  Modern voice cloning models claim to be able to capture a diverse range of
voices. We test the ability of a typical pipeline to capture the style known
colloquially as "gay voice" and notice a homogenisation effect: synthesised
speech is rated as sounding significantly "less gay" (by LGBTQ+ participants)
than its corresponding ground-truth for speakers with "gay voice", but ratings
actually increase for control speakers. Loss of "gay voice" has implications
for accessibility. We also find that for speakers with "gay voice", loss of
"gay voice" corresponds to lower similarity ratings.
  However, we caution that improving the ability of such models to synthesise
``gay voice'' comes with a great number of risks. We use this pipeline as a
starting point for a discussion on the ethics of modelling queer voices more
broadly. Collecting "clean" queer data has safety and fairness ramifications,
and the resulting technology may cause harms from mockery to death.
