Gaydar › Lbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgenr & Intersex News

Contents:

• GAYDAR
• GAY RADAR, KEMAMPUAN MENTEKSI ORIENTASI SEKSUAL SEORANG
• GAY NE MEK GAY NEDIR HETEROSEKSüEL VE HOMOSEKSüEL FARKı NEDIR?
• EL NSISTENTE Y PELIGROSO ‘RADAR GAY’
• THE TTH ABOUT ‘GAYDAR’
• GAYDAR—SENDG MIXED SIGNALS
• WHAT DO GAYDAR STAND FOR?
• IS ‘GAYDAR’ REALLY A THG?
• GAYDAR: DO YOU HAVE IT?
• GAY RADAR
• THE SIGNIFINCE OF GAYDAR QUEER CULTURE
• ‘GAYDAR’ UNR THE RADAR: IS THE TERM JT ANOTHER STEREOTYPE?
• GAY NE DEMEK, ANLAMı NEDIR? KIMLERE GAY DENIR?

GAYDAR

Gay radarı, ortak ilgi alanları, jtler, davranışlar ve sosyal medya uygulamaları say birbiri bulma yeteneği belirtiyor.

Sace eşcseller arasında ortaya çıkan 'gay radarı' artık heteroseksüeller sahip olabilecekleri bir yetenek hale geldi.

Gaydar, (gay ve radar (Türkçe: "gey radarı") kelimeler birleşimi ile[1][2]) bir kiş bir erkeğ gey, biseksüel ya da heteroseksüel olup olmadığını anlamasını sağlayan yetenek veya içgüdüsel hissi[3] tanımlamak iç kullanılan ihtira terim. Gaydar, also known as “gay radar, ” is a lloquial term ed to scribe the perceived abily of some dividuals to intify or fer the sexual orientatn of others based on var cu and behavrs. Some people claim to have a strong gaydar and claim to be able to accurately tect the sexual orientatn of others wh a high gree of accuracy.

GAY RADAR, KEMAMPUAN MENTEKSI ORIENTASI SEKSUAL SEORANG

One of the ma cricisms of gaydar is that reli on stereotyp and assumptns about what means to be gay, lbian, bisexual, or transgenr.

GAY NE MEK GAY NEDIR HETEROSEKSüEL VE HOMOSEKSüEL FARKı NEDIR?

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.

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

EL NSISTENTE Y PELIGROSO ‘RADAR GAY’

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. Hasilnya, 65 persen partisipan dapat mengintifikasi lbian/wana normal dan 57 persen partisipan dapat mengintifikasi gay/pria normal dari ke-96 foto tersebut.

Kemuanya juga tidak meiki bekas la, janggut, kumis atpun bekas ketika wajah-wajah tersebut dampilkan dalam kondisi terbalik, akurasi intifikasi yang dilakan partisipan menun menjadi 61 persen unt lbian/wana normal dan 53 persen unt gay/pria normal. Namun, tgkat akurasi u masih lebih tggi daripada intifikasi yang dilakan sera kebetulan saja, kata yang dipublikasikan di jurnal PLoS One i menunjkan bahwa banyak orang yang sera sadar membuat pembedaan terhadap homoseksual dan orang normal.

Informasi semam i pun akan tes dihadapkan pada ka dalam kehidupan sehari-hari, " tambahnya seperti dirilis dari Health24, Mggu (20/5/2012) mengaku temuan i menantang teori bahwa jika orang-orang merahasiakan orientasi seksualnya maka diskrimasi terhadap homoseksual, lbian dan biseksual takkan pernah ada. Menutnya, argumen i jt dibuat oleh orang-orang yang tak setuju ngan kebijakan anti-diskrimasi bagi kelompok begu, Tabak tak meneman alasan mengapa beberapa orang meiki "radar gay" yang lebih baik dari lanya. Tabak hanya menduga bahwa "orang-orang dari generasi yang lebih tua at kultur yang berbeda bisa saja tumbuh wasa tanpa pernah berteraksi ngan gay" sehgga kurang akurat dalam mengintifikasi gay at orang normal.

THE TTH ABOUT ‘GAYDAR’

Gay ne mek; gay sözcüğü hem erkek eşcselleri, hem kadın eşcselleri (lezbiyen) tanımlamak iç kullanılan ullararası bir ifa hale gelmiştir. Aslen "neşeli, umursamaz" ve "nlı renkli, gösterişli" anlamlarına gelen "gay" tabiri 1960'lı yıllardan ibaren erkek eşcseller tarafından kendileri tanımlamak amacıyla kullanılmaya başlanmıştır.

Türk Dil Kumu’nun Türkçe Sözlüğü’n homoseksüel karşılığı ise; csel istekleri kendi csn kimselerle yatıştırmak huyunda olan kimsedir. Imagen l tud, que mutra suputamente rasgos facial homosexual y teligencia artificial pue termar si alguien heterosexual u homosexual a través s rasgos facial n mayor precisión que una persona. Esta la polémi nclión un tud realizado por vtigador la Universidad Standford, según el cual un algormo rmáti pue distguir si un hombre gay en hasta el 91% los sos y si una mujer lbiana en el 83%, un porcentaje sensiblemente superr al l ojo humano, que acierta el 61% y el 54% las vec rpectivamente acuerdo n la vtigació tud, que ha sido alantado por The Enomist y que será publido en el Journal of Personaly and Social Psychology (Revista Personalidad y Psilogía Social), no solo ntrovertido por la vasión en la timidad que supone la posibilidad tectar n una máqua la orientación sexual —imagen qué ocurriría en los país don la homosexualidad tá prohibida si el o ta pecie radar gay se extendiera— so que las asociacn LGTBI+ (lbianas, gais, transgénero, bisexual e tersexual) lo han crido por las limacn que prenta: la mutra n la que se ha realizado la vtigación, un total 35.

Lo que su teología pue renocer un patrón que enntró en un pequeño subnjunto personas blans homosexual que parecen siar en una pága web cas”, ha crido Jim Halloran, director digal GLAAD, La Alianza Gay y Lésbi ntra la difamación. “No sorprennte que personas homosexual que eligen scribirse en una web cas publiquen fotos sí mismos n exprn y tilos siar”, ha añadido ta no la úni bilidad l tud.

GAYDAR—SENDG MIXED SIGNALS

Según ta teoría, los fetos masculos exputos a menos andrógenos lo normal —la hormona que duce la aparición los racter sexual secundars masculos—, rultará un niño gay, y los fetos femenos exputos a más andrógenos, una niña lbiana. Según los vtigador, puto que los andrógenos son rponsabl l dimorfismo facial, la teoría hormonal prenatal predice que “las personas homosexual tendrán rasgos género atípis”, cir, los hombr homosexual prentarán rasgos más afemados y las mujer, más masculos. Más rmaciónS embargo, nque ta teoría, que trata explir el origen la homosexualidad, "tá muy extendida" o argumentan los tor, no la úni que existe.

Un tud sobre la relación la epigenéti y la homosexualidad —ba la teoría hormonal n la genéti— publido por la revista la Universidad Chigo en diciembre 2012 sostiene que “nque los nivel prenatal andrógenos sempeñan un papel fundamental en el sarrollo sexual, hay también evincias que el paradigma prenatal andrógenos parcialmente pleto” tor la vtigación renocen ta bilidad.

Más allá que fuera verdad que el algormo pueda intifir hasta el 91% homosexual, las asociacn fensoras los rechos LGTBI+ crin que un 9% heterosexual serían intifidos forma errónea.

WHAT DO GAYDAR STAND FOR?

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.

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

IS ‘GAYDAR’ REALLY A THG?

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).

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.

GAYDAR: DO YOU HAVE IT?

The patterns provid strong support for the ia that belief gaydar enurag stereotypg by simply disguisg unr a different label. 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).

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. 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.

GAY RADAR

But as we’ve been able to show two recent papers, all of the prev studi fall prey to a mathematil error that, when rrected, actually leads to the oppose ncln: Most of the time, gaydar will be highly accurate. There’s a problem the basic premise of the studi: Namely, havg a pool of people which 50 percent of the targets are gay.

In a world where 95 percent of people are straight, 60 percent accuracy means that for every 100 people, there will be 38 straight people rrectly assumed to be gay, but only three gay people rrectly tegorized. Therefore, the 60 percent accuracy the lab studi translat to 93 percent accuracy for intifyg who is gay the real world (38 / [38 + 3] = 92.

If you’re disappoted to learn that your gaydar might not operate as well as you thk do, there’s a quick fix: Rather than g to a snap judgment about people based on what they wear or how they talk, you’re probably better off jt askg them. However, as a gay man, I thk of gaydar not so much as a tool for intifyg one’s orientatn, but as a meang and discrimatory weapon ed to ntrast sexual and social differenc. For my class project Language US Society, I wanted to qutn the nature of gaydar and trace s origs beyond jt the perceptn of the speaker.

THE SIGNIFINCE OF GAYDAR QUEER CULTURE

The key to unrstandg gaydar is the telemunitn ncept of “radar, ” which is fed as “a radtermatn system based on the parison of reference signals wh rad signals reflected or retransmted, om the posn to be termed” (ITU Rad Regulatns, 2013). Gaydar borrows the functns of receivg and parg signals and reifi the skill of intifyg sexual orientatn to an operatnal tool.

Hence, the technil fn of gaydar is a “system based on the parison of reference signals wh language reflected or retransmted, om the posn to be termed, ” where the posn to be termed ultimately translat to inty.

‘GAYDAR’ UNR THE RADAR: IS THE TERM JT ANOTHER STEREOTYPE?

A historil example of this is what lguists ll the onted “s” sound that is typilly characterized as a lisp, also known as the “gay lisp” (Mack and Munson 2012). Instead of intifyg the onted “s” as a lguistic variable, listeners equently thk of as an x of non-normative behavr such as a speech fect or homosexualy.

This associatn between language and behavr puts speakers g this variable a double bd: they are perceived eher to have a speech fect or to be gay—wh both perceptns rryg negative nnotatns.

GAY NE DEMEK, ANLAMı NEDIR? KIMLERE GAY DENIR?

Moreover, gaydar self is not a reliable system bee the stereotypil featur of gay speech n be cross-xil wh other social tegori. Heteronormativy is the iology that driv many heterosexual men to be particularly aware of gay dory cu as they strive to protect their exprsns of masculy through their lguistic performanc. This iology is what prompted me to hi my “gay accent” as a child—I was tryg to f this ialized heteronormative mold, I was tryg to appear heterosexual, I was tryg to sound normal.

In particular, s existence emphasiz that gay speakers the Uned Stat share certa lguistic variabl as a part of their lguistic repertoir. Ultimately, the lguistic repertoir that are symptomatic of a functng gaydar form the lguistic hab shared by members of the English-speakg gay speech muny. Even though some semtic tras are ed markers of belongg, gaydar is merely an abstractn created by the society that is not based on trsic factors and therefore do not guarantee accuracy.