Phenomenon of 'gaydar' studied

[DesertRat]

Dave Philipps
Colorado Springs Gazette
Nov. 24, 2006 12:00 AM

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. - Most people never saw it coming.

How could Ted Haggard, founder of New Life Church, champion of honesty, family values and "the protection of marriage," be linked to a gay prostitute?

When allegations of gay sex, which Haggard has denied, surfaced this month, many people, including some of Haggard's closest friends, reacted with disbelief. Others claimed they weren't surprised at all. Their "gaydar" had tipped them off.

"Gaydar absolutely exists," Northwestern University psychology Professor Michael Bailey said. "It's not a perfect indicator. A lot of gay men don't give off the right signs, but a substantial percentage do."

In experiments, Bailey has shown videos of men talking and walking, then asked people to rate whether the subjects are gay. The viewers were right about 70 percent of the time, he said. His research tries to isolate what people intuitively focus on.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/1124gaydar1124.html#

[mondo joe]

1. Well duh. Gay men have been identifying each other by nearly invisible cues

for generations.

I don't know why some people are now put off by that idea.

[Dorian Gray]

54. We all identify each other

by little cues that we give off. They are indicative of not only our sexuality, but of our personality, as well. I have manerisms, tics, facial expressions, and movement that illustrates more about me as a person than my words might.

[MotorCityMan]

56. Reminds me of the Buddy Cole character

from Kids in the Hall;

(paraphrasing) "If you're gay and look at me, I just want to say 'Message received'; and the message he was sending was "Sister!"

[and-justice-for-all]

2. I think Haggard and Perkins have done it...

Perkins makes my Gaydar ring like crazy!!!

[pnwmom]

3. One theory of mine.

If a guy appears to be an "operator," he could be straight or gay.

But if he's very shy around women -- he's not gay.

[Bluebear]

5. 'if he's very shy around women -- he's not gay.'

Hokay.

And if he is shy around women AND men, not socially gifted?

[pnwmom]

6. I meant women in particular.

If he's shy around both, then he's just shy.

[LeftCoast]

20. What you are describing is not 'gaydar'. It's stereotyping.

Gaydar is nothing specific you can put your finger on. It is that moment of recognition that 'here is someone like me' even though he or she has done nothing 'gay'.

I do believe that some heterosexuals can become sensitized and may have some form of gaydar, but please...do not confuse broadbrush, stereotypical behaviors with gaydar.

[pnwmom]

24. Fine, that's not gaydar. But I don't think it's a stereotype either.

It stands to reason that if a guy isn't attracted to women, he's less likely to be very self-conscious around them. . . compared to how he might feel around attractive men. Just as I, as a straight teenage girl, wasn't shy around girls but I was very shy around boys.

With respect to "gaydar," having grown up with a closeted gay father and his closeted gay friends, I think I am more than usually sensitive (for a straight woman) to more subtle signals.

[foreigncorrespondent]

36. Girl...

...not everyone in this world is you. We all act very differently around people we are attracted to, or the kind of people we would sleep with. I am a lesbian with a lot of female friends. Think I act any differently just because I happen to be attracted to women?

And please, growing up with a gay father doesn't give you the book title to how the gay community truly is. You just think it does.

[Sapphocrat]

26. pnwmom, pnwmom, pnwmom...

Ditch all theories. Until you become a gay man. Or gay, period.

"Operator"?

:wtf:

[cboy4]

27. An operator? You mean like with AT&T?

:shrug:

[Bluebear]

29. "Number, please."

:shrug:

[AspenRose]

53. Bwahahaha

[foreigncorrespondent]

32. ROFLMAO

:spray: Oh dear! You owe me a new laptop. ;)

[foreigncorrespondent]

31. Ya know...

...considering you were raised by a gay couple, you really have no idea about gay men, do you?

[cboy4]

35. Oh my.

:spray:

[foreigncorrespondent]

37. LOL

Guess I got you back. ;)

[cboy4]

42. You sure did you rascal...I'm all

[foreigncorrespondent]

45. Wet can be good...

...at times. ;)

[donco6]

92. BWA-HA-HA!

I can assure you, that is almost 180 degrees bassackwards.

[cyborg_jim]

4. It would be interesting

To have some sort of objective study on sexual non-verbal communication - especially with regards to non-heterosexual behaviours. In particular it would have to include a variety of cultures - since it is patently obvious there are some cultural stereotypical behaviours that gay people may engage in that may well be influenced by the prevailing culture they find themselves in.

[Bucky]

7. Why is there gaydar and not 'hot chick who's totally into internet nerdsdar'?

I know they're out there somewhere. :rofl:

[ret5hd]

8. It MIGHT be because...

there is totally NO SUCH THING as "hot chick who's totally into internet nerds"

Kinda akin to Bigfootdar...

or

Loch Ness Monsterdar...

}(

[Bucky]

10. Bigfootdar? Loch Ness Monsterdar? Look, I don't care if she has big feet....

But there's no way I'd go out with a subaquatic lizard chick.

:hide:

[ret5hd]

11. Yeah, that's what you say NOW...wait another 6 months or so...

}(

[Viva_La_Revolution]

9. Some of them may even be lurking here, Bucky.

[stonecoldsober]

13. You just made Bucky's head explode!

I'm not saying which one...:spank:

[alcibiades_mystery]

22. Because sexuality is the performance of a set of semiotic codes?

I would guess that there is a "dar" for what you're looking for. Just no targets. ;-)

[William769]

12. Another bullshit study.

:eyes:

[kiahzero]

14. Care to explain? (n/t)

[William769]

15. Doesn't need explaining.

If you like though I can consult with my crystal ball to see where Jimmy Hoffa is buried.

[mondo joe]

25. William doesn't like the results so it's "bullshit". eom

[donheld]

50. Sounds right to me

He doesn't have gaydar, so nobody gets to have it. :crazy:

[qazplm]

16. it seems to me

that whenever you have a group that is stigmatized, it develops commonalities, shared traits, partially from banding together, partially from shared experiences shaping things similiarly, and all groups are at least subtlely affected by overall societal stereotypes/expectations.

All of that together could lead to a significant fraction of homosexuals exhibiting traits that some could pick up and identify without being able to quantify why all of the time.

[benddem]

23. agree

I know gay men I would NEVER suspected were gay. But, they knew everyone else who was...and some of their observations floored me. However, I don't think lesbians have the same knack.

[SoCalDem]

17. Scientifically, it makes sense too.

Why spend time "courting" someone who is not interested or likely to want to procreate with you?

There has to be some built-in sense. Thats' why I never "buy it" when someone claims they "had" to attack a guy because he "came on to" them and they never knew the guy was gay.

I have knows many gay guys and they are the MOST careful about approaching other guys. They juts don;t go up to strange guys and hit on them

[seabeyond]

18. scentifically though, supported, would show that homosexuals

ARE borned with a specific make up alowing the identification. saying, just more ocnfirmation that is is how a person is born and who they are. not a choice

[RagingInMiami]

19. As a straight man, my gaydar for gay men is extremely strong

But it is not as strong for lesbians.

[BlooInBloo]

21. Good to know. I was never sure if it was *just* stereotyping + arrogance...

... or if the phenomenon really did exist.

Not that this proves it beyond all possible doubt - but it does corroborate.

[MazeRat7]

28. Singing "show tunes" is generally a clue....

Why you ask ? I had a close friend that used to joke when he wanted to pickup a guy in a bar he would sing out something like... "Clang clang clang"....

and whoever responded "goes the trolley" would be who he bought a drink for next.

MZr7

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

51. Since it's sound-based, it's technically gaynar, not gaydar. -nt

[Bluebear]

137. What is he, 80 years old?

:crazy:

[bliss_eternal]

30. This hasn't been locked, yet...?

:banghead:

Well, since it hasn't, I'll come out of lurkdom to have my say. I find this really offensive. I call bullshit on this thread. Gaydar is bullshit. Straight people thinking they can deem who's gay based on some finely tuned skills or awareness is total bullshit.

The presumption of gaydar is offensive. As if those scary gays need to be detected and labeled so upstanding heterosexual citizens can sleep at night. :sarcasm:

:wtf: This smacks of those hideous studies on "how to detect a Jew" from Hitler's days. I can't believe this is a thread circulating on a progressive board, and given any sort of credence whatsoever.

:rant:

[foreigncorrespondent]

33. I am yet...

...to meet a straight person who has such good gaydar. LOL

Hell even I have trouble at times telling if someone (male or female) is gay or not.

[bliss_eternal]

34. hi foreigncorrespondent...

:hi: Don't you find such a concept insulting?

I find America's obsession for "labeling" everyone race, sex, sexuality, gender, democrat, republican, christian, non-believer, etc. rather annoying. My personal act of protest is checking OTHER in all categories. :P

[foreigncorrespondent]

39. Hey, girl!!!

What I find insulting is straight people who believe they have the monopoly on everything and anything gay, when they really have no bloody idea.

Give me a straight person (as a friend) with actual intelligence and knowledge over these dead beats any day. :)

[bliss_eternal]

43. Hey you...!

:hi: :pals:

I hear ya.' It's insulting for me when I enter threads and some dude is telling women what we should deem sexism or not. Same logic and it's stupid. Or the threads where caucasians are telling blacks, latinos, etc. what racism is. Beyond insulting. :eyes: But they continue...

[foreigncorrespondent]

44. I sooooooo agree with you.

Like they have the monopoly on everything in this world.

On edit: typo

[bliss_eternal]

46. Yeah...as if. Personally, I think it's panic.

Diversity is growing, not diminishing. They are losing their hold (the old, white guy in power). That's why people like Limbaugh started his bullshit attack on feminism by attributing it to a term that no young girl would want to describe herself as "feminazi." Really smart of them, but so evil.

Girls look utterly confused once they learn that a feminist is merely one that believes in equal rights for women.

Interracial couples are increasing. All this close the border shit is just them panicing because they are losing the fight of being the majority. So they try to turn the minorities on each other. glbt vs. blacks, blacks vs. browns, browns vs. latinos, etc., etc. They make young girls afraid to claim their power, shut down the borders, deny rights to same sex couples and attempt to clamp down on the power they still possess. They're scared. It pisses me off more on DU don't see that, and they buy into all this crap.

[foreigncorrespondent]

47. Again you and I are in the same boat.

They have always used panic to get what they want. Look at the "war on terror." They played into the fear of Americans in order to get a war to make themselves richer, and it worked. In relation to gays, again they play on the fear of the unknown in order to get what they want. What is it they want? The destruction of separation of church and state for starters. And it was and still is the same with the African American population. They claim the ni***rs (I hate that word with a passion) will rape your wives and children (sounds a lot like the queers will recruit your children to me.) And it is exactly the same with Middle Easterners now. If we don't get them first, they will get us. Now look what we have... If you are form the ME or of Muslim faith, then listening to the wrong wing, they are our enemy. That line of thought is what lead to the riots we saw at Cronulla last December.

Those riots are something that angered a lot of Australians. But didn't surprise many of us. I saw it coming and used to tell my mum a lot that Howard will lead us to battles in our streets. And those battles will be between people from the ME, or of Muslim faith, and the white, yobbo Aussie male. How right was I?

And it pisses me off to no end (as it does you) that so many on DU still wear blinders.

[bliss_eternal]

48. It's hideous, I agree...

What they've done to those from the middle east is sickening. And the war on illegal immigrants, beyond disturbing to me. :scared: More dividing.

You had a crazy guy in charge in Australia, too? I didn't realize you were in(or from) the land down under. ;)

I used to chat (through e-mail) with a writer/artist I met through a list for women artists. I was fascinated by the seasons there--how it was the opposite of ours. She had shared some of what was going on in Australia and how much she disliked the policies...but I'm vague on the details now, that was a while ago.

[foreigncorrespondent]

49. Still have the crazy guy in charge.

I am so used to people knowing I am from the great southern land now, that I often forget. LOL

Still in Australia though, only because the U.S. wouldn't allow Sapphocrat to sponsor me for immigration. They refuse to recognize the validity of our relationship for immigration purpose.

Yeah you are heading into Winter and this coming Friday is the first day of Summer for us.

Basically Howard will do whatever Bush* and Rove ask him to do, so don't worry about being vague on details we are in the same boat regardless. :)

[bliss_eternal]

93. Sorry for my super late reply...

:hug: just wanted to give you that--because of the stupid immigration rules.
I hope you can both be together (longterm) very soon.

[Zhade]

95. Yeah, I think mine is broken.

If it exists, I haven't figured out how to even read the manual. I live in SoCal and have maybe thought a couple of guys were like me, but...

Kinda lonely, actually, since I don't like the bar scene at all.

Gotta get to more GLBT gatherings, I guess!

[bliss_eternal]

99. Sorry I'm seeing this so late, Zhade.

I'm sorry you're feeling kinda' lonely. :hug: A friend didn't care for the Weho scene much--but LOVED Long Beach. Ever gone there?
If you don't want to talk about this on thread--feel free to pm. :hi:

[cboy4]

38. Here, you can use my handy spare....

http://www.videx.com/products/downloads/graphics/Access_Control/6_and_7-Pin_Cylinders/Padlock_with%3Cbr%3ECL-6P3WR,_View_1/CBL-PAD.JPG
:spray:

[bliss_eternal]

40. ...ROFL!

:rofl: :spray: This thread needs that tire boot-lock. ;)

[foreigncorrespondent]

41. Oh my! What a HUGE...

...lock you have there my friend. :)

[mondo joe]

52. Banning talk of a study that doesn 't fit your idealogy?

Nice.

Gay people have been identifying each other through cues for generations. Like it or not, it happens.

And nothing anti-gay about it.

[Scout1071]

55. Give me a break and stop being so sensitive.

Yes, you can definitely tell looking at or talking to some people that they are gay. Sorry if you find that offensive, but it's true. My aunt's partner with her crew cut? Pretty good indication.

Nobody called them "scary gays" or anything of the sort and you're outrage at this thread is a little over-the-top. Comparing it to "how to detect a Jew" where millions of Jews were murdered is truly outrageous and offensive. Gaydar and genocide are totally different. And yes, I know that Hitler had it in for the gays as well.

I am certainly not saying that I can tell 100% of the time, but I can tell a good deal of the time. And when my "gaydar" goes off, it does not change how I think of the person or how I treat them - which is where I think our disconnect is here. Just saying you have gaydar doesn't mean you are trying to identify and persecute. It just means that I'm being observant.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bliss_eternal]

60. I'm so honored...!

His majesty mondo joe has taken it upon himself to address not one, but two of my lowely posts. However did I, in all of my mad raving female sensitivity get bestowed with such a grace?

:rofl:

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ThomCat]

66. It's like the way everyone tells me that I look so Jewish.

I am Jewish, and people tell me that it's obvious, they knew the moment they looked at me. But I look exactly like my dad, and he's Italian Catholic. It's my Russian Jewish mom who's Jewish.

So do I look Jewish? No, I look Italian Catholic. But once people know, they suddenly remember that it was obvious. Perception and the memory of perception is weird that way. But they'll be certain, absolutely positive.

And of course, people generally don't figure out that I'm gay until they've known me for a while. It took about a year for the people at work to get a clue. But then people insist afterwards that I pinged their gaydar. So which was it? Did they know or didn't they?

I had two co-workers who everyone thought was gay. Both were entirely 100% straight, but nobody believed it until they'd known both guys for a while. So what does it mean that they set of "gaydar?"

I think it's clear that "gaydar" isn't reliable, and that people think it's more reliable than it is. It's not some special sense. It's just guesswork based on someone's appearance and manerisms, and it's often wrong.

[mondo joe]

67. It doesn't have to be perfect to exist.

Per the study, it's not 100% reliable - but it exists.

And your example about Italian/Jewish just sort of confirms it. Italians and Jews are both Mediterranean. And, if by chance, your Italian ancestors are southern, then even moreso as there is quite a bit of Semitic ancestry in Southern Italy.

So... they may be wrong in the specific but correct in the general.

I don't think anyone suggested gaydar is completely accurate - just that it happens.

[ThomCat]

68. Except that the jewish half of my family

is not mediterranean. They're eastern european from the north, and have no resemblance in build, features or coloration with my dad's family.

And nobody ever tells my dad that he looks Jewish. Ever. But he and I look like twins.

So that doesn't hold water.

[mondo joe]

69. The exception doesn't prove the rule.

Or maybe others are seeing something you aren't seeing - since they do say it to you but not to him despite your feeling that you look like twins.

[ThomCat]

70. People confuse photos of the two of us.

The primary difference is that people know he's catholic and know I'm jewish. So rather than assuming that there must be some subtle visual clues that nobody can name or point to, it's far more likely that people take what they know and simply believe things are obvious that in fact were not.

[mondo joe]

71. That's likely too.

But still no dispute of the findings of the study. :-)

[ThomCat]

73. I think it definitely plants some doubts.

Does someone really look gay, or is it that they act less sexist or gender conformist?
Does someone really look gay, or is it that they just have more fashionable clothes?
Does someone really look gay, or is it that they look well groomed?
Does someone really look gay, or is it that they look less athletic, or more athletic than the norm?

It could be that people are looking for stereotypes of gayness, not gayness itself. Which brings up the next question.

Was the sample of people in the videos selected at random, or did they videotape just certain people? And if people were chosen, why? is the study biased from the begining to get the desired results?

[bliss_eternal]

74. Definitely some holes there...

thanks for pointing those out, ThomCat. :hi:

[ThomCat]

75. You're welcome.

False certainty, especially using shoddy research, really does need to get shot down.

[mondo joe]

77. It's always fair to question methodology - but to assume it's shoddy

is a failure of its own.

[bliss_eternal]

79. How so? Enlighten us.

:)

[mondo joe]

81. Do you think you could figure it out yourself?

[bliss_eternal]

85. How cute...!

Now you're being coy. Isn't that precious? Awwwwww...

:spray:

[mondo joe]

86. No? No critical thinking?

Sorrrry.

[bliss_eternal]

87. Critical thinking vs. guessing...

Critical-synonyms: discerning, penetrating.

To think-from Websters dictionary-to surmise, to consider.

Did you not ask me to guess?

guess-from Websters dictionary--to judge at random, to estimate without calculation or measurement. Synonyms: conjecture, speculate, predict.

Clearly not the same thing. :rofl:

But again, feel free to share and enlighten us. ;)

[mondo joe]

88. ROFL - from the poster who guesses about studies.

Nice. :eyes:

[bliss_eternal]

89. That study is bullshit--no guess about it.

:D

[mondo joe]

97. No guess? What's your opinion based on?

[ThomCat]

110. All research is expected to prove itself sound.

And shoddy research is almost always obvious.

I'm so sorry that you don't get it.

[mondo joe]

113. And accusers are expected to prove themselves too.

The findings of a study were reported.

It's possible the methodology was flawed, it's possible it was flawless.

If you have evidence that the methodology was flawed, by all means say so.

[bliss_eternal]

78. Not to anyone that knows how to think critically.

;)

[mondo joe]

76. Thought I'd also mention...

that my dad's family, which is quite Italian, comes in two types - the long skinny Roman style, and the plump short Southern style.

Both have different body types, different hair - but both ultimately Italian looking.

Might be that your dad looks more Jewish than you think.

Or, put another way - when my partner and I are in Rome I'm always mistaken for a native but he never is - think they might recognize that biologically I am?

[Name removed]

72. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Sapphocrat]

82. You have that problem too?

Same here, except nobody thinks I look Jewish. Everybody thinks I'm Hispanic (strangers often speak to me in Spanish until they realize I have no idea what they're talking about), until I tell them I'm 75% Italian. Then they tell me, oh, of course I look Italian -- they can see it now! :eyes:

The truth is, I look 100% Portuguese (which is the other 25% of my makeup) -- and when I throw that into the mix, they're completely nonplused. 99.99999% of non-Portuguese people haven't the foggiest clue what Portuguese "looks like" (which is generally a little Latin, a little African, and completely confusing to the rest of the world).

It is amazing how certain people are of their own anything-dar after it's already been confirmed... or not. 20/20 hindsight is a beautiful thing.

P.S. I can wear a T-shirt with a big rainbow flag and the word PRIDE on it, and I still get chatted up by clueless straight men -- who likewise will go out of their way to open doors for me and offer to get my luggage out of the overhead bin -- but only if I keep my hair long. Cut my hair, and suddenly I'm invisible -- or I hear mutterings behind my back about "that dyke."

Would you call that gaydar or stereotyping? Rhetorical question.

[bliss_eternal]

84. self delete...

:blush:

[praeclarus]

91. what does anything "Catholic" look like?...

... I'm Italian and Catholic but I reckon I'd look
the same if I was an atheist.

[Left Is Write]

109. This is so off-topic, but I really wanted to tell you -

that my favorite ex-boyfriend is the son of an Italian Catholic father and Russian Jewish mother.

See...I knew there was an awful lot I liked about you. ;)

[ThomCat]

111. :)

:hug:

[bicentennial_baby]

94. ....

[sniffa]

96. actuaLLy i agree with you

for exampLe.. i know you're gay.. or at Least bi. but that's onLy because i see the way you Look at me... and i'm fLattered.

thank you.

[Scout1071]

121. Look....I'm not trying to be offensive.

If you or others are offended, then I apologize. Bliss, Bi, etc included in that apology since you seem to be actively disapproving of my opinion - same goes for you on the apology if you were offended. Not the intent of my comments to say the least and if the Mods or others think they are offensive, then they should be deleted.

But, I truly don't believe that I said anything wrong by saying that I can sometimes tell a gay person when I meet them. I can sometimes tell a person is from Lon-guy-land by their accent, but not every person in Long Island has the same accent. Make sense? I mean, do you always wait for someone to tell you that they are gay before you even allow the thought to enter your own head? Do you really believe what I said was homophobic?

On a side, you seem to be making some pretty big assumptions about me. By saying that you think that I'm gay and (jokingly) saying "I see the way you look at me", you must assume that I'm a man. And since it looks like you thought that I would be insulted, you must be making the assumption that I am straight and/or homophobic as well.

I know you were trying to be humorous, but still.....

[StrongbadTehAwesome]

138. delete - nevermind

[Hell Hath No Fury]

57. Sorry, but as a straight gal...

dating in San Francisco for 30 years and a second generation Hag, I can tell you I have pretty developed "gaydar" for men. Some of those men choose to proudly wear "gay" uniforms (bears, leathermen, drag queens) that are easy to read while others choose downtown corporate wear but still give off 100 little signals that proclaim who they are. :shrug:

[mondo joe]

83. Since "gaydar" is a term used by gays why would it be offensive?

???

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

98. I never knew what "gaydar" was until a gay friend told me 10 years ago

He used to openly talk about who set his "gaydar" off. He even gave me a few tips, although he himself said no straight person could have 100% perfect gaydar.

He must be a self-loathing gay. :eyes:

[bliss_eternal]

100. LOL! I guess you told me.

Given some of the other responses above, apparently I'm not the only one that thinks this study is crap. :) But thanks for sharing about your "gay friend."

[praeclarus]

101. yeah, but why ...

... do you think the study is crap.

I've been following along here and understand only
that you are offended by this study and that it is
crap. But you don't say why.

You also have taken on a mocking tone with anybody
who has any opinion differing from yours but don't
really offer much in way of argument for your position.

I expect to be flamed but that's ok. You are being
somewhat childish in this thread.

[bliss_eternal]

102. (sigh) for the record...

I feel it's crap because I don't believe in stereotyping and labeling people, of any race, ethnicity, sex or gender. A study giving credence to the idea that there is a way to determine one's sexuality by looking at them doesn't fly with me, even if he's stating that only gay people can do this.

It is my opinion that studies advocating blanketing and stereotyping others are bullshit. Clear enough for you? Or shall I throw a tantrum and repeat? Perhaps you'll understand this "childish" person better if I behave in the way it's easiest for you to "box me in?" :eyes:

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[praeclarus]

107. i don't believe in stereotyping or labelling people either...

... so we have some common ground.

Does a study such as this advocate blanketing and
stereotyping, though? I don't necessarily get that idea.

Equally, it is quite easy to imagine how such a study could
be constructed to give a skewed result. See Searle or Monsanto
for good examples. But I think you are pre-supposing that is
the case with this study.

What if it was a well put together study and the results are
as claimed? What would that mean to you?

Please try to reply without sarcasm or being condescending
if possible.

Anyway, if you act childish, I'll say you are behaving that
way and it is not "boxing you in" so stop with the victim act
and let's discuss this topic. From the number of responses
you've put in this thread, it would appear you have a lot
to say about it.

edit for clarity.

[greyl]

112. How about astrological stereotypes? (signs)

Or shall I throw a tantrum and repeat?

Who the hell knows?


Point is, you have no scientific basis for your reaction to the study.
Problems that may exist with the study (as all others) were pointed out above, but there's no evidence to support being certain that the many studies on the issue are all flawed.

[bliss_eternal]

114. Duh!

I never asserted a scientific basis. :spray: It's called an opinion. Last I checked, I'm entitled to it. :rofl:

Wow, all these people dogpiling me--based on my little opinions. Whatever will I do with all of this attention? ;)

[greyl]

127. I know you didn't. I'm informing you of the fact that

you have no scientific basis for your reaction to the study.

Whatever will I do with all of this attention?

Squander it?

[bliss_eternal]

130. I don't need a scientific basis for my reaction.

It's called an opinion. Your comments aren't relevant to me. But if it makes you feel good to bully people based on your need to denounce their right to an opinion....:spank: Carry on. :)

:rofl:

[greyl]

132. Your post is pathetic. Really.

We're all probably aware that your opinion is your opinion.
We're probably also aware that opinions come in varieties. Some opinions are more valuable than others, iow.

An emotion based opinion of a scientific study is worth very little, relative to the science community.

It's ridiculous to proffer the straw argument that I'm denouncing your right to have an opinion.
So ridiculous, that I can't take it seriously. Sorry.

[bliss_eternal]

133. How ADORABLE!

:spray: You go on about how you can't take my post seriously, yet you take the time to type out a "RESPONSE" to it--apparently it warranted enough consideration you couldn't just ignore it! LOL! LOL!

:rofl::spray::rofl::spray::rofl::spray::rofl::spray::rofl::spray:

[mondo joe]

117. It's ironic that after so many years of decrying the Bush administration putting

their ideology over science (evolution, global warming, abstinence education) that some on DU do the very same thing.

[bliss_eternal]

134. I'd say I've done the opposite of the bush administration...

I've spoken out AGAINST stereotyping people and blanketing them based on gender, sexuality, race or ethnicity. The bush administration would love nothing more than to label everyone--making it that much EASIER for them to know who to discriminate against.

Nice try, though. Projecting your ideals onto me, as a way to make yourself seem more progressive. :rofl: You're almost good at this. :spray::rofl::spray:

[mondo joe]

143. No, you've done the same - ignoring or rejecting findings in favor of your

ideology. You just have a different ideology. But what you do with it is precisely the same.

Furthermore, this study doesn't blanket anyone or even label anyone - that's just more made up shit.

[mondo joe]

115. This is an example of ideology trumping science.

[bliss_eternal]

118. Too late to edit.

You've already called me out as a neo-cons. Going back to change what you said doesn't change anything. :hi:

[mondo joe]

119. Like I said: ideology trumping science.

You never know what opinions you'll find on DU.

[bliss_eternal]

120. Where'd you find that?

In the gay slang dictionary? :rofl: Better go see if bliss_eternal is listed there, as one that trumps science over ideology.

:spray:

[bliss_eternal]

135. Yes, you never know what you'll find on DU....

http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Bailey/Chicago%20Free%20Press%2012-17-03.html

[greyl]

136. It's an example of some other stuff, too. :) nt

[Name removed]

139. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

140. You're welcome!

The next time I talk to him over Christmas, I'll pass along how offended you are for him! I'm sure he'll get a good laugh out of it! :toast:

[lumberjack_jeff]

128. I first heard the term from a gay friend. I had to ask him what the heck he was talking about.

:shrug:

[mainer]

59. I've been wrong so many times that I don't trust mine

I've known really swishy guys who turned out to be straight. And I've met straight-seeming guys who had secret gay lives.

And as for lesbians, that's almost impossible. I was wrong about one of my closest friends (who came out a few years ago) and even those in my own family. They started off married with kids, and ended up coming out in middle age.

[cynatnite]

63. I'm convinced I have a defective one...

or it could be that I don't pay attention to who is gay and who isn't.

[gollygee]

61. I've read that the purpose of all smalltalk is to identify us

into different groups. Social class, education, regional things, etc. This is probably just some of what people do naturally - figure out what different groups a person *might* fall into based upon speech characteristics and mannerisms. It isn't specifically about any one group, and it can't possibly be 100% reliable. Although there's no way to know how reliable it is because a person would have to be both gay and be open about that in order to know if you were correct.

Also, I've known some very effeminate men who were seemingly straight. Their marriages seemed happy and stable enough anyway, and in some cases they were from pretty open minded families where you'd think they'd be comfortable being out if they were gay. Again, there's no way to know for sure. And I've known gay men who were very masculine looking and acting in every way.

[SmokingJacket]

65. Some people are obviously gay.

Many are not. If I had to guess, about half my gay friends give off no signs they're gay at all.

[readmoreoften]

80. I wish there was lesbiandar, then people wouldn't always assume I'm straight. /nt

[bliss_eternal]

90. LOL!

:rofl:

[6000eliot]

104. I have it.

And you'll never convince me that Jill Henessey is straight. Or Helen Hunt. In fact, my lesbiandar is stronger than my gaydar.

[mondo joe]

105. Oh Helen Hunt...

For sure!

[Left Is Write]

116. I find it particularly interesting you mentioned Jill Hennessy.

I've said once or twice that she is the only woman for whom I would be willing to switch teams.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

141. Wow, really?

Have you ever met either of them, or does lesbiandar work through a tv screen?

I'm not being snarky, I'm genuinely interested. I love JH.

[6000eliot]

142. Totally through the TV.

The first time I noticed I had gaydar, when I first came out, I just saw a guy out of the corner of my eye as I was walking down the street. He got out of his car and walked to his front door. There was nothing unusual about him, but I thought, "This guy is gay." Later, I met him at a gay bar along with his partner.

[greyl]

106. That's not the full article.

Full article here

From what I've learned of Bailey, he tends toward conservative, but findings similar to his have been replicated in other studies.

A study by the Philadelphia's Monell Chemical Senses Center, published in the Journal of Psychological Science found that "gay men were found to be particularly good at detecting the scent of other gay men".

William Lee Adams, an undergraduate at Harvard, replicated earlier work by his advisor, Dr. Nalini Ambady who is now at Tufts University. Ambady's original study published in 1999 showed that homosexuals are better at correctly identifying sexual orientation than heterosexuals from silent videos and photographs. Adams' research, started in 2004, focused exclusively on the face, the focal point of most social interaction.<8> Similar work by Rudolph Gaudio in 1994 showed that men's sexual orientation can be reliably identified from their voices, too. This finding was elaborated by Ron Smyth and colleagues in 2003.
http://www.answers.com/main/ntq-tname-gaydar-fts_start-

[AlCzervik]

108. Professor Michael Bailey is a bit of a wanker, google has more than enough

links on his work that show him to be a stooge.

[bliss_eternal]

122. Like this...?

:shrug: Not sure this is the right "Michael Bailey"...:shrug:


Transgenders called on Northwestern University to step up an investigation of NU professor J. Michael Bailey Dec. 11 amid allegations of deception and improper sexual contact by Bailey with research subjects.

"J. Michael Bailey's unethical behavior is staggering," said Lynn Conway, a transsexual woman and professor at the University of Michigan.

The controversy revolves around Bailey's book, "The Man Who Would Be Queen," published in March. In it Bailey, chair of NU's psychology department, alleged that prostitution is "the single most common occupation" among transgenders.

----------------------------------------snip--------------------------------------------------------------------
taken from:

http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Bailey/Chicago%20Free%20Press%2012-17-03.html

He doesn't sound like one who's information I would trust. But that's just me.

[AlCzervik]

123. yup, thats him alright. University level asshole.

[bliss_eternal]

124. Wow--sounds like a creep.

:( Taking advantage of people in a research study? :puke:

Funny how so many here have taken such great pains to defend the theories
of such a guy. :eyes: Thanks chimprsmarter. :hi:

[AlCzervik]

125. anytime.

:hi:

[greyl]

126. Here's more dirt on Bailey:

http://tsroadmap.com/bailey.html

Nevertheless, there are studies in addition to his questionable ones that indicate there is something to "gaydar".

[JanMichael]

129. once my dowsing sticks start working i'll test my gaydar

so far it's a no go

[greyl]

131. You must be misunderstanding what is being suggested here.

Firstly, there's zero evidence that dowsing exists, and plenty of evidence that people who claim to be able to dowse can't. (I'm sure you know this)

"Gaydar" is the unfortunate pop term for complex phenomenon which involves:
- unconscious and conscious body language &
- ability to perceive those cues

There's nothing mystic about it, nor is there anything absolute about it. It deals with tendencies, not firm rules.

edit:spling