Title is a bit reductive so I will clarify slightly. The basic definition of gaydar" according to Google is:
This is what I am contesting.
I believe someone can observe perceived "gay traits" in an individual and conclude they might be gay. I don't think this is truly gaydar per the definition though. You don't need intuition or slight indications to assume someone is gay because they have limp wrist or speak with a lisp.
This is just stereotyping.
Every time I've discussed this, I'm told "gaydar isn't just stereotypes" but it's something "deeper" after all. I don't believe in that. Just sounds like magical thinking not backed by any evidence other than subjective bias.
the supposed ability to identify people as being gay by means of intuition or very slight indications.
This is what I am contesting.
I believe someone can observe perceived "gay traits" in an individual and conclude they might be gay. I don't think this is truly gaydar per the definition though. You don't need intuition or slight indications to assume someone is gay because they have limp wrist or speak with a lisp.
This is just stereotyping.
Every time I've discussed this, I'm told "gaydar isn't just stereotypes" but it's something "deeper" after all. I don't believe in that. Just sounds like magical thinking not backed by any evidence other than subjective bias.