MovieChat Forums > Do I Sound Gay? (2015) Discussion > Those who believe gay men choose to "sou...

Those who believe gay men choose to "sound gay" are simply oblivious

posted 8 years ago by cinebot727
10 replies | jump to latest

An example of a person choosing how to sound would be a gay man (with an effeminate voice) trying to sound more masculine. This is choosing. You can't choose how you naturally sound. End of story. Anyone telling you otherwise is "choosing" to be ignorant.

Those who believe being gay or sounding gay is a choice are those who are quick to deny the existence of foreign traits that they do not possess themselves. Not liking anchovies or brussel spouts would not mean others who claim they like these foods are simply pretending to. It doesn't take someone smart or articulate to undermine individuals who are not like them. Especially minorities.

[–] bing-57 8 years ago

> You can't choose how you naturally sound. End of story. Anyone telling you otherwise is "choosing" to be ignorant.

Yet, this movie clearly shows that the "gay sound" is just a learned dialect and accent. If it is learned, it can be unlearned. It is a choice, even if it is a subconscious choice.

> Not liking anchovies or brussel spouts would not mean others who claim they like these foods are simply pretending to.

Yes and no. For Brussells sprouts specifically, there is a bitter enzyme that only part of the population can taste. It is a physical matter of liking or not liking them.

But, liking or not liking spinach or carrots or anchovies is a learned trait, typically learned in childhood. It can be unlearned. I used to hate spinach as a kid, now as an adult I like it.

--
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?

[–] cinebot727 8 years ago

Yet, this movie clearly shows that the "gay sound" is just a learned dialect and accent. If it is learned, it can be unlearned. It is a choice, even if it is a subconscious choice.

The film does not state or imply that the "gay sound" is a learned dialect. You came up with that conclusion on your own. You cannot learn the "gay sound" therefore you cannot "un-learn" it. You have no evidence for this nor have you expressed any sort of rational insight on the matter. Your argument is moot. lol

Yes and no. For Brussells sprouts specifically, there is a bitter enzyme that only part of the population can taste. It is a physical matter of liking or not liking them.

But, liking or not liking spinach or carrots or anchovies is a learned trait, typically learned in childhood. It can be unlearned. I used to hate spinach as a kid, now as an adult I like it.

The context of my anchovies and brussel sprouts example went right over your head.

I was emphasizing "cognitive bias," assuming because you don't like something that others don't like it too and are probably pretending to like it because they learned to do so. I could have used ANY food item for my example. The type of food did not matter.

[–] bing-57 8 years ago

> The film does not state or imply that the "gay sound" is a learned dialect.

Lordy! What movie were you watching? 90% of the whole movie was all about why the gay sound is different than the straight sound and then going to voice coaches and then practicing how to not sound gay. Everything in the movie showed that the gay sound was a learned behavior.

> You cannot learn the "gay sound" therefore you cannot "un-learn" it.

The movie showed very clearly how to sound gay. You downbeat your last syllable of the sentence, you extend your "S" sounds, and you speak in a sing-song rhythm. You really need to go back and watch it again.

--
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?

[–] cinebot727 8 years ago

You still don't get it 

Your explanation proves that the "gay voice" is DIFFERENT and UNIQUE, not that it is LEARNED. These are two seperate things that you seem to blend without explanation. Nowhere in the documentary does it make this logical leap. You made that wild leap yourself and have no evidence to back that up. For example, female voices tend to be "different" in that their voices, on average, tend to be higher pitched than males but this does not mean they "learned" to sound that way.

Homosexuality is biological in nature. Being gay has a lot more to do than just liking someone of the same gender. Homosexuality is likely formed in the womb which can affect the fetus's brain thus capable of affecting behavior, appearance, and voice.

TIME MAGAZINE: "What the Gay Brain Looks Like"

"Scientists at the Karolinska Institute studied brain scans of 90 gay and straight men and women, and found that the size of the two symmetrical halves of the brains of gay men more closely resembled those of straight women than they did straight men. In heterosexual women, the two halves of the brain are more or less the same size. In heterosexual men, the right hemisphere is slightly larger. Scans of the brains of gay men in the study, however, showed that their hemispheres were relatively symmetrical, like those of straight women, while the brains of homosexual women were asymmetrical like those of straight men. The number of nerves connecting the two sides of the brains of gay men were also more like the number in heterosexual women than in straight men."

You have to use sound reason and/or evidence if you wanna debate, bud!

[–] bing-57 8 years ago

> You still don't get it

No. I don't get what you are selling. It is in direct conflict with what the movie shows and it conflicts with my direct observation of the gay community.

> Your explanation proves that the "gay voice" is DIFFERENT and UNIQUE, not that it is LEARNED.

My explanation shows (not proves) that the "gay voice" is DIFFERENT and UNIQUE, you are correct, just like the German language and accent is DIFFERENT and UNIQUE. And the French language and accent is DIFFERENT and UNIQUE. And the African languages and accents are DIFFERENT and UNIQUE. Absolutely, 100% true.

However, it is a learned trait just like learning any other language is a learned ability.

> These are two seperate things that you seem to blend without explanation.

What are these two separate things you speak of? Because, I only see one thing -- the "gay sound," which is just an accent, like the one in Boston or Texas or Georgia. What other thing are you referring to?

> Nowhere in the documentary does it make this logical leap.

The whole movie makes this point over and over and over again. What did you think the point of talking to all those voice coaches was about? Each one explained what makes up the "gay sound" and then explained how to change the way a person talks to minimize the "gay sound." And then, the author went ahead and demonstrated how weeks of practice could, indeed, change his "gay sound."

> For example, female voices tend to be "different" in that their voices, on average, tend to be higher pitched than males but this does not mean they "learned" to sound that way.

Ah, but you are talking about physical differences in the vocal chords. Women do tend to have higher vocal ranges in their vocal chords than men. I believe that this is not a difference in gender but, rather, a difference in size. Women are smaller, on average, than men and so they have smaller vocal chords and thus, a higher vocal range, just like shorter strings on a harp or piano have a higher pitch.

Now, if you are saying that gay men are, on average, shorter than straight men, and that's why they have higher voices, I can agree with you. But, that still wouldn't explain why gay men talk in sing-song accents and elongate their "S" sounds and trail downward at the end of sentences. That's purely a learned accent.

> Homosexuality is likely formed in the womb which can affect the fetus's brain thus capable of affecting behavior, appearance, and voice.

I agree completely. So, the pitch of a person's voice is the result of genetics. I agree 100%. But, like with everyone in the world, their accent is a matter of learning it from the people around them.

This movie talked about it and showed examples of it. There was a straight guy who had a woman's accent when he was raised around women and a gay guy with a manly accent who was raised around sports-loving straight brothers.

A person's accent is purely a learned feature. There should be no disagreement with that because you can see and hear it in every person you know.

--
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?

[–] cinebot727 8 years ago

> You still don't get it
No. I don't get what you are selling. It is in direct conflict with what the movie shows and it conflicts with my direct observation of the gay community.

Your "direct observation of the gay community" cannot not be used as valid evidence for your argument. You are admitting to being subjective.

> Your explanation proves that the "gay voice" is DIFFERENT and UNIQUE, not that it is LEARNED.
My explanation shows (not proves) that the "gay voice" is DIFFERENT and UNIQUE, you are correct, just like the German language and accent is DIFFERENT and UNIQUE. And the French language and accent is DIFFERENT and UNIQUE. And the African languages and accents are DIFFERENT and UNIQUE. Absolutely, 100% true.
However, it is a learned trait just like learning any other language is a learned ability.

You just agreed that having a "gay voice" is the same as having an "accent." This is not true. Where's your proof and/or sound reasoning for this? Your personal observations do not count.

> These are two seperate things that you seem to blend without explanation.
What are these two separate things you speak of? Because, I only see one thing -- the "gay sound," which is just an accent, like the one in Boston or Texas or Georgia. What other thing are you referring to?

Thing #1: The "gay voice" is different and unique
Thing #2: The "gay voice" is learned
These are two separate statements that are not related. Where's your evidence that says they are correlated?

> For example, female voices tend to be "different" in that their voices, on average, tend to be higher pitched than males but this does not mean they "learned" to sound that way.
Ah, but you are talking about physical differences in the vocal chords. Women do tend to have higher vocal ranges in their vocal chords than men. I believe that this is not a difference in gender but, rather, a difference in size. Women are smaller, on average, than men and so they have smaller vocal chords and thus, a higher vocal range, just like shorter strings on a harp or piano have a higher pitch.

Close, but you're not quite there. Gay men with effeminate voices do have different vocal chords then men with low voices. My argument is that your gay voice is as intrinsic as gender and race. As I've showed you in another post, gay brains are different that straight brains: http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1815538,00.html

According to your logic, "straight men" who grew up around many sisters, a single mom, or an environment populated predominantly by women would be effeminate or have the "gay voice" and this is simply not true. There are straight men who sound effeminate but you would have to assume that they ALL grew up around only females. Therein lies the loophole in your logic.

> Homosexuality is likely formed in the womb which can affect the fetus's brain thus capable of affecting behavior, appearance, and voice.
I agree completely. So, the pitch of a person's voice is the result of genetics. I agree 100%. But, like with everyone in the world, their accent is a matter of learning it from the people around them.
This movie talked about it and showed examples of it. There was a straight guy who had a woman's accent when he was raised around women and a gay guy with a manly accent who was raised around sports-loving straight brothers.
A person's accent is purely a learned feature. There should be no disagreement with that because you can see and hear it in every person you know.

Herein lies the problem. This is not a scientific documentary which is the main reason I was disappointed by it. I am a man of Science and enjoy documentaries backed with a good of amount of scientific observation. This didn't have it. A good documentary blends subjectivity (human experience) and objectivity (scientific observation). I wouldn't largely use this documentary as a basis for any argument on the subject. The documentary was more about the protagonist's personal experience than the issue he was highlighting.

[–] cinebot727 8 years ago

The "gay voice" is likely due to NATURE, not NURTURE. There is actually more scientific evidence supporting a nature cause than a nurture cause. Actually, there is no peer-reviewed evidence for a nurture cause. You are pushing an idea that an overwhelming majority of people in the gay community and the sexology community do not agree with. The problem is not them, it's clearly you.

[–] bing-57 8 years ago

> The "gay voice" is likely due to NATURE, not NURTURE. There is actually more scientific evidence supporting a nature cause than a nurture cause.

Do you have a a cite for that?

Tell you what, talk to people you know that talk funny. Ask the German ones whether they learned to speak German and have a German accent because they were born that way or because they learned it as they grew up. Now ask your Mexican friends the same thing. Now ask your gay friends.

Among my gay friends, it is almost unanimous that if they came out of the closet at a young age, they have the "gay voice" and if they came out later in life, they don't. The younger they came out of the closet and have hung around other gays, the more likely it is that they have the "gay sound".

And, as you continue to ignore, this movie shows that quite clearly. The voice coaches in the movie claim to have taught many men not to use that voice. It can be unlearned.

But, if you want to continue to deny these clear and obvious facts, go right ahead.

--
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] RAJH (533) 6 years ago

I don't believe they put it on....It's still highly annoying though.