Homosexuality and Natural Selection

[Irreligious]

Choobus wrote

According to what I have seen on Jerry Springer, very occasionally, they don't correct you if you make the opposite assumption...

According to what I have seen on Jerry Springer, most of the people who appear on that show are highly dysfunctional and not truly representative of the average straight or gay, black or white American citizen populating our villages, towns and cities.

I know we're in bad shape, but it ain't as bleak as Jerry Springer and Maury Povich would have us believe.

Edited: And transgender "men"*-- some of whom are homosexual and some of whom are not-- are kind of a different category of "non-conforming men."

*Re-edited: Oy vey. This is an unwieldy topic. I was compelled to add quotes to the word men, because some of my transgender friends (who were born biologically male) object to being called men, as you so astutely observed in your reference to the wig- and weave-snatching denizens of the Jerry Springer Show. I also know of a couple of transgender individuals who were born female, and they, too, object to being called women. However, neither is typical of the average non-transgender homosexual.

How's that for a confusing mix of political correctness?

[dogpet]

Tenspace wrote

The great thing about Nature and genes and shit is that nothing is ever hard and fast... there are males who got to their homosexuality by a different route than low testosterone expression, just like different organisms came about eyesight in different ways; call it convergent homosexuality.

Like another hand is better than the left hand; can't reach it with your own mouth; any port in a storm; 10 pints of ale...... All men are homo's, not sure about women.

[Irreligious]

dogpet wrote

Like another hand is better than the left hand; can't reach it with your own mouth; any port in a storm; 10 pints of ale...... All men are homo's, not sure about women.

Hmm. I don't know, but outside of folks in prison environments, I've encountered more women whom I would classify as "situational" lesbians. Of course, those women could very well be bisexual.

[ubs]

ubs wrote

...you could always throw it up on r/biology and see if you get any takers.

Someone beat you to it West491, though it's not a very long thread.

There are several possibilities:

1. Kin selection. While a purely homosexual individual will not live to pass on his or her genes, he may be able, by abstaining from reproduction, to increase the survivability of his close relative's offspring. Therefore, while the homosexual individual's particular genes are not passed on, the copies present but unexpressed in his relatives will have a higher rate of being passed on.
2. Unexpected effects of genes contributing to homosexuality. Many genes perform more than one function and, in some cases, a dysfunctional gene on one chromosome can actually increase the survivability of an individual. Thus some gene that, for example, provides acute eyesight may also happen to increase the probability that a person will become homosexual. If being able to see properly gives enough of a survival advantage to overcome the potential reproductive disadvantage of homosexuality, the gene will probably remain.
3. Multiple genes may contribute to the degree of homosexuality in a given individual and, in some environments, some decrease in heterosexual traits may be advantageous (or, again, advantageous through kin selection). Then, occasionally, those genes will coincidentally synchronize to form a highly homosexual individual. That individual is unlikely to reproduce and his genes will be maladaptive, but the genes remain useful in the context of a larger population as long as the probability of becoming homosexual remains low.

Similarly, homosexuality might be the recessive trait and heterosexuality the dominant trait of a single gene. In this case, there may be a heterozygous advantage that causes the recessive genes to be retained despite their potential disadvantage when they align in a homozygous recessive individual.
I'm just listing the possibilities. I'm sure there are many more.

[PanAtheist]

West491 wrote

**ALSO I WOULD LOVE IT IF A BIOLOGIST COMMENTED ON THIS THREAD AND ENLIGHTENED ME.**

Well there's this book by Joan of the Transgender Arc (fka Jonathan) :
Evolution's Rainbow : Diversity, Gender, and Sexuality in Nature and People
She's an evolutionary biologist.
She's also a Christian, and the author of Evolution and Christian Faith: Reflections of an Evolutionary Biologist.
She came to my attention as she is the author of The Genial Gene : Deconstructing Darwinian Selfishness (which I've read a little bit of) and I discovered her other work and religiousity via that. I haven't read anything else of hers, and so I can't comment the value of Evolution's Rainbow.

Would you want to go there?

I think her biology work is both somewhat well-regarded in at least some quarters, and at least somewhat controversial in others. I remember PZ Myers pointing out her doing some pan-adaptationist nonsense. I did enjoy the bit of Genial Gene I read, but I didn't find it easy going. It would be nice to return to it some time, but I have *lots* of things I want to read, and naturally the whole Christian thing puts me off! That said, if you're really interested in science you have to read around, and you can't be bigoted (or binogoted) about people's science. That said, I admit I am prejudiced - as I suspect her of at least some crooked thinking!
(And that said, having read a bit of Genial Gene, I know she can do a bit of clear thinking too!)

[Sternwallow]

Irreligious wrote

Why on earth would an estimated 10 percent of the population purposely "choose" to be misunderstood, maligned and targeted? For kicks?

IMV
Whether it is a choice, is hardwired, an impulse, social pressure or whatever, we do not and cannot choose who to be sexually or intellectually or otherwise attracted to.

Homosexuality is no more a detriment to the survival of the species than any of the other thousands of degrees of normal variation that result in non-reproduction by individuals.
Similarly, an individual decision not to get married in no way diminishes the value (if any) of marriage, to the population.

Society seems to think that it owns all of the sperm and eggs of its members and that any loss of either one through non-procreative sex is an offense against it. See Monty Python's "Every Sperm is Sacred" song.

[West491]

Irreligious wrote

There are so many different kinds of homosexuals out there with varying levels of same-sex attraction, specific sexual predilections and behavioral traits that it seems rather unlikely that there is some specific biological anomaly that unites them all.

Is this a rebuttal to what I said? Because it seems that this goes right along with what I said. Your "varying levels of same-sex attraction" will be accounted for in , my previously mentioned, "hormone balance". No, there may not be ONE balance that makes for a homosexual, but maybe a range of different balances. This seems very possible to me.

[West491]

PanAtheist wrote

It would be nice to return to it some time, but I have *lots* of things I want to read, and naturally the whole Christian thing puts me off! That said, if you're really interested in science you have to read around, and you can't be bigoted (or binogoted) about people's science. That said, I admit I am prejudiced - as I suspect her of at least some crooked thinking!
(And that said, having read a bit of Genial Gene, I know she can do a bit of clear thinking too!)

There are so many better things to read than the bible. Read what you want to read. There are so many classics that actually make you think and allow you to respect the author's skill, even if it is pure science fiction. At least science fiction is labeled "science fiction" and not "truth as inspired by the Sky Daddy".

And yes, when I do my research, I try not to go in expecting to support what I think is true.

[Irreligious]

West491 wrote

Is this a rebuttal to what I said? Because it seems that this goes right along with what I said. Your "varying levels of same-sex attraction" will be accounted for in , my previously mentioned, "hormone balance". No, there may not be ONE balance that makes for a homosexual, but maybe a range of different balances. This seems very possible to me.

Well, I guess it was an attempt at a rebuttal. As I said, and will repeat for emphasis, I am not a scientist.

All I'm saying is that it sounds wildly speculative to me to say that "hormones" or a collection of specific genes are or may be a major contributing factor to homosexuality, without first having identified the hormones or genes in question. That's all.

No doubt, there are a range of factors involved in determining why some people's sexual attraction is oriented more towards the same sex as opposed to the opposite sex. It's likely that some are biological and others could be environmental.

In addition, it seems to me that when we talk about homosexuals, we're using the broadest definition possible in referring to people who either exhibit or act upon a sexual attraction to those of the same sex.

For instance, if we're talking about hormones that allegedly control the sexual orientation of "nelly" boys and "butch" girls who exhibit same-sex attraction, one has to wonder if they're the same hormones or slightly different ones from the ones that control the sexual orientation of feminine men and masculine women who are decidedly heterosexual in orientation.

Despite the comfortable stereotypes, there is no "one kind" of homosexual or heterosexual. There are multiple varieties of these conveniently labled individuals. And while I appreciate scientists' genuine curiosity and diligent work in trying to solve the vexing mystery of why homosexuality exists at all, I can't help but wonder if the approach of seeking to identify a collection of genes or specific hormones that may influence same-sex attraction and/or so-called masculine and feminine behaviorial traits in human beings is a might too simplistic.

To this very unscientific minded individual, it just seems like a shockingly inept way to go about solving what is, obviously, a very complex mystery.

But what the fuck do I know?

[Irreligious]

For clarity, I should have said:
I can't help but wonder if the approach of seeking to identify a collection of genes or specific hormones that may influence same-sex attraction and its interection with so-called masculine and feminine behaviorial traits in human beings is a might too simplistic.

[Tenspace]

Irreligious wrote

For clarity, I should have said:
I can't help but wonder if the approach of seeking to identify a collection of genes or specific hormones that may influence same-sex attraction and its interection with so-called masculine and feminine behaviorial traits in human beings is a might too simplistic.

Have you read any of Matt Ridley's works on the subject? Both the Red Queen and Nature vs Nurture go in-depth on this subject.

[Irreligious]

Tenspace wrote

Have you read any of Matt Ridley's works on the subject? Both the Red Queen and Nature vs Nurture go in-depth on this subject.

No, I haven't. Does that disqualify me from weighing in with my concerns about approaching the phenomenon of same-sex attraction from the perspective that renegade genes or anomalous hormones may be at the root of homosexuality?

I recall a time in history when scientists were pursuing biological leads as to why black people appeared to be less intelligent than whites, on average, based on copious data collected from years of standardized testing of both white and black subjects. Some would say that approach to investigating what appeared to be "an obvious fact" was erroneous.

Now I'm not denying that there is a biological basis for why some people appear to be more intelligent than others. That would be foolish. I just have concerns with how much of a role it may play (when weighed against the copious environmental factors that may also be at work in determining how intelligent we appear) and exactly how we are defining this rather amorphous concept of "intelligence." And I have the same concerns when we're talking about homosexuality. For example, what is a "pure" homosexual as the poster quoted in ubs' post #19 alludes to? I wonder.

Will Matt Ridley's work on the subject help me to understand what a pure homosexual is? If so, I'd love to read his books.

[Irreligious]

Irreligious wrote

For clarity, I should have said:
I can't help but wonder if the approach of seeking to identify a collection of genes or specific hormones that may influence same-sex attraction and its intersection with so-called masculine and feminine behaviorial traits in human beings is a might too simplistic.

Quoting myself here just to say that I am the worst proofreader in the world.

[psychodiva]

[dogpet]

inter-erection