Gaydar is the social convention of assuming someone’s sexual orientation, usually based on their appearance. I believe that gaydar is not only inaccurate, but assuming sexuality restricts the expression of gay and straight people alike by limiting the fluidity of possible expression and conforming people to binary labels.
First, assuming sexuality often harms the same people it seeks to identify. Gay people who are closeted often have to censor themselves to avoid assumptions. The fear of such assumptions prevents people from expressing their true identity. There could be many reasons why gay people don’t want to be identified; even well-meaning allies could give them unwanted attention. Trying to identify people’s sexuality shrinks the diverse range of queer people down into a singular monolith. Discussing assumptions of others’ sexuality generates more assumption and often creates a more hostile and unwelcoming environment for the most vulnerable.
Next, we have to consider that gaydar really isn’t accurate. This is especially true when straight people use it; it’s likely based on stereotypes which may or may not be true. As for gay people using gaydar, it’s more complicated. When straight people assume others to be gay, they’re often using very specific and old cultural ideas that have very loose connections with actual sexuality. Sometimes, these stereotypes are rooted in homophobia, like the false assumption that all gay guys are feminine. This idea was created by a hegemonic straight society with a narrow definition of masculinity, not by gay people themselves. In other cases, the cultural association gets muddied or fragmented over time. The premier example of this is the “gay ear,” in which getting your right ear pierced would mean you were gay. But in some places, this was actually reversed, with the left ear being the “gay” one! And what about bisexuals, asexuals, or lesbians? Does gaydar work for them too, or do you need the bi-fi, acellular, and lesbeacon upgrades? Anyway, I hope you can see how ridiculous this all is. Assumptions on appearance or behavior are fundamentally not accurate tools if you want to determine who’s gay or not.
One argument I’ve heard is that gay people themselves could use gaydar for helpful purposes. I have the most sympathy for this; gay people have used subtle visual cues to protect themselves and find others similar to them. This is called code-switching, where they appear as gay to other gay people, while appearing as straight to others. While it can be necessary for gay people, it’s still a painful sacrifice. It makes them live a double life, where their identity is controlled by the whims of those around them. Also, not every gay person knows the long and complicated history of these hints. One could argue that gay people need to know them, but this creates an unnecessary burden. Socializing is already hard enough without having to understand and process a whole separate set of social cues.
We must also remember that gay people are still limited through their own perspectives and cultural associations, even if it’s different from using pure stereotypes. Assumptions create a world of false positives and false negatives; straight people will have those stereotypes, while gay people won’t. If you want to figure out if someone is queer, appearance is the last place to look.
Gaydar could affect straight people as well. Because straightness is considered the status quo in our society, they are expected to act “normal.” Straight people who happen to have a slightly different appearance or demeanor may be assumed to be gay. Gaydar creates these specific boxes of “gay” and “straight” and puts them into these specific camps. This binary system is not accurate to the fluidity of sexuality, and forces people to conform.
Imagine if a guy acts slightly feminine and people assume he is gay. Then, that man may be pressured to not act feminine. The “feminine equals gay” stereotype is essentially the root of most stereotypes involving gaydar. It leads to a bad outcome where gay men are defined by their femininity, while straight men are defined by their masculinity. This is the most wide-reaching problem with gaydar: Even in a place where people of all sexualities are respected, gaydar removes all nuance and ignores the reality of people’s identities and actions. That’s how it can still be harmful, even in the most benign places. We should be striving for a world where sexuality and gender barriers are loosened, not reinforced. By assuming people’s sexualities based on stereotypes, gay and straight people feel the need to label themselves into specific camps. By avoiding labels and their assumptions, we can expand the range of possible expression.
In the end, the only real way to figure out someone’s sexuality is to talk to them more. It’s not a flashy option, but it’s the only choice if you really need to know. Otherwise, it may be better to respect their privacy.
Atharv Dimri is a member of the class of 2029 and can be reached at adimri@wesleyan.edu.
Leave a Reply