Gaydar

Unsurprisingly, gaydar doesn't really exist.


Inferences About Sexual Orientation: The Roles of Stereotypes, Faces, and The Gaydar Myth

William Cox et al. 
Journal of Sex Research, forthcoming 

Abstract: In the present work, we investigated the pop cultural idea that people have a sixth sense, called “gaydar,” to detect who is gay. We propose that “gaydar” is an alternate label for using stereotypes to infer orientation (e.g., inferring that fashionable men are gay). Another account, however, argues that people possess a facial perception process that enables them to identify sexual orientation from facial structure. We report five experiments testing these accounts. Participants made gay-or-straight judgments about fictional targets that were constructed using experimentally manipulated stereotypic cues and real gay/straight people's face cues. These studies revealed that orientation is not visible from the face — purportedly “face-based” gaydar arises from a third-variable confound. People do, however, readily infer orientation from stereotypic attributes (e.g., fashion, career). Furthermore, the folk concept of gaydar serves as a legitimizing myth: Compared to a control group, people stereotyped more often when led to believe in gaydar, whereas people stereotyped less when told gaydar is an alternate label for stereotyping. Discussion focuses on the implications of the gaydar myth and why, contrary to some prior claims, stereotyping is highly unlikely to result in accurate judgments about orientation. 

Nod to Kevin Lewis.

On the other hand....it would be useful.


.

Indiana

Here is a quote from the New York Times:

"It seemed like routine business for the student council at the University of California, Los Angeles: confirming the nomination of Rachel Beyda, a second-year economics major who wants to be a lawyer someday, to the council’s Judicial Board. Until it came time for questions. 'Given that you are a Jewish student and very active in the Jewish community,' Fabienne Roth, a member of the Undergraduate Students Association Council, began, looking at Ms. Beyda at the other end of the room, 'how do you see yourself being able to maintain an unbiased view?'

...The council, in a meeting that took place on Feb. 10, voted first to reject Ms. Beyda’s nomination, with four members against her. Then, at the prodding of a faculty adviser there who pointed out that belonging to Jewish organizations was not a conflict of interest, the students revisited the question and unanimously put her on the board...Reports of anti-Israeli or anti-Jewish sentiment have been on the rise across the country in recent years, especially directed at younger Jews, researchers said." [NYT] 

Yikes! For some reason, many people have come to believe that disagreement is cause for shunning and economic boycott. If A dislikes the policies of country or state I, then A is justified in punishing people who sympathize with I. (Note that "I" could be Israel or Indiana).

Suppose some guy comes into your store wearing a "I heart Indiana" hoodie.  You are gay, or have gay friends.  Do you have to serve him?  After all, you don't like what he stands for.  And...and...well, it's YOUR STORE.  Do you really have to validate this person?  Kick 'em out; he's intolerant.

But the meaning of "tolerance" is respectful treatment of people you disagree with, or hate. And tolerance is required of citizens in a democracy.

The hard problem: How tolerant should we be of other people we perceive (and that we have good reason to perceive, at least in our perception) as intolerant? (Referring now to the Indiana law, of course). Is it legitimate for a corporation to refuse to sell to people from Indiana, given that Indiana is intolerant of same sex couples?

Here is an article from three years ago from Wake Forest Law Review. It gives quite a bit of detail, but comes out against the constitutionality of laws such as those in Indiana.

And here is an even better (IMHO) law review article (from almost 50 years ago, when we were having an analogous argument about black folks) about common carriers and public accomodations. It is quite detailed, and historically useful.

Excerpt from the latter:

Under English common law, it was the duty of common carriers to serve all persons without imposing unreasonable conditions. 

The English courts considered that "a person [who] holds himself out to carry goods for everyone as a business . .. is a common carrier," ' and that any member of the public may create a contract with the carrier by accepting its general offer.  

(Garton v.  Bristol & Exeter Ry.  Co., 1 B.  & S.  112, 121 Eng.  Rep.  656 (1861). See generally, Kline, Origin of the Rule Against.  Unjust Discrimination, 66 U.  PA.  L.  Revd.  123  (1918)  ;  Kline,  Scope  of  the  Rule  Against  Unjust  Dis- crimination  by  Public  Servants,  67  U.  PA.  L.  Ray.  109 (1919). 7 Ingate v.  Christie, 3 Car.  & K.  61, 175 Eng.  Rep.  463, 464 (1850). S Denton v.  Great Northern Ry.  Co., 5 El.  & Bl.  860, 119 Eng.  Rep.  701 (1856))

Grit, Guts, and Vanilla Beans: Godly Masculinity in the Ex-Gay Movement

Okay.  I think this is an actual article, and not a parody.  But...but....wow.  First of all, "the Ex-Gay Movement"?  What the heck?  But of course I'm just ignorant, and it's a thing.  It may be a good thing, or a not-so-good thing (I'm skeptical), but it's definitely a thing.  A history, though one with a clear perspective.

Anyway, there are apparently distinctions that had not occurred to me:

Grit, Guts, and Vanilla Beans: Godly Masculinity in the Ex-Gay Movement 

Lynne Gerber 
Gender & Society, February 2015, Pages 26-50 

Abstract: Ex-gay ministries, like many evangelical groups, advocate traditional gender ideologies. But their discourses and practices generate masculine ideals that are quite distinct from hegemonic ones. I argue that rather than simply reproducing hegemonic masculinity, ex-gay ministries attempt to realize godly masculinity, an ideal that differs significantly from hegemonic masculinity and is explicitly critical of it. I discuss three aspects of the godly masculine ideal — de-emphasizing heterosexual conquest, inclusive masculinity, and homo-intimacy — that work to subvert hegemonic masculinity and allow ministry members to critique it while still advocating for innate gender distinction and hierarchy. I conclude by arguing that gender theorists need to be more precise in distinguishing conservative religious masculinities from hegemonic ones. 

I had not seen "masculinity" used as a plural before, and certainly not with three different competing adjectives.  I think I'll just go watch some football.

Dissonance

Gay rights and gun rights linked.

Nearly everyone's head explodes.  Only libertarians recognize that these really ARE essentially the same issue.

One has to be amused at this response.  The writer literally cannot believe that someone might seriously support individual freedoms, as a matter of principle, rather than having memorized a series of contradictory "correct" positions on the left, or on the right.

Juliet and Rosaline

Gay folk finally achieve full equality in Florida.   18 year old girl/woman charged with statutory rape for consensual relationship with 16 year old girl/woman.

Note that if the age of consent is 17, then this would have been legal 18 months ago, before older woman turned 17.  And now gay people can be classified as sex offenders under this dumb law, exposing them to death, beatings, and harassment. 

A surprising number of people on sex offender lists either (1) urinated in public, perhaps after a concert or frat party, or (2) had sex with a minor when the "offender" was only a year or two older, but technically above the age of consent.  Now, #1 is dumb, but not a sex offense.  (And let's just say that it's possible I may have committed this act, at some point).  And #2?  I'm not going to say anything more, but it's been more than 7 years ago anyway, thank goodness.

Many states (though not enlightened Florida) have "minimum age difference" add-on before statutory rape charges can be brought. (Also called "Romeo and Juliet" laws.)  A Penna judge actually decided this on his own, in a common-law way.

So, perhaps gay folks do still have a ways to go for equality:  if we have "Romeo and Juliet" laws, we should have "Juliet and Rosaline" laws, right?

Westboro Baptist Meet Rainbow House!

Politics of Gaydar

The Politics of Gaydar: Ideological Differences in the Use of Gendered Cues in Categorizing Sexual Orientation
Chadly Stern et al.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, forthcoming

Abstract:
In the present research, we investigated whether, because of differences in cognitive style, liberals and conservatives would differ in the process of categorizing individuals into a perceptually ambiguous group. In 3 studies, we examined whether conservatives were more likely than liberals to rely on gender inversion cues (e.g., feminine = gay) when categorizing male faces as gay vs. straight, and the accuracy implications of differential cue usage. In Study 1, perceivers made dichotomous sexual orientation judgments (gay-straight). We found that perceivers who reported being more liberal were less likely than perceivers who reported being more conservative to use gender inversion cues in their deliberative judgments. In addition, liberals took longer to categorize targets, suggesting that they may have been thinking more about their judgments. Consistent with a stereotype correction model of social categorization, in Study 2 we demonstrated that differences between liberals and conservatives were eliminated by a cognitive load manipulation that disrupted perceivers' abilities to engage in effortful processing. Under cognitive load, liberals failed to adjust their initial judgments and, like conservatives, consistently relied on gender inversion cues to make judgments. In Study 3, we provided more direct evidence that differences in cognitive style underlie ideological differences in judgments of sexual orientation. Specifically, liberals were less likely than conservatives to endorse stereotypes about gender inversion and sexual orientation, and this difference in stereotype endorsement was partially explained by liberals' greater need for cognition. Implications for the accuracy of ambiguous category judgments made with the use of stereotypical cues in naturalistic settings are discussed.

Nod to Kevin Lewis

I like EVERYTHING about this

I like everything about this web site / blog.  Mostly this particular post, which is a work of genius, but overall.... outstanding.  I don't agree with everything, but I like everything.  Something to make everyone uncomfortable.

Well, maybe not  everyone.  Tommy the Tenured Brit might enjoy the guy in the jeans.  That guy in the jeans, even *I* think he's pretty hot.

The point is that the author of that post is a real conservative, almost an extremist conservative.  He wonders if perhaps Rush Limbaugh is not sound on fundamentals.  If even that guy voted for Gary Johnson...well, then the Republicans have their heads so far up their voting boxes they can't even see a sliver of daylight.
 

Why?

Why is this a car commercial?


Oh, and to Tommy the Tenured Brit:  You're quite welcome.

A nod to Angry Alex, who is Confused Alex for the purposes of the above.

NC's Amendment One

In the May primary, NC will also vote on a Constitutional Amendment:

Constitutional amendment to provide that marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State.

And my view on the Amendment.

Toe Truck

"Raising boys who want to dress like little girls..."

This is hilarious. But it's also sad.

Fox News (though to be fair most other networks also went nuts).

Jon Stewart is right: "Do you have any idea how long a weekend is...with children?"

Watch through to the very end. A most excellent twist.

Interestingly, the whole pink / blue thing is quite recent. Or, rather, recently reversed:

"[A] Ladies’ Home Journal article in June 1918 said, 'The generally accepted rule is pink for the boys, and blue for the girls. The reason is that pink, being a more decided and stronger color, is more suitable for the boy, while blue, which is more delicate and dainty, is prettier for the girl.'...In 1927, Time magazine printed a chart showing sex-appropriate colors for girls and boys according to leading U.S. stores. In Boston, Filene’s told parents to dress boys in pink. So did Best & Co. in New York City, Halle’s in Cleveland and Marshall Field in Chicago. Today’s color dictate wasn’t established until the 1940s, as a result of Americans’ preferences as interpreted by manufacturers and retailers." [Smithsonian magazine]

(Nod to Kevin Lewis)

Interesting Video

I don't think there should be laws against anti-gay hate speech, or bullying. A teacher is obliged to protect ALL students from abuse and threats. A classroom has to be safe, and to feel safe. Singling out gay students for special protections will make the problem worse.

This video is impressive. The kid is quite a speaker.

But the article raises some questions, to me. First, no Confederate flags? Really? In my high school, that would have meant sending about half the kids home. Even the women. Yes, it would have. There were lots more Confederate flags than U.S. flags on jackets, pockets, and so on.

Second, "the" home of the KKK? Nice that we have those dangerous maniacs segregated off into one small town in Michigan, but my impression was that the problem was somewhat more widespread, frankly. It's hard to prove a negative, but it appears that the headquarters of the Michigan KKK was near Howell, emphasizing the "WAS." If you are really worried about hate speech, perhaps you shouldn't go making up blatantly false stuff about Howell, MI.

Finally, what is the procedure for expelling a kid? I don't see why the teacher would be a hero for just telling the bully / problem kid to "get out of my classroom." Sure, it's a hassle to follow the rules. But the 14 year old kid who was told to "get out" is in school because the law forces him to be there. You can't just let him wander the halls. If the teacher was suspended for ignoring the rules on suspensions, then I have to say the suspension is consistent with standard practice.

So, two cheers for the teacher. And three cheers for the kid in the vid; good advocacy, and well done standing up to bullies that way.

(Nod to Anonyman)