Controversial study scientifilly supports notn of ‘gayface’ — and no one seems to be OK about

Contents:

• ROW OVER AI THAT 'INTIFI GAY FAC'
• CONTROVERSIAL STUDY SCIENTIFILLY SUPPORTS NOTN OF ‘GAYFACE’ — AND NO ONE SEEMS TO BE OK ABOUT
• 'I WAS SHOCKED WAS SO EASY': ​MEET THE PROFSOR WHO SAYS FACIAL REGNN ​​N TELL IF YOU'RE GAY
• ESTATE AGENT JAILED FOR VIC ATTACK ON TWO GAY MEN HOLDG HANDS
• PSYCHOMETRIC AND FACMETRIC SUPPORT FOR OBSERVABLE FACIAL FEMIZATN GAY MEN
• THE FAMO AI GAYDAR STUDY WAS REPEATED – AND, NO, N'T TELL IF YOU'RE STRAIGHT OR NOT JT OM YOUR FACE

ROW OVER AI THAT 'INTIFI GAY FAC'

Image source, Stanford UniversyImage ptn, The study created pose fac judged most and least likely to belong to homosexualsA facial regnn experiment that claims to be able to distguish between gay and heterosexual people has sparked a row between s creators and two leadg LGBT rights Stanford Universy study claims s software regnis facial featur relatg to sexual orientatn that are not perceived by human work has been acced of beg "dangero" and "junk science" the scientists volved say the are "knee-jerk" reactns.

Details of the peer-reviewed project are due to be published the Journal of Personaly and Social jawsFor their study, the rearchers traed an algorhm g the photos of more than 14, 000 whe Amerins taken om a datg ed between one and five of each person's pictur and took people's sexualy as self-reported on the datg rearchers said the rultg software appeared to be able to distguish between gay and heterosexual men and women. In one tt, when the algorhm was prented wh two photos where one picture was fely of a gay man and the other heterosexual, was able to terme which was which 81% of the women, the figure was 71%.

CONTROVERSIAL STUDY SCIENTIFILLY SUPPORTS NOTN OF ‘GAYFACE’ — AND NO ONE SEEMS TO BE OK ABOUT

"Gay fac tend to be genr atypil, " the rearchers said. "Gay men had narrower jaws and longer nos, while lbians had larger jaws. "But their software did not perform as well other suatns, cludg a tt which was given photos of 70 gay men and 930 heterosexual asked to pick 100 men "most likely to be gay" missed 23 of s summary of the study, the Enomist - which was first to report the rearch - poted to several "limatns" cludg a ncentratn on whe Amerins and the e of datg se pictur, which were "likely to be particularly revealg of sexual orientatn".

'I WAS SHOCKED WAS SO EASY': ​MEET THE PROFSOR WHO SAYS FACIAL REGNN ​​N TELL IF YOU'RE GAY

"This rearch isn't science or news, but 's a scriptn of bety standards on datg s that ignor huge segments of the LGBTQ (lbian, gay, bisexual, transgenr and queer/qutng) muny, cludg people of lour, transgenr people, olr dividuals, and other LGBTQ people who don't want to post photos on datg s, " said Jim Halloran, chief digal officer of Glaad, a media-monorg body. "The reckls fdgs uld serve as a weapon to harm both heterosexuals who are accurately outed, as well as gay and lbian people who are suatns where g out is dangero. "The 'subtle' differenc uld be a nsequence of gay and straight people choosg to portray themselv systematilly different ways, rather than differenc facial appearance self, " said Prof Benedict Jon, who ns the Face Rearch Lab at the Universy of was also important, he said, for the technil tails of the analysis algorhm to be published to see if they stood up to rmed cricism.

Whout beg aware of , most people n accurately intify gay men by face aloneAlthough I've always wanted this particular superhuman power, I've never been very good at tectg other men's sexual orientatn.

ESTATE AGENT JAILED FOR VIC ATTACK ON TWO GAY MEN HOLDG HANDS

Fdgs om a recent study published the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, however, suggt I may be unrtimatg my gaydar abili.

The January 2008 study vtigated people's abily to intify homosexual men om pictur of their fac alone. In an ial experiment, rearchers Nicholas Rule and Nali Ambady om Tufts Universy pesed onle datg s and refully selected 45 straight male fac and 45 gay male fac. The 90 fac were then shown to 90 participants random orr, who were asked simply to judge the target's "probable sexual orientatn" (gay or straight) by prsg a button.

PSYCHOMETRIC AND FACMETRIC SUPPORT FOR OBSERVABLE FACIAL FEMIZATN GAY MEN

Surprisgly, all participants (both men and women) sred above chance on this gaydar task, rrectly intifyg the gay fac.

Then, they did a send search to fd other Facebook ers who had posted photos of the gay men their own profile.

"Th, " the thors wrote, "by g photos of gay and straight dividuals that they themselv did not post, we were able to remove the fluence of self-prentatn and much of the potential selectn bias that may be prent photos om personal advertisements.

THE FAMO AI GAYDAR STUDY WAS REPEATED – AND, NO, N'T TELL IF YOU'RE STRAIGHT OR NOT JT OM YOUR FACE

Aga, the thors superimposed the male fac (this time 80 gay and 80 straight) onto a whe background. And even wh the more strgent ntrols, the participants were able to intify the gay fac at levels greater than chance—aga even on those trials where the fac were flickered on the screen for a mere 50 lisends. For example, when shown only the eye regn ("whout brows and cropped to the outer nthi so that not even "crow's-feet" were visible"), perceivers were amazgly still able to accurately intify a man as beg gay.

Curly, most of the participants unrtimated their abily to intify gay fac om the featur alone. That is to say, people seem to have honed and librated their gaydar whout knowg they've done so. But they also acknowledge that 's impossible to know om the fdgs what exactly is about the facial featur that give gays away.

I was cur enough about Rule's fdgs to look up "gay face" the Urban Dictnary, a popular Web se that offers rmal, er-ntributed fns of everyday (often crass) saygs. There were several fns of "gay face, " cludg this rogatory doozy:.