Jon Carroll: Gaydar! Gaydar! Is this thing on?

So gaydar is a real thing, say scientists, and can kick in even when subjects are viewing a range of photographs in which identifying characteristics, like haircuts, have been eliminated.

Joshua A. Tabak of the University of Washington and Vivian Zayas of Cornell published an opinion piece in the New York Times based on a peer-reviewed article they did in PloS One, a journal specializing in this sort of thing, whatever this sort of thing is.

A group of men and women (sample size undisclosed, which should make your own journodar go off) were asked to view photographs of men and women, straight and gay, for 50 milliseconds, and then say whether they thought the people in the photographs were gay or straight. They did so with 60 percent accuracy, which is way above the 50 percent figure you would expect to find if gaydar were not real.

So far, so good. Like most of my readers, I have long believed that sexual orientation was not a choice but a fact. It’s easy to see that this is true — ask yourself where your own sexuality came from, and how much choice you had in the matter.

Some people are truly bisexual, but most are not. Most people are oriented one way or the other. They were born that way. Right?

So here’s my reasoning: If we’re born that way, then the predisposition must be genetic. If it’s genetic, then it’s likely to be expressed in some other way as well. If it’s facial features, then fine. I see nothing that should make that automatically untrue, although I am still an agnostic about this study.

Here’s the key paragraph from the article:

“Consider, for example, facial widthto-height ratio. This is a configural physical feature that differs between men and women (men have a larger ratio) and reflects testosterone release during adolescence in males. Given that stereotypes of gender atypicality — gay men as relatively feminine and gay women as relatively masculine — play a role in how people judge others’ sexual orientation, our finding suggests that cues like facial width-to-height ratio may contribute to gaydar judgments.”

So their theory is that, for gaydar to work, it needs to process this higher ratio, based on the notion that gay men are more effeminate and gay women are more masculine. I wish they had actually

printed this ratio so we could all measure our faces, but they chose not to, maybe because they were afraid that we would all measure our faces.

Anyway, is it your experience that gay men are more effeminate than straight men? Is it your experience that gay women are more masculine than straight women? It’s not my experience. Certainly some gay men are more effeminate and some gay women are more masculine, but I have loads of counterexamples right in my greater friendship circle.

And gay men might be worried about “effeminate” as a descriptor because, given how things work in a man’s world, effeminate people are considered weak, without agency. It seems to be a loaded word, particularly when “feminine” is available.

It is of course possible that the ratio thing works even if the researchers are not entirely clear on the concept. But since many gay men and women do not fit those characteristics, what exactly is this test measuring? What are the viewers of the photographs seeing that is tipping them off?

Testosterone? Is that the magic drug? That would seem to imply that gay men have less testosterone, or that — watch this one coming — testosterone injections will turn a gay man straight. I don’t think that’s true. I think you get a gay man who’s more likely to get into bar fights.

Hormones can change many things, as people who’ve undergone transgender procedures can tell you. But I don’t believe that shots alone can change orientation. So, I ask again, what is this test measuring?

If we assume the data are correct, then the theorizing of the researchers seems to be the suspicious part here. But if their theory is wrong, what explains gaydar? Some other facial feature previously uncontemplated? Is there a lesbian set to the mouth, a gay crinkle around the eyes?

One more thing: In the study, the gaydar worked better than 50 percent of the time even when the pictures were shown upside down, which was considered suggestive evidence that the facial ratio thing was the explanation. So prove you’re gay! Stand on your head!