The Gay Voice - Universy of Toronto Magaze

Contents:

• THE GAY VOICE
• GAY VOICE: STABLE MARKER OF SEXUAL ORIENTATN OR FLEXIBLE COMMUNITN DEVICE?
• SPEECH ATIC FEATUR: A COMPARISON OF GAY MEN, HETEROSEXUAL MEN, AND HETEROSEXUAL WOMEN
• GAY AND STRAIGHT MEN PREFER MASCULE-PRENTG GAY MEN FOR A HIGH-STAT ROLE: EVINCE FROM AN ELOGILLY VALID EXPERIMENT
• GAY- AND LBIAN-SOUNDG AUDORY CU ELIC STEREOTYPG AND DISCRIMATN

THE GAY VOICE

In Study 1 (n = 20 speakers, n = 383 Italian listeners and n = 373 Brish listeners), g a simulated nversatn paradigm, we found that gay speakers modulated their voic pendg on the terlocutor, soundg more gay when speakg to a person wh whom they have had an easy (vs. To fill the gaps, we explored potential differenc atic featur of speech between homosexual and heterosexual native French men and vtigated whether the former showed a trend toward femizatn by parg theirs to that of heterosexual native French women.

In addn to the fact that homosexuals exhib tras that differ om those of heterosexuals, has been shown that some of them, such as specific nral procs (LeVay, 1991; Savic, Berglund, & Ldstrom, 2005) or specific childhood behavrs (Alanko et al., 2010; Bailey & Zucker, 1995), displayed valu shifted toward those of the oppose sex, i.

GAY VOICE: STABLE MARKER OF SEXUAL ORIENTATN OR FLEXIBLE COMMUNITN DEVICE?

Although there is no clear evince that the mean fundamental equency differs between homosexual and heterosexual men (Gd, 1994; Lerman & Damsté, 1969; Munson et al., 2006b; Rendall et al., 2008; Rogers, Jabs, & Smyth, 2001; Smyth, Jabs, & Rogers, 2003; but see Baeck, Corthals, & Borsel, 2011), rults toward differenc pch modulatn patterns are more ntroversial: Some studi have found that homosexual men displayed greater variatns tonatn, wh valu shifted toward those of women (Baeck et al., 2011; Gd, 1994), while others did not fd any difference (Levon, 2006; Rogers et al., 2001). Lastly, homosexual men seem to produce a more expand vowel space than heterosexual men for some specific vowels (Rendall et al., 2008), hyper-articulatn beg monly found female speech (Pierrehumbert et al., 2004) the atic speech featur, other characteristics uld vary wh sexual orientatn, such as vol breaths and roughns that are, rpectively, ptured by the harmonics-to-noise rat (HNR) and the jter. Although evince of a difference ttosterone levels between homosexual and heterosexual men is nsistent (Meyer-Bahlburg, 1977, 1984), ttosterone may still mediate the relatnship between sexual orientatn and the aforementned vol speech featur, which has received ltle attentn so far.

Consequently, muni of homosexual men uld potentially differ their specific vol speech featur across different this ntext, the goal of the prent study was to provi further tails on the potential differenc between homosexual and heterosexual men’s speech an unrreprented populatn the lerature (i.

To vtigate the effects of sexual orientatn and tt the hypothis of femizatn on the vol featur, we ed an explanatory variable lled “SexOr” that nsirs both sex and sexual orientatn wh three modali: heterosexual men, homosexual men, and heterosexual women. Thrholds of signifince were rrected for the number of mols and post hoc parisons g the Bonferroni orr to asss the overall difference on speech atic featur between heterosexual and homosexual men and to exame whether homosexual men’s vol featur are shifted toward those of women, we nducted a lear discrimant analysis (LDA). RultsDcriptive statistics of all atic parameters and T-levels are shown Table 1Dcriptive statistics of mean F0, F0-SD, jter, HNR, speakg time, and T-levels for heterosexual men and women and homosexual menHeterosexual men(n = 48)M ± SDHomosexual men(n = 58)M ± SDHeterosexual women(n = 54)M ± SDF0 (Hz)118.

SPEECH ATIC FEATUR: A COMPARISON OF GAY MEN, HETEROSEXUAL MEN, AND HETEROSEXUAL WOMEN

Consistent wh prev fdgs English-speakg populatns, no signifint differenc were observed mean F0 between French-speakg heterosexual and homosexual men (Gd, 1994; Lerman & Damsté, 1969; Munson et al., 2006b; Rendall et al., 2008; Rogers et al., 2001; Smyth et al., 2003). The relatnship between pch variatns and sexual orientatn was prevly found one Dutch (Baeck et al., 2011) and one Amerin-English populatn (Gd, 1994), suggtg that femized pch variatns might be characteristic of male homosexual speech across languag (but see Levon, 2006). Further vtigatns are neverthels need to nfirm if such a difference pch variatns between homosexual and heterosexual men is enough to be ed as a cue for asssg sexual our knowledge, this is the first study to report an associatn between men’s vol breaths and sexual orientatn.

80 dB), further rearch should tt whether is perceptible by listeners to asss male sexual orientatn and whether homosexual men’s voic, which are richer harmonics pared to those of heterosexuals, are perceived as more attractive among homosexual our study, T-levels did not fluence any of the atic parameters vtigated. For stance, exposure to prenatal ttosterone has been suggted to be rponsible for the differenc between homosexual and heterosexual men on a large range of characteristics such as physlogil and behavral tras cludg speech characteristics (Balthazart, 2017; Ehrhardt & Meyer-Bahlburg, 1981). However, there is currently no nsens regardg whether the 2D:4D rat differs between heterosexual and homosexual men as studi have yield mixed rults (Breedlove, 2017; Grimbos, Dawood, Burriss, Zucker, & Puts, 2010; Rahman & Wilson, 2003; Robson, 2000; Skorska & Bogaert, 2017; Williams et al., 2000).

Further work should vtigate the relative importance of the mechanisms unrlyg homosexual men’s nclu, although our study did not aim to tt specific hypoth agast a formal theoretil amework to unrstand the differenc between homosexual and heterosexual men’s speech, provis some new scriptive fdgs.

GAY AND STRAIGHT MEN PREFER MASCULE-PRENTG GAY MEN FOR A HIGH-STAT ROLE: EVINCE FROM AN ELOGILLY VALID EXPERIMENT

This associatn between masculy and stat endowment has plex implitns for gay men, given the prevailg stereotype that they are more feme pared to heterosexual men (Ke & Dx, 1987; Lippa, 2000; Mchell & Ellis, 2011; Sanchez et al., 2009) Men and the Feme StereotypeSuch a stereotype reflects, to some extent, average differenc genr-typily between gay and heterosexual men. Policg of masculy among gay men is not only self-directed; there is also evince of prejudice toward more feme gay men om wh the gay muny (Bailey et al., 1997; Hunt et al., 2016) Penalti for Feme Gay MenContemporary theori of effective learship have challenged the perceived virtu of masculy.

Theoretil explanatns for the fdgs nsistently foc on the possibily that gay men elic such discrimatn bee of the stereotype that they are feme and are therefore perceived as ls equipped to occupy higher-stat posns social hierarchi, such as the workplace (Ke & Dx, 1987; Lord et al., 1984). Th, the rearch appears to suggt that feme gay men are at particular risk of stat penalti, pecially om dividuals who posss anti-gay Sentiment Amongst Gay MenA further qutn regardg potential stat penalti for feme vers more mascule-prentg gay men is how plic gay men themselv may be perpetuatg such prejudice.

GAY- AND LBIAN-SOUNDG AUDORY CU ELIC STEREOTYPG AND DISCRIMATN

Whereas most relevant rearch has ed heterosexual sampl, both lab and field studi on romantic partner preferenc amongst gay men highlight a monplace sire for mascule over feme tras potential partners (Bailey et al., 1997; Clarkson, 2006; Laner & Kamel, 1977; Sanchez & Vila, 2012; Tayawadep, 2002).

Such a nnectn suggts that the extent to which gay men ternalise societal stigma about beg gay may fluence their treatment of dividuals who posss stigmatised is a nsirable lerature monstratg that gay men discrimate agast more feme gay mal beyond the romantic ntext (Brooks et al., 2017; Ravenhill & Visser, 2019; Sánchez & Vila, 2012; Taywadep, 2002).

This effect among gay men mirrors siar fdgs observed among heterosexual participants (Aksoy et al., 2019; Frank, 2006; Pellegri et al., 2020) that also ed analogue tasks, which masculy/femy of gay male targets were manipulated via wrten scriptns. Provid important advanc offerg elogilly valid monstratns of the rctn stat btowed upon feme men by heterosexual dividuals, important unaddrsed qutns rema about whether gay dividuals also show such a bias, g d-visual stimuli, and what psychologil mechanisms might expla such bias.