‎Gaydar - Gay Datg and Chat on the App Store

Contents:

• CANADA 'POURED THOANDS AND THOANDS' TO 'U MACHE' — A WILDLY UNSUCCSFUL ATTEMPT AT GAYDAR
• ‘GAYDAR’ MACHE: THE ONE TIME CANADA TRMATIZED S CIZENS
• GAYDAR: DO YOU HAVE IT?
• IS ‘GAYDAR’ REALLY A THG?
• THE SCIENCE OF “GAYDAR”: HOW WELL CAN WE DETECT OTHER PEOPLE’S SEXUAL ORIENTATN?
• GAYDAR
• IS ‘GAYDAR’ REALLY A THG?

CANADA 'POURED THOANDS AND THOANDS' TO 'U MACHE' — A WILDLY UNSUCCSFUL ATTEMPT AT GAYDAR

Homosexualy is a big topic today’s world. An equally big topic is Homophobia. Homosexualy is no longer a taboo Canada, and Gay marriage is legalized.

As the nspiracy theory go, not only were the Gays and Lbians margalized, but the ernment also built a ‘Gaydar’ mache to filter out the sexually ‘abnormal’. Cold War and Homophobia. In the 1960s, the Canadian ernment went on a wildly homophobic and btal journey which lead to stroyg many liv.

The aim was to ee the Canadian ary, RCMP, and the ary om homosexuals. The Canadian ernment’s Secury Panel veloped tts that were supposed to tect homosexualy a tt subject. The spected official was lled to a Secury official’s office and was notified that some evince suggtg their homosexually was found.

‘GAYDAR’ MACHE: THE ONE TIME CANADA TRMATIZED S CIZENS

Vanuver Sun journalist John Sawatsky remarks that while the RCMP Secury Service and Prime Mister John Diefenbaker might not have known the exact nature of the tts, they were culpable as they accepted the Panel’s view that homosexuals should be removed om their posns the Public Office. The pornographic imag were stereotypil perceptns of the official who thought gay men would like half-naked burly men. He was sent to the Uned Stat of Ameri to study their homosexualy tectn measur.

GAYDAR: DO YOU HAVE IT?

The ia was that if their pupils dilated while watchg the naked (or almost naked) image of the same sex, they were homosexual and had to be removed as they were a threat to natnal secury. Once an official was nsired gay, they were threatened by RCMP officials to give up the nam of other gays and lbians they knew. Moreover, the tt did not take to acunt bisexual subjects which posed further dilemmas for their homophobic tentns to e to un.

It may have a history of homophobia, but all should learn how to improve upon their mistak as Canada did. Gaydar works great on mobile, tablet and sktop, so you n e on the go or at home. Nothg illtrat this better than our apparent need to figure out who’s gay and who isn’t.

IS ‘GAYDAR’ REALLY A THG?

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 . 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.

THE SCIENCE OF “GAYDAR”: HOW WELL CAN WE DETECT OTHER PEOPLE’S SEXUAL ORIENTATN?

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. 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).

IS ‘GAYDAR’ REALLY A THG?

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? Is there one or two bt characteristics for gaydar? 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.