![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Scientist brains are most delicious
Jun. 26th, 2008 03:13 pmSexual Antagonism: A genetic theory of homosexuality
"Gay couples can't have biological kids together. So if homosexuality is genetic, why hasn't it died out?
[...]
The theory is called "sexually antagonistic selection." It holds that a gene can be reproductively harmful to one sex as long as it's helpful to the other. The gene for male homosexuality persists because it promotes—and is passed down through—high rates of procreation among gay men's mothers, sisters, and aunts.
[...]
Third, if the authors are correct, we're not really talking about genes for homosexuality. We're talking about genes for "androphilia," i.e., attraction to men. The importance of the genes lies in what they do not to men but to women, by increasing reproductive output so powerfully that these women compensate for the reduced output among their male relatives. You can't isolate gay men as a puzzle or problem anymore. You have to see them as part of a bigger, stronger, enduring phenomenon."
Wow, that is lovely. I love elegant theories, Occam's Razor-style, that are just so simply practical that you just have to go "Huh. Well. Okay. That makes sense." I also appreciate how optimistic it is about the positive societal effects such a theory could have, should it become widely accepted. I think it seriously underestimates the power of the opinionated religious right, though, being a little too oblivious of the fact that people are often homophobic for entirely irrational reasons and simply use the "it's unnatural and therefore an abomination" argument as a kind of rational camouflage. But that's why I love scientists. <3
On a less high-minded level, this explains why I know so many people with gay uncles. :)
"Gay couples can't have biological kids together. So if homosexuality is genetic, why hasn't it died out?
[...]
The theory is called "sexually antagonistic selection." It holds that a gene can be reproductively harmful to one sex as long as it's helpful to the other. The gene for male homosexuality persists because it promotes—and is passed down through—high rates of procreation among gay men's mothers, sisters, and aunts.
[...]
Third, if the authors are correct, we're not really talking about genes for homosexuality. We're talking about genes for "androphilia," i.e., attraction to men. The importance of the genes lies in what they do not to men but to women, by increasing reproductive output so powerfully that these women compensate for the reduced output among their male relatives. You can't isolate gay men as a puzzle or problem anymore. You have to see them as part of a bigger, stronger, enduring phenomenon."
Wow, that is lovely. I love elegant theories, Occam's Razor-style, that are just so simply practical that you just have to go "Huh. Well. Okay. That makes sense." I also appreciate how optimistic it is about the positive societal effects such a theory could have, should it become widely accepted. I think it seriously underestimates the power of the opinionated religious right, though, being a little too oblivious of the fact that people are often homophobic for entirely irrational reasons and simply use the "it's unnatural and therefore an abomination" argument as a kind of rational camouflage. But that's why I love scientists. <3
On a less high-minded level, this explains why I know so many people with gay uncles. :)