How much do you believe in Gaydar? I don't. Try to change my mind.

[bigboaster]

Title is a bit reductive so I will clarify slightly. The basic definition of gaydar" according to Google is:

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.

 

[JayPR]

I used to believe that gaydar was a real thing, but not anymore. Gaydar isn't backed by solid scientific evidence. In fact, it's more of a product of perception influenced by societal stereotypes than anything else. It relies on the idea that certain traits or behaviors can indicate someone's sexual orientation.

From my experience, figuring out someone's sexuality often comes down to little signs in body language and interactions. Like when you catch each other's eye and it's like you both just know there's something there. Or when you notice a guy giving you a once-over, or someone you know that usually is extra friendly with other guys. It's all about those little moments that make you think, "Hmm, maybe he is gay." But even these signs are far from definitive proof of someone's sexual orientation. Body language can be tricky, and just because two people of the same gender are close doesn't mean there's some kind of flirtation or sexual interest.

So, bottom line: sometimes your gut feeling might be on point, but other times it's way off. That's why this whole "gaydar" thing isn't really legit. Sexual orientation is way more complicated than stereotypes or just going with your instincts.

 

[mineaminea]

No, I do not believe in "gaydar". As with anything else, some people may be more perceptive than others, but people who claim to have "gaydar" are often relying on stereotypes or hoping someone is gay. Often times, people simply target certain people and try to force said people to fit into their perceptions of gay and straight.

If gaydar existed, there would not be so many questions on this board, other message boards, or even in everyday life because people would know, for better or worse. If such an ability existed, then sham marriages would never (and continue to) exist. By the way, are we including bidar in this discussion or is that a separate discussion?

 

[dana2]

I don't "need" to be right. I said "try to change my mind" in the thread title and I am looking for evidence to prove me wrong. You didn't do that to my satisfaction and I simply challenged what you said. No need to act so precious dude, no one is coming for you

You literally suggested that we can determine sexuality based on digit ratios, and then also suggested that you could "tell your CEO was gay" without any signs that he was gay. After earlier suggesting gaydar is just perceiving stereotypes?... You are just being incoherent is the problem. Moving on

I never said gaydar was perceiving stereotypes. I said gay people are biologically different than straight people. This is an under-researched subject, but there is research that supports this (Brain structure changes associated with sexual orientation - Scientific Reports). These differences underlie stereotypes like butch lesbians and effeminate gay men. But the differences are more complex and more subtle than what comes across as those stereotypes. Gaydar is not perceiving the stereotypes, it's perceiving the differences, some very subtle, in gay people. People are good at picking up and perceiving cues from other people. This is happening in real-time as we interact with other people. Gaydar is being able to perceive the differences in gay people. some people are better at it than others. I have very good gaydar. I just do. It's areal thing. The CEO was not effeminate and did not give any obvious suggestions he was gay or give me lingering looks or anything. But I just knew he was. I still don't know why. Conversely I have a friend who is effeminate who is 100% straight and married with kids and loves pussy. My immediate thought when meeting him was "is he Gay?", but I could tell he wasn't, even though he was effeminate. Then there is the case of butch straight women, who for some reason my boyfriend adores. Or the case of straight men who look like lesbians, who we secretly relish. Maybe I am psychic. Or maybe just psycho. You be the judge.

 

[winesthel945]

Well, you're partly correct... No one can prove "gaydar" exists because, a) it's very subjective, and b) it is very individualized.

I've met completely straight guys who had classically stereotyped gay affectations and I could tell within a short time of interacting with them that they were straight, or at least straight-identifying. And I've met very gay men who had zero outward indicators, but after some interactions and hearing how they deftly avoided certain conversation topics, or answered certain questions (like "what did you do this weekend?"), or how the presence or absence of certain things in their cubicles in an office setting... Yes, it's always very unique to that individual and a given situation, very subjective, and may or may not have anything to do with aligning to a stereotype.

You've fallen into a logical trap and my contention would be that your conclusion is incorrect and logically flawed. Just because you don't have gaydar, that doesn't mean other people don't, or that it doesn't exist. I think the more logical conclusion is that you might not have sufficient "emotional quotient" to empathize, intuit, and otherwise read the subtle clues, which I think is a big part of "gaydar."

Your logical flaw is concluding it must not exist because you do not experience it. That's a bit like the folks who say, "When I look around, I don't see the curvature of the Earth, so the Earth must be flat." Just because you're not seeing something doesn't mean it isn't true.

If you don't have gaydar, don't worry about it. But some people do. And some people create very big blips on the gaydar screen. And some create very faint blips, but a skilled and sensitive observe can see the subtle clues and get a pretty accurate reading. Some people can pick up faint smells, some people can see amoebas swimming in a drop of water with the naked eye... Vive la difference!

 

[bigboaster]

No, I do not believe in "gaydar". As with anything else, some people may be more perceptive than others, but people who claim to have "gaydar" are often relying on stereotypes or hoping someone is gay. Often times, people simply target certain people and try to force said people to fit into their perceptions of gay and straight.

Exactly. This is what I have observed in my experience. LPSG itself is a great case study of this.

If gaydar existed, there would not be so many questions on this board, other message boards, or even in everyday life because people would know, for better or worse. If such an ability existed, then sham marriages would never (and continue to) exist.

Bang on the money. That's the nail in the coffin for me as well. "Gaydar" is simply far too inconsistent to be take seriously. It's very conveniently applied based on the subject's own ego.

By the way, are we including bidar in this discussion or is that a separate discussion?

Damn it's like you're in my head or something. Hahaha. This is a point I would have eventually brought up too because it's conveniently absent from the conversation most of the time. How does "gaydar" factor for bisexual and pansexual people? It doesn't. Is the answer.

 

[bigboaster]

I never said gaydar was perceiving stereotypes. I said gay people are biologically different than straight people. This is an under-researched subject, but there is research that supports this (Brain structure changes associated with sexual orientation - Scientific Reports). These differences underlie stereotypes like butch lesbians and effeminate gay men. But the differences are more complex and more subtle than what comes across as those stereotypes. Gaydar is not perceiving the stereotypes, it's perceiving the differences, some very subtle, in gay people. People are good at picking up and perceiving cues from other people. This is happening in real-time as we interact with other people. Gaydar is being able to perceive the differences in gay people.

Firstly I want to apologise for any perceived hostility on my part. I may have come off that way and that wasn't my intention. I don't want my admittedly staunch skepticism to be taken as vitriol against any user personally.

With that said. Thank for you clarifying what I got wrong. I understand your main point a bit better now.

some people are better at it than others. I have very good gaydar. I just do. It's areal thing. The CEO was not effeminate and did not give any obvious suggestions he was gay or give me lingering looks or anything. But I just knew he was. I still don't know why.

Just like before I'm just gonna pose some questions to express to my disagreement.

Are you suggesting you can just straight up identify anyone as being gay/straight even if the person identifies the opposite way?

Have you ever been wrong with this?

If yes, how doesn't that disprove this "theory"?

Are you suggesting a sizeable portion of people can do this to the degree you can?

Conversely I have a friend who is effeminate who is 100% straight and married with kids and loves pussy. My immediate thought when meeting him was "is he Gay?", but I could tell he wasn't, even though he was effeminate.

How are you certain this person isn't just some flavor or sexually fluid?

Further to the point? How is this concept of gaydar you have accounting for bisexual and pansexual people?

Then there is the case of butch straight women, who for some reason my boyfriend adores. Or the case of straight men who look like lesbians, who we secretly relish. Maybe I am psychic. Or maybe just psycho. You be the judge.

I don't think you're psychic or psycho but perhaps some type of hyper-empath who can pick up on subtle cues the average person can't?

If I grant this. I guess I'm still don't feel comfortable conceding that "gaydar" as the colloquial concept we know is "real" but I will concede some unique individuals perhaps are just more perceptive than others.

 

[bigboaster]

Well, you're partly correct... No one can prove "gaydar" exists because, a) it's very subjective, and b) it is very individualized.

I've met completely straight guys who had classically stereotyped gay affectations and I could tell within a short time of interacting with them that they were straight, or at least straight-identifying. And I've met very gay men who had zero outward indicators, but after some interactions and hearing how they deftly avoided certain conversation topics, or answered certain questions (like "what did you do this weekend?"), or how the presence or absence of certain things in their cubicles in an office setting...

So you've never bene wrong based on these calculations personally? Better yet how are you sure about your conclusions here?

Yes, it's always very unique to that individual and a given situation, very subjective, and may or may not have anything to do with aligning to a stereotype.

You've fallen into a logical trap and my contention would be that your conclusion is incorrect and logically flawed. Just because you don't have gaydar, that doesn't mean other people don't, or that it doesn't exist.

I never suggested it doesn't exist (because I don't have it) . I am suggesting it doesn't exist because there isn't reliable and consistent evidence of it existing beyond mere stereotypes. That isn't a "logical trap" at all.

I think the more logical conclusion is that you might not have sufficient "emotional quotient" to empathize, intuit, and otherwise read the subtle clues, which I think is a big part of "gaydar."

Wrong. I think I certainly have enough "EQ" and basic common sense to pick up on things like body language and facial cues to determine if a closeted guy is interested or not. I myself am closeted IRL so it's kind of my everyday life to find potential hookups. This still isn't "gaydar" however. Just understanding predictable human behavior.

Your logical flaw is concluding it must not exist because you do not experience it. That's a bit like the folks who say, "When I look around, I don't see the curvature of the Earth, so the Earth must be flat." Just because you're not seeing something doesn't mean it isn't true.

This is just ridiculous. Gaydar itself isn't a proven scientific concept lie the shape of the earth is. Complete false equivalence here.
Gaydar belief is much more akin to a flat earth belief ironically enough. It's based on a feeling/intuition rather than hard facts.

If you don't have gaydar, don't worry about it. But some people do. And some people create very big blips on the gaydar screen. And some create very faint blips, but a skilled and sensitive observe can see the subtle clues and get a pretty accurate reading. Some people can pick up faint smells, some people can see amoebas swimming in a drop of water with the naked eye... Vive la difference!

"big blips on the gaydar screen" AKA an obvious flaming gay. Not particularly impressive.
"faint blips" aka mostly projection, stereotypes or wishful thinking I would imagine.

 

[Odyssey Land]

Interesting conversation. first, I believe the term gaydar is a misnomer, but I understand it’s use and application in modern times. What we may refer to as “gaydar” is actually an evolutionary gift given to women for the purposes of sexual selection and reproduction. Gay men also benefit from the evolutionary “gift” because heterosexual women and gay men have symmetrical cerebrums while straight men and lesbian women have asymmetrical cerebrums. Most notably, the size of Heterosexual Women and Gay men’s brains, along with the activity of the amygdala is different from a Lesbian Woman and Heterosexual Male.

Now that’s the science behind my assertions. Now let me tell you about my life experience. I’ve found that Lesbians and Hetero Men are far less likely to discern a closeted man’s sexuality if he is “straight presenting” while projecting the immutable characteristics of a masculine straight man.

However, this is the opposite for Heterosexual Women and Gay men. They are far MORE likely to discern a man’s true sexuality no matter the masculine traits.

Please note: I believe bisexuals are a grey area when these factors are applied. The data is inconclusive which may explain why some bi men either don’t have “gaydar” or simply don’t believe it exists.

___________________________________________
TL,DR: “Gaydar” is present in Heterosexual Females and Homosexual Men. Bisexuals, Lesbians, and Straight men are less likely to possess “gaydar”

 

[winesthel945]

So you've never bene wrong based on these calculations personally? Better yet how are you sure about your conclusions here?


I never suggested it doesn't exist (because I don't have it) . I am suggesting it doesn't exist because there isn't reliable and consistent evidence of it existing beyond mere stereotypes. That isn't a "logical trap" at all.


Wrong. I think I certainly have enough "EQ" and basic common sense to pick up on things like body language and facial cues to determine if a closeted guy is interested or not. I myself am closeted IRL so it's kind of my everyday life to find potential hookups. This still isn't "gaydar" however. Just understanding predictable human behavior.


This is just ridiculous. Gaydar itself isn't a proven scientific concept lie the shape of the earth is. Complete false equivalence here.
Gaydar belief is much more akin to a flat earth belief ironically enough. It's based on a feeling/intuition rather than hard facts.

"big blips on the gaydar screen" AKA an obvious flaming gay. Not particularly impressive.
"faint blips" aka mostly projection, stereotypes or wishful thinking I would imagine.

No going to try to rebut every one of your points. I will just say that there are characteristics that exist that have no quantifiable measure. I'm in the wine industry and many skilled wine aficionados can distinguish between two wines made from the same grape grown just miles apart due to a characteristic known as "terroir"... the unmeasurable character arising from "place." Many more pedantic wine experts pound the table and decry that terroir doesn't exist because it's not scientifically measurable. They then proceed to produce a word salad trying to explain why even they can tell the difference between two wines.

Somehow you seem to be finding hookups. If you want to contrive a scientific explanation for that, awesome. Other folks are happy to just leave it as the ineffable term gaydar.

 

[bigboaster]

There is a reason for the long existing phrase, ‘it takes one to know one.’

Not a particularly helpful response. Plenty of delusional gays are wishcasting their crushes as "gay" in their minds for the simple reason of being attracted to them. That alone proves "takes one to know one" is pure rubbish.

 

[bigboaster]

I used to believe that gaydar was a real thing, but not anymore. Gaydar isn't backed by solid scientific evidence. In fact, it's more of a product of perception influenced by societal stereotypes than anything else. It relies on the idea that certain traits or behaviors can indicate someone's sexual orientation.

From my experience, figuring out someone's sexuality often comes down to little signs in body language and interactions. Like when you catch each other's eye and it's like you both just know there's something there. Or when you notice a guy giving you a once-over, or someone you know that usually is extra friendly with other guys. It's all about those little moments that make you think, "Hmm, maybe he is gay." But even these signs are far from definitive proof of someone's sexual orientation. Body language can be tricky, and just because two people of the same gender are close doesn't mean there's some kind of flirtation or sexual interest.

So, bottom line: sometimes your gut feeling might be on point, but other times it's way off. That's why this whole "gaydar" thing isn't really legit. Sexual orientation is way more complicated than stereotypes or just going with your instincts.

Bingo!!

 

[bravesoldier]

And you're just as entitled to your opinion as anyone. I believe in gaydar. It may not be right all of the time but there have been many times I thought and felt I could see it and was absolutely right. Some things are definitely perceived and even fantasized incorrectly, but one thing I've learned (and again not correct every time) is if you think you pick up on a true gay trait, 9 times out of 10 you're probably right. For me, that's just the way it has been.

Good day to you.

 

[bigboaster]

And you're just as entitled to your opinion as anyone. I believe in gaydar. It may not be right all of the time but there have been many times I thought and felt I could see it and was absolutely right. Some things are definitely perceived and even fantasized incorrectly, but one thing I've learned (and again not correct every time) is if you think you pick up on a true gay trait, 9 times out of 10 you're probably right. For me, that's just the way it has been.

Good day to you.

Appreciate the reply. Naturally our opinions are formed from real life experiences and I can't dispute anything you experienced.

The most I will say is that I don't think gaydar can exist if it isn't more consistent (generally). Something so shaky just feels like confirmation bias to me.

I've seen claims in this thread of specific users claiming they are particularly perceptive ("good gaydar"), I can't exactly disprove that but I don't believe this ability exists at a community level frankly.

 

[dana2]

Firstly I want to apologise for any perceived hostility on my part. I may have come off that way and that wasn't my intention. I don't want my admittedly staunch skepticism to be taken as vitriol against any user personally.

With that said. Thank for you clarifying what I got wrong. I understand your main point a bit better now.


Just like before I'm just gonna pose some questions to express to my disagreement.

Are you suggesting you can just straight up identify anyone as being gay/straight even if the person identifies the opposite way?

Have you ever been wrong with this?

If yes, how doesn't that disprove this "theory"?

Are you suggesting a sizeable portion of people can do this to the degree you can?


How are you certain this person isn't just some flavor or sexually fluid?

Further to the point? How is this concept of gaydar you have accounting for bisexual and pansexual people?

I don't think you're psychic or psycho but perhaps some type of hyper-empath who can pick up on subtle cues the average person can't?

If I grant this. I guess I'm still don't feel comfortable conceding that "gaydar" as the colloquial concept we know is "real" but I will concede some unique individuals perhaps are just more perceptive than others.

It's all good. I think we agree more than disagree. I can't recall offhand being wrong but I probably have been. With bi men I always feel their energy is closer to straight men so I am not sure vis-a-vi gaydar. There actually is more research on this topic than I thought but it is all pretty inconclusive so who knows for sure.

 

[BamaMike]

I am very perceptive when it comes to identifying guys that have a reasonable probability of being gay, and it has proven out many times. My very extreme gay friends are not nearly as good at it and always look at me when we meet a guy and asking me what I think. I think guys with "gaydar" are perceptive and analytical, especially in this area of another guys personality and traits, which can at a good percentage recognize someone with the potential to be gay. I sure can't explain it other than that.

 

[bigboaster]

I would have to disagree with you.

Just because there is straightdar doesn't mean there isn't gaydar. In fact, being able to rule out men for being straight adds to the effectiveness of watching what their eyes are doing.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting either straightdar or gaydar exist. I think both are ridiculous ideas/words. I don't need to rule them out as straight first, their body language or facial cues are the sign I look for to see if they are potentially interested.

You say this strategy is used by closeted gays to identify each other also confirms this as being gaydar.

No it doesn't. This is just "body language". Not gaydar. You already admitted straight men do it too? Am i missing something here?

You posed whether gaydar existed. That is different from asking how accurate someone's gaydar is.

If you were arguing that gaydar is flawed you may have a point, but not being 100% accurate does not mean it doesn't exist.

Gaydar doesn't exist because it is inherently flawed is my claim tbh. How would you suggest it exists if it isn't universal, it's totally subjective, it's premise can be employed by straight men towards women and it isn't useful in identifying/differentiating sexually fluid/bisexual men vs gay men?

Where is it existing? Because someone people claim to have it? some people also claim to be psychic, doesn't mean there is evidence for that either.

 

[Kanashi]

some people also claim to be psychic, doesn't mean there is evidence for that either.

yes yes yes! this exactly what goes through my mind as i read some of the responses in this thread.

 

[sheerq]

There is a reason for the long existing phrase, ‘it takes one to know one.’

 

[bigboaster]

No going to try to rebut every one of your points. I will just say that there are characteristics that exist that have no quantifiable measure. I'm in the wine industry and many skilled wine aficionados can distinguish between two wines made from the same grape grown just miles apart due to a characteristic known as "terroir"... the unmeasurable character arising from "place." Many more pedantic wine experts pound the table and decry that terroir doesn't exist because it's not scientifically measurable. They then proceed to produce a word salad trying to explain why even they can tell the difference between two wines.

Sounds like an interesting concept, and fairly comparable in certain ways

Somehow you seem to be finding hookups. If you want to contrive a scientific explanation for that, awesome. Other folks are happy to just leave it as the ineffable term gaydar.

That's the thing, I don't think there must be some scientific explanation. Most things revolving around sexuality and attraction are always veering into the realm of psycho-social (and that is very much soft science) and is hard to quantify/identify in a concrete way. I just don't think 'gaydar" is a useful concept as a real explanation, I think it's fine in colloquial use, I am not particularly a fan of the way some take it too far, into the realm of "truth" or some type of reliable gauge... when it is ultimately just subjective nonsense like many other things in life and should be regarded as such.