Rearchers and LGBT groups clash over facial regnn tech that supposedly spots gay people.
Contents:
- THIS PSYCHOLOGIST’S “GAYDAR” REARCH MAK UNFORTABLE. THAT’S THE POT.
- ROW OVER AI THAT 'INTIFI GAY FAC'
- PHYSIL, BEHAVRAL, AND PSYCHOLOGIL TRAS OF GAY MEN INTIFYG AS BEARS
- FACIAL HTS SHARPEN PEOPLE'S 'GAYDAR'
- GAY AND STRAIGHT MEN MAY HAVE DIFFERENT FACIAL SHAP, NEW STUDY SUGGTS
- 15 STEREOTYP THAT LIM OUR PERCEPTNS OF GAY MEN
- 'I WAS SHOCKED WAS SO EASY': MEET THE PROFSOR WHO SAYS FACIAL REGNN N TELL IF YOU'RE GAY
- LBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, AND TRANSGENR HEALTH
THIS PSYCHOLOGIST’S “GAYDAR” REARCH MAK UNFORTABLE. THAT’S THE POT.
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.
ROW OVER AI THAT 'INTIFI GAY FAC'
"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. 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.
"A man, ually homosexual, wh a distctly effete facial stcture wh some very specific featur; a strong jawle [sic] that lacks promence, space between the ey that rell people wh down syndrome [sic], and a slopg, long forehead.
PHYSIL, BEHAVRAL, AND PSYCHOLOGIL TRAS OF GAY MEN INTIFYG AS BEARS
Now, that one's rather silly and sensatnalized—even polilly spect—and there's certaly no scientific evince support of the claims about the "mongoloid" featur of homosexual men's fac. More ntroversially, Kosski and Wang’s paper claimed that the program based s cisn on differenc facial stcture; that gay men’s fac were more feme and lbian women’s fac were more mascule.
A smart person wh a puter and accs to the ter n judge sexual orientatn of anyone the world, or lns of people simultaneoly wh very ltle effort, which mak liv of homophob and opprsive regim jt a ty b more easy. 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.
FACIAL HTS SHARPEN PEOPLE'S 'GAYDAR'
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%. "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".
"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 '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.
GAY AND STRAIGHT MEN MAY HAVE DIFFERENT FACIAL SHAP, NEW STUDY SUGGTS
While qualative data document such self-intifiers as mascule-actg gay men who weigh more and have more body hair, there has to date been no quantative analysis of this group’s characteristics.
Keywords: Bears, Gay Culture, Gay and Bisexual Men, Self-teem, Masculy, ObyINTRODUCTIONThe gay muny is ultimately a heterogeneo one wh many subgroups and subcultur—one of the monali among them beg the sire to have same-sex enunters. Bee there is a arth of general rearch regardg this muny, and no studi to date that e quantative methods, we cid to explore this muny quantatively—g an Inter-nvenience sample, followed by a purposive suggted, the Bear culture exhibs and valu a greater sense of domant (but not necsarily domeerg) “thentic masculy” parison to other subcultur wh the gay muny (e.
15 STEREOTYP THAT LIM OUR PERCEPTNS OF GAY MEN
In rponse and ntrast wh Leathermen, Bears mata their mascule inty whout adoptg negative hypermascule tennci to acmodate all partners, spe their size or body is some theoretil support for why the Bear inty spltered om the gay male mastream culture.
G., twks, partyboys, A-listers) that are anthetil to, and even antagonistic towards Bears, men who are hairier and heavier exist and adopt an inty to afont the stereotypil “alpha” gay male. Popular culture, the media, and Wtern hetero- and homosexual expectatns have normalized the ial male body as one that is lean, mcular, and v-shaped (wh broad shoulrs, a narrow waist, and a flat but well-fed stomach) (Olivardia, Pope, Borowiecki, & Cohane, 2000).
G., poor self-image/self-teem) velop both heterosexual and homosexual men exhibg ls sirable physil tras (Beren, Hayn, Wilfley, & Grilo, 1996; Morrison, Morrison, & Sager, 2004; Pepl et al., 2009; Weer, 2009; Yelland & Tiggemann, 2003). However, where mastream gay men report wantg partners wh those prevly stated, admired or revered characteristics (Moskowz, Rieger, & Seal, 2009), Bears may not (Manley et al., 2007). Whereas mastream gay men often do not engage sired or preferred sexual behavrs bee of fears of rejectn or judgment (Kamski, Chapman, Hayn, & Own, 2004), those the more acceptg Bear muny reject the fears due to their beg ultimately “feme” nature (Hennen, 2005).
'I WAS SHOCKED WAS SO EASY': MEET THE PROFSOR WHO SAYS FACIAL REGNN N TELL IF YOU'RE GAY
G., uratn, fistg, voyrism, exhibnism) (Grov, Parsons, & Bimbi, 2010) to the active existence of the Bear muny and regnn of this subculture by the larger gay/bisexual male culture, more rearch is need to explore the gree to which the prevly mentned physil, behavral, and psychologil differenc actually exist.
In explorg the smaller subcultur of the larger gay/bisexual male culture, soclogy, psychology, and even public health n better expla and addrs the needs of men wh same-sex attractns.
Specifilly, our first study was more exploratory and foced on the physil tras, partner selectn, and rejectn creria of gay men (wh which we llected enough Bears for analys). A total of 531 men answered the 2: IML/PriFt Study Procr For the send study, data were llected g an anonymo survey admistered at two pennt gay events May and June 2008: the Internatnal Mr.
LBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, AND TRANSGENR HEALTH
Consirg the likely prevalence of a Bear inty may be held (wh varyg tenaci) by about 14–22% of gay men, the rults provi addnal evince for the manift and latent heterogeney of gay and bisexual rults regardg body tras and partner selectn nfirm, for the first time a systematic manner, fdgs documented prev terview and ethnographic studi. To be able to take a fist or urate on another man may be how the men exemplify their form of masculy—particularly a sexual climate where most gay men do not want to, nnot, or will not enact the behavrs. Regardls of the potential explanatn, Bears appear to be more sexually diverse and explorative than mastream gay and bisexual rults documented lower self-teem, which ntradicted both our hypothis and others’ terview rearch (e.