person gay or is this person straight?

So what happens when bisexual people are clud gaydar rearch? Also, when people are given the opportuny to gus a target’s sexualy on a spectm—a la the classic Ksey Sle—rather than makg eher/or cisns, gay and bisexual persons tend to be given pretty siar ratgs. This suggts that gaydar really only distguish heterosexual om non-heterosexual, meang don’t necsarily help when to makg more fe-graed termatns.

IS ‘GAYDAR’ REALLY A THG?

Overall, gaydar helps people make sexual orientatn ferenc that are better than chance gusg; however, they are far om perfect.

Most gaydar studi are set up so that participants would be rrect 50% of the time were they to rely on chance gusg. Bottom le: The rearch nducted to date suggts that there is somethg to the ia of gaydar that people appear able to tuively terme others’ sexualy at levels greater than chance rponse to a variety of cu.

At the same time, though, gaydar is clearly an imperfect tool, and one that don’t necsarily appear sensive to the wi spectm of sexuali that exist. Nothg illtrat this better than our apparent need to figure out who’s gay and who isn’t. Those who have the abily to divi the world to gay and non-gay are said to have gaydar, and you need not be gay to have .

HAVG A ‘GAYDAR’ MEANS THAT YOU WILL EASILY REGNIZE WHO IS GAY

If you’re gay, then mak sense why you might want to know (support, romantic or sex partner, muny), but if you’re not, then ’s anyone’s gus.

Why we want or need to know who’s gay—to repulse , to igne cursy, not to marry one, to jo them—is not the issue this post. In one of the bt overviews of gaydar basics, Nicholas Rule and Rav Alaei simply state that we “rely on a variety of subtle cu that gui judgment and behavr, ” even whout nscly realizg what we are dog or what we are relyg on.

Both gay and straight dividuals have gaydar, though to varyg gre. Rule and others, participants tegorized male fac as straight or gay better than chance (above 60% rather than a 50% chance level), even when the viewg time was merely one-twentieth of a send, fac didn’t differ emotnal exprsns, and hairstyl were cropped out. From the evince, many of the judgments were ma (whether nscly or not) based on a genr versn prciple—gay men as femized and lbians as masculized.

GAYDAR

For example, varyg om straight men, rearch shows that gay men have shorter nos, smaller nostrils and, varyg om straight women, lbians have thicker mouths and unrb.

I n’t answer this qutn, and ’s a difficult one to terme bee we don’t know what means to rec “random” gays and lbians, pecially bee many might not intify as such (e.

G., not aware they’re gay, are not sufficiently out to participate gay rearch, or don’t want to give their data). For example, the gay photographs ed gaydar rearch are taken om “out” dividuals (on datg webs, Facebook, Craigslist).

GAYDAR

Might their genr versn have ed them to self-intify as gay/lbian and to have disclosed this fact?

Could gays/lbians who are not out by choice or sign be intified as gay by raters? We know that men who ncealed their homosexualy were perceived by strangers as more likely to be straight (Tskhay & Rule, onle). I don’t know the answers, but the issu ought to be nsired future gaydar rearch.

That is, do we have gaydar of sexual inty stereotyp or gaydar of sexual orientatn?

WHAT DO GAYDAR MEAN?

One clear answer is that gaydar affects employers’ cisns regardg who to hire, nsistent wh the stereotyp they have regardg who performs bt at that profsn (e. As bt as I n terme, the gaydar rearch is rtricted to a gay vers straight paradigm.

TT YOUR GAYDAR

They’re ually lumped wh gays and hence not unique (Dg & Rule, 2012). I jt download Krista Burton’s article, “Hipsters Broke My Gaydar” (), which qutns the accuracy of her gaydar now that hipsters have taken over queerns.

Gay, straight, or somewhere between: Accuracy and bias the perceptn of bisexual fac. Internalized homophobia fluenc perceptns of men’s sexual orientatn om photos of their fac. Usg "gaydar" as a way to talk jokgly about stereotypg trivializ , rearchers say.

Studi suggt that the perpetuatn of the gaydar myth has untend nsequenc.

DEFN OF GAYDAR

Stereotyp often fluence the imprsns, whether ’s that a black man is dangero, a woman won’t be a good lear or a fashnable man is gay.

Stereotyp related to gay men and lbians often operate unr the guise of “gaydar” rather than stereotypg. “Gaydar” (a portmante of “gay” and “radar”) is a term that first appeared the 1980s and refers to a “sixth sense” for intifyg who is gay. Like many purported tuns, however, gaydar often reli on stereotyp.

While many people believe stereotypg is wrong, llg “gaydar” merely provis a ver for g stereotypil tras – like someone’s fashn sense, profsn or hairstyle – to jump to nclns about someone beg gay. Nohels, some rearchers have published studi that, at first glance, appear to show that people have accurate gaydar.

MEANG OF GAYDAR ENGLISH

In some recent work, my lleagu and I have been able to monstrate how the perpetuatn of the gaydar myth has untend negative nsequenc.

We’ve also intified a mathematil flaw some prev gaydar rearch, llg to qutn the rults. My lleagu and I spected that even people who would normally try to rea om stereotypg might be more likely to e gay stereotyp if they are led to believe they have gaydar. We told some participants that scientific evince says gaydar was a real abily, led others to believe that gaydar is jt another term for stereotypg and said nothg about gaydar to a third group (the ntrol).

Participants then judged whether men were gay or straight based on rmatn ostensibly taken om social media profil. Some of the men had terts (or “lik”) that related to gay stereotyp, like fashn, shoppg or theater.

GAYDAR

This sign allowed to asss how often people jumped to the ncln that men were gay based on stereotypilly gay terts. Those who were told gaydar is real stereotyped much more than the ntrol group, and participants stereotyped much ls when they had been told that gaydar is jt another term for stereotypg. The patterns provid strong support for the ia that belief gaydar enurag stereotypg by simply disguisg unr a different label.

In some ways, the ia of gaydar – even if ’s jt stereotypg – seems eful at bt and harmls at worst. Usg gaydar as a way to talk nocuoly or jokgly about stereotypg – “Oh, that guy sets off my gaydar” – trivializ stereotypg and mak seem like no big al.

Participants learned only one thg about this other person, eher that he was gay or simply liked shoppg (people tend to assume men who like shoppg are gay).

GAYDAR MEANG

In one ndn, therefore, the participants knew that the man was gay and the other they might have privately ferred that he was gay though wasn’t nfirmed, but that wasn’t known to anyone else (who might have acced them of beg prejudiced). As we predicted, the vertly prejudiced people tend to rea om shockg the man who was nfirmed as gay, but livered extremely high levels of shocks to the man who liked shoppg. If they had shocked the first man, people uld acce them of prejudice (“You shocked him bee he was gay!

But if others acced participants of prejudice the send ndn, uld be plsibly nied (“I didn’t thk he was gay! Enuragg stereotypg unr the guise of gaydar ntribut – directly or directly – to stereotypg’s downstream nsequenc. Some rearchers say that stereotyp about gay people posss a gra of tth, which uld lend crence to the ia of havg accurate gaydar.

In the studi, rearchers prented pictur, sound clips and vios of real gay and straight people to the participants, who then tegorized them as gay or straight. Half of the people the pictur, clips and vios were gay and half were straight, which meant that the participants would monstrate an accurate gaydar if their accuracy rate were signifintly higher than 50 percent. Ined, participants tend to have about 60 percent accuracy, and the rearchers nclud that people really do posss an accurate gaydar.