“How do gene variants predisposing people to same-sex sexual orientation persist in the human gene pool?” I’ll posit that a tragically large proportion of same-sex attracted females were/are still compelled to enter heterosexual relationships.
Yep, true - same-sex attracted males too, I imagine. Possibly those individuals still had fewer offspring than other couples. But it may be that selection against gene variants associated with SSSO is stronger now than it was in less liberal times.
What happened to the plausible theory that genes predisposing to same-sex sexual orientation persist in humans because gay and lesbian individuals effectively "dote" on close relatives, raising their fitness?
Hi Clarence - the kin selection explanation of same-sex sexual orientation hasn't fared well. Gay men and lesbians aren't typically more likely than anyone else to care for nieces and nephews. But even if they were, the reproductive boost they'd have to provide to their siblings' reproductive success would have to be enormous to compensate for the reproductive cost of forgoing reproduction themselves. I think other theories are much more plausible.
E.O.Wilson and others have shown that genes which seem to select against individual reproduction actually survive because they increase the survival of siblings to reproductive age as well as their offspring.
The math is simple. For any gay man or lesbian, they share quite a few genes with brothers and sisters. As long as they help their siblings survive to the point that they reproduce their genes pass on to another generation.
In circumstances of low resources it’s more valuable for a lesbian or gay sibling to help their siblings get to reproductive age and have children than they themselves, the math is easy.
We easily forget that reproduction is about genetics, not particularly individual organism.
Do look up EO Wilson and others writing on the subject.
The hypotheses are easy to test - birth order gays, and prevalence of gays and lesbians on larger versus smaller families etc.
Hi Sufeitzy - Wilson's kin selection explanation of same-sex sexual orientation hasn't fared well. Gay men and lesbians aren't typically more likely than anyone else to care for nieces and nephews. And even if they were, the reproductive boost they'd have to provide to their siblings' reproductive success would have to be enormous to compensate for the reproductive cost of forgoing reproduction themselves. I think other theories are much more plausible.
Don’t be too literal, think statistically and think over a period of a few thousand years. There are very few surveys of gays and lesbians from Sumeria. There are however institutional celibates in all frameworks of human social organization. Same effect. Would you argue that medieval monks didn’t help their large families survive, or societies?
Recently., in my family of two grandparents, four children but yours truly is gay, the 10 grandchildren have resources of 6 adults to aid them in getting to reproductive age instead of 12-13 kids and 6 adults. My brother has helped out to the tune of at least six figures in support to the kids of our our two alcoholic sisters, and I’m the gay uncle who gives cars, money and other things to my grand-nieces. I’d die before I was babysitting, or take up slack, but I would if necessary.
It’s the same reason why sickle-cell anemia hasn’t disappeared. It conferred a mild reproductive advantage over tens of thousands of years. For gay and lesbians particularly in large families it’s obvious.
Today, the world is wildly different. Asking lesbians or gays today if they help out with large families isn’t genetics it’s consumer profiling and would have literally zero to do with heritability. Study periods are far too short.
I know you have plenty to do. But I turned a best selling author onto your work. Sarah Hill. She does amazing work on women’s brains and how various issues affect it. Her book on the birth control pill was fascinating.
She recently mentioned that people have come to her saying that their sexual orientation changed after going on the pill and others say their sexual orientation changed after coming off the pill. Both FROM lesbian TO straight. Mind blown.
“How do gene variants predisposing people to same-sex sexual orientation persist in the human gene pool?” I’ll posit that a tragically large proportion of same-sex attracted females were/are still compelled to enter heterosexual relationships.
Yep, true - same-sex attracted males too, I imagine. Possibly those individuals still had fewer offspring than other couples. But it may be that selection against gene variants associated with SSSO is stronger now than it was in less liberal times.
What happened to the plausible theory that genes predisposing to same-sex sexual orientation persist in humans because gay and lesbian individuals effectively "dote" on close relatives, raising their fitness?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513801000745
Hi Clarence - the kin selection explanation of same-sex sexual orientation hasn't fared well. Gay men and lesbians aren't typically more likely than anyone else to care for nieces and nephews. But even if they were, the reproductive boost they'd have to provide to their siblings' reproductive success would have to be enormous to compensate for the reproductive cost of forgoing reproduction themselves. I think other theories are much more plausible.
I would be cautious in heritability statements.
E.O.Wilson and others have shown that genes which seem to select against individual reproduction actually survive because they increase the survival of siblings to reproductive age as well as their offspring.
The math is simple. For any gay man or lesbian, they share quite a few genes with brothers and sisters. As long as they help their siblings survive to the point that they reproduce their genes pass on to another generation.
In circumstances of low resources it’s more valuable for a lesbian or gay sibling to help their siblings get to reproductive age and have children than they themselves, the math is easy.
We easily forget that reproduction is about genetics, not particularly individual organism.
Do look up EO Wilson and others writing on the subject.
The hypotheses are easy to test - birth order gays, and prevalence of gays and lesbians on larger versus smaller families etc.
Hi Sufeitzy - Wilson's kin selection explanation of same-sex sexual orientation hasn't fared well. Gay men and lesbians aren't typically more likely than anyone else to care for nieces and nephews. And even if they were, the reproductive boost they'd have to provide to their siblings' reproductive success would have to be enormous to compensate for the reproductive cost of forgoing reproduction themselves. I think other theories are much more plausible.
Don’t be too literal, think statistically and think over a period of a few thousand years. There are very few surveys of gays and lesbians from Sumeria. There are however institutional celibates in all frameworks of human social organization. Same effect. Would you argue that medieval monks didn’t help their large families survive, or societies?
Recently., in my family of two grandparents, four children but yours truly is gay, the 10 grandchildren have resources of 6 adults to aid them in getting to reproductive age instead of 12-13 kids and 6 adults. My brother has helped out to the tune of at least six figures in support to the kids of our our two alcoholic sisters, and I’m the gay uncle who gives cars, money and other things to my grand-nieces. I’d die before I was babysitting, or take up slack, but I would if necessary.
It’s the same reason why sickle-cell anemia hasn’t disappeared. It conferred a mild reproductive advantage over tens of thousands of years. For gay and lesbians particularly in large families it’s obvious.
Today, the world is wildly different. Asking lesbians or gays today if they help out with large families isn’t genetics it’s consumer profiling and would have literally zero to do with heritability. Study periods are far too short.
I know you have plenty to do. But I turned a best selling author onto your work. Sarah Hill. She does amazing work on women’s brains and how various issues affect it. Her book on the birth control pill was fascinating.
She recently mentioned that people have come to her saying that their sexual orientation changed after going on the pill and others say their sexual orientation changed after coming off the pill. Both FROM lesbian TO straight. Mind blown.
I told her about your work. She wants to connect.