Citation

Vasilovsky AT. Theory Psychol. 2018; 28(3): 298-318.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2018, SAGE Publishing)

DOI

10.1177/0959354318764826

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

In recent years, "gaydar" has come under increasing scientific scrutiny. Gaydar researchers have found that we can accurately judge sexual orientation at better than chance levels from various nonverbal cues. Why they could find what they did is typically chalked up to gender inverted phenotypic variations in craniofacial structure that distinguish homosexuals. This interpretation of gaydar data (the "hegemonic interpretation") maintains a construction of homosexuality as both a "natural kind" and an "entitative" category. As a result, culturally and historically contingent markers of homosexuality are naturalized under the guise of gaydar. Of significant relevance to this article's critique of gaydar research is that the hegemonic interpretation is presented as politically advantageous for LGB people by its authors, an undertheorized assumption that risks sanctioning an epistemological violence with unfortunate, demobilizing sociopolitical consequences. This critique is contextualized within current debates regarding intimate/sexual citizenship and advocates, instead, for a queer political ethic that considers such cultural erasure to be politically untenable.

Language: en