Talk:Gaydar

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2020 and 5 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): KellseDang.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Some references, unverified, different takes
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=207269&page=1 http://joeclark.org/soundinggay.html http://www.comm.unt.edu/research/bennett-gaydar.doc [Microsoft Word format] http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Reviews/Psychology%20Perverted%20-%20A%20Response.htm

Gaydar
Gaydar is also the name of a hugely popular Gay Dating website for men. 'Gaydar Profile' is a term used by gay men for their membership profile on the site. There are other versions of the site including www.gaydargirls.com for lesbian women.

-bill ____________________________

Gaydar complications
"The idea of gaydar as an ability is also complicated by homomasculinity (gay men exhibiting masculine characteristics) and the rise of the metrosexual."

Can anyone tell me why a citation is needed for this sentence?

It seems like it would be fairly hard to refute that sentence. This article seems to suggest that there is no scientific basis for finding out if someone is gay, which would imply that gaydar is largely based on the ability to identify common homosexual characteristics.

-Homomasculinity: a homosexual man displaying masculine traits that are usually associated with masculine, heterosexual men. This would interfere with "gaydar."

-Metrosexuality: a heterosexual man displaying traits related to aesthetics that are usually associated with homosexual men. This would interfere with "gaydar."

Really, I do not see why a citation should be added. Could anyone tell me? Smooth Nick 12:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Gaydar has nothing to do with appearance, as the scientific studies cited in the article have mentioned. Thus, mentioning "metrosexuals" and other pop culture inventions is unnecessary and trivializes the article.  I vote for the removal of that entire paragraph, as it adds nothing substantive to the article.72.78.9.230 (talk) 03:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It is absurd to claim appearance has "nothing to do" with sexual orientation. Clearly, it does have something to do with it. The article contains several ridiculous images of people wearing (i.e. appearing in) clothing which is sterotypical for people of the opposite sex. Confusing the *blatant* signalling that these people are engaged in (I have nothing against signalling, especially if it looks good - LOL) with the subtle effects that gaydar is about shows that the editors of this article are confused and don't know what they're writing about. Two guys or two girls engaged in passionate necking or petting isn't what sets gaydar off. You can argue that there *is* signalling that gaydar picks up, and maybe that's true, but generally gaydar is about sensing *subtle* things about a person that are non-obvious and suggest homo-sexual orientation. It's as simple as that. I think I've got gaydar. I suspect it's "correct" over half the time, but it's certainly not anywhere close to being consistently right.72.16.96.150 (talk) 19:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

History of the word Gaydar
Who coined it? When was it first used? Etc.? Berserkerz Crit 11:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * First time I ever saw it was in that Futurama episode where Bender claimed to have 'Gaydar'. Canine virtuoso (talk) 16:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

"Partner"
One thing that makes my gaydar go off is when someone always uses the word "partner" in reference to their significant other as if they are trying to avoid gender specific words such as "girlfriend" or "boyfriend". --Candy-Panda 07:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * There's actually more to it as to how gays use language, but gaydar is about sensing if someone is gay before they ever say anything, as language is used more consciously than all the other signs. Gays (and straight women to whatever large extent there is) can recognize if someone is gay or straight without necessarily having to pay attention to anyone's use of words.


 * A comprehensive study on gaydar would include language criteria, but it would be silly to use this as the only way to determine if someone is gay or not, as language is used consciously enough that it becomes rather simple for even the straight people to deduct if anyone knowingly uses wording to [willingly] give away his or her sexuality.
 * -Mardus 20:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Viewpoint & Approach: Spiritual versus Secular
I noticed that most of this discussion deals with popular conception, if not a seeming behaviorism and the ideas of symbolic interaction in modern society. There is even a paragraph under "Scientific research" that provides an explanation and arguement for the concept of "gaydar." The converse of that discussion which is currently provided, is one that dables in contemporary popular culture. Some people may think that the word "gaydar" is a funny and popular conception that is sometimes supported by "quack" science. I would suggest adding new perspectives to this topic and discussion from the more traditional perspectives of spirituality, folklore and even cultural anthroplogy. Indeed, the popular coinage of the term "gaydar" is similar to pre-existing ideas. For instance, see the wikipedia topics for "Aura (paranormal)" Some of you may never have thought about looking there, but do realize that this page goes beyond talk about "halos." The page says that "an aura may be held to represent or be composed of 'soul vibrations' or 'chakras,' and may reflect the moods or thoughts of the person it surrounds." These are ancient ideas that are shared by the world’s cultures and religions; and, for sure, they deal with soul and spirituality, but also correlate to sexual energy and communication. As for folklore, I am alluding beyond today's popular culture references, as some of you have referenced popular television episodes on this topic page. See for instance the topic "Terminology of homosexuality," where, among other things, you will see popular words and phrases that have been used as symbolic communication by gays though the ages. This assumes that there has been a subculture among the LGBT community, which contributes to our networking. The fact that it is a phenomenon is no different than explanations for other sub-cultures; so, this should be pointed out, while simultaneously discussing the specific qualities or nuances to this community as compared to others. Finally, the LGBT community has always self-referenced itself within the main culture, as has any minority group. Insiders to the community perhaps realize how other "gays," and so on, take aspects of the main culture and make it their own. This occurs especially in fashion, but also includes symbolic use of language, transmittal of "sexual energies," peculiar social behaviors, interactions and provocations, etc. This phenomenon can be blatant, like dressing in "drag," or subtle, such as choosing certain fashion labels, colors, hairstyles and the wearing of certain accessories. But, it can also be the sensing that someone is looking at you, sexually or not, when you unexpectedly make eye contact. Myself, I have always been curious about this later idea. For instance, being LGBT, sometimes you sense someone looking your way in passing, then make eye contact. But what happens when that person becomes upset and instead retorts with the likes of "what are you looking at... [insert slur word]? This is an idea that may include sexual power, but often times takes on other forces and realizations.   In modern society, it is often rationalized, but such intuitive phenomenon has interplayed throughout the ages, perhaps like a sort of riddle and a test of faith..69.109.208.103 (talk) 21:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)DjZ
 * All interesting but we need to cite verifiable reliable sources to avoid original research. If you have something that also refers to gaydar in this context then we can look to adding it. Benjiboi 21:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I realize that, certainly. I am staying with discussion for that reason.  I realize how annoying it is when people add things that are not verifiable.  These are ideas that I am looking at currently and hopefully I can come up with harder material.   However, please do consider the "appoach" or "angle" of which I am referring.   For now, what I am really trying to convey to all of you is that you could be overlooking certain ideas and imagination that could otherwise expand your current work, as well as support it in new ways that you have not fathomed.  As for you "benjboi," I have seen your work and I am quite impressed.  I appreciate your feedback to my discussion, too.69.109.208.103 (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)DjZ
 * Well, I'll assume that you're impressed is a compliment - lol! Your ideas are certainly valid but until we can something to actually cite we can't do too much with it. I may be wrong but verifiability not truth on this encyclopedia. Benjiboi 11:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Criticism?
The criticism section is awfully thin. When The Onion is your source, that should tell you something. Either expand the criticism to include something relevant and well sourced, or delete it. I get the feeling someone added the criticism section merely as a vehicle for their own personal gripes, as evidenced by the weasel words "some feel..."72.78.9.230 (talk) 03:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It should be expanded but the whole article needs sources and better writing. Benji boi 14:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Fruit machine.jpg
The image Image:Fruit machine.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --20:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

website
needs a mention of gaydar.comAndrewjlockley (talk) 18:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope, cos that's a dating site, and even though it's for LGBTQ people, you wouldn't necessarily mention something like match.com in an article about heterosexual identification. It's also not very widely known, so I don't think gaydar.com would fulfill the notability requirements for its own article

RFC should Gaydar include a list of references in popular culture?
Should this article contain a list of references to Gaydar in popular culture (TV, films, comics etc.)? The embedded list is in danger of trying to include every possible mention of Gaydar, ever.—Ash (talk) 17:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Absolutely. Obviously it should be cleaned up and pruned and that has largely happened over time. It should also be turned into prose to show how it has evolved so we show why these notable examples are used. -- Banj e  b oi   17:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Provided the list is kept from getting rediculously huge and out of control, I see no problem with keeping it in the article. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If a reference goes with it, yes. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - There are currently 14 TV programmes (some duplicates) listed. You could probably find the exact same list on IMDB with ease. I note that "popular culture" seems limited to TV rather than books, films, radio etc. Would anyone care to suggest how may such trivial self-referencing references would be too many for this article and how they might be limited?—Ash (talk) 10:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's best not to state X is too much. My hunch is they should be somewhat notable examples to demonstrate the breadth and crossing genres and cultures. This article is pretty short so though they could be cleaned up some I still think they remain somewhat helpful. For instance see how Fart lighting has developed. It's still not perfect but it's presented encyclopedicly, IMHO. -- Banj e  b oi   10:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I carefully reviewed all the items that were there and tried to judge, for each one, whether it warranted inclusion. In my opinion, none did. Feel free to add back individual items that are noteworthy or important. —Mark Dominus (talk) 18:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Upon further reflection and review of my earlier deletion, I decided that I had been correct to delete the whole thing. —Mark Dominus (talk) 17:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Lesdar, Lesbidar and Bidar.
They are of the same family. -- f s  14:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * They're usually all lumped under the same category, "gaydar." Lesdar, lesbidar, bidar and transdar just don't roll off the tongue like "gaydar" does. Also, the word "gaydar" is a play on "radar" hence the rhyming.

Newly proposed mechanism
Sexual orientation biases attentional control -- Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 22:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Oprah/Prince Manvendra
Under "Popular Culture", it is stated that "Oprah interviewed Prince Manvendra, the only openly gay prince, on her show in January 2011."

As it stands, it is not relevant to the article. If it is at all relevant, it should be made clear in the article itself.

220.255.2.109 (talk) 08:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I totally second that. I mean one should promote LGBT topics, but this is totally off the wall in the context of gaydar -- looks like spamming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.245.0.1 (talk) 21:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Grammatical error?
In the context of "The study was intended to reveal information about the perception of the observer, but has been misinterpreted as conveying reliable information about the sexual orientation of the participants. Gender-specific body movements are not reliably associated with a person’s sexual orientation." the following sentence does not parse for me: "This is true of face shape, but surprisingly not for voices, even though people think they do." -- Think they do what? I'm not an English professor, but to me, "think they do" doesn't match "This is true", nor does it match ""body movements are not reliably associated", nor "The study was intended to reveal".

Shouldn't it be something like "This is true of face shape, but surprisingly not for voices, even though people think so." And maybe qualify "people" with "some" or "many" or "99% of" or whatever the source says. (The links lead only to the abstract.)

20. ^ Johnson, KL; Gill, S; Reichman, V; Tassinary, LG (2007). "Swagger, sway, and sexuality: Judging sexual orientation from body motion and morphology". Journal of personality and social psychology 93 (3): 321–34. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.93.3.321. .

Xardox (talk) 18:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

"This is true of face shape, but surprisingly not for voices, even though people think they do." There is nothing for "they do" to refer back to, here. What does it mean? 31.54.59.160 (talk) 19:12, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:30, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

is this serious?
Sometimes I wonder if it's an encycopedia, or urban dictionary here. Seriously? Gaydar?
 * Uhm, this is an extremely common concept (you could call it a "cliché" or "meme", although it does not seem to be entirely baseless, so apparently not simply a myth) in the LGBT community. No doubt even many straight people are familiar with it or have at least heard of it. With all due respect, I think you are just uneducated, or very young and unexperienced. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Gender nonconformity?
I wonder if these studies are ever controlled for gender-related aspects such as the butch and femme axis. Otherwise they are pretty much worthless. It's hardly surprising that recognising a butch woman or effeminate man (even if the "butchness" or effeminacy is relatively subtle) can be quickly done, especially when you've developped an eye for it when that is advantageous. But can butch gay men and femme/lipstick lesbians be detected equally well? (Hypermasculine bears, who appear to be relatively common, and hyperfeminine lesbians, whom you don't really hear about, would of course also be prone to detection due to their unusually pronounced, even exaggerated gender conformity, so testing the ability to recognise more moderately butch gay men would be more revealing in this case.) That is the crucial questions. If they are at least significantly harder to detect, the ability is much more mundane and unsurprising. For, in that case, what the ability is about is not so much orientation but the ability to quickly pick up cues that indicate some rather subtle kinds of gender nonconformity. And what about bisexual people? My understanding is that a reliable gaydar should pick them up, but also that they tend to be less gender nonconforming and thus less conspicuous, and correspondingly harder to detect.

And trans people complicate the issue even more – sure, some may "overperform" femininity or masculinity respectively, or "underperform" it, or just not pass very well regardless of whether they over- or underperform, but others are just unconspicuous and pass well due to both inherent "passing privilege" and hitting the "sweet spot" or simply conforming closely to the norm, i. e., the presentation of the average cis person of the same gender, age and demographic group in general. And the experiment with home videos of children presents a veritable conundrum – if you present study participants with home videos of children who grew up as girls (and still appear so in the videos) but came to identify as gay trans men in adulthood, what would participants conclude? Would they really come to the correct conclusions, that the child is a gay man? My expectation – if gaydar is really based on the detection of gender nonconformity (childhood gender nonconformity being frequently observed in queer people, even cissexual homosexual people) – would be that participants would "read" gay (especially butch) trans men as lesbian women, at least if they were gender nonconforming (with regard to their assigned gender), but not necessarily when they were not, but as straight women in that case, even though they are femme gay trans men in reality. And don't get me started on genderqueer folks ... What would we even expect in those cases? Really, if "gaydar" is a real effect, I'd be very surprised if it didn't just rely on cues related to gender performance and gender nonconformity. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:15, 7 February 2016 (UTC)


 * My first thought was "what about bisexuals?" and then all the gender-nonconformity trend that's been going on in the past decade or so will most definitely mess up people's gaydar--more people who would previously have come across as butch lesbians now identifying as men or other, etc. But what I'd like to see more of in the article was genuine science linking physical features to queer neurologies and other physical features. We already know queerness comes from the way one's brain is built, so that's physical stuff for you right there--and one's neurology does affect one's physical features through complex endocrinological routes. There's already tentative evidence of certain neurological profiles overlapping with queerness and physical characteristics--the finger ratio thing (ring finger being longer than the index finger), for example, being a characteristic of people who are autistic/gifted/queer all at once. And that has been shown to be the result of higher-than-average testosterone exposure in the womb. And then there's a big overlap with autism and transgender identity in particular. And then there's the whole thing with lesbian and bisexual women being more likely to have PCOS and other masculinising hormonal issues, so that stereotype of the "fat hairy butch lesbian" does have some biological basis. I've myself participated in online studies looking for links between certain neurotypes, chronic illness and sexual orientation *and* certain physical features, but I haven't been made aware of any results yet. And I'd obviously be cautious about any conclusions such studies would draw, as they tend to be biased in sexist (Baron-Cohen) and bisexuality-erasing ways. But nevertheless, I'd like to see more actual physical stuff being discussed here, such as, say, the finger ratio thing, and the possibility of "gaydar" being the same thing as neuroatypicals recognising other neuroatypicals through certain physiological features (say, the staring eyes/gaze many autistics have), or that PCOS thing. Stereotypes are unfortunate, yes, but there's definitely some biological stuff playing into all that, and in a way that's far more complex and subtle than most would imagine. --Snowgrouse (talk) 04:17, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gaydar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203034511/http://www.colorado.edu/linguistics/CRIL/Volume22_Issue1/paper_ZIMMAN.pdf to http://colorado.edu/linguistics/CRIL/Volume22_Issue1/paper_ZIMMAN.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

For the love of sliced bread
The detection of sexual orientation by outward appearance or behavior is frequently challenged by situations in which masculine gay men who do not act in a stereotypically "gay" fashion, or with metrosexual men (regardless of sexuality) who exhibit a lifestyle, spending habits, and concern for personal appearance stereotypical of fashionable urban gay men.

That's a bit of a turgid mouthful, plus there's an SJW graduate-school aroma around that phrase "challenged by" that makes me cringe.

The detection of sexual orientation by outward appearance or behavior is less cut and dried in social environments which tolerate or promote gender ambiguity or gender fluidity ...

It's a good habit to give your first impression a five-minute settling period to begin with, unless you're in Liberace (even Tutankhamun's glass closet was less opulent) or Ruby Rhod territory (narcissistic enigma at 300 paces).

But beyond that, social inference was never that cut and dried to begin with, unless some resident Church Lady–clique boisterously usurps gradualism.

My quick hack above is not appropriate, either, but perhaps someone can contribute a version 3 which doesn't impute that instantaneous, static gaydar wasn't primarily abnormal psych to begin with.


 * Coming out of the dark ages — 2007

It is hard for us to imagine now how repressive was the atmosphere surrounding homosexuality in the 1950s. 'It was so little spoken about, you could be well into late adolescence before you even realised it was a crime,' says Allan Horsfall, who campaigned for legal change in the north west, where he lived with his partner, a headmaster. 'Some newspapers reported court cases but they talked of "gross indecency" because they couldn't bring themselves to mention it, so young people were lucky if they could work out what was going on.'

That was the basic of static gaydar, with no feeling out stage whatsoever. &mdash; MaxEnt 19:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * What are you proposing? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:59, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

A confusing sentence
Is it me, or is the following sentence confusing, or even contradictory: “Gender-specific body movements are not reliably associated with a person's sexual orientation;[21] this is true of face shape,[22] but surprisingly not for voices,[23] even though people think they are associated with a person's sexual orientation.[24]” GdB (talk) 09:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Stupid nonsense page
Am I the only one who thinks this page is stupid, full of stereotypes, very short on any scientific ideas or facts, and completely homophobic? 2001:7D0:82FE:9100:B06D:6A68:C9AF:493F (talk) 20:15, 20 December 2021 (UTC)