Individuals guess women’s and men’s sexual orientation on the basis of visual, non-verbal, and vocal cues. People use these cues as signs of others’ sexual orientation. Here, we review research showing how perceiving others’ sexual orientation depends on two assumptions. People assume first that all individuals are straight and a minority of people have a different orientation. Second, this assumption is adjusted by the perception of individuals' masculinity and femininity, such that men deemed more feminine are perceived as gay, while women deemed more masculine are perceived as lesbian. These beliefs and exceptions are part of a larger belief system that is limited, in that it not only assumes a binary model of sexuality, but also may harm those whom gaydar depicts as gender non-conformers because of the assumption that people are heterosexual by default.
---
In an episode of the cartoon Futurama (Episode 4, Season 1), Leela is looking for a man to date when she notices an interesting guy at the bar. But her friend, the robot Bender, warns her “Forget it! He's gay,” explaining further “I just know these things. I have got what they call gaydar (showing a radar).” At the risk of ruining the joke, the idea that gaydar could be translated into a literal sensor wielded by a future robot is based on incorrect assumption about sexuality. The discourse of ‘gaydar’ appeared first in the 1990s (Stewart, 1995). When this episode of Futurama was first aired in 1999, many viewers would be familiar with what Bender was talking about. Since then, scientists have also shown more interest in studying such gaydar-esque judgments. This article critically reviews what we have learned about them in recent years.
Cues to a person’s sexual orientation vary across place in time, and the reasons for interpreting them vary also. In the past, when homosexuality was more strongly stigmatized or punished (compared to today) and ‘coming out’ as we know it was not practiced, gay people developed subtle cues to detect each other in public – for sex, friendship, community, or all three – without revealing their sexual orientation to the broader public. For example, earlier in the 20th century, wearing a red tie, asking if someone was “Dorothy's friend,” mentioning an interest in opera, or holding another man’s eye gaze for a little too long were all ways to put out a gaydar signal for an acquaintance to pick up without risking public disclosure and disgrace (e.g., Chauncey, 1994). In the UK, Polari was a secret slang language used by gay men to discuss sexual orientation beyond others’ understanding (Baker, 2003). At the same time, psychologists and psychiatrists, who were more concerned with preventing homosexuality than encouraging it, adapted and developed psychological tests of personality in the hope that they would detect gay men and lesbians, whom they assumed were trying to evade detection (Constantinople, 1973; Morin, 1977).
What Does Gaydar Know?
Nowadays, gaydar can be used in different ways. Sometimes guessing others’ sexual orientation may cause harm (e.g., when someone is called “fag” or “dyke” just because of the way he or she looks). In other cases, gaydar is taken as a more fun and less serious business. Time has passed, but gay people still use eye contact, slang, and other cues to find each other (Barton, 2015; Nicholas, 2004; Shelp, 2001). If you want to up your gaydar game for women, listen to “How to know if a girl is a lesbian” by Ally Hills, the lyric of which will give you ample cues (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPNqaOwj7ko). As Bender’s example shows, straight people can now demonstrate their gaydar to show that they are wise to gay culture. Psychologists’ interests in studying gaydar have also changed from using personality tests to detect and prevent homosexuality, to focus on assessments of the wisdom and accuracy of everyday gaydar.
Gaydar can be spontaneous or require careful thinking. Gaydar cues may be about the body (e.g., face, body shape, clothing style, grooming), mannerisms (e.g., gait and gestures) or voice (e.g., pitch, language, inflection). Various studies have now tested gaydar and found that sometimes people can detect other’s sexual orientation slightly (but reliably) better than chance. However, other times people simply base their judgments on stereotypes (see Fasoli, Maass, & Sulpizio, 2016; Rule, 2017 for reviews). For instance, in our studies on auditory gaydar (Sulpizio et al., 2015), some straight men were regularly identified as gay and some gay men as straight on the basis of their vocal cues. Gaydar may be systematically applied to some people even if they are straight.
Besides the fact that gaydar may be accurate or not, how does it happen? What information do we draw on when we apply gaydar to others? The first thing to keep in mind is semantic—it is no accident that this ability is called gaydar and not straightdar. Lick and Johnson (2016) have recently reported studies demonstrating that gaydar is guided by a tendency to categorize individuals as straight first, and only to afterwards categorize them as gay. A similar bias towards presuming people are straight until proven gay was found in studies of auditory gaydar cues (Sulpizio et al., 2015). Most speakers were categorized as straight, while judgments that speakers were gay were characterized by uncertainty and “last minute” judgments. In Lick and Johnson’s studies, the participants seemed to assume that the experimenters would show them about 75% straight faces and 25% gay faces. Cultural scholars have long discussed heteronormativity; the belief system that assumes everyone is – or should be – straight (Rich, 1980; Warner, 1991). This assumption is the backdrop against which gaydar is applied, as when Bender corrects Leela’s heterosexual assumption, for example. However, this heterosexual assumption has not always informed the design of studies testing the accuracy of gaydar; most of these studies ask participants to make judgments about people who have been sampled such that 50% of them are gay and 50% straight. If Leela had been looking for dates in that sort of bar, then Bender’s gaydar judgment might have seemed much less insightful to her.
What information leads people to update their prior assumption that someone is straight? In reality, facial features, movements and speech styles all vary among people of diverse sexualities, making gaydar judgments very difficult to justify, sustain, or use effectively (see Podesva, Roberts, & Campbell-Kibler, 2001). In studies of visual and auditory gaydar, judgments that a person is homosexual are driven most consistently by the conclusion that their characteristics deviate strongly from the norm for their gender. Gender expression is very much linked with societal perceptions of what makes individuals masculine or feminine. Gaydar depends, often, upon the common stereotype that gay men are somewhat similar to straight women, and lesbian women are somewhat similar to straight men (Blashill & Powlishta, 2009; Kite & Deaux, 1987). Judgments of a person’s masculinity or femininity and their sexual orientation are correlated (Lyons, Lynch, Brewer, & Bruno, 2014; Munson, 2007; Valentova & Havlíček, 2013). In studies where participants rate the masculinity and femininity of gay/lesbian and straight people, those who are considered most gender atypical are most likely to be categorized as lesbian or gay (Rieger, Leinsenmeier, Gygax, Garcia, & Bailey, 2010). People are rated as gay or lesbian more often when their faces (Freeman, Johnson, Ambady, & Rule, 2010), voices (Munson, 2007) or body movements (Johnson, Gill, Reichman, & Tassinary, 2007) are consistent with this gender-inversion stereotype. That is, for instance, when a man has a feminine-sounding voice or a hip sway, or a woman has a masculine-sounding voice, short hair, or a tubular body moving with shoulder swagger, then gaydar is activated. Other, more specific stereotypes, also matter. Individuals who speak with a formal and clear speech style or “lisp” are more likely to be perceived as gay-sounding (Babel & Johnson, 2006; Mack & Munson, 2012; Munson, McDonald, DeBoe, & White, 2006; Smyth, Jacobs, & Rogers, 2003).
In describing gaydar as a consequence of gender-based inferences, perhaps we have made you feel less comfortable about using it? Is there something wrong about applying gaydar to strangers, as people are asked to do in these experiments, and as Bender did in the bar? Gaydar may be used commonly, but not everyone uses it equally. For instance, liberals are less likely to use gender stereotyping when making gaydar judgments than conservatives are (Stern, West, Jost, & Rule, 2013).
Indeed, telling people that gaydar exists and works pretty well – hence supporting and legitimizing gaydar – leads people to rely on gaydar more than telling them that gaydar depends on inaccurate stereotypes (Cox, Devine, Bischmann, & Hyde, 2016). Bender’s gaydar seems wise to gay culture, and in reality, heterosexual men who report to have more negative attitudes toward gay men are the ones who are less accurate in judging sexual orientation (Rule et al., 2015). But at the same time, these men are more willing to label other men as gay and more confident about their judgments (Brewer & Lyons, 2016). Similarly, those people who interact less and know fewer gay people personally believe themselves to have more accurate gaydar, and are more confident in guessing others’ sexuality (Brambilla, Riva & Rule, 2013). Hence, it is possible that more prejudiced individuals and those who are more ignorant of real gay and lesbian people may rely more on gender atypicality when guessing others’ sexual orientation (see Stern, West, & Rule, 2015; Lick & Johnson, 2016 for this process).
These differences in heterosexual people’s willingness to exercise gaydar may follow from differential knowledge of gay culture and also from greater feelings of certainty that gay people are categorically different from straight people in visible and audible ways. Indeed, it was that very feeling of certainty that such cues exist that drove psychologists and psychiatrists to invest in gaydar tests to detect gay men and lesbians in earlier decades. Many of the stereotypes upon which gaydar judgments depend now are conveyed and reinforced by mass media (see Battles & Hilton-Morrow, 2002; Cartei & Reby, 2012; Fasoli, Mazzurega, & Sulpizio, 2016). These days, people who profess the belief that ‘gay’ and ‘straight’ are very distinct categories, and that there is no continuum between them, are more prone to stereotyping lesbians and gay men and to reporting more prejudicial attitudes in general (Haslam & Levy, 2006; Katz-Wise & Hyde, 2015). As Munson (2007) points out, using your gaydar tends to presume that sexuality is a discrete, binary, “either-or” category, irrespective of the existence of bisexual people or the actual complexity of sexuality (see also Ding & Rule, 2012). As a matter of fact, even when women report same-sex activities – or are portrayed in mass media as involved in them – their heterosexuality is often affirmed and the possibility of bisexuality denied by describing their ‘heteroflexibility’ as mere “experimenting” (Diamond, 2005). Hence, rather than talking about sexual fluidity and the existence of various sexual identities (e.g., asexuality, bisexuality, pansexuality, etc.), the common assumption that heterosexuality is the norm and a binary gay/straight category system remain in place.
What, then, are the consequences of gaydar? As described above, people may use gaydar in different ways. However, research has shown that perceiving someone as gay/lesbian from his/her verbal or non-verbal behavior elicits stereotyping and avoidance (Fasoli, Maass, Paladino, & Sulipizio, 2017; Knöfler & Imhof, 2007; Lick & Johnson, 2014). For instance, Knöfler and Imhof (2007) have shown that straight people unaware of interacting with gay people of the same gender avoid full-face conversation and show anxiety-related behaviors (e.g., reduced eye contact, frequent face self-touching). Also, men who perceive themselves as gender atypical, or less masculine, are anxious when interacting with strangers possibly because of aware of the risk of (mis)classification as gay with all the consequences that this may imply (Jacobson, Cohen, & Diamond, 2015). Recent studies have shown that men perceived as gay are judged to be more suited for stereotypic professions (e.g., nurse, English teacher; see Rule, Bjornsdottir, Tskhay, & Ambady, 2016), and less suited for powerful positions (Fasoli et al., 2017). Hence, on the one hand, using gaydar as a strategy to constrain people within opposite categories may simply diminish the value of sexual variety and, on the other hand, may trigger implicit bias or prejudice.
What We Don’t Know About Gaydar
Research has produced mixed results about the accuracy of people’s gaydar, with differences depending on the specific cue(s) under investigation. Our review has focused more on studies about the accuracy of gaydar about men; there simply have been more of these studies carried out so far. A few studies have suggested that perceived gender non-conformity may drive gaydar judgments even more strongly for women, possibly because there are fewer alternative stereotypes to the gender stereotype when it comes to lesbians rather than gay men (Munson, 2007). In addition, consequences of gaydar have been studied in terms of discrimination and social avoidance. However, gaydar researchers have not yet investigated how being noticed because of one’s voice or appearance makes a gay man or a lesbian feel.
When we do research this question, we might find that having gaydar applied to oneself might feel harmful. Referring to his own younger experiences in Me Talk Pretty One Day, writer David Sedaris says of his voice, “We knocked ourselves out trying to fit in but were ultimately betrayed by our tongues.” Even when trying to conceal sexuality, the voice can betray the self that one is deliberately trying to present when it becomes a gaydar signal. David Thrope’s documentary, Do I sound gay? recounts several such experiences. Thorpe’s documentary shows that being labelled as gay-sounding can make people feel self-conscious, targeted, and – in the case of some young people – bullied. In that documentary, Tim Gunn – a fashion consultant and television personality – also notes that gay people “announce” their homosexuality thorough their voices. We would rephrase this to say that if a person’s voice matches expectations and deviates from (straight) norms, that gaydar ensures, whether that person is gay or straight. Perhaps the clearest example that gaydar can even be used intentionally to harm is a viral video that has applied auditory gaydar to satirize President-elect Donald Trump (https://youtu.be/Y96iyHBhIe0). Support for President Trump may vary based on political attitudes, but this video shows how the claim that someone ‘sounds gay’ continues to be used to ridicule, and that almost anyone can become the subject of such ridicule. Similarly, gay people may be made the target of gaydar to different degrees depending on how they look. Comedian Karen Ripley ironically said, “I can't help looking gay. I put on a dress and people say, 'Who's the dyke in the dress?'” David Thorpe also explores what happens when he tries to change his voice to sound straight, coming to the point that he is better to accept his voice than to try to change it.
Conclusion
In recent years, researchers have focused mostly on the question of the accuracy of gaydar. In doing so, their results surely inform the kinds of discussion that ensued between Leela and Bender. But we cannot help but notice that, historically, this question has often been asked in psychology in the interests of detecting gay men and lesbians without their consent, and often in the service of diagnosing them with mental illnesses (Morin, 1977). In a society where all are treated equally (or should be treated equally), sexual orientation is largely a private matter until someone self-discloses. Hence, there can be something dubious about the motive to detect others’ sexual orientation. As there is no reason to know whether a person prefers red or white wine, unless you have to offer it, there is logically no reason to need to know if a person is gay or straight. (Unless, like Leela in the bar with Bender, you need to know that for sex, friendship or community—issues rarely encountered by straight people who move through social contexts where most people are presumed to be straight). Harmful stereotyping of gays and lesbians as different and social norms to be informed about gay life can co-exist. Thus, if you ever experience a situation where like Bender you thought “he cannot be straight, he is gay!”, we hope that this article might ask you to also reflect on what your question might assume and why you would need to determine a stranger’s sexuality as gay or straight in the first place.
References
Babel, M., & Johnson, K. (2006, November). Global talker characteristics and judgments of gay-sounding speech. In Presentation given at the 35th Annual Meeting of New Ways of Analyzing Variation, Columbus, OH, November (pp. 9-12).
Baker, P. (2003). Polari-the lost language of gay men. London: Routledge.
Barton, B. (2015). How Like Perceives Like: Gay People on “Gaydar”. Journal of Homosexuality, 62, 1615-1637.
Blashill, A. J., & Powlishta, K. K. (2009). Gay stereotypes: The use of sexual orientation as a cue for gender-related attributes. Sex Roles, 61, 783-793.
Battles, K., & Hilton-Morrow, W. (2002). Gay characters in conventional spaces: Will and Grace and the situation comedy genre. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 19, 87-105.
Bosson, J. K., Prewitt-Freilino, J. L., & Taylor, J. N. (2005). Role rigidity: a problem of identity misclassification? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 552–565.
Brambilla, M., Riva, P., & Rule, N. O. (2013). Familiarity increases the accuracy of categorizing male sexual orientation. Personality and Individual Differences, 55, 193-195.
Brewer, G., & Lyons, M. (2016). Is Gaydar Affected by Attitudes Toward Homosexuality? Confidence, Labeling Bias, and Accuracy. Journal of Homosexuality, doi:10.1080/00918369.2016.1244443
Cartei, V., & Reby, D. (2012). Acting gay: Male actors shift the frequency components of their voices towards female values when playing homosexual characters. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 36, 79–93.
Chauncey, G. (1994). Gay New York: Gender, urban culture, and the making of the gay male world, 1890-1940. New York: Basic Books.
Constantinople, A. (1973). Masculinity-femininity: An exception to a famous dictum?. Psychological Bulletin, 80, 389-407.
Cox, W. T., Devine, P. G., Bischmann, A. A., & Hyde, J. S. (2016). Inferences about sexual orientation: The roles of stereotypes, faces, and the gaydar myth. The Journal of Sex Research, 53, 157-171.
Diamond, L. M. (2005). ‘I’m straight, but I kissed a girl’: The trouble with American media representations of female-female sexuality. Feminism & Psychology, 15, 104-110.
Ding, J. Y. C., & Rule, N. O. (2012). Gay, straight, or somewhere in between: Accuracy and bias in the perception of bisexual faces. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 36, 165-176.
Fasoli, F., Maass, A., Paladino, M. P., & Sulpizio, S. (2017). Gay-and Lesbian-Sounding Auditory Cues Elicit Stereotyping and Discrimination. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 1-17.
Fasoli, F., Maass, A., & Sulpizio, S. (2016). Communication of the “invisible”: The case of sexual orientation. In H. Giles & A. Maass (Eds.), Advances in intergroup communication (pp. 193–204). New York: Peter Lang Publications.
Fasoli, F., Mazzurega, M., & Sulpizio, S. (2016). When Characters Impact on Dubbing: The Role of Sexual Stereotypes on Voice Actor/Actress’ Preferences. Media Psychology, 1-27.
Freeman, J. B., Johnson, K. L., Ambady, N., & Rule, N. O. (2010). Sexual orientation perception involves gendered facial cues. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 1318-1331.
Haslam, N., & Levy, S. R. (2006). Essentialist beliefs about homosexuality: Structure and implications for prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 471-485.
Jacobson, R., Cohen, H., & Diamond, G. M. (2016). Gender atypicality and anxiety response to social interaction stress in homosexual and heterosexual men. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 45, 713-723.
Johnson, K. L., Gill, S., Reichman, V., & Tassinary, L. G. (2007). Swagger, sway, and sexuality: Judging sexual orientation from body motion and morphology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 321-334.
Katz-Wise, S. L., & Hyde, J. S. (2015). Sexual fluidity and related attitudes and beliefs among young adults with a same-gender orientation. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44, 1459-1470.
Kite, M. E., & Deaux, K. (1987). Gender belief systems: Homosexuality and the implicit inversion theory. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 11, 83-96.
Knöfler, T., & Imhof, M. (2007). Does sexual orientation have an impact on nonverbal behavior in interpersonal communication?. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 31, 189-204.
Lick, D. J., & Johnson, K. L. (2014). Perceptual underpinnings of antigay prejudice negative evaluations of sexual minority women arise on the basis of gendered facial features. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 1178-1192.
Lick, D. J., & Johnson, K. L. (2016). Straight until proven gay: A systematic bias toward straight categorizations in sexual orientation judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110, 801-817.
Lyons, M., Lynch, A., Brewer, G., & Bruno, D. (2014). Detection of sexual orientation (“gaydar”) by homosexual and heterosexual women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43, 345-352.
Mack, S., & Munson, B. (2012). The influence of/s/quality on ratings of men's sexual orientation: Explicit and implicit measures of the ‘gay lisp’ stereotype. Journal of Phonetics, 40, 198-212.
Matthews, C., & Hill, C. (2011). Gay until proven straight: Exploring perceptions of male interior designers from male practitioner and student perspectives. Journal of Interior Design, 36, 15-34.
Morin, S. F. (1977). Heterosexual bias in psychological research on lesbianism and male homosexuality. American Psychologist, 32, 629-637.
Munson, B. (2007). The acoustic correlates of perceived sexual orientation, perceived masculinity, and perceived femininity. Language Speech, 50, 125-142.
Munson, B., McDonald, E., DeBoe, N., & White, A. R. (2006). The acoustic and perceptual bases of judgments of women and men's sexual orientation from read speech. Journal of Phonetics, 34, 202-240.
Nicholas, C. L. (2004). Gaydar: Eye-gaze as identity recognition among gay men and lesbians. Sexuality and Culture, 8, 60-86.
Podesva, R. J., Roberts, S. J., & Campbell-Kibler, K. (2002). Sharing resources and indexing meanings in the production of gay styles. Language and sexuality: Contesting meaning in theory and practice, 175-189.
Rich, A. (1980). Compulsory heterosexuality and lesbian existence. Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 5, 631-660.
Rieger, G., Linsenmeier, J. A., Gygax, L., Garcia, S., & Bailey, J. M. (2010). Dissecting “gaydar”: Accuracy and the role of masculinity–femininity. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 124-140.
Rule, N. O. (2017). Perceptions of sexual orientation from minimal cues. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46, 129–139.
Rule, N. O., Bjornsdottir, R. T., Tskhay, K. O., & Ambady, N. (2016). Subtle perceptions of male sexual orientation influence occupational opportunities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101, 1687-1704.
Rule, N. O., Tskhay, K. O., Brambilla, M., Riva, P., Andrzejewski, S. A., & Krendl, A. C. (2015). The relationship between anti-gay prejudice and the categorization of sexual orientation. Personality and Individual Differences, 77, 74-80.
Shelp, S. G. (2002). Gaydar: Visual detection of sexual orientation among gay and straight men. Journal of Homosexuality, 44, 1-14.
Smyth, R., Jacobs, G., Rogers, H. (2003). Male voices and perceived sexual orientation: An experimental and theoretical approach. Language in Society, 32, 329–350.
Stern, C., West, T. V., Jost, J. T., & Rule, N. O. (2013). The politics of gaydar: Ideological differences in the use of gendered cues in categorizing sexual orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 520-541.
Stern, C., West, T. V., & Rule, N. O. (2015). Conservatives negatively evaluate counterstereotypical people to maintain a sense of certainty. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112, 15337-15342.
Stewart, W. (1995). Cassell’s queer companion, A dictionary of lesbian and gay life and culture. London: Cassell
Sulpizio, S., Fasoli, F., Maass, A., Paladino, M. P., Vespignani, F., Eyssel, F., & Bentler, D. (2015). The sound of voice: Voice-based categorization of speakers’ sexual orientation within and across languages. Plos One, 10, e0128882.
Valentova, J. V., & Havlíček, J. (2013). Perceived sexual orientation based on vocal and facial stimuli is linked to self-rated sexual orientation in Czech Men. PloS One, 8, e82417.
Warner, M (1993). Fear of a queer planet: Queer politics and social theory. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Woolery, L. M. (2007). Gaydar: A social-cognitive analysis. Journal of Homosexuality, 53, 9-17.
Links
David Thorpe’s documentary: www.doisoundgay.com
Futurama (Episode 4, Season 1). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4XzCP8sQqU (retrieved on December 6th, 2016)
Mr Trump being dubbed: Donald Gay Trump: https://youtu.be/Y96iyHBhIe0 (retrieved on December 6th, 2016)
How To Know If A Girl Is A Lesbian (OFFICIAL SONG) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPNqaOwj7ko (retrieved on December 6th, 2016)
