Why Do Gay Men Sound Gay?

I have not heard the 'gay voice' in question, but surely there is at least a 'stage' gay voice that we can expect will be taken on when someone is supposed to be identified as gay for one reason or another in some skit.Ok course some gay do take on that voice, and surely those that do are the origin of the stereotype. Given that the voice is an affectation, surely the most likely way it would be acquired would be hanging around other people who speak similarly. Why is that hard to believe?

I agree. I am seriously reconsidering my position re: PC in that other thread.

From wikipedia article on Gay lisp affectation.

quote:

---

Henry Rogers and Ron Smyth, professors at the University of Toronto, investigated this.

​

According to Rogers, people can usually differentiate gay- and straight-sounding voices based on certain phonetic patterns. "We have identified a number of phonetic characteristics that seem to make a man’s voice sound gay," says Rogers. "We want to know how men acquire this way of speaking."

​

A study at Stanford University involving a small sample group investigated claims that people can identify gay males by their speech and that these listeners use pitch range and fluctuation in deciding.[8] Results were inconclusive:

​

Although he found that listeners could distinguish gay from straight men, he failed to find any convincing empirical differences in pitch between these two groups. [...] This study is representative of others that have failed to find concrete differences in the speech of gay and straight men.[9]

​

In a similar study of female speakers, it was found that listeners could not tell lesbian speakers from heterosexual speakers. Other studies of lesbian identity do make references to voice use by lesbians typically using lower pitch and more direct communication styles.

---

Perhaps there was some in artful phrasing in the OP, but maybe the phrasing used by the researchers above might be more acceptable?

I understand that you are just guessing, but the reality is that family life does not turn you gay. It is not the lack of role models, or being around a bunch of girls, or anything like that that makes boys gay or even transgender.Single women raise boys all of the time. There are serious issues associated with this phenomena, but no evidence whatsoever that one of the issues is boys thinking they are women.If you are really interested in this topic, I suggest doing some of your own research before forming an opinion, or simply asking around before forming your own opinion. Nobody has good built in 'instincts' on this issue.

I did not say that you thought that, I just filled in one of a thousand reasons why somebody might conclude that being around women makes you talk gay or talk like a women. That simply is not the case. I'm suggesting that your supposition is completely wrong. People don't turn gay or talk gay because they've had some lack of quality in their upbringing.In short I'm criticizing this statement below: What 'you think' is not based on facts or supported by facts. It's just you guessing and opining about something that you don't know about based on your suppositions. The facts actually suggest otherwise. Alienation from dad does not make people talk gay.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Watermelon eating may be the best example of a stereotype that is not based on the truth at all. Surely there are far more white men in the US who like watermelon that there are black men who do so.The stereotype regarding black people and watermelon dates back to post civil war days where growing and selling watermelons was a method of deriving income for newly freed blacks who saw an economic opportunity. Some whites made fun of blacks and watermelons at the time out as an expression of animosity. Everyone was eating watermelons back then, but blacks were mostly around them and eating them.Of course that is not the reality or a reflection of the truth anymore. There is absolutely no truth or basis to the stereotype in the form in which it currently exists. No evidence that any person of any color is more prone to eat watermelon. All that there really is regarding this stereotype is an echo to an era that 99 percent of people had nothing to do with, and that (with respect to race relations) has very little to recommend it.Yes I have seen black and white children voraciously eating watermelon after a soccer game on a hot day in North Carolina. But I cannot distinguish between their behaviors in anyway. It ain't a black thing.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

You haven't even made an assertion. You claimed to 'think' something. Why make up your mind about something like that without at least looking for facts? Yeah, you are certainly allowed to have your own thoughts. But how is making stuff up and then sticking to it a reliable process?

This is completely wrong. Nobody can clearly say why people are gay and most people know that there is no evidence of any gay gene. I suspect that most people I agree with would dispute that personal choice is involved, but plenty of those people really don't care whether gays choose their life style or not. They would afford the same rights to gays regardless.If you aren't in any better touch with the issues than this, please don't guess. Look stuff up.ABE:Or at least don't try to claim what people always say or think. Seriously.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

No. That is not what people are saying.Faith's initial post could indeed be read as a statement that gays typically speak in a gay voice. Many of us responded to Faith by assuming ignorance and correcting her impression, and then possibly addressing the question of where that voice came from.I've taken some issue with specific assumptions underlying Faith's ignorance, particularly her apparent belief that she should not be talked out of her ignorance. But I don't think Faith had any intent to be malicious. I don't think your evidence is quite so relevant. The camp gay voice is not about pitch at all. If people believe that higher pitches voices are gayer, then they are understandably going to be wrong. I am not at all surprised by the conclusion that people have stereotypes about what gays sound like.The camp gay voice can be delivered at any pitch. For example, the gay brother in Orphan Black is gay, uses the camp voice, but in a pitch that is completely adult male average.Now it is completely true that even people who judge gayness by the camp voice are going to have lots of false positives and false negatives. But probably way, way more false negatives. At least that's what my experience tells me. But being able to detect gays has never been high on my priority list.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

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.

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.

You seem to be missing the point. I wouldn't expect you to be have a theory of sexual identity given that you don't know diddly squat. But the one that you did give was incorrect.As for psychoanalyzing you... I did not do that because it was unnecessary to do so. I reported your actual behavior without ascribing any motivation or reasoning that you yourself did not state. You did, in fact, make up a proposition about how people acquire the gay voice that was wrong. And then you told us that you ought to be able to think whatever you want.I have no idea what makes you act the way you do, but I can document what I have said by pointing to your posts. And most likely you'd still be unable to accurately answer the question. But you might gain enough ammo to be able to state some other have baked nonsense. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Was my comment not relevant?You are posting in a public forum. You are more than welcome to post anything you want to keep private via private messaging.

In this case, I do know. What you think does not match the research on the issue, so you don't know. In fact you've admitted that your position is just what you think.

Sigh... Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.