Scientist brains are most delicious

[inmyriadbits]

Sexual 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. :)

Comments

[wishforhome.livejournal.com]

Whenever someone says "Well, gay couple can't have kids!" I want to smack them. Do they really think there are no gay parents out there? A lot of gay men and women have kids that are biologically theirs. Hate to break it to the fundies, but guys, the plumbing still works.

[inmyriadbits.livejournal.com]

Well, actually, the statement "Well, gay couples can't have kids!" is technically accurate. They can raise kids together, and each half of the couple can have kids with another person/genetic donor. But in the old-school biological sense of the term, two gay persons can not have a baby together. Luckily, there's a new school coming along nicely, as seen in things like this article. :)

I think the point is more an evolutionary one: if, in fact, homosexuality is genetic, how does it perpetuate itself, thus providing for such relatively consistent levels of homosexuality? Darwin's theory of evolution is based on the idea that traits are passed on because they increase an organism's ability to survive/reproduce and thereby pass on its genetic material. While it is true that gay men and women do have kids, the point is that gay men or women can't have children with the people they're sexually attracted to. And thus, it's a evolutionary conundrum, because at first glance it seems this is a trait doomed to weed itself out of the population rather quickly. Only, it hasn't. It's quite simply stuck around, and there's no denying it. The overly-obvious counterargument that it's NOT genetic, then, likewise makes no sense to me; homosexuality has such a high personal cost most of the time that it's very hard to go along with the idea that it's a conscious decision rather than an innate characteristic. It doesn't make sense to me sociologically OR psychologically (or personally). The evolutionary aspect is something I've puzzled over before; I had faith in the idea that homosexuality was genetic, but I'd never found a theory that wrapped my head around the Darwinian dilemma. That's why I liked this article so much. I was like, "AH HA! That totally makes sense! Now for the biological sciences half of proving it, lovelies..." It's almost an aesthetic appreciation, as much as anything, because I always have been and always will be a science nerd at heart. :)

(Although, believe me, I have noticed the giant gaping hole re: bisexuals/various-points-along-the-Kinsey-scale and the effect that has on reproduction. Because it's rather personally relevant, dontcha know. I do wish there were more scientific studies of bisexuality. This will do to tide me over for now, though.)

[wishforhome.livejournal.com]

I always worry when they look into homosexuality's genetic roots, honestly... God forbid parents ever have the ability to predict their child's sexual orientation. I know there's an alternate theory that's neither genetic nor psychological -- regarding the balances of chemicals in the mother's womb.

What irritates me is these studies always always always focus on gay men, and it's not clear whether they apply to lesbians, or bisexual women and men. Not that those studies would do me much good either.

Given the complexities of sexual orientation, I doubt it comes from any one source. Probably the causes are just as complicated as the actual phenomena, given the huge range of sexual orientations and gender identities.

[inmyriadbits.livejournal.com]

Yeah...the problem with understanding something is that people then proceed to judge and/or figure out how to control and change it. Which is usually a bad idea, in the case of most people.

That bothers me too. There's a massive lack of scholarship about bisexuality, period, and that's incredibly frustrating.

[maribouquet.livejournal.com]

Interesting. Wouldn't that mean that the genes for being attracted to women are different? Makes me wonder, because isn't the prevalence the same for gay men and gay women? (I won't even go into bisexuality, though that raises some questions, re: this theory.)

Anyway, just thinking out loud. Going to read the article!

[the_antichris.livejournal.com]

I have a theory for how lesbians are a Good Thing for a Stone Age tribe based on Jared Diamond's speculation about menopause: if you are lucky enough to make it to middle age, you stop running the risk of dying in childbirth, so you're more likely to live to old age and use your experience to help the tribe survive in difficult times. You have fewer children yourself, but the tribe is more likely to prosper. Lesbians are less likely to die in childbirth than straight women, so while it's unhelpful for spreading their genes, it helps protect the offspring of relatives.