Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The gay gene and natural selection

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    The gay gene and natural selection

    If, as generally believed, homosexuality is a genetic matter, presumably as an evolutionary response to over-population, would it become progressively less common over generations as gay people no longer face societal pressure to reproduce, and thus pass on the genetic trait? Would it make any difference to the incidence of homosexuality if it were passed on dominant or recessive genes?

    #2
    The gay gene and natural selection

    Dunno mate.

    Comment


      #3
      The gay gene and natural selection

      Diable Rouge wrote: If, as generally believed, homosexuality is a genetic matter
      And "generally believed" is just as good as being conclusively proven, isn't it. Glad we've sorted that out.

      Comment


        #4
        The gay gene and natural selection

        Well, the stronger scientific consensus seems to weigh against the nurture side of things.

        But let's say that it is genetic (and there, as I understand things, is indeed no conclusive consensus), I'd find the idea that it is an evolutionary trait to prevent overpopulation quite difficult to buy into.

        Comment


          #5
          The gay gene and natural selection

          Is this a genetic reaction to population control as well?

          Comment


            #6
            The gay gene and natural selection

            My gut feeling is that homosexuality is very unevenly distributed across populations, let alone the whole species, so environment must be a big factor (but not exclusively so). I certainly do not believe that there is a 1:1 correlation between genes and sexual orientation.

            It is also clearly possible to learn to have same sex desire, having had none previously.

            Comment


              #7
              The gay gene and natural selection

              Satchmo Distel wrote:
              It is also clearly possible to learn to have same sex desire, having had none previously.
              Is that the heterosexual version of "praying the gay away"?

              Comment


                #8
                The gay gene and natural selection

                No, because it is totally voluntary whereas "praying the gay away" implies some social pressure.

                Comment


                  #9
                  The gay gene and natural selection

                  EDIT: Scratch that, misread the post.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    The gay gene and natural selection

                    Satchmo Distel wrote: No, because it is totally voluntary whereas "praying the gay away" implies some social pressure.
                    But it implies that there is an element of choice; a switch that can be flicked if you have reached a decision.

                    And that might not be totally implausible. If one subscribes to the idea of a continuum of sexuality, whereby we are not either one or the other thing, but slide around at certain points. Then a hetero man can "learn" to be attracted to men, or maybe just a particular man; a gay man can have that wife and three children; a guy can claim to have prayed the gay away (and similar applies to women as well, obviously).

                    For some there are choices -- unconscious or deliberate -- involved, because of where they are on the continuum. But your ability to make such choices and see them through would still be determined by where you you are floating on the continuum. And that has to have roots in biology. Alternatively we'll have to deny it when LGBQT people say they were "born that way".

                    Comment


                      #11
                      The gay gene and natural selection

                      Diable Rouge wrote: ...presumably as an evolutionary response to over-population...
                      I think this underlines how misunderstood evolution is. Evolution doesn't 'respond' in an active way. The human genone doesn't look around at the population and decide it needs a solution; hence 'thr gays'.

                      Evolution involves natural selection and random mutation: the latter being an accidental and unpredicted occurrence that creates a new 'benefit' which takes advantage of a situation and causes the former to happen (natural selection).

                      Example: a species of birds on an island have soft beaks. They eat berries. One or two birds have the random mutation of a hard beak. A drought occurs and the berries all go away, so the soft-beaked birds die off. The hard-beaked birds can eat seeds and nuts, so they survive and thrive. Within a few generations of new breeding, all the birds are born with the new hard-beak trait.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        The gay gene and natural selection

                        Birds eating nuts is a timeless solution to overpopulation.

                        The generation of lesbian and bisexual women growing up in societies with marriage equlity and (hopefully) widespread availability of IVF may end up procreating at a rate not dissimilar to their hetero peers.

                        But my reflex when this subject comes up is always: who cares? What pur'poses can the knowledge be put to? If we start by thinkingof sexuality as a set of practices and desires, rather than some sort of compulsion, i t might help shift the focus away from the heteronormative framework outlined in the OP.

                        Apols for typos. Text too small to read back to myself;

                        Comment


                          #13
                          The gay gene and natural selection

                          laverte wrote: Birds eating nuts is a timeless solution to overpopulation.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            The gay gene and natural selection

                            Yes, indeed. I completely missed that, thanks Wouter (and Orson).

                            Comment


                              #15
                              The gay gene and natural selection

                              The distinction between homosexuality being genetic/biological and it being a choice is an utterly false dichotomy. There are lots of traits which are entirely the product of one's environment rather than biology, but that people don't have any control over, like their mother tongue or whatever (I'm sure there are much better examples out there but you get the idea.) Just because something is the result of nurture doesn't mean it's any more of a choice than if it was biological.

                              laverte wrote: But my reflex when this subject comes up is always: who cares? What pur'poses can the knowledge be put to? If we start by thinking of sexuality as a set of practices and desires, rather than sme sort of compulsion, it might help shift the focus away from the heteronormative framework outlined in the OP.
                              Yes, that's where I'm at on this too. I mean, I can understand why researchers would want to know from a purely scientific point of view, but I think it ultimately doesn't matter and shouldn't really be a factor in people's tolerance (or lack thereof) of homosexuality.

                              Also, what WOM said about the general lack of understanding of evolution (and pretty much genetics in general.)

                              Comment


                                #16
                                The gay gene and natural selection

                                I agree with you Fussbudget, although I'd underline that there is no such thing as a purely scientific interest, and that even if scientists' intentions could be pure, that would not make the effects of their research neutral. The very actof choosing to investigate 'minority' sexualities reifies and normalises straightness. The best outcome possible fort gay people is that they have Science's approval for a thing they already know to be true, which especially in the current cli,ate is by no means a guarantee they will be 'tolerated'. (What an absurd idea it would be that we should need scientific evidence to tolerate, say, women, or people with a Teesside accent.)

                                The real curiosity - the thing that needs to be investgated - is heterosexuality, the social phenomenon. Why do we structure so much of our identities and customs around it? Of course if you follow Foucault the category of The Heterosexual was invented by ... scientists!

                                But more substantially it's impossible to think about sexuality without first thinking about gender, and here the rigid model of the functionalist evolutionaries is defunct. When stragiht sexuality can mean a woman with a penis desiring a man with a vulva ... this is not what the Pope or Frigide Barjot would have in mind.

                                Comment


                                  #17
                                  The gay gene and natural selection

                                  laverte wrote: The real curiosity - the thing that needs to be investgated - is heterosexuality, the social phenomenon. Why do we structure so much of our identities and customs around it?
                                  Especially since it wasn't always such if you go back to the roots of our civilisation. For example, in Ancient Greece they didn't have the same idea of 'heteronormative' as modern Western societies. Physical relationships between men were not particularly uncommon, especially between men and teenage boys (pederasty), although it should be noted that to remain as the submissive, penetrated partner as an adult was still regarded as 'feminising' the individual whilst the 'manly' thing was to swap roles to the dominant, penetrating partner.

                                  Comment


                                    #18
                                    The gay gene and natural selection

                                    I think that dominant/penetrated model still exists in Brazil, where only the 'passive' is classed as homosexual.

                                    Comment

                                    Working...
                                    X