Finding the Switch

If there is one thing that has always seemed obvious about homosexuality, it's that it just doesn't make sense. Evolution favors traits that aid reproduction, and being gay clearly doesn't do that. The existence of homosexuality amounts to a profound evolutionary mystery, since failing to pass on your genes means that your genetic fitness is a resounding zero. "Homosexuality is effectively like sterilization," says psychobiologist Qazi Rahman of Queen Mary College in London. "You'd think evolution would get rid of it." Yet as far as historians can tell, homosexuality has always been with us. So the question remains: If it's such a disadvantage in the evolutionary rat race, why was it not selected into oblivion millennia ago?

[dante2810]

Very interesting article. Worth reading.

And for those that get to the end, experience tells me that Question #2 is TRUE!

[ScottyMatic]

Thanks Rick for linking this article, and Dante2810 for chiming-in.

(Incidentally, any idea why my submission to be an editor on this forum met with no response at all from Topix would be appreciated...)

The premise of the author that humans who do not contribute to the gene pool are a null factor in human evolution is quite simply flawed. There are a multitude of things which a human being does in his or her lifetime which contribute substantively to the collective good of the species. Is it so difficult to see a distinction between humans and plankton?

Most people will not take the time to read the five pages of this article. And apparently, the authors are ignorant of the existing studies already done on the subject.

One particular study (my apologies for not citing it specifically--I found it doing research for my book in 1992, and all the supporting files were lost when my house was destroyed by fire...) it was indicated that homosexual orientation was influenced by emotional trauma of the mother in the third trimester of pregnancy, but only in the presence of an unidentified genetic co-factor.(My own mother was in an emotionally-charged auto accident when she was eight months pregnant, which is why the article interested me.)

It was research done in the early 50's in Germany, involving gay men whose mothers had been traumatized by the conditions of WWII.

But even while noting that there is a marked difference in the more fertile productivity of mothers of gay men, the article assumes that because gay people do not contribute to the gene pool, they likewise do not contribute anything to the survival of the human race, the authors succumb to one of the most basic pitfalls of scientific research... the flawed premise.

Because gay people contribute to society, they have an influence on the social development of future generations, regardless of whether they contribute genetically. Humans are social creatures, and social pressures are often more influential than genetic ones.

The penultimate question of the article... "How do these things interact?" is fundamental to understanding who we are.

Mother Nature's wisdom is impenetrable. It is only reasonable to presume that if LGBT people have not been wholly eliminated by forces of natural seleciton and evolution, that there is an important and necessary function for them in human evolution. It is hubris to presume that we understant what that funciton is, or that gay people are dispensible. If we were, then nature would have eliminated us 200,000 years ago.

My very existence is proof that my claim to equal rights is the same as any heterosexual.

And this article is proof that even among researchers, there is still a prevailing bias that there is something fundamentally abnormal about LGBT people.

I disagree.

[nhjeff]

I think the correlation with the number of older brothers is interesting. Think about an agrarian or hunting society where survival depends on the number of workers and hunters available to gather food. A mother who had two heterosexual sons would most likely pass her genes on to the next generation through at least one of them. Additional sons might contribute to the survival prospects of the family and tribe without contributing to the gene pool. In this context, you can easily see how a gene that caused later sons to tend to be gay would benefit the family.

I have serious doubts about the man-loving gene, however. The author seems to be saying that the mothers of homosexuals tend to be hornier and possibly less discrete than other mothers. I suspect that most women are capable of displaying these traits and, if they were good traits, they would be widely practiced.

[dante2810]

ScottyMatic wrote:

And this article is proof that even among researchers, there is still a prevailing bias that there is something fundamentally abnormal about LGBT people.
I disagree.

I was back and forth with the article myself.

Part of it was very frustrating because, yes, it did come across as trying to explain why we are how we are via a genetic defect. Even the reference to Freud, if someone just cut and paste that paragraph, could lead one to think that we are gay because of nurture.

But I do feel the reasons for their research is not based on bias or lack of understanding, but by taking a certain view and following that path to see where it leads.

Some of the statistics they gave do apply to me. I am the youngest of 4 brothers, yet only gay one. Lots more family on my mom's side...etc.
But by contrast, my ex is the only male and has one sister. His mother side of the family is small.

I think, that as analytical thinkers, these scientist have to view things from all angles. And as long as they qualify it, explain it or dismiss it when appropriate, I do not have a problem with them looking for a reason.

As for Mother Nature, I agree that if we were a "genetic defect", we would have been eventually bred out. But the simple fact is that the VAST MAJORITY of gays and lesbians are born from heterosexual parents.
I have heard various reasons for our being, some said a form of natural population control, others say that by introducing a variant in a species, you introduce a variant in its social structure that allows it to progress.
Modern views say that gays and lesbians are natures way to prepare for our current times of an pressing need for more adoptive parents.
One religious friend thinks that we are here in order to test the faith and compassion of other people (they would be judged on how they judge others).

But what ever the reason, I can tell anyone that based on MY upbringing, I am gay because that is the way I am wired. My best friends growing up, we all had virtually the same childhoods and teens, enjoyed the same things, played sports, etc... yet they are all straight and married with kids. NOTHING in my childhood sent me down this path, I was born to walk it.

Scotty, I LOVE your posts. And while I may post smartass things occasionally, and not always agree with your thoughts 100%, you are one of maybe 4 or 5 people that routinely post in these forums that I respect and admire.

[Dubya]

It has always bothered me that if they found the "gay gene" many "parents" would opt for abortion if this gene were present in their unborn child. So it is on the positive side that research has not identifited this gene; indeed it appears that there may be many factors which interact to produce gay children including the mother herself. Wouldn't it be nice if everyone just agreed that people are born gay and leave it at that? Of course that could probably happen in a homophobic-free society, which ours is definitely not!

[SFer]

Both the section on brothers and Question #8 reminds me, in Medieval European families, one brother traditionally ran the family business, one went into the army and one entered a monastary.

My bet's the gay one is the one in the monastary.

[fuzi]

I've never really questioned the "why" since for me it is just something that always was. I am the oldest child in my family, my brother is over 5 years younger. I was also the only grandchild for over 4 years. Yet, from a very early age I was "different". I related more with playing with the neighbor girls rather than the sports with the neighbor boys. I didn't want to be a girl, mind you, I just socialized with them better. At 5 years old I had a crush on a male TV actor, and later on an older male neighbor. I would tell my mother that I was going to marry them and she would try her best to explain why that couldn't happen. By the age of 7 or 8, I had learned that my feelings should be kept to myself lest I be considered weird by my peers.

But the fact remains, I was not raised any differently than anyone else around me. My father wasn't distant, he and my grandfather were very positive male influences. My mother wasn't domineering, I had a huge extended family of support and a close-knit neighborhood in a very rural area far from the influence of "city life".
I wasn't molested by anyone, wasn't traumatized. I had a rather idyllic childhood, actually. Yet I am and always have been a homosexual, 100%. Thankfully, I have a family that has always accepted me for who and what I am.

[Dasein9]

Dubya wrote:

It has always bothered me that if they found the "gay gene" many "parents" would opt for abortion if this gene were present in their unborn child. So it is on the positive side that research has not identifited this gene; indeed it appears that there may be many factors which interact to produce gay children including the mother herself. Wouldn't it be nice if everyone just agreed that people are born gay and leave it at that? Of course that could probably happen in a homophobic-free society, which ours is definitely not!

I agree. What's happened is that it's gotten dumbed down for the populace.
Maybe there are biological causes which are not genetic.
Maybe it's a combination of causes.
Maybe there is no biological cause at all.
Maybe there are different kinds of gay, which have different ways of coming about.

One thing's for sure, though, it's INNATE, whether it's biologically caused or not. But the thumpers have seized on this "gay gene" notion, and are holding on like terriers with a bone.

[Ralph]

All of this research and poundering is very interesting, but, in the end, I question what is the good this is doing? I learned many years ago that it is better to accept who and what we are. The questions about why do not concern me. Anymore than my brother wonders why he is a heterosexual. Life is to short to ponder these questions. They may be of interest to others, but for myself, I just thank whatever it is that caused me to be this way, and love the life I have been given. Remember, they are looking for a cause for a reason. Is the reason to just enlighten us, or is it to do away with us? Knowledge is a two-edged sword. I just hope if there is an alterable cause, they don't discover it in my lifetime.

[SFer]

Ralph wrote:

All of this research and poundering is very interesting, but, in the end, I question what is the good this is doing? I learned many years ago that it is better to accept who and what we are. The questions about why do not concern me. Anymore than my brother wonders why he is a heterosexual. Life is to short to ponder these questions. They may be of interest to others, but for myself, I just thank whatever it is that caused me to be this way, and love the life I have been given. Remember, they are looking for a cause for a reason. Is the reason to just enlighten us, or is it to do away with us? Knowledge is a two-edged sword. I just hope if there is an alterable cause, they don't discover it in my lifetime.

I agree totally.

Why are they looking for a "cause" unless they are looking for a "cure"?

Monetary gain perhaps?

[NE Jade]

My God Fuzi, we lived the same childhood! When I was first questioning my sexuality, I thought maybe I was spoiled from being the only grandchild for so long. Then I just learned to live a lie and that lasted until college. I would love for all those "it's a choice" people to be able to step into my shoes as I was growing up. By the way, was the actor who you had a crush on, the guy who played "Tarzan"?

[fuzi]

NE Jade wrote:

My God Fuzi, we lived the same childhood! When I was first questioning my sexuality, I thought maybe I was spoiled from being the only grandchild for so long. Then I just learned to live a lie and that lasted until college. I would love for all those "it's a choice" people to be able to step into my shoes as I was growing up. By the way, was the actor who you had a crush on, the guy who played "Tarzan"?

No, it was Clint Walker, "Cheyenne". I would watch that show every day in awe of him, I thought he was so beautiful. At that age I had no idea of sex or sexuality, I just felt he was the most beautiful person I had ever seen. The same with the neighbor I had a crush on, there was never any idea or hint at a sexual nature, I just liked looking at him and being near him. It wasn't until much later, around 12yo that I began to attribute sexual feelings to that. Thankfully, with the help of a very accepting and understanding family, I came out at the age of 16 and never had to suffer living a lie.

[nhjeff]

SFer wrote:

<quoted text>
I agree totally.
Why are they looking for a "cause" unless they are looking for a "cure"?
Monetary gain perhaps?

Strangely enough, many people just can't stand differences.

Not too long ago, people couldn't tolerate left-handedness. They were always trying to "cure" the kids of their natural hand-orientation. They even went to the point of physical restraint and exorcism. All because someone wrote with the "wrong" hand.

I don't think a cause of left-handedness has ever been found, but it is accepted as a naturally occurring variation through most of the world today. When someone notices that I'm a lefty, they never ask me what caused me to be left-handed, suggest that I'd be better off as a righty, nor pretend that it was a choice. They simply accept what is without requiring a cause.

We are not nearly so enlightened when it comes to differences in race, culture, religion, or sexual orientation. People are always looking for a reason that they're better than the others. Sometimes we find reasons that don't make people either better or worse, and that might be a relief.

Given the strong correlation between religiosity and homophobia, it's clear that many people suspect there is a sinister cause of homosexuality. It would be a relief to many of them to find a definitive cause that didn't involve talking snakes. Others would continue to ignore the science and think incessantly about snakes. Still others would like to counteract the cause.

The bottom line? There doesn't seem to be much to gain from knowing the one or several causes of homosexuality. We would be better off just accepting and even celebrating variation in our world.

[SFer]

nhjeff wrote:

<quoted text>
Strangely enough, many people just can't stand differences.
Not too long ago, people couldn't tolerate left-handedness. They were always trying to "cure" the kids of their natural hand-orientation. They even went to the point of physical restraint and exorcism. All because someone wrote with the "wrong" hand.
I don't think a cause of left-handedness has ever been found, but it is accepted as a naturally occurring variation through most of the world today. When someone notices that I'm a lefty, they never ask me what caused me to be left-handed, suggest that I'd be better off as a righty, nor pretend that it was a choice. They simply accept what is without requiring a cause.
We are not nearly so enlightened when it comes to differences in race, culture, religion, or sexual orientation. People are always looking for a reason that they're better than the others. Sometimes we find reasons that don't make people either better or worse, and that might be a relief.
Given the strong correlation between religiosity and homophobia, it's clear that many people suspect there is a sinister cause of homosexuality. It would be a relief to many of them to find a definitive cause that didn't involve talking snakes. Others would continue to ignore the science and think incessantly about snakes. Still others would like to counteract the cause.
The bottom line? There doesn't seem to be much to gain from knowing the one or several causes of homosexuality. We would be better off just accepting and even celebrating variation in our world.

As a left-handed person, I can wholeheartedly agree with what you say, too.

You reminded me of a medical assistant in my doctor's office who, when she saw I was left-handed said, "In my culture, a mother would tie her left-handed child's hand behind his back until he learned to use his right hand."

All I could think was, "Gee, I hope they have a lot of therapists, physical and mental, in your culture."

[nhjeff]

SFer wrote:

<quoted text>
"In my culture, a mother would tie her left-handed child's hand behind his back until he learned to use his right hand."
All I could think was, "Gee, I hope they have a lot of therapists, physical and mental, in your culture."

Alas, you can be sure they don't have appropriate counselors. Perhaps there is still much work to be done. Maybe we can start the left-handed version of Amnesty International!

[West Coaster]

I remember my parents telling the nuns that I was left handed and I was going to STAY left handed. Thank goodness. My brother-in-law was suppose to be left-handed, but ended up mimicing his dad who was also left-handed. Being a mirror image when he sat across from him, he ended up using HIS right hand. It screwed him up good for quite a while. You know they say that every one is born left handed. You become right handed after you commit your first sin!!

[JaneKrahe]

West Coaster wrote:

You know they say that every one is born left handed. You become right handed after you commit your first sin!!

Really? I thought the left hand was the one considered the "hand of the devil".

[blasterboy1984]

Wish I could remember where I ran across the paper but thought I would toss the gist of it out. Anyway, I read this paper on evolution, it postulated that there are sociological as well as environmental factors at play. It delved into the niches in society and how different personality traits would be beneficial to the continuance of the tribe/pack/etc. One of the things that it talked about was the fact that there is a role for homosexuals to play. Namely, it allows for an increased male population for the defense of the group and for hunting without introducing more competition for the female 'resources'. Well...just my two cents.

[Ian]

Reading the article, the obvious "switch" was that the mothers had a high level of testosterone. Explaining the high number of maternal sex partners, testosterone increases libido. Explaining the handedness, foetal testosterone has a damaging effect on the left-brain, causing right-brain dominance; left-handedness. Same phenomenon responsible for the ring-finger ratios, deep-voicedness. Even the "gay lisp", since the left-brain controls fine movements of the tongue.

Now the chicken-egg question goes to whether female testosterone levels vary naturally, or do environmental factors cause them to fluctuate? For example, stress is said to spike testosterone in females, explaining the third-trimester trauma theory, and maybe how stressful childhoods are related to female promiscuity. Speaking of sex, does a woman having more sex increase her testosterone levels? What about diet? Competition? Involvement in the workplace?