June 28th marked the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall riot in Greenwich Village and incidentally the Chicago Gay Pride Parade too. These two events lead me to wonder a few questions about the state of the gay civil rights movement: Where have we come from in the last 40 years? On the other hand, what have we lost during our struggles? And where might we be in 40 years?
The Chicago Pride Parade this year was an outward symbol of the movement that started at the Stonewall Inn, but also for me of the inertia that our movement has suffered in the past forty years. Underneath the floats of minibar's speedo-wearing gogo boys, of the motorcycle-riding bears club, and of gay-loving politicians lies the second-class status that we gay Americans still experience today.
Since Stonewall, we have made some considerable gains. Despite Illinois' eclectic mix of boring flat terrain, Midwestern mentality and impeached governors, it somehow managed to be the first state in the union to decriminalize gay sex. Way to go Illinois! Since then all sodomy laws have been repealed since 2003. As for gay marriage rights, currently Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Iowa (snaps for the Midwest again!) permit gay marriage, with same-sex marriage beginning later in 2009 in New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine. We have gained Rep. Barney Frank, songwriter Stephen Sondheim, fashion designer Marc Jacobs amid other high-profile power gays. Gays also enjoy gay-themed cruises like the ones advertised in Out magazine, two gay television networks here! and Logo and fabulous pride parades in almost every major city across the county (well not in Champaign-Urbana yet, but maybe someday!).
Despite triumphs in the past forty years, we have been hit with disappointments as well. While the human cost of the AIDS epidemic can't be calculated easily, many have lost friends, partners, and family to the disease. We have lost gay marriage in California. First in San Francisco, then a deep blow across the state this past May. Pending legislation to legalize same-sex unions in Illinois is now on hold thanks to the anemic economy, although the House still finds time to vote on campaign-finance reform and health-insurance reform. Also, 2008 saw an increase in LGBT hate crimes, including a raid on a Texas gay bar on the anniversary of the Stonewall riots. It is Texas, their PD can get a bit rowdy.
And gays are miffed with Obama's glacial pace on moving gay rights forward. An offensive brief from his Justice Department, followed by a cop-out memorandum and then throwing a LGBT cocktail party in the While house does not live up to his campaign promises.
It is difficult to say where we will be in forty years from now. Unlike the civil rights movement, the gay community is not just a single racial group, but a mix of all types of people. Diversity in our community is a benefit, but it also can divide us and slow us down. For instance, the African-American Civil Rights Movement took 18 years to accomplish its goals, while it has taken us 40 to achieve about half. We as a gay community need to push our movement forward from the grassroots, and not always depend on the work of the HRC. I mean where are our sit-ins? Where are our freedom rides? Where is and who will be our Martin Luther King Jr.?
We still have 44 states to go to legalize gay marriage, DOMA needs to be repealed, workplaces need to include anti-LGBT discrimination in their policies, and adoptions rights need to be defined and secure. Pride is a fun event, but a lack of civil rights isn't a laughing matter if our emancipation should take another 40 years.
So, don't let the pride parade fool you because it can. The throngs of people and show of support from the community does not disguise the fact that gays are still a vulnerable minority 40 years later.
Monday, June 29, 2009
Thursday, June 25, 2009
On Strauss vs. Horton
Earlier this week I was talking to a friend of mine, a Ph.D student in comparative literature, about our views on the California Supreme Court's ruling on upholding Prop 8. I had written a letter to the editor of The Chicago Tribune, but they did not publish it. Nevertheless, I want to share with you all my letter.
I am going to be controversial and say that while the California Supreme Court's ruling in Strauss vs. Horton on May 26th was disheartening for me as a gay American, it was not shamefully despicable. On the contrary, it shows that the justices applied current California law even-handedly, admittedly putting aside their own personal convictions or political preferences.
The Court's objectivism is a triumph for our democracy that was weakened by Bush-era identity politics, but which is recovering with the recent inauguration of the new administration, and now with this lamentable, yet democratic, court opinion.
The people of California spoke and same-sex marriage was unfortunately not sanctioned by a vote of 52% in November 2008. As a result, the justices were asked to rule on the validity of Proposition 8, under the provisions of the California Constitution, as a permissible change to the state constitution. Given the provisions, the court ruled in favor of protecting the peoples’ right to amend the state constitution through the initiative process, which unfortunately and consequently, upheld Proposition 8.
The justices’ ruling is not deplorable, but it is to the current California constitution to which they are bound that is a shame. Commendably, they remained faithful to enforce all provisions of the California Constitution, which now includes the amendment added by Prop 8, which states, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” Critics of the court system most definitely cannot say that this court legislated from the bench because they justly perceived the state constitution for what the majority of Californians vote for it to become: a document that deliberately marginalizes a harmless minority based on weak intellectualism and misguided religious convictions; all characteristics of modern conservatism.
However, proposition 8 can be repealed in order to once again favor same-sex marriage, which the California Supreme Court is not opposed to, as is evident in their ruling in the Marriage Cases ruled in May 2008, which permitted same sex couples to wed. Given the amended California constitution, marriage equality can come now from the state legislature or, even better, from the people, and not from the bench. LGBT advocacy groups and its ilk would benefit by increasing educational outreach so that the next time Californians exercise their power of initiative to amend their constitution they embrace LGBT Americans into the fold of marriage.
As a gay, my views might sound like I am an advocate of Prop 8 but this is not true. I am an advocate of fair and just judicial review, and that is how I believe the California Supreme Court handled this case. I found in the Windy City Times, a newspaper for the LGBT community in Chicago, that John D'Emilio, University of Illinois at Chicago professor of women's and gender studies, echoes my sentiment. To paraphrase briefly, he says that "Yes, I know about the many benefits marriage brings....But marriage won't get at the roots of homophobia. It would make a much bigger difference to campaign in school districts around the country". I think Dr. D'Emilio and my letter speaks for itself.
I am going to be controversial and say that while the California Supreme Court's ruling in Strauss vs. Horton on May 26th was disheartening for me as a gay American, it was not shamefully despicable. On the contrary, it shows that the justices applied current California law even-handedly, admittedly putting aside their own personal convictions or political preferences.
The Court's objectivism is a triumph for our democracy that was weakened by Bush-era identity politics, but which is recovering with the recent inauguration of the new administration, and now with this lamentable, yet democratic, court opinion.
The people of California spoke and same-sex marriage was unfortunately not sanctioned by a vote of 52% in November 2008. As a result, the justices were asked to rule on the validity of Proposition 8, under the provisions of the California Constitution, as a permissible change to the state constitution. Given the provisions, the court ruled in favor of protecting the peoples’ right to amend the state constitution through the initiative process, which unfortunately and consequently, upheld Proposition 8.
The justices’ ruling is not deplorable, but it is to the current California constitution to which they are bound that is a shame. Commendably, they remained faithful to enforce all provisions of the California Constitution, which now includes the amendment added by Prop 8, which states, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” Critics of the court system most definitely cannot say that this court legislated from the bench because they justly perceived the state constitution for what the majority of Californians vote for it to become: a document that deliberately marginalizes a harmless minority based on weak intellectualism and misguided religious convictions; all characteristics of modern conservatism.
However, proposition 8 can be repealed in order to once again favor same-sex marriage, which the California Supreme Court is not opposed to, as is evident in their ruling in the Marriage Cases ruled in May 2008, which permitted same sex couples to wed. Given the amended California constitution, marriage equality can come now from the state legislature or, even better, from the people, and not from the bench. LGBT advocacy groups and its ilk would benefit by increasing educational outreach so that the next time Californians exercise their power of initiative to amend their constitution they embrace LGBT Americans into the fold of marriage.
As a gay, my views might sound like I am an advocate of Prop 8 but this is not true. I am an advocate of fair and just judicial review, and that is how I believe the California Supreme Court handled this case. I found in the Windy City Times, a newspaper for the LGBT community in Chicago, that John D'Emilio, University of Illinois at Chicago professor of women's and gender studies, echoes my sentiment. To paraphrase briefly, he says that "Yes, I know about the many benefits marriage brings....But marriage won't get at the roots of homophobia. It would make a much bigger difference to campaign in school districts around the country". I think Dr. D'Emilio and my letter speaks for itself.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Iran and her Gays
By now the current uprising swiftly unfolding in Iran is all over the media. For me, I have been glued to CNN because what we are witnessing are the birth pangs of a potential revolution to overthrow a theocratic system that has suppressed its people for 30 years. It is possible, as the pundits have put it, that this uprising could move in two ways: it can become a success like the fall of the Berlin Wall or it can be crushed horribly like Tiananmen Square. I am hoping fervently for the former outcome to triumph.
Ayatollah Khamenei's theocratic regime is repressive toward women and, since the fraudulent elections two weeks ago and subsequent uprising, the issue of gender inequality in Iran has gained the media's ardent attention. However, they have ignored another marginalized group, whose narrative has only lately surfaced. I am saddened that no one in the media has mentioned Iran's harassed gay community during this time of unrest. Like Iran's women, the LGBT community there too are subject to the despotism that Iranian women suffer, if not in more peril. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has gone even as far as to say that no homosexuals live in Iran. This is absurd, of course, because I have documentary evidence that homosexuals do live in Iran. And it is biologically sound that every society has its handful of gays and lesbians.
Homosexuality is outlawed in Iran because of the government's conservative interpretation of sharia, Islamic law, and it is punishable by death. For example, according to Amnesty International three men and two women were convicted of "homosexual tendencies" were executed in 1990. Also, in 2005 16 year old Mahmoud Asgari and 18 year old Ayaz Marhoni were hung in public to death in 2005 on charges that they had engaged in homosexual acts with each other.
I found these two videos below on youtube.com which give a heartfelt account of the secret lives of gay men in Iran. It is a two-part documentary series about gay and lesbian Iranians. Surprisingly many of the men interviewed are not in silhouette, nor are their faces pixelized, but most of the interviewees are in plain sight and for anonymity some do wear sunglasses. For these men and women to do that is extremely risky and can put their very lifes in jeopardy. They want to be out, and they have a human right to be open about their sexuality.
I hope that at this juncture of political and social uncertainty in Iran, that the gays and lesbians of that country share in the protests with the women, and students, and defiant clerics and are able to contribute to the uprising. I want to know their story in this historic moment. I want to know what will become of them if the theocracy is to fall. I want to know and hope that they can pursue rights like the ones that we gays are being afforded in the West. This uprising is not just about women's liberation, but the implications of a potentially successful uprising (or shift towards political reformism at least) in Iran can bring about the beginnings of Iran's gay liberation movement.
I don't know how to post videos yet, but here is the link for the part 1 of the series. You can find part 2 on that page.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mu_tiFZjNQY
Ayatollah Khamenei's theocratic regime is repressive toward women and, since the fraudulent elections two weeks ago and subsequent uprising, the issue of gender inequality in Iran has gained the media's ardent attention. However, they have ignored another marginalized group, whose narrative has only lately surfaced. I am saddened that no one in the media has mentioned Iran's harassed gay community during this time of unrest. Like Iran's women, the LGBT community there too are subject to the despotism that Iranian women suffer, if not in more peril. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has gone even as far as to say that no homosexuals live in Iran. This is absurd, of course, because I have documentary evidence that homosexuals do live in Iran. And it is biologically sound that every society has its handful of gays and lesbians.
Homosexuality is outlawed in Iran because of the government's conservative interpretation of sharia, Islamic law, and it is punishable by death. For example, according to Amnesty International three men and two women were convicted of "homosexual tendencies" were executed in 1990. Also, in 2005 16 year old Mahmoud Asgari and 18 year old Ayaz Marhoni were hung in public to death in 2005 on charges that they had engaged in homosexual acts with each other.
I found these two videos below on youtube.com which give a heartfelt account of the secret lives of gay men in Iran. It is a two-part documentary series about gay and lesbian Iranians. Surprisingly many of the men interviewed are not in silhouette, nor are their faces pixelized, but most of the interviewees are in plain sight and for anonymity some do wear sunglasses. For these men and women to do that is extremely risky and can put their very lifes in jeopardy. They want to be out, and they have a human right to be open about their sexuality.
I hope that at this juncture of political and social uncertainty in Iran, that the gays and lesbians of that country share in the protests with the women, and students, and defiant clerics and are able to contribute to the uprising. I want to know their story in this historic moment. I want to know what will become of them if the theocracy is to fall. I want to know and hope that they can pursue rights like the ones that we gays are being afforded in the West. This uprising is not just about women's liberation, but the implications of a potentially successful uprising (or shift towards political reformism at least) in Iran can bring about the beginnings of Iran's gay liberation movement.
I don't know how to post videos yet, but here is the link for the part 1 of the series. You can find part 2 on that page.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mu_tiFZjNQY
Monday, June 22, 2009
Obama's Memorandum Revisited
I need to revisit my post on Obama's memorandum for a brief moment or two. I found this column in The Huffington Post written by Emma Ruby-Sachs. Like Leibnitz and Newton's independent contributions in the development of differential and integral calculus, she and I came independently to approximately the same conclusion about Obama's ulterior motive for signing the memorandum.
Essentially, her argument is similar to mine because she writes that he offered the extended benefits in order to "silence the gay revolution" and that this memorandum was a consolation prize to appease the gay community. She goes on to say that "Granting one [right] does not absolve trespass over the other rights." This is an excellent and resonant point because Obama posits that one right is sufficient enough to compensate for the past decades that gay partners have been denied government entitlements.
Similarly, I reasoned that the timing of this memorandum suggested that he did so out of guilt, 1) for acting too slowly on gay rights despite his campaign promises and 2) as an apology, although I like Ruby-Sach's wording "consolation prize" better, for the homophobic brief released by his Justice Department.
This is just another reminder that "Great Minds Think Alike".
Essentially, her argument is similar to mine because she writes that he offered the extended benefits in order to "silence the gay revolution" and that this memorandum was a consolation prize to appease the gay community. She goes on to say that "Granting one [right] does not absolve trespass over the other rights." This is an excellent and resonant point because Obama posits that one right is sufficient enough to compensate for the past decades that gay partners have been denied government entitlements.
Similarly, I reasoned that the timing of this memorandum suggested that he did so out of guilt, 1) for acting too slowly on gay rights despite his campaign promises and 2) as an apology, although I like Ruby-Sach's wording "consolation prize" better, for the homophobic brief released by his Justice Department.
This is just another reminder that "Great Minds Think Alike".
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Gay Senior Citizens
Marvin Levin: gay, Jewish, 61 years old. Sounds a lot like me in 40 years. Except one thing: he just came out! Here is what he said in the The Chicago Tribune:
"It was the first time I'd ever put words to that," Levin said. "It was like an epiphany. And then I looked back on my life and said, 'You dummy, of course you are [gay].'
I hope that more seniors who felt scared to come out in the 50s and 60s and felt compelled to marry and live a heterosexual life now take the opportunity to embrace their newfound gay identity. Seniors are a part of the gay community that we cannot dismiss, even if gay culture puts too much emphasis (and it does) on youth and beauty, and their coming out process is just as hard, emotional, and pleasing for them as it is for any 20 year old coming out.
As Marvin says, ""I'm just glad that I figured it out."
Congrats Marvin!
---------------------
For more information: The Center on Halsted has a senior program called SAGE - Services and Advocacy for GLBT Elders - that offers free lunch, yoga classes, counseling, and discussion groups.
"It was the first time I'd ever put words to that," Levin said. "It was like an epiphany. And then I looked back on my life and said, 'You dummy, of course you are [gay].'
I hope that more seniors who felt scared to come out in the 50s and 60s and felt compelled to marry and live a heterosexual life now take the opportunity to embrace their newfound gay identity. Seniors are a part of the gay community that we cannot dismiss, even if gay culture puts too much emphasis (and it does) on youth and beauty, and their coming out process is just as hard, emotional, and pleasing for them as it is for any 20 year old coming out.
As Marvin says, ""I'm just glad that I figured it out."
Congrats Marvin!
---------------------
For more information: The Center on Halsted has a senior program called SAGE - Services and Advocacy for GLBT Elders - that offers free lunch, yoga classes, counseling, and discussion groups.
Friday, June 19, 2009
On Socialism and Gay Liberation
"Revolutionary politics, debate and entertainment" is the slogan for this years socialist conference, titled Socialism 2009, held in San Francisco and currently in my hometown of Chicago. There is going to be a discussion on "Women's and LGBT Liberation". The topics include the following:
- Stonewall: Birth of Gay Power
- Sexuality and Socialism
- Why Does Capitalism Need the Family?
- How Can Women be Liberated?
First, capitalism is founded on personal decision making and requires people to be skeptical of government actions, while socialism favors collective thinking and advocates government ownership of the means of production and a society characterized by egalitarianism and more equal rights. These principles of socialism sound very attractive. However, in the long run a more prosperous economy, driven by capitalism's emphasis on economic efficiency, lends itself very well to granting equal rights. For example, women in all capitalist states have equal rights and gay rights is headed towards full liberation in due time.
Moreover, history shows that socialism might be popular in the short-term, but with time the populace becomes miffed and disillusioned with the state's control. Read: the collapse of communist Russia, the current shift to the right of the European Union and the steady decline of the kibbutiz movement in Israel. So, capitalism is the correct conduit for the continued liberation of the gay community since long-term and permanent liberation is what we aim to achieve. If you attend the conference I would like to hear how the conversations unfold.
Do you think capitalism favors gay rights?
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Obama's Memorandum: Sincere or Out of Guilt?
I read this morning in the Chicago Tribune that President Obama is going to extend health care and miscellaneous federal benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees. This is a positive step forward for Obama's delivery of his campaign promises to the LGBT community. I applaud him on the timing of this memorandum because it is obviously his apology for the nasty brief released last week by his Justice Department. If more of his cabinet should screw up maybe in less than a year or so he will feel contrite enough to legalize gay marriage by executive order (readers: is that legally possible?) because despite quietly declaring June "Gay Pride Month" this memorandum is his first act towards securing gay rights. This brings me to my question: Did Obama sign this memorandum because of genuine feelings for the gay community or out of guilt?
This is a difficult question to answer firmly because of the dynamics of his presidency and of his own personal sympathies. First, Obama's luster has waned since his November inauguration. For example, his monolithic government-provided healthcare reform package is highly contentious and he was booed by the AMA not too long ago. On top of this, his job approval ratings show that the amount of people who disapprove of his presidency is increasing, while the percentage of people who approve has remained stagnant. He wants to be the president everyone likes but he has to achieve Israel/Palestine peace, reform healthcare, save banks and main street, clean up the auto industry mess, close Guantanamo Bay and try to uphold a modicum of harmony among the Democrats and the GOP.
One the one hand, despite the abundance of contentious issues he is determined to tackle, he ran the risk of being denounced by conservatives and took a moment to think of the LGBT community. On the other hand, to help push down his rising disapproval rating he decided that a few federal benefits here and there would be sufficient enough appease the gay community.
Did I mention that memorandums expire with the end of the president's term? That is to say gay spouses of federal employees are only guaranteed four years of healthcare and misc. benefits.
I think that the current picture of his presidency suggests that he signed this memorandum out of guilt. But, I want to believe that Obama will make good on his campaign promises, unlike his predecessor Bush who did not even acknowledge the plight of the gay community. He needs the support from the LGBT community, and it doesn't help when the LGBT pundits criticize this memorandum as not doing enough for gay Americans. I just hope it isn't another department's screw-up that makes Obama suddenly concerned about the state of LGBT rights.
Do you think Obama deserves our praise and thanks?
This is a difficult question to answer firmly because of the dynamics of his presidency and of his own personal sympathies. First, Obama's luster has waned since his November inauguration. For example, his monolithic government-provided healthcare reform package is highly contentious and he was booed by the AMA not too long ago. On top of this, his job approval ratings show that the amount of people who disapprove of his presidency is increasing, while the percentage of people who approve has remained stagnant. He wants to be the president everyone likes but he has to achieve Israel/Palestine peace, reform healthcare, save banks and main street, clean up the auto industry mess, close Guantanamo Bay and try to uphold a modicum of harmony among the Democrats and the GOP.
One the one hand, despite the abundance of contentious issues he is determined to tackle, he ran the risk of being denounced by conservatives and took a moment to think of the LGBT community. On the other hand, to help push down his rising disapproval rating he decided that a few federal benefits here and there would be sufficient enough appease the gay community.
Did I mention that memorandums expire with the end of the president's term? That is to say gay spouses of federal employees are only guaranteed four years of healthcare and misc. benefits.
I think that the current picture of his presidency suggests that he signed this memorandum out of guilt. But, I want to believe that Obama will make good on his campaign promises, unlike his predecessor Bush who did not even acknowledge the plight of the gay community. He needs the support from the LGBT community, and it doesn't help when the LGBT pundits criticize this memorandum as not doing enough for gay Americans. I just hope it isn't another department's screw-up that makes Obama suddenly concerned about the state of LGBT rights.
Do you think Obama deserves our praise and thanks?
Monday, June 15, 2009
Gay Marriage Makes $$
I have to write this quickly since I am on my lunch break, so I'll try to be succinct. I cannot tell you how many times economists have concluded that gay marriage would be beneficial for the economic well-being of LGBT Americans and for aggregate GDP expansion. However, the Justice Department of the Obama Administration would like you to think otherwise. Their June 6th brief said that DOMA saves the government money by not having to pay marriage benefits under federal law, which in turn, “preserves scarce government resources.” This allegation that gay marriage somehow misallocates government resources is false, and that their assessment of DOMA evokes images of incest and child marriage to describe gay marriage makes the Justice Department look grossly homophobic.
M.V. Lee Badgett, one of the few leading experts on the economics of LGBT life, along with a few research cohorts released a new report from the Williams Institute in April 2009 that refutes the Justice Department's allegation. Their analysis concludes that if Maine were to legalize same-sex marriage the state's budge would increase by $7.9 million per year and this is a conservative estimate. Maine is scheduled to permit same-sex marriages beginning around Septemeber 2009, contingent upon a pending possible people's veto. At the same time, M.V. Lee Badgett again estimates that gay marriage in the past five years since its inception in Massachussets has pumped $111 million dollars into the state's GDP.
Let me try to illustrate the aggregate fiscal effect of legalizing gay marriage. I am going to give you a crude estimate of how much money could have been pumped into the federal economy if all 50 states had tapped into the gay wedding market in 2004. By multiplying $111 million times 50 (for each state in the union) I suspect, as a conservative estimate, that $5.55 billion would have been pumped into the economy over the past five years. Again, this estimate is crude, underestimated and ignores the idiosyncrasies of each state, annual inflation and discounting. Nevertheless, you can see that the US economy has lost a healthy source of income over the past five years.
And, to the Justice Department, do yourself some justice and get your facts straight.
Do you think gay marriage makes cents now?
M.V. Lee Badgett, one of the few leading experts on the economics of LGBT life, along with a few research cohorts released a new report from the Williams Institute in April 2009 that refutes the Justice Department's allegation. Their analysis concludes that if Maine were to legalize same-sex marriage the state's budge would increase by $7.9 million per year and this is a conservative estimate. Maine is scheduled to permit same-sex marriages beginning around Septemeber 2009, contingent upon a pending possible people's veto. At the same time, M.V. Lee Badgett again estimates that gay marriage in the past five years since its inception in Massachussets has pumped $111 million dollars into the state's GDP.
Let me try to illustrate the aggregate fiscal effect of legalizing gay marriage. I am going to give you a crude estimate of how much money could have been pumped into the federal economy if all 50 states had tapped into the gay wedding market in 2004. By multiplying $111 million times 50 (for each state in the union) I suspect, as a conservative estimate, that $5.55 billion would have been pumped into the economy over the past five years. Again, this estimate is crude, underestimated and ignores the idiosyncrasies of each state, annual inflation and discounting. Nevertheless, you can see that the US economy has lost a healthy source of income over the past five years.
And, to the Justice Department, do yourself some justice and get your facts straight.
Do you think gay marriage makes cents now?
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Studies on Gaydar
To honor the name of my blog I want to give you a better understanding of what 'gaydar' is, if there is some confusion. Gaydar is a portmanteau of 'gay' and 'radar'; put the two together as the word portmanteau suggests and out pops gaydar. As a gay, I need to admit that my gaydar is pretty much on point, maybe with a margin of error of plus and minus 1 (read: out of a sample of 10 guys I suspect are gay, 1 is not although that -1 guy is probably a metrosexual...ugh I'm fooled every time!). Thus, gaydar is the intuitive ability to detect that a person might just be same-sex oriented.
But, it is not uncommon for gay men and women to have gaydar. In fact, a study published by The Monell Chemical Senses Center concluded that "gay men were found to be particularly good at detecting the musk of other gay men". Gaydar, too, has found its way into popular culture, with references to it as a popular buzzword in the media, and in The Office Jim sends Dwight a gaydar device that he says is sold by the Sharper Image. I checked the Sharper Image's website and no such gaydar metal detector exists. But who knows what their R&D will come up with next!
Additionally, in The Science of Gaydar from New York Magazine, researchers shed new light on the verbal and non verbals signals that make you appear gay (note: appearing gay is not synonymous with being gay, even though popular culture likes to make you believe that, although there's a high correlation between the two). This shortlist is what supposedly makes my gaydar go off. If you find that any examples apply to you...then scientifically you appear gay. This is verbatim from the article:
What sets your gaydar off?
But, it is not uncommon for gay men and women to have gaydar. In fact, a study published by The Monell Chemical Senses Center concluded that "gay men were found to be particularly good at detecting the musk of other gay men". Gaydar, too, has found its way into popular culture, with references to it as a popular buzzword in the media, and in The Office Jim sends Dwight a gaydar device that he says is sold by the Sharper Image. I checked the Sharper Image's website and no such gaydar metal detector exists. But who knows what their R&D will come up with next!
Additionally, in The Science of Gaydar from New York Magazine, researchers shed new light on the verbal and non verbals signals that make you appear gay (note: appearing gay is not synonymous with being gay, even though popular culture likes to make you believe that, although there's a high correlation between the two). This shortlist is what supposedly makes my gaydar go off. If you find that any examples apply to you...then scientifically you appear gay. This is verbatim from the article:
- Gay men are more likely to have a counter-clockwise hair whorl.
- Gay men and women are more likely to have an increased density of fingerprint ridges on the thumb and pinkie of the left hand.
- The index fingers of most straight men are shorter than their ring fingers, and for most women they are the same length or longer. Gay men and lesbians tend to have reversed ratios.
- Gay men and lesbians are 50% more likely to be left-handed or ambidextrous.
What sets your gaydar off?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
