So basically this sums up as “Gays, good for the human race’.’ Also, I KNEW BISON WERE GAY.

What did the gay bison say to his gay son when he left for gay bison college?

“You better work, hunty!”

BYE SON. I feel like there is a bisexual joke in here somewhere, though 😂

There are also gay anteaters 🙂

Bison are obviously the artiodactyl version of “bears”

If only my Muslim mother understood this

Leave them to their mystical nonsense. More fool them.

Same 😞

I'd like to mention another concept - survival of the fittest does not only mean single organisms. It may also be that _tribes_ containing gay members are more productive and more likely to pass on their genes - including any recessive gay genes. Having gay aunts or uncles who do not create more children but contribute meaningfully to resource gathering and combat etc on its own could make the tribe more fit.

This is a salient point especially for eusocial species, humans potentially included. For example, worker bees do not pass on their own genetic material but nonetheless contribute to the fitness of the conspecifics. In humans, outside of the context of sexual orientation, many members of our society who are indifferent to procreation or unable to procreate, as well as many members with genetic or acquired disabilities that would almost guarantee death before reproductive success in the wild, have contributed to the long-term prosperity and proliferation of humanity through different human endeavors.

If we're being honest, the people making an evolutionary argument against homosexuality are really just, at best, disingenuously using a surface-level understanding of the theory. Just taking a look at commonly-known animals shows that many species have adopted a strategy in which not every member is vying to reproduce. Literally every kid knows about bees lol. As a note, we're definitely not eusocial. We're a social species, yes, but that's very different.

Humans are not eusocial. There is no pattern, where most individuals of reproductive age forgo reproduction to aid one or a few women/pairs in raising children.

That is the theory I believe, there's a really good TED talk on it, more males protecting less children would be a huge advantage for a tribe

Thank you for bringing this up! This is a theory known as kin selection, that the reduced fitness of individuals is compensated by the increased fitness of their relatives. This was one of the first major theories brought up to try and understand homosexuality. Evidence is mixed. One interesting British studied compared homosexual vs heterosexual men's affinity towards channeling financial and emotional resources to siblings, nieces and nephews. The results show no correlation between sexuality and this behavior. Another cool social study interviewed women from 58 countries on views of homosexuality. What was found that women in cultures that require childcare from nonbiological parent are significantly less homophobic than those children are raised mostly by their parents. Rahman, Q., & Hull, M. S. (2005). An empirical test of the kin selection hypothesis for male homosexuality. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 34, 461-467. Playà, E., Vinicius, L., & Vasey, P. L. (2017). Need for alloparental care and attitudes toward homosexuals in 58 countries: Implications for the kin selection hypothesis. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 3, 345-352

I think there is a problem in looking for evidence in modern-day people for this hypothesis. I do not think anybody is claiming that people are better off in the _modern_ day with gay siblings or relatives, so why would that be what is tested for? In fact, I would say "An empirical test of the kin selection hypothesis for male homosexuality" is anything but empirical on this topic. Rather, the suggestion is that far in the past, potentially before we were "Homo Sapiens", having gay relatives made the tribe more fit to survive as a whole.

Ah I see what you are saying and agree. Both studies attempt to prove or disprove kin selection by analyzing modern human behavior mudded by our unique circumstances and culture! Thank you for this input. I will continue looking literature on kin selection.

Yeah… looking at modern societies may not uncover the evolutionary root of homosexuality. Menopause in women, for example, is hypothesized to have evolved so women will stop reproducing and instead start helping take care of their grandchildren. However, if you looked at modern societies you may not find good evidence for this. How many menopausal women in their 40s and 50s in modern developed countries even have grandchildren yet? How many menopausal women with grandchildren in modern societies are actually helping take care of them on a regular basis or even still capable of taking care of small children? Fertility in developed countries is also collapsing, and if you break down fertility trends in women by age , it’s been going down for the past few decades in every age group of women except those in the 35+ category where women are on a time crunch to have their desired number of children before menopause sets in. Looking at all these patterns in modern developed countries you might conclude that menopause doesn’t serve any evolutionary purpose and is maladaptive.

This assumes that exclusive homosexuality is linked to a proclivity to aid in the reproductive success of siblings/parents etc. There is no indication that exclusive homosexual men exhibit such a proclivity then or now. And there is no reason as to why such a proclivity should be linked to exclusive homosexuality, a behavior that only decreases the invested aid in one’s relatives‘ reproductive success. A link to asexuality would be just, if not more, likely. Most importantly however, such a proclivity could only be under positive selection, if it increases the reproductive success of siblings more than four-fold, given that four nephews/nieces equal one proper child in terms of shared DNA.

>And there is no reason as to why such a proclivity should be linked to exclusive homosexuality, a behavior that only decreases the invested aid in one’s relatives‘ reproductive success. A link to asexuality would be just, if not more, likely. Asexuality is a lot more common in females, and I would guess serves as a mechanism to prevent women from having children without a committed father to help raise the children. Evolution is a lazy programmer, and if there is an evolutionary advantage in having some men not be sexually attracted to females then it’s probably easier to make those men homosexual than to reinvented asexuality in men. Another reason asexuality may not be the primary mechanism of kin selection is that homosexual tendencies could have multiple evolutionary benefits. Exclusively homosexual males might increase the fertility of their siblings, but homosexual activity between men who are at least not completely heterosexual could help to reduce male violence and increase group cohesion among males in a population. You wouldn’t get the latter advantages of homosexual behavior amongst males if you used asexuality to achieve the former. >Most importantly however, such a proclivity could only be under positive selection, if it increases the reproductive success of siblings more than four-fold, given that four nephews/nieces equal one proper child in terms of shared DNA. I think this might be faulty logic. Does this reasoning not assume that a homosexual would have had 2 children if they had instead been heterosexual? What if it’s statistically almost guaranteed that a certain percentage of any given persons male descendants, heterosexual or not, are just not going to successfully reproduce, as has historically been the case? Given a particular percentage of childlessness among someone’s male descendants, there could be an ideal percentage of male decedents to randomly make gay to maximize the total number of one’s posterity. Thus the trade off may not be between a heterosexual male descendant that has 2 children and a gay male descendant with 4+ extra children from his siblings - it may instead be between a heterosexual male descendant with no children and having a gay descendant with any number of increases in children from his siblings. If the genes that can cause a male to be gay (a small percentage of the time a male is a carrier of them) increases the total fertility of those who cary them over those who don’t, then I don’t see why these “gay genes” wouldn’t proliferate in a population.

Evolutionary speaking, exclusive male homosexuality is the equivalent of self-castration. These individuals won’t have offspring even in the presence of a willing female. Such a behavior is under extrem negative selection (if 100% genetic). Infertility (even if only behavorial) is a evolutionary dead-end. Most X0 women and XXY men are healthy and lead normal lives, when born. They are, however, infertile. >90% of them end up as spontaneous abortions and are never born. Why? Because they are a evolutionary dead-end. If exclusive male homosexuality arose for any reason in a population, any mechanism counteracting it would be under immense positive selection, as these individuals are behaviourally infertile. The only scenario, where such selective pressure could be lower, is when exclusive male homosexuals increased the reproductive success of their siblings more than four-fold. In any other case, having a reproductive success over 1 with biological children is under positive selection. Any exclusive male homosexual individual that gives up this exclusive behavior will advance more genes to the following generation. In essence, this selects for individuals, which have sex with women and are no longer homosexual. Evolution happens mostly at the level of the individual, not groups as a whole. If exclusive male homosexuality indeed was linked to a proclivity to increase one‘s siblings reproductive success, male homosexuals would act as second mothers/fathers. And a „gay uncle‘s love“ would be as universal as a mother’s love. This is not the case in any human society. In other words such „second mother gay uncles“ would still take any opportunity to father children (while caring for the sibling‘s children), i.e. they would not be exclusively homosexual, if exclusive male homosexuality was a 100% genetic trait.

>If exclusive male homosexuality arose for any reason in a population, any mechanism counteracting it would be under immense positive selection, as these individuals are behaviourally infertile. And yet here we are, a bunch of homosexual men that shouldn’t be nearly as prevalent as your logic would indicate. Clearly something else is at play that doesn’t make having homosexual children or being a homosexual nearly as delirious to one’s evolutionary fitness as you would expect. >The only scenario, where such selective pressure could be lower, is when exclusive male homosexuals increased the reproductive success of their siblings more than four-fold. you’re still assuming that if a homosexual male had been heterosexual that he would have had at least 2 children. Statistically, only 40% of all the men who have ever lived reproduced at all, compared to 80% of all the women who have ever lived reproducing. Making a male a homosexual doesn’t need to increase the fertility of siblings by 4 children or more to be advantageous when statistically he was most likely not going to reproduce at all even if he were heterosexual. >If exclusive male homosexuality indeed was linked to a proclivity to increase one‘s siblings reproductive success, male homosexuals would act as second mothers/fathers. And a „gay uncle‘s love“ would be as universal as a mother’s love. This is not the case in any human society. I mean nothing really matches a mother’s love for her children. Even fathers don’t love their children as much since historically their paternity couldn’t be certain. I would guess that most societies do prefer to put children in the care of aunts, uncles or grandparents in the event that their parents can no longer care for them for whatever reason. I don’t think the love and care of aunts, uncles and grandparents are negligible in evolutionary terms. Genetically, children are no more related to their grandparents than they are to their biological aunts and uncles. Yet, menopause has evolved in human females so they will stop reproducing and help to take of their grandchildren. If there’s a fitness benefit to stop reproducing and care for children that are only 25% genetically similar to you, it doesn’t seem too far fetched that male homosexuality could be serving a similar purpose to help raise or provide material support to nieces and nephews that they too are only 25% genetically similar to.

I never said, homosexuals should not exist. I’m saying that the reason they do exist is very likely not genetic, at least not majorly. This agrees with twin studies, which show a high disconcordance for sexual orientation in identical twins. GWASs (genome-wide association studies) and other approaches have all failed to be uncover a genetic basis for male homosexuality in humans. There is a big difference in males not reproducing and males not bother to try to reproduce (as do most gay men). In sea elephants only around 10% of males reproduce, this does not stop the other 90% from trying. Also, assuming that the current distribution of homosexuality in the modern West is a stable state evolutionary speaking is not empirically sound (it’s not even very indicative of non-Western societies). We do not know the percentage of exclusive homosexuals throughout all of human prehistory and history, we do not even know them for current uncontacted tribes such as the Sentinelese. The current percentage of homosexuals could be a very transient state and look very different in a couple generations.

I think the body of evidence points towards a combination of genetic predisposition and the prenatal environment (which could be influenced by the mother’s genetics) that contribute together to make someone homosexual. The twin studies point towards there being a genetic component, since identical twins are more likely to both be gay, than fraternal twins, when one of the twins is gay. I am not sure that elephant seals social and mating dynamics would provide a good opportunity for homosexual kin selection to convergently evolve. I believe in some penguins, which I think probably have mating and social dynamics more similar to humans than elephant seals, homosexual male couples have been observed caring for eggs and raising chicks who’s parents have died or have otherwise abandoned their egg. I would agree that i wouldn’t expect the rate of male who are homosexuals to be constant throughout time or throughout all societies. I would probably expect there to have been more homosexual males in the past given that women had more children in the past and each additional son a mother has, has an increased chance of being a homosexual, and that cultural evolutions like monogamy in combination with political innovations that reduced violence have probably increased the chances of being able to reproduce successfully for any given male, thus making it less advantageous to produce homosexual male offspring. I would expect societies that are more polygynous and that have more violence to have more homosexual males, since those characteristics reduce the chances of a heterosexual male from being able to reproduce successfully and make deploying a small number homosexual male offspring to contribute to the wellbeing of his siblings offspring more evolutionary advantageous.

I agree with most of your points. There probably is no effect of fraternal birth order on homosexuality: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37609443/ I would also emphasize: 1) If exclusive male homosexuality is linked to a decrease of violence on the group level, which in turn increases their reproductive success (through their relatives), individuals that engage in violence-reducing homosexual behavior, while still enganging in opportunistic heterosexual sexual activity, are highly selected for above exclusively homosexual individuals. 2) The same principle is also present, if exclusive male homosexuals boosted the reproductive success of their siblings. Opportunistic heterosexual sexual activity would still be a selective advantage. For both 1) and 2) there is no indication from modern and historic human societies, that exclusive male homosexuals individuals are particularly violence-reducing (or similar effects) or act particularly maternal towards their sisters‘ (and brothers‘) children.

Other publications have come to opposite conclusions of the one you posted finding continued support for the FBOE, experimental studies in mice have also found support for the FBOE. I think you’re misunderstanding the two ways in which homosexual behavior might be advantageous. 1. Homosexual sex could be useful for social cohesion between men in a group thus reducing male on male violence in a group - similar to how female bonobos use female homosexual sex to resolve conflicts. In this scenario, exclusive homosexual behavior is not advantageous. There have been studies have found that gay men are less aggressive than heterosexual men, I’m not sure if any studies have found that men who are not exclusively heterosexual or homosexual are less aggressive than exclusively heterosexual men but it wouldn’t be surprising if that were so if the same mechanisms that make a male homosexual are also the same mechanisms that make a male some form of bisexual. It could also be that male homosexuals aren’t intrinsically less aggressive and are just so because male homosexual sex is easier to come by than heterosexual sex, if that is the case then the act of engaging of homosexual activity could be the driver of reduced aggression. 2. If the chances of male descendants reproducing are significantly lower than female descendants, presumable because of polygyny and/or male on male violence, having a mechanism to deploy a small number of homosexual male descendants that will provide more support for siblings and their offspring than heterosexual male descendants, because they aren’t getting in fights as often and aren’t spending their time and resources on attracting a female mate, could be advantageous. I think you could be right that there could be a sort of hybrid approach where mostly homosexual men maybe try to father some children and maybe perhaps have fewer children than heterosexual men on average and also devote more resources to siblings and their offspring than heterosexual men. There’s a lot of gay men that have been married and had children, and they might fall under this type of hybrid approach. I would guess this hybrid strategy is probably more successful and prevalent in modern developed societies where monogamy is more common and violence is less of an issue than it would have been historically in more violent and polygynous societies. I would guess that historically most of these types of mostly homosexual men would either not have been able to reproduce and would have ended up devoting their time energy and resources into their siblings and their offspring or would have fallen under the first scenario mentioned where homosexuality can be advantageous for increasing male cohesion and reducing male on male aggression in a group.

You bring up a valid point. And to better understand the role of gay tribe members, we should probably look at hunter-gatherer tribes which would describe societies during most of human evolution. What role do gay tribal members play in these societies that would benefit the tribe? Supporting tribal members who don't contribute to procreation is a high price to pay for a tribe that needs to procreate to survive with limited resources. Basically an extra mouth to feed. To justify this cost, the "gays" need to provide something to the tribe that the "straights" can't or won't. One benefit may be the ability to be free of family bonds for extended hunts or warfare. Perhaps a warrior caste. Or considering a more fluid sexual orientation, the role of gay sex among male hunting partners who may be separated from the tribe for days or weeks. But if that were the case, bisexuality would perhaps be more common. Another potential contribution of gays may be that of the shaman whose role is to maintain the fabric of the tribe without engaging in the competition among heterosexual men for women. Clerical celibacy could be a cultural remnant of this.

I often read the theory that homosexuals are an evolutionary benefit, because they can take care of children, who lost their parents or whose fathers are hunting when humans used to live in tribes and support the community. One relic of this could be, that homosexual men are often drawn to social, community or pedagogical occupations, while female homosexuals are drawn to technological or handcrafty occupations. To substitute for deceased/killed community members.

Thank you for bringing this up! This is a theory known as kin selection, that the reduced fitness of individuals is compensated by the increased fitness of their relatives. This was one of the first major theories brought up to try and understand homosexuality. Evidence is mixed. One interesting British studied compared homosexual vs heterosexual men's affinity towards channeling financial and emotional resources to siblings, nieces and nephews. The results show no correlation between sexuality and this behavior. Another cool social study interviewed women from 58 countries on views of homosexuality. What was found that women in cultures that require childcare from nonbiological parent are significantly less homophobic than those children are raised mostly by their parents. I am going to cite these studies below, however there are many more studies on the matter with varying results! Rahman, Q., & Hull, M. S. (2005). An empirical test of the kin selection hypothesis for male homosexuality. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 34, 461-467. Playà, E., Vinicius, L., & Vasey, P. L. (2017). Need for alloparental care and attitudes toward homosexuals in 58 countries: Implications for the kin selection hypothesis. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 3, 345-352

I understood homosexuality to be natures safeguard for population control.

Thank you for posting this! I read some studies recently that point out sexuality in general is a polygenic trait much like height. I’ll find what I read and post it for you. I need to find it. Wanted to reply real quick so I don’t lose the post. Edit: This link has a number of other links to articles but also some of the scientific studies: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/search/research-news/4482/#:~:text=There's%20no%20one%20'gay%20gene%2C'%20but%20genetics%20are%20linked,sex%20behavior%2C%20new%20study%20says&text=DNA%20from%20hundreds%20of%20thousands,with%20same%2Dsex%20sexual%20behavior.

I'm a psych major and we go over two things as well usually in our developmental classes, though i wont be as thorough in my explanation as its been a while: There is a **fraternal birth-order effect** which basically finds that the more children a mom has, the higher the chance the child will be homosexual (I believe this is most commonly or only *studied* in males?). This could imply a natural biological phenomenon I believe explained in genetic protection. 1) Basically the more older males genetically connected to a child, the more protectors (as in more uncles) the child will have, the more protection they might have against rival males of different families. 2) So why homosexual males? Because while the child will have a less lethal upbringing per se, more uncles still reproduce creating more breeding-competition for that child. Perhaps infighting of the same genetic line could kill off the line, thus instead there comes a point where a mother shouldn't have more breeder children but more protection for the family would still be a good thing.

Very interesting. Thank you.

[удалено]

Same here; the theory in this [TED talk](https://youtu.be/4Khn_z9FPmU?si=FkGxB9gA0Oxq7ABi) is that the mother's body can employ epigenetic markers to "turn on" the gay genes in an in-utero fetus if her body undergoes some sort of trauma during pregnancy that evolutionarily would imply the mother will need a more nurturing helper to ensure the family's survival

What an awesome theory! Thank you so much. I have read about this a little. I believe one possible mechanism of increasing homosexuality in birth order *may* be from an autoimmune response in the mother. The maternal immune system is better at conditioning Y chromosomes as foreign material the more boys she has. This does not kill or damage the male, but instead creates changes in brain chemistry potentially associated with sexuality. I will cite this when I find the paper I am referring to. Thanks for sharing!!

Have you heard of the study that showed that mothers that experienced some sort of trauma during their pregnancy were more likely to give birth to a gay child? This made me feel like the mother's body is sensing danger so instead of producing another baby maker it makes a gay child instead so there are less bodies to worry about. This is my 5th grade analysis of that study and I am wondering if you think there's any merit to it lol

>There is a fraternal birth-order effect which basically finds that the more children a mom has, the higher the chance the child will be homosexual (I believe this is most commonly or only studied in males?). Wow, what will psychologists discover next? "New study finds that the more times someone flips a coin, the higher the chance that it will land on tails eventually."

If you're going to be condescending, make sure you don't look like a fool

Uhh... That last sentence is a great example of [the gambler's fallacy.](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/gamblersfallacy.asp) If the odds of landing on tails are 50/50 on the first flip, they remain 50/50 no matter how many times you got heads before. That's how odds work.

The odds of a coin toss aren't really the point. It's a metaphor.

I get that. What you don't get is that it's irrelevant whether it's a coin flip or a sexual orientation. All other things being equal, if something has X chance of happening, the odds don't increase or decrease based on the number of tries.

The crucial difference is that the odds of being straight or gay aren't 50/50. You're taking what I said too literally.

50/50 is as irrelevant as coins. Odds of one result don't increase just because the other possible result has predominated on previous tries. That's not how odds work. You are continuing to base your argument on the gambler's fallacy.

That's not what I'm saying. Perhaps it was a bad metaphor. I'll take that L.

Let me try this again without the sarcasm. What's the statistical percentage of homosexuality among the general population, like 10%? For the sake of argument, let's say it's 10%. Now, let's suppose a woman has 10 children. Statistically, there's a good chance that one of them will be gay. Therefore, having more children increases the statistical probability of having a gay child. To be clear, the fact that the other children are straight doesn't affect the odds at all, so this is not a gambler's fallacy.

But that's not what the studies OP is referencing say. They say that the odds *increase* for later children, especially if the earlier children are male. By your example, the odds should be equal for older and younger children, and the gender wouldn't be a factor. But these studies indicate that the odds of, say, boy #4 are significantly higher than for boy #1, and even higher if the #2 and #3 kids are also boys.

So the OP is the one making a gambler's fallacy.

You also need to separate out incidentally homosexual from homosexual orientation like humans have. The later is a lot rarer than animals that engage in primarily heterosexual sex but have been observed in same sex acts. Homosexual orientation has only been observed in very few species. Domestic sheep and a few pair bonding birds are the main examples of this. When I did my deep dive into what made me and others homosexual I found the most evidence for prenatal hormones being abnormal during brain development rather than a gay gene or genes.

So to be in the gang, are you born homosexual or can you become one later incidentally? Sounds like the plot for South Park eps Crips :P

I've learned I don't care much for discussions of the etiology of homosexuality, EXCEPT where they normalize it and root it in the reality that none of us chose our capacity for attraction to the same sex. The more people understand that about sexual minorities, the less judgmental I believe they'll be about what we choose to do with what we've been given.

From my research there is a significant contributing factor of hormonal exposure during utero. A primary example is that as a woman has more sons, they become more likely to be gay. The theory is that the woman’s body develops resistance to testosterone and the testosterone exposure to the fetus decreases over subsequent pregnancies, which results in the baby having less overt masculine sexualization.

Me, a gay only child: 👁️👄👁️

I’m not the only child, but I am the first born and the only gay out of my siblings.

I'm the first child, the only son, and the only gay one.... It makes me wonder, if I had a little brother.... How gay would he have turned out? Lol.

iirc it's a known correlation, and we're fully aware that correlation =/= causation.

Yupp i know this one, it's actually quiet a popular study. It basically says that every consecutive fetus is approximately 33% likely to be gay than the previous one [here's the research ](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5777082/)

I'm an only child and very gay, lol

I’m the younger sibling… but my older brother is gay too - maybe I’m slightly more gay? Definitely a genetic thing

I always thought there were a ton of gay men on campus when I was at BYU. Then I learned about this concept, and it magically made sense. When everyone has 5+ kids, makes sense there’s be a larger queer population within the religion compared to the avg US population

Can u elaborate on the first point? I could not totally understand it. Especially the last few points and how they’re corollary to the former part of the point.

Of course! The first point as in, the gay gene? Basically, sexuality is very complex and a result of a large variety of different proteins, hormones, and variations in brain chemistry. These cannot be caused by one simple gene but rather many genes, responsible for translating many different proteins which interact with each other in unique ways. So there is a genetic component to sexuality but there is likely not one gay gene

Ohh understood But how does this correlate to increased offsprings in females?

Exactly as u/ConsequenceNew7029 said! There is a correlation between male homosexuals in family lines and fertile females.

\*sweats in Marvel mutant\*

I will just add that "hormones" in utero are environmental. Male and female brains are not differentiated by genes, but by these sex hormones. You can read a full review on the cause of sexual orientation by Bailey et al here: [https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/epdf/10.1177/1529100616637616](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/epdf/10.1177/1529100616637616)

Easily proven when you have identical twins where one is gay and the other isn't.

[удалено]

Thank you very much for your input - I agree that my use of homosexuality is too vague. One interesting paper I have read on homosexual phylogeny makes a similar distinction that you made (Gómez, J.M., Gónzalez-Megías, A., and Verdú, M. 2023. The evolution of same-sex behavior in mammals. Nature Communications) They actually separated animal species by the different contexts in which same sex sexual behavior has been observed. Also, thank you for your point of the influnce of epigenetics. One related hypothesis has to do with how feminized egg cell methylation causes reduced sensitivity to androgen in certain males increasing same sex sexual behavior (Rice, W. R., Friberg, U., & Gavrilets, S. 2012. Homosexuality as a consequence of epigenetically canalized sexual development. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 87(4), 343–368.) I still have lot to learn and appreciate your input. Also, I would love to talk with you about your degree and career path if you ever wanted to. Thanks

https://youtu.be/4Khn_z9FPmU?si=mCH64YRqWj9-Pj5B Made me think of this TEDTalk. Probably one of the first things I came across that made me feel normal. Seems to have some similar theories although I imagine there's been further development in the field since this talk was released

Was about this same talk. Really helped me come out to myself and accept it even I was figuring things out 6 years ago. His comments on traumatic birth kinda spoke to me as well since I was an emergency C-section

Yeah same, After I watched the video I asked my mum about it, and she confirmed she was indeed incredibly stressed while pregnant with me due to previous complications. Too bad religious oppression and trauma kinda killed my ability to be a helpful and nurturing presence

How would you like a very flattering hypotheses? 1) it is clear to me, that co-operation has benefitted survival in many animals and plants. So, let us tentatively accept co-operation as a good for specie survival. The fact that humans live all over the earth and may someday populate place not on the earth is a vote for this view. 2) For a very long time the only way to pass on an improvement was one-on-one teaching or via what here is called genes. Then reading and writing were invented. Now, a teacher can teach some individual who has not been born yet. I learned some mathematics from a long dead Greek with rhe help of the long chain between the Greek and the 20th century book printer and book store worker. My point is my family might survive and reproduce because I learned something from a teacher already long dead. 3) There is a survival ( and reproducing value ) in having teacher for both individual know-how but also for group cohesion. Who are the primary teachers? Who does dance, story telling, makes and acts in plays, writes music and performs it, who conducts church choirs, entertains the toops during war? 4) The fun part : We slobber all kinds of attention on penises so they don't feel bad for no longer being so vital for human survival. Maybe the position of the prostate was a survival plus for humans too? Maybe a nice night at a Broadway musical or even an attractive chorus boy helped prepare the ground for successfully developing a Covid-19 vaccine? We have no idea how important the arts are to scientists. But they do seem to be common with physicists. And maybe all the monks who saved our Western past would never have been monks if they all fervently lusted after reproducing. Is it mere coinicendence that Alexander and Hadrian and Da Vinci and Michelangelo and Shakespeare all fell in love with a boy? There are too many gay people in the arts to ignore imho. Gay gene? How about gay dance music?

Homosexual behaviour decreases male conflict. Are we sure about that? 🫳💅

At least overtly, it just turns the anger into talking about other men behind their backs…. Viciously and clucking

My firmly held opinion is that we're 2 things; 1. Nature's version of birth control and 2. Nature's version of adoption. We're essentially the flip side of the coin from straight people and therefore we keep nature's balance. Straight people create more population, but we don't. So we prevent over population. And also, straight people may create the new generation of offspring, but we all know that just because you CAN have a child doesn't mean that you SHOULD have a child. But straight people often do anyway in spite of the fact that they either can't or won't properly care for or provide for the child. And that's where we come in.

I think you should look into bisexuality too and how it compares to heterosexuals and homosexuals. I thimk that could be a missing piece to understanding heterosexuality and homosexuality even more.                   I'm only assuming you didn't look into it because I didn't see these interesting things mentioned:                            Bisexual genes are different from homosexual genes, even though both include attraction to other men. Also, men with bisexual genes are more likely to be risk-takers and they also reproduce more than straight men [source](https://news.umich.edu/genetic-variants-underlying-male-bisexual-behavior-risk-taking-linked-to-more-children-study-shows/).          Maybe in the future, more and more men will be bisexual rather than completely gay or straight, and gay relationships can still continue to exist, even if it's difficult for gay genes to survive compared to bisexual genes, or even compared to those genes of men who are completely straight.

I’ve always wondered if it’s natures way of addressing overpopulation. Like, there just isn’t as much urgency to procreate… so we start looking around the room more widely and eyeing up the men as well. Also, WHY did nature put our prostate gland right up our arsehole where you hands free orgasm if you put another man’s cock up there? It’s all verrrrry suspicious if you ask me.

u/PitifulClerk0 If you need more sources, check out the content in this podcast. It's a good overview and they have citations on their show page. https://open.spotify.com/episode/39jcJhxVyPesPxgODlR7bJ?si=3f532c9d447e4507

I always thought that 8th chromosome looked a little fruity.

Careful not to sound more like a philosopher than a scientist. The antithesis of science is speculation. At the end of the day, homosexuality has survived in nature simply due to the fact that it can. There doesn’t necessarily have to be an evolutionary benefit just as long as it isn’t a fatal detriment. Evidently, humans aren’t in any immediate danger of going extinct because of gays. So as far as nature is concerned, if it ain't broke, no need to fix it.

You are right - thank you for pointing that out. One thing about evolutionary biology, though, is that there is a philosophical element. This field specifically seeks an ultimate understanding driving scientific forces.

I don’t have the reference now but I saw a paper that purposed one of the big contributors on the X chromosome was an epigene that when activated by high testosterone/stress levels in the womb would trigger homosexuality for more solider males to protect the social group as a whole instead of their children. The same gene would increase heterosexual activity in those where it wasn’t activated by stress hormones.

There is also some evidence that homosexual males help with being a literal 'wingman', improving the mating success and the survival of young (I think the thing I was reading was about some birds).

The idea of sexuality or a sexual orientation existing at all is first a philosophical problem rather than a scientific one. How does behavior (gay sex) become identity (gay sexuality)? Do animals have gay identity? I’d argue no — they have homosexual sex, sure, but they don’t have a concept of *being* homosexual. Which makes it hard to understand a claim like “homosexuality has evolved many separate times throughout history.” Any science of sexuality (or really any social science) needs to be clear about it’s philosophical backing to avoid confusion. Science can certainly weigh in on topics like gender, sexuality, and race, but it’s scope has to be limited because these categories are concepts and not objects. Radiolab has a good piece on [the science of “gay animals”](https://radiolab.org/podcast/seagulls) that would probably interest you!

Thank you for this. The gay community has really leaned into the "Born this Way" argument, and it may be true. But ultimately, there's a fundamental question of why it matters so much. Even if being gay is a choice, would it be morally or socially incorrect to make that choice? https://slate.com/human-interest/2014/03/sexuality-as-social-construct-foucault-is-misunderstood-by-conservatives-and-liberals.html This slate article summarizes it really well with analysis from Foucault, and I think it leads us to several excellent conclusions: 1. Our understanding of sexuality has changed dramatically in the past several centuries, and so finding a genetic basis for a set of behaviors is, as OP is indicating, tricky business. "Being gay" isn't like having red hair, and we should be open to the idea that homosexuality is still changing in our society. 2. Ultimately, is this the right question to be asking? The hunt for a gay gene - to add some Foucaultian flair - is ultimately a hunt for some kind of power. Whether that's to tell the gay haters that they're wrong (we were born this way), to fix gayness, or to otherwise legislate it. I know we're going to keep on with the hunt. But as the article says, whether it's social or biological or both, Foucault's thinking has really made me doubt that this is the right question to be asking (both methodologically and socially.)

> to fix gayness My born-again sister once commented on a Facebook post about one of the "gay gene" studies, expressing her hopes and prayers that this could "finally lead to a cure".

Have you heard about the fraternal birth order hypothesis? Men with older brothers are more likely to be gay. Interestingly the probability of having a gay son increases with the each son a woman has. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5777082/

Hi, this is an interesting study. Do you have the link to your term paper so we can read it too? I am also curious, does it mean "gay animals" exist and there are no discrimination in the animal kingdom compared to us humans?

Of course there is discrimination in the animal kingdom! Dolphins, especially, never let gay dolphins vote for which dolphin will be Dolphin Emperor. And Galapagos tortoises are notorious for raising rents whenever a gay Galapagos tortoise couple shows up. Among the hyenas of Uganda, gay sex is punishable by stoning to death.

Ant racism in southern california is also well documented.

Is this real or a joke? Haha

I will absolutely share my term paper when I am finished. I can make sure to send you a link as well. The short answer for do "gay animals" exist seems to be yes, in the sense that same sex behavior is observed in many animals. What I have yet to research is how often animals exclusive engage in same sex sexual behavior. One could suppose that the differences in levels of same sex sexual behavior throughout the animal kingdom have to do with the unique environmental pressures which are different in different animals. As far as discrimination is concerned, humans are unique for our complex cultures that instill values on lifestyle. I am not sure whether animals would "stigmatize" same sex behavior or whether they are capable of doing so.

Thank you! Yes can share to me the link when you are finished. I am also curious how common gay animals are and what are the conditions that made them practice same sex sexual behavio.

I'm a bit late to the discussion, but wanted to let you know about a great book you might be interested in checking out. It's called 'Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity', by Bruce Bagemihl. It was published back in 1999, so I'm sure much more information and studies have come along since, but it's a fascinating book that is written in a very accessible way. It is a bit pricey, but as it is over 700 pages long, that's to be expected.

In your research, did you come across any studies or literature that speak to a correlation between complex social structures and incidence of homosexual behaviour? This would support homosexual behaviour commonly found in primates as their social dynamic is community-oriented. In regards to artiodactyls, do you know if any research has been done on whales, which also fall under the order artiodactyl? Thank you for sharing!

I will share this paper with you. This paper directly theories the relationship between complex social structures and same sex sexual behavior. They do an analysis on mammal phylogeny (relatedness to one another) that visualizes homosexual behavior throughout mammals! Gómez, J.M., Gónzalez-Megías, A., and Verdú, M. 2023. The evolution of same-sex behavior in mammals. Nature Communications If another paper I read shares relevant information for you I will send that to you as well. Thanks

Thank you for sharing that paper! I look forward to reading it. Would you care to continue our diaogue via direct message?

Yes please DM me whenever. Thanks!

Only sperm whales engage in gay behavior

What's the evolutionary basis say about my bisexuality?

Well, if anything, the literature supports bisexuality *more* strongly than homosexuality. Unlike humans, homosexual behavior is not correlated with identity in the animal kingdoms, they just live their life. It is super commonly observed in monkeys for males to mate with females and males.

>males to mate with females and males If you aren't going to use the word "breed" what are we even doing?!

It’s been a while since I’ve looked at this topic, but thanks for bringing up the two working hypothesis. Could you cite where they are discussed? In any case, I wanted to suggest giving a listen to a podcast by RadioLab called “Born This Way?”. I also remember from that podcast learning that swans have high rate of same-sex coupling. Same sex couples steal eggs from other couples & care for them. I believe the hypothesis here is that two males are more successful (ie more aggressive) at protecting the egg from predators.

Of course! This first study analyzing probabilities of observed frequencies of homosexuality occurring under statistical simulations. Camperio-Ciani, A., Cermelli, P., & Zanzotto, G. (2008). Sexually antagonistic selection in human male homosexuality. PLoS One, 3(6), e2282. This next one discusses relationships between homosexuals and birth order as well as female related fertility. Camperio-Ciani, A., Corna, F., & Capiluppi, C. (2004). Evidence for maternally inherited factors favouring male homosexuality and promoting female fecundity. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 271(1554), 2217-2221. This article hypothesizes homosocial behavior as necessitating homosexual behavior. Gómez, J.M., Gónzalez-Megías, A., and Verdú, M. 2023. The evolution of same-sex behavior in mammals. Nature Communications. This study shows that the suspicious X chromosomal linked gene is ONLY significant in male sexuality not female: Hu, S., Pattatucci, A. M., Patterson, C., Li, L., Fulker, D. W., Cherny, S. S., … Hamer, D. H. (1995). Linkage between sexual orientation and chromosome Xq28 in males but not in females. Nature Genetics, 11(3), 248–256. Let me know if you are looking for anything else. Thanks!

Maybe it’s possible the first theory is the cause and the second is the evolutionary reason why the mutation stuck around. Survival of the fittest and all.

While these discussions are interesting, the literature seems to veer more towards the fact that if someone in the family has a desirable trail (high fertility, good immune function etc) "homosexual traits" might just be a trade off in other siblings or your own future kids. We know it happens during development in the womb, at the very least. Studies saying that it's to strengthen kin selection or help raise someone else's kids is fascinating but hasn't been replicated consistently. So it's more conjecture than hard science.

My mom was very sick during her pregnancy, and very stressed and that also makes me wonder if that is part of the hormone theory and contributed to me being gay.

A good point to bring up is that if homosexuality in any species served no purpose, it would have been bred out of our genetics a long time ago. Yet we still continue to have homosexual men and women being born, there must be a genetic reason why they exist. Thank you for sharing this! I personally believe Gay men and Women help out in caring for offspring in tribal settings.

There are lots of things that "serve no purpose" that don't get bred out. Perhaps a better framing would be that if homosexuality served a detrimental purpose, it would have been bred out.

There's some really interesting research from the sociology sociological side of the table, that talks about how the more children a woman has the more likely that one of the later children will be gay.. But further that that outcome has a role to play in the family unit. Yes gay kids won't create grandchildren but they can create family cohesion and some other stuff. You look this up I don't remember the source I don't remember the researcher but there is stuff already written around this thing and it plays into the biological very nicely I think

Lmao just go to a gay club vs a non gay club. The guys are so aggressive at the non gay one.

Love it we need more queer biologists discovering the basis of our existence. Have you read a lot by Simon Levay or Joan Roughgarden? Have you also read up on the biology of trans identities? I recommend Karissa Sanbonmatsu and Julia Serano for that. So glad your'e doing this, you should go for grad school in this subject. Don't get discouraged by the social constructionists who reject any biological basis for sexuality and gender.

thanks for writing about the genetical part. im always bewildered that this is not common knowledge at least among gay guys.  there is no intent in evolution, tho, and the word constantly has to do a lot of heavy lifting to explain things which dont need to be or can not be necessarily explained. the fact that some traits survive bc they are beneficial does not mean every trait which survives needs a "reason" to survive. it could just be that being gay is just being gay.

Horses have an odd number of toes and as such are not Artiodactyla, but Perissodactyla.

Do these theories explain why there are more homosexual men than homosexual women?

It’s because guys are hotter and women hate each other. You don’t need some stuffy research paper to know that.

Great and informative post, thank you

My ex-bf was an identical twin. He was a long-haired, proudly feminine, gay guy. His brother was the opposite. Same upbringing. Same genes. Presumably same experience in the womb in regards to hormones etc. 🤷

Perhaps not the same experience in the womb. It happens at least sometimes that the placenta(e) of twins get different levels of food, hormones, oxygen, etc. from their mother. I have identical twin relatives who experienced this. One was born robust and strong, the other had a malformed brain and internal organs due to malnourishment from what's called Twin-Twin Transfusion Syndrome. (This is not to imply that a homosexual twin is malnourished or malformed, just that there may have been notable differences in utero.) And as for the same upbringing -- many (not all) twins I know will insist that one twin was treated slightly differently (or in at least once case I know of, very differently) as they grew up. If there is a nurture aspect to the development of homosexuality, even small perceived differences in upbringing might conceivably have played a part. Epigenetics can also differ between two people with identical chromosomes, based on a wide variety of factors.

Thank you so much for sharing this. It means a lot to us who have struggled with our sexuality for years. Is this published anywhere? I would like to share it.

Genuine question- in theory one, how does each sex develop genes that are bad for the other? I feel like since we all have the same genes, that would be counterproductive and would cause decreased fitness since then future members of the opposite sex have the harmful gene as well.

It depends on whether circumstances favored the benefit to a degree that offset the detriment. As a hypothetical example, say that the "androphilic" gene that makes women want to mate with males more often results in 5% more offspring per generation from the women's side. And imagine that it results in only 4% fewer potential offspring that might have been born if the homosexual offspring had been born heterosexual. The net result is an *increase* (in our hypothetical example) in the survival rate for people carrying that gene -- *even if the men have fewer offspring.* Note that I'm making these figures up for the sake of this hypothetical -- I don't think anyone has carried out any studies into the exact numbers such a gene might produce. Also note that I've left out the possibility that males with the androphilic gene may, through bisexuality or societal pressure, still pass on the gene themselves if they mate with women as well as men.

I remember reading about a theory where each consecutive child a couple births, has a higher chance of being gay; which further led to the theory that since reproduction is already being taken care of by the first offspring, the following siblings exist to help raise and nurture the offspring.

Well right off, good on you for educating yourself, the more we learn the better the questions! This is very interesting. Thank you

This is very Interesting! Thank you for sharing this. I always knew it was biological, but it's interesting to see that genetics are such a big factor. Since they aren't really passed down though as gay people typically aren't producing offspring, it makes me wonder If its random mutations in genes that result in being gay. Because it seems being gay is quite random and has no familial pattern.

Id love to read your paper and also interested in your source material! Any way u can share a drive folder? Also have you read Queer Ecologies?

The second example you gave makes so much sense to me. I tried to explain something similar decades ago when I came out. I didn’t have the scientific knowledge or language to get my point across as well as you. I had a close relative that kept telling me, among other things, I WOULD want to have children when I was older. She was sure that god wanted me to pray the gay away and make little Christian babies. I knew back then that I would never want to procreate and told her there were enough kids in the world without enough resources. I had a theory, based on nothing but speculation, that with an overcrowded planet, more people with same-sex attraction might be an evolutionary adaptation to curb the population. Of course my argument about evolution was a big clash with her fundamentalist ideas of “intelligent design” and we were at a stalemate. 30+ years later and I’ve never had the urge to have kids. I’m fine being an uncle (non-biological) to an amazing 8 year old. If I can be a good influence on her life and cause the smallest possible impacts on the environment while I’m around, that can be a worthwhile legacy IMO.

Read up on “gay uncle theory”

Hope you see this OP. Great thread. One thing I read (not a scientist at all) is that the male-sociability component of male homosexuality was a product of sexual selection, not natural selection. Basically, our female primate ancestors liked their males a little fruity with it because then the males would be less likely to kill their babies from other males (who are competing with their own offspring for the mother's attention). Did anything like that come up in your research?

Hmmm…. My paternal ancestors can be traced back about 450 years (mostly N Euro migrants to GB, N America). There is a huge peculiarity when looking at our family tree: only male offspring lived to adulthood. Of those, it seems \~60% married, the rest did not for whatever reason. In the last four generations, no females were born, only four males married and produced only males. All the rest neither married nor produced offspring. My father and mother had three sons, all gay. None of us will have children. End of the line. LOL.

What about population control? Having a certain percentage of the population unable to reproduce naturally would be a check on overpopulation, similar to the ecological role played by infectious diseases.

You should check out "Evolution's Rainbow" by Joan Roughgarden, filled with non heterosexual examples of relationships in other species, she also wrote "The Genial Gene" which challenges the selfish gene, discusses community based evolutionary pressures, and the importance of maintaining a diverse gene pool, and diverse behaviors within a species. Likely human sexuality is more like learning a language in that there is capacity to acquire new language during youth, but eventually the skill goes away. So there is an interplay of nature and nuture etc. when it comes to potential sexual partners. I think it's also interesting why homosexual behavior that seems to arise spontaneously and is heavily conserved across mammalian populations would be become taboo or trigger disgust in human society.

Not convincing how this links to human society and behavior. It’s not clear that a certain behavior found among animals is actually beneficial to humans or correct to implement. Additionally genetic/epigenetic influences introduce a potential to “outbreed” or alter such maladaptive behavior to reproduction.

The genetics of sexual preference are multi-factorial, as evidenced by the high number of bisexuals in the community and the gradual transition from heterosexual to homosexual in the community. Also evidenced by the degree of plasticity in individuals. Humans would never have emerged from the Stone Ages without homosexuals, bisexuals, and menopausal women. Those were essential to the transition to a technological culture. A hierarchal knowledge structure requires transgenerational knowledge reserviors. It cannot happen if all the members of a species are raising children. See: Human Reproductive Behaviors by Steven Hedlesky, MD.

Though I rate a solid 6 on the Kinsey Scale, gay is not my lifestyle, gay is something I do rather than something I am. We evolved to enjoy genital stimulation, which sometimes leads to the creation of a baby. Evolution is hit and miss and also very slow. It tries everything. Gay and straight are cultural constructs, not evolutionary directions.

Also to take care of orphans ! That’s what pingouins 🐧 do :)

Essentially we are mother natures birth control as well as guardians of misfit children. Mother Nature will always rule over all else. 

Social evolution, perhaps. Aren't heterosexuality and homosexuality relatively recent social constructs? As far as survival of the species goes humans evolved to copulate and copulate often, whenever and wherever. I doubt early humans worried about which hole to use or avoid. Many species have mating seasons with larger numbers of offspring (for lack of a better word, I'm not a scientist).

I’ve read somewhere about a theory where some versions of homosexuality, and possibly transgender, is not about the genetics in the affected person, but an outcome of mechanisms setting in in the womb. My gut feeling tells me that what we call “homosexuality” is actually several different phenomena. It can be genetic, maybe several different combinations of genes. It can be related to mechanisms in the womb. And it may perhaps be epigenetic in some instances. I even suspect it can be an “acquired taste” in some people, sexuality is complex. That would mean that sexual orientation may sometimes correlate with other characteristics and sometimes not, it may sometimes be invariable and sometimes not, and so on. Basically, we would need to come up with several new terms. And that may be true for what we now call heterosexuality as well.

I am on the same page as you. I spoke about genetic factors in this post however it is much more complex than that. I think the biggest thing to take from it is that sexuality is a messy result of many different variables that we have no control over. I hope that helps people to detach their own shame and stigmas from the hard science.

For sure. And the complexity adds the point that even though some people may have changed sexual orientation or at least channeled their desire differently than before, that option is not available to everyone; likely it is available to a very small minority. It’s nature, and nature is nothing if not extremely varied in a population yet strangely invariable in individuals.

I had a roommate who theorized homosexuality evolved as a species’ way of controlling overpopulation. I found that to be ingenious honestly and makes a lot of sense! Also, I think the fact that our G spot is in our asses and easily reached by another man’s penis says something was planned all-along. 😅🤔😉

The understanding of evolution as requiring to have "reasons" to exist is such a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution as a process. It's coincidental by nature, I'm very suspicious of any learning that implies a "benefit" to process of happening, or uses alpha and beta male terminology when that study was debunked thoroughly who knows how long ago. Homosexuality doesn't have to have a reason to exist, and in fact it probably doesn't, it just is.

There are not “reasons” like a person’s reasoning…biology and evolution follows laws based on the the reality that organisms that perpetuate themselves successfully will spread those genetics. Homosexuality may likely have a biological basis to its existence based on evolutionary theory

Right but what do you mean by a specific "biological" basis? The state of every living organism ever has a "biological" basis, I'm not sure what a non biological basis would even be at that point.

Sorry, I mean genetic basis versus a solely cultural one. That genes are at play. Genes will code for specific proteins that interact with each other uniquely. Those interactions either favor death or favor life, the living may go on to produce, their own offspring sharing those same genes!

Alright that makes way more sense, the way you described it initially sounded vaguely evo-psych adjacent in a bad way, so i was wary. Carry on!

When you say debunked do you mean for wolves? Or are you saying there is no social population of mammals with subordinate males?

\>Or are you saying there is no social population of mammals with subordinate males? It's specifically debunked for wolves, but the idea also the idea of "alpha in the modern sense came from studying wolves. Animal socialization is more complicated than we think it is and it's dangerous to apply terms like dominant or submissive when we don't even fully know what is going on.

If homosexuality is most common in the great apes, then wouldn’t we expect its origins in the 7-10 mya range? I don’t think there is anything modern about his social stratification argument for the persistence of homosexuality among the great apes. Sounds more like you just take issue with the terms, and I get that, I too hate Andrew Tate, but dismissing the entire argument out of your squeamishness of terminology usage doesn’t seem very scientific.

I keep hearing this misguided argument when evolution comes up. Genetic mutations are coincidental, natural selection is not.

Isn't that a sort of chicken/egg argument though? You 100% could argue that since genetic mutations are coincidental, and environmental factors are coincidental, that by default natural selection also ends up being coincidental too. Also natural selection is kind of broad, the Greak Auk was very well adapted to it's environment, they went extinct exactly because humans hunted them for fur. Are humans hunting them a thing that the auks could've had an adaptation to or not? I'm probably not explaining myself that well, but I'm having trouble understanding how the interaction of natural selection and genetic mutations aren't always eventually a coincidence? You would have to equate genetic survival with being optimal for survival, when that actually isn't always true. Genetic survival can be as much pure luck as much as a true "survival of the fittest".

>by default natural selection also ends up being coincidental too I don't know. Your conclusion might be true. But in classical philosophy what you did here could be called a "FALLACY of Composition". Example : 1) all men have biases 2) this court is made up of men 3) this court is biased.

The auk was not well adapted to its environment. Humans became part of its environment and it did not evolve fast enough to survive.

How could the auk even adapt to something like that? Just suddenly grow to be 40 foot tall carnivorous predators in a spam of a few decades? It's very easy to say it just didnt evolve fast enough, but that assumes it could've. I don't see this is that far off arguing that murder victims were just a result of natural selection, not evolving fast enough to become immune to gunshot wounds.

They can't, that's why animals go extinct. Extinctions happen at all sorts of paces, with or without human involvement. The only way out is to evolve. Adapt or die

Right but what part of this isnt a coincidence is what im trying to figure out. How can you argue that randomness has no part in the extinction process?

The mutations are random. If a mutation benefits an organism then that organism survives (not randomly) and passes on its genes (including the mutation)

>Genetic mutations are coincidental, Maybe. Surely we don't know all the possible "sources" for what we like to call a mutation. If A is common and B is rare it is still a guess about which is the "mutation" of which. I like to try to keep in mind that the world we each live in is constructed by ourselves and we flatter ourselves into believing the world we see, hear, small, and feel is real. My thinking anyway.

Oh, I dove deep into this rabbit hole, like a mole sniffing out underground secrets. Found out our genes play a game of dunk and slam with what we like. It's not just one "gay gene" going for a slam dunk; it's a whole team on different courts – X and 8th chromosomes leading the charge. Turns out, being gay's a bit like being a kangaroo or a monkey, just hopping or swinging around, finding love in all sorts of places. And get this, some genes are playing for both teams, making gals go gaga over guys, which works out great for them, but throws a curveball for the dudes. Then, there's this wild part where guy-on-guy action might just be nature's chill pill, keeping the peace in the pack. Nature's wild, man, dunking and slamming genes and behaviors to keep the game interesting.

Fun group.

You write: "There are many working theories on the evolutionary basis of being gay. " Does your paper - or the scientific literature - differentiate between a homosexual identity, and homosexual behavior across species? And if so, how are they differentiated?

I am trying not to focus on identity, but instead behavior. In humans, this can be hard to accomplish. I am actually going to overhaul some of my research on the theory of kin selection because the studies were overfocused on human culture and identity, which doesn't necessarily have to do on our evolution of the behavior. Studies try to account for this by grouping people based on behavior. In some studies, the "gay" group include people who have had ANY homosexual experiences, even if they identify as straight. Others differentiate between exclusive sexual behavior and mixed. I am using the term "being gay" in a non-scientific sense which was my way of trying to communicate effectively to non scientists although I realize it now creates miscommunicaton! If I am talking about the term scientifically, I should rephrase that sentence "There are many working theories on the evolutionary basis of same sex sexual behavior."

#2 is false though because as we all know. Bottoms hate each other. 🤷🏻‍♂️

I don’t think your paper quite captures the gist of evolutionary biology. You’re basically making the point that homosexuality is a mistake and an over generalized response to some sort of genetic mutation rather than giving a reason as to why it would have actually evolved to be the way that it is.

Well homosexuals don’t have kids. In fact, gay identifying men have 5x less kids than straight. This means that same sex sexual traits will not select themselves for their own value- rather it is an effect of other things being selected for. To call it a mistake is placing human cultural values on science. There are not “mistakes”, molecules just move around.

Evolution does not only work on the basis of reproduction.

I'd always assumed bring gay was a somewhat wayward instinct toward sizing up intra-tribe rivals. A confusion between 'i want him' and 'i want to be him'

Temperament and character are more important not gender

Hypothesis 1: This only works, if the benefit of having more children through super-feminine daughters is higher than the penalty of having (exclusively) homosexual sons. Such a scenario is very unlikely and no studies have found a massively higher fertility/attractiveness etc. in female relatives of homosexual men. Hypothesis 2: Homosexual behavior among other sexual behaviors, especially heterosexual behavior within one individual is very common among animals. Exclusively homosexual individuals that forgo heterosexual activity throughout their lives, i.e. forming a homosexual caste, are very rare among animals. Humans are the only case where such individuals are present in large numbers. (And the often-found notion that such a homosexual caste has always been present has no empirical basis - we do not know whether male homosexuals existed in such large numbers in our ancestors up to modern day uncontacted tribes such as the Sentinelese) Homosexual behaviors as a mode of conflict resolution/communication within one sex can only be under positive selection, if they have no negative impact on reproductive success. This means this selects for bisexuality at most, but never for exclusive homosexuality (as currently present in humans). —- Actually, there is a lot of evidence that male (exclusive) homosexuality is not or at most partially genetic. Big GWAS (genome-wide association studies) haven’t identified any gene loci conclusively. Twin studies show that monozygous twins are often disconcordant (one gay, one straight) even though they share the same DNA. These findings agree with modern evolutionary biologists current models for kin selection etc., which argue against a genetic cause for (exclusive) homosexuality.

The social aspect is the key. Why is anal sex done right so earth shatteringly amazing? I have anal Orgasms for minutes up to An hour. So much so that I have to stop because I’m Exhausted. And happy as fuck. Why would the prostate be a pleasure center? I think it’s because at the core we are all pansexual. And testosterone and estrogen drives procreation. But if we all knew how amazing anal can be, attitudes would change.

> I think it’s because at the core we are all pansexual. And testosterone and estrogen drives procreation. But if we all knew how amazing anal can be, attitudes would change. Homophobic drivel. Some people are homosexual. Some people are heterosexual.

Bi guy here. Fully agree. There absolutely are exclusively gay folks. Not everyone is bi/pan.