The term gaydar generally refers to the ability to identify the sexual orientation of others (Miller, 2018). This identification can be based on dynamic (eg, stylistic and grooming choices) or static (eg, facial shape) cues (Rule, 2017). Within the queer community, the utility of gaydar is clear—to identify individuals with whom platonic, romantic, and/or sexual relationships may develop consensually and safely. However, there has been a persistent interest in an empirical kind of gaydar – the scientific identification and classification of the sexual orientation of individuals based on objective evidence. From decades ago comparisons of specific brain structures in gay and straight men (Levay, 1991), to the more recent use of artificial intelligence to differentiate between the faces of gay and straight adults (Wang & Kosinski, 2018), the interest for the empirical gaydar it doesn’t seem to have stopped. The growing body of gaydar research raises questions about its implications, particularly in terms of reinforcing stereotypes. My blog focuses on the context of gaydar research as a way of “legitimizing” minority sexual orientations (eg, gays, lesbians) as a variation of a natural and (partially) biological phenomenon. In particular, the benefits of this view are discussed. In response, the costs of these views, particularly their restrictive focus on the sex/gender binary and exclusively on gay and white identities, are weighed accordingly. Please note that I use the terms “homosexual”, “homosexual/gender”, “gay” and “lesbian” interchangeably.
Many biological explanations of sexual orientation converge on the prenatal hormone theory (PHT), which explains the development of sexual orientation as a result of hormones that determine the external genitalia during fetal development (e.g., Wang & Kosinski, 2018 ). Simply put, PHT suggests that male fetuses exposed to low levels of these hormones, and female fetuses exposed to high levels, are more likely to have same-sex/gender sexual orientation as adults (Vasilovsky, 2018). Accordingly, many gaydar studies have focused on trait variations in gay individuals that deviate from what is typically expected for their gender. These atypical gender characteristics have been assessed primarily in gay men through various “feminization hypotheses” that investigate gendered characteristics such as voice and speech patterns (Daniele et al., 2020; Suire et al., 2020), behaviors (Rieger et al. . , 2008) and facial structure (Wang & Kosinski, 2018).
On the one hand, providing evidence for consistent, biologically driven, early processes underlying sexual orientation may help reduce misconceptions about same-sex/gender orientations as a choice. Importantly, the potential benefits of biological beliefs regarding the development of same-sex/gender sexual orientations should not be underestimated. Indeed, the belief that sexual orientation is caused by biological processes predicts more positive feelings toward people with same-sex/gender orientations and more support for policies aimed at supporting their legal rights, social equality, and moral acceptance (Haider-Markel & (Joslyn, 2008). Furthermore, these beliefs may contribute to the view of sexual orientation as a variable human characteristic, such as how we view extroversion. Importantly, research into sexual interests and behaviors that adopts a lens of differentiation, rather than deviations from expected expressions of sexuality, has helped destigmatize sexual minority identities and behaviors (Bullogh, 2010). Consistent with the belief of same-sex/gender orientations as biologically driven variations within normal sexuality, a commonsense has developed. In particular, it is believed that since homosexuality is a tangible and inherent variation, gay people deserve political and legal protection against discrimination (Vasilovsky, 2018). By this logic, the ability of gaydar research to support this view of same-sex/gender sexual orientation may benefit individuals with these identities.
On the other hand, these supposed advantages of gaydar research are not without criticism. First, biological explanations are often presented to “legitimize” gay/gender sexual orientation, however, they focus primarily on cisgender individuals and white individuals who are classified as either exclusively gay or straight (e.g., Rieger et al., 2008; Wang & Kosinski, 2018). As a result, any appearance of representation or legitimization excludes the large number of sexual minority individuals who are BIPOC, gender diverse, and/or have sexual identities that are not exclusively gay. Importantly, people who are not represented by this research may have the greatest need for representation. For example, bisexual identities are often viewed as more negative and less stable compared to heterosexual or homosexual identities (Burke & LaFrance, 2016). The focus of gaydar research on this highly specific subset of identities ignores the intersectionality of minority identities that exist in sexually and racially diverse populations and are no less deserving of representation than those who hold cisgender, white, gay identities.
Furthermore, the focus on objective, deterministic characteristics that can be used to clearly classify sexual orientation supports the search for the “cause” of sexual minority identities—one that is often channeled into PHT. This theory’s emphasis on sexual binaries ultimately reinforces existing stereotypes surrounding same-sex/gender femininity and masculinity. This is reflected in the overwhelming body of gaydar research that relies on gender atypicality to explain and quantify research findings, which often characterize gay men as feminized and lesbians as masculinized (e.g., Daniele et al., 2020; Lick & Johnson, 2014; Wang & Kosinski). This framework is not without consequences. Adults who report being more gender nonconforming than their peers as children also tend to report feeling more rejected by their parents and peers (Rieger et al., 2008). The gender typicality frame of sexual orientation reinforces ideas of gender atypicality in gay men and lesbians, which may contribute to negative views of homosexuality (Blashill & Powlishta, 2012). As a result of this framing, gender-related stereotypes of sexual minorities are reinforced and the largely unobservable social and psychological complexities that contribute to sexual orientation are ignored. What follows is an idea of sexual orientation that reduces a complex, experiential identity solely to characteristics that can fit neatly into stereotypical categories.
Empirical gaydar reflects a field of inquiry characterized by a degree of moral ambiguity. In many ways, gaydar research has the potential to lead to lasting, positive outcomes for marginalized people. However, the current restrictive focus on people who are white, straight, and exclusively gay leaves people who do not fit this archetype with little of the validation or legitimacy that gaydar research is supposed to provide. Furthermore, on the one hand, identifying natural, uncontrolled, and biologically driven variations that can be used to distinguish same-sex/sexual-orientation individuals from heterosexual individuals may have positive effects for sexually diverse populations. Indeed, beliefs aligned with these naturalistic views tend to go hand in hand with positive views of gay and lesbian identities as well as greater support for their social and legal protection. However, gender stereotyped views of gay and lesbian men and women that are closely linked to salient biological explanations also appear to be related to the rejection of these individuals by their families and peers. This presents a kind of double-edged sword where biological beliefs may be associated with positive outcomes, but the stereotypes that accompany these beliefs may be a source of rejection and distress. At the same time, the female/male dichotomy that is central to much of the available gaydar research reinforces stereotypical views of lesbian women as masculine and homosexuals as feminine. opinions that may lead to prejudice. Intentionally or not, the result is a view of same-sex/gender orientations that reduces individuals to their outwardly observable expressions and ignores the subjective experience of sexual identity.
Evan Waterman (he/him), 4th year BAH Psychology, Queen’s University
bibliographical references
Blashill, AJ & Powlishta, KK (2012). Effects of gender-related domain violations and sexual orientation on perceptions of male and female targets: A parallel study. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 411293-1302.
Bullogh, VL (2010). Alfred Kinsey and the Kinsey report: Historical overview and lasting contributions. The Journal of Sex Research, 35(2), 127-131.
Burke, SE & LaFrance, M. (2016). Articulate perceptions of sexual minority groups. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 45635-650.
Daniele, M., Fasoli, F., Antonio, R., Sulpizio, S. & Maass, A. (2020). Gay Voice: Stable Indicator of Sexual Orientation or Flexible Communication Device? Archives of Sexual Behavior, 49(7), 2585-2600.
Haider-Markel, DP & Joslyn, MR (2008). Belief in the origins of homosexuality and support for gay rights: An empirical test of attribution theory. Common Opinion Quarterly, 72(2), 291-310.
Levay, S. (1991). Difference in hypothalamic structure between heterosexual and homosexual men. Science, 253(5023), 1034-1037.
Lick, DJ & Johnson, KL (2014). Perceptual foundations of antigay prejudice: Negative evaluations of sexual minority women emerge based on gendered facial characteristics. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(9). https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167214538288
Miller, AE (2018). Searching for gaydar: Blind spots in the study of sexual orientation perception. Psychology and sexuality, 9(3), 188-203.
Rieger, G., Linsenmeier, JA, Gygax, L. & Bailey, JM (2008). Sexual orientation and gender nonconformity in childhood: Evidence from home videos. Developmental Psychology, 44(1), 46-58.
Canon, NO (2017). Perceptions of sexual orientation from minimal cues. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46129-139.
Suire, A., Tognetti, A., Durand, V., Raymond, M. & Barkat-Defradas, M. (2020). Acoustic characteristics of speech: A comparison of gay men, heterosexual men, and heterosexual women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 49(7), 2575-2583.
Vasilovsky, AT (2018). Aesthetics as genetics: The epistemological violence of gaydar research. Theory & Psychology, 28(3).
Wang, Y. & Kosinski, M. (2018). Deep neural networks are more accurate than humans at detecting sexual orientation from facial images. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 114(2), 246-257.
