Why Do Gay Men Sound Gay?

Hi, Jar. You're right, who needs knowledge when you can have ignorance instead?

It depends on how you want to acquire the knowledge.My dad, for example, make a guess with no basis in reality and believe it for all time. Example. Years ago he started believing that white people have freckles because they eat potatoes and black people are black because they eat corn. To this day, he still believes these things.

Really; this statement just floors me.

Sorry, but that's how science works. Nothing at all wrong with trying to come up with explanations. But just making stuff up does not work, and acting on the wrong erroneous explanations might well prove to be harmful. Presumably that would in part be because the explanation was wrong.

Hi, Lammy. For sure: one certainly has to complete the investigative process. Otherwise, I'm not sure on what basis they could be calling their conclusion "knowledge."And this is certainly a criticism of Faith that's fully justified. She doesn't finish the investigative process: she just reasons to a comfortable conclusion, then digs in her heels.

I really wish you had read my other posts where I also said we should leave these things to the experts of their respective fields. Otherwise, we're just making things up. Her explanation was wrong because she's just making sh*t up as she goes along, which is pretty much how non-experts do it.

It floors you only if you read my statement in a vacuum.Please go back and reread my previous posts where I suggested we leave these things to experts that have done proper investigative work on the respective topic. Otherwise, we're just making things up as we go along.

Perhaps you should not say 'all' or 'everybody' when you don't really mean any such thing. That's only part of the answer.Most likely she is wrong because there are countless explanations and she is insisting on a single one that probably pays little to no role. Not even an expert would be able to opine on a specific person to assign a reason without examining the person and their history.

Do you think that makes it better?Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

Do you like posting one loaded question after another?

I had a conversation with my daughter around a year ago concerning one of my recent hires which relates to this topic.After introducing her to my new employee, once at the house the conversation went something like this:I said "He is a hard worker but much of that is devoted to cleaning and rearranging furniture and the like. He is like a fussy Felix Madison compared to my slobby Oscar Madison hard-drinking, cigar-chomping ways, I vote gay."My daughter said "I knew he was gay after the first sentence."Puzzled, I had to ask how.She replied that when a person makes a sentence a heterosexual male ends it at a lower pitch while a homosexual male end with a higher pitch. The opposite is true with a woman and her sexual orientation.This observation never occurred to me nor with this knowledge have I ever been able to discern it since. Guess my gaydar is dormant due to lack if use.

I have no idea whether that's true (though I doubt it). But maybe it will help me understand what this thread is really about.Ending with a higher pitch is often called "uptalk". I don't like it. It is more common among women than among men. But it is not even a majority form of speech among women.To me, uptalk makes every statement sound more like a question, and gives the impression that the speakers are very unsure of what they are saying.

I feel I know what you are talking about which is obvious as in flamboyant. The phenomena my daughter was referring to is very subtle so not sure they are that comparable.

Lammy, I merely said that people don't usually interpret family relationships very convincingly, I never claimed to know anything about the situation you described, just that you had described it in terms too general to mean much. It's possible you know all there is to know about it, or it's possible if I observed it I'd have a different take on it, who knows? Also, I haven't been focused on gay speech in any of this, but on sexual identity as such. And believe it or not most of my generalizations haven't had gay men in mind at all.Thanks for the apology.

I probably shouldn't bother answering this. People psychoanalyzing or otherwise explaining me around here are something I just have to shrug off all the time as it is. But this relates to my comments on this thread I assume, and why would you expect me to try to put forward a whole theory of sexual identity in such a context? Finish the investigative process? I'd have to interview the families in question. I have NOT said anything I treat as fixed in concrete, you are reading anything like that into very brief remarks I've made. And where are you getting "comfortable conclusion?" "Comfortable?" Do you impute that motive to everybody who tries to understand something, or just me? I may offer my reasoning in general terms because it makes sense to me. And you really ought to take into account that it doesn't matter what I say about anything here, it will be met with dozens of objections. I "dig in my heels" against the barrage of objections unless I have something more to say and in this case why would I? I'm talking in generalities and never ever claimed they describe all situations. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.