>Because human same-sex sexual behavior (SSB) is heritable and leads to fewer offspring, how SSB-associated alleles have persisted and whether they will remain in human populations are of interest. Using the UK Biobank, we address these questions separately for bisexual behavior (BSB) and exclusive SSB (eSSB) after confirming their genetic distinction. We discover that male BSB is genetically positively correlated with the number of offspring. This unexpected phenomenon is attributable to the horizontal pleiotropy of male risk-taking behavior–associated alleles because male risk-taking behavior is genetically positively correlated with both BSB and the number of offspring and because genetically controlling male risk-taking behavior abolishes the genetic correlation between male BSB and the number of offspring. By contrast, eSSB is genetically negatively correlated with the number of offspring. Our results suggest that male BSB–associated alleles are likely reproductively advantageous, which may explain their past persistence and predict their future maintenance, and that eSSB-associated alleles are likely reproductively advantageous, which may explain their past persistence and predict their future maintenance, and that eSSB-associated alleles are likely being selected against at present.
The capability of "being social" is so important that crows play social games, and their brains are not much bigger than an eyedropper. Homosexuality and polygamy are present in all the species where being social is not just a state machine orchestrated by pheromones (i.e., ants). It is as if Mother Nature would use all the tools in its arsenal to clump together individuals with enough shared interests, and hijacking the mechanisms of sexual pleasure for that goal is a hell of a temptation for our Mother.
In humans, the one that brings the most joy to the collective is likely to enjoy others' presence and company, even in non-orthodox says. Being social will afford that person survival when somebody more ill-tempered may fall off a ravine in the middle of the winter, not to be found until the next thaw. And there was an awfully long age when all hominids had to guide them were their genes and instincts.
In terms of evolution time, we invented two seconds ago systems of belief and moral codices. They made us so successful that there wasn't enough land anymore to sustain us. Rather than optimizing for individual survival, we started optimizing for the survival of our groups and the systems of beliefs that clumped them. And for their armies.
If you live in a place which is mostly deserts, with scarce water and productive land, it would make sense to keep your population numbers low. Unless you are planning to invade your neighbor for their land, or you are expecting your neighbor to invade you at any moment. In that situation, you have little choice but to be the one with the biggest army and the most sexually frustrated, violent males ready to perish in a blaze of glory. Sodom is just a little off from the Dead Sea, and our crops don't like to grow together with salt statues.
Some of these claims seem outlandish as rationalizations, do you have any evidence or data upholding these claims? I’m not sure how sexual frustration, homosexuality, and the military connect, especially we have the old literature of the Iliad where a famous band of men and their lovers fight.
There certainly seems to be a genetic component to sexuality (as well as gender identity). It's not the only factor though: for example, there are epigenetic factors like the more older brothers you have from the same mother, the more likely to are to be gay.
Too much competition of one type makes it advantageous to flip the script eventually for a small percentage of the population, despite that having other (often heavy) costs?
Lefties have been a pretty stable part of the human population for a long time for similar reasons it appears.
I actually never understood why it has to be immutable (in the context of civil rights). IMO, it's a red herring. Because if it was about free will, then people would still need the right to choose what they want to be — and that needs to be respected if it harms no one. So, genetics or not, that just shouldn't matter?
As I see it, this is to point out that attempts to change sexual orientation are doomed to be unsuccessful - and these are, in most cases, either forced or caused by peer pressure. I personally haven't heard of any case of a person doing a full 180 degrees from gay to straight who would not be motivated by religion.
It is not uncommon in the transgender community when someone transitions they will do a "full 180 switch". And of course this is never motivated by religion.
This was actually one key point in helping me understand and figuring out the biology and genetics behind gender dysphoria and the rest of the LGBT.
Here is a presentation that I gave last summer. Slightly out of date with some details given what has been learned since, but the main aspects are all there. The presentation focus's primarily on explaining the gender dysphoria aspect the second half touches on the rest of the LGBT. https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1PdGQlNfY39JX9iPowsBh... Overall it is complex with many possible variants.
Given the sensitive nature I am not rushing to publish, but working on getting it right. Once the key aspects were figured out there is a ton to investigate in this area.
Sorry, but this doesn't explain anything to me. You've traced genetic mutations that cause an array of ailments and conditions spread all over the body, and propose that taking vitamin B will cure them all?...
Sorry if you were looking for a single SNP or something simple. If that was the case this would have been found long ago. Same goes for a b vitamin. Giving vitamin b wont "cure them all". This is complex and happy to discuss over phone / email if you are serious about understanding it.
Attempts to guide sexual orientation, either forced or self-guided, are not as straightforward for bisexual people (pun intended), seeing that the literature in sexology describes some successes that would confuse some less wellread people.
Ho man, do you think that actually is how society works?
The reason religious groups tend to be so anti-gay (and in many prominent cases anti-birth control, anti-prostitution, pro-‘getting married and having kids’), is because those absolutely do directly correlate with increasing population and pro-social control of the population.
At least in an environment where how many soldiers you can field and how well you can direct your population to do what society wants (as compared to what the individuals want) matters. Which is pretty much all of history, with some very rare and historically ephemeral exceptions.
Most of the world still operates this way, and we’ll likely go back to operating this way in a generation or three anyway. It’s pretty fundamental to our biology and at least historic human social dynamics and economics.
Supporting - it’s the wheel. These patterns exist because they are self propagating and work well enough to reproduce faster than they get destroyed, unlike other less common patterns. Additionally, many of these behaviors involve deeply ingrained behaviors that have evolved during humanities entire existence. They may be subverted, redirected, controlled, confused, etc. but they aren’t just going to actually disappear.
I see no evidence that other potential options currently in play are as good or better at reproducing, so eventually, the ‘old’ patterns will win out. Albeit fit to the current context.
I suspect we’re in the equivalent of the pre-Victorian era right now. I suspect the current dynamics will trend towards harems of voluntarily ‘kept’ women (on the lower status side for the women) and ‘in charge’ women in the high status side with staffs of ‘kept’ men, and lots of sexless men/Johns, until it breaks and we rotate again.
Notably, these dynamics have occurred many, many, many times over human history.
The dynamic with Will Smith seems to be an example of the latter, for instance. Most male pro sports players, actors, and businessmen being the former.
Against - birth control is a major change in human reproductive ‘physics’ (similar to nuclear weapons in the ‘physics’ of war).
So maybe something else entirely will emerge. I currently don’t see any clear winners though on that front, not that we aren’t trying. I see a massive shift towards it, actually, as people ‘get what they want’ more effectively in the short term, allowing those able to play the long game better to prosper.
The societal backlash is building though, and in 20-30 years when the current generation of women no longer get the benefits they previously enjoyed (and/or their kids are old enough to vote), we’ll see it. If we aren’t already.
Counter-Against - while we haven’t had any new world wars since inventing the nuke, it’s not like shooting/bombing/invading has stopped, has it? It’s just switched to a different presentation of the same shit.
We are getting more efficient at maximizing the damage and speeding up the iterations though.
In developed capitalist economies children become liability, and not an asset. This is why fertility rates all over the world get rapidly decreased, even in homophobic societies.
I don't think the global fertility rate is in any way impacted by LGBT people not having children, even if it's a factor, it is just minuscule compared to the effects of e.g. better education and living in a post-industrial economy.
And what happens when education stops getting better or is unattainable for a lot of the population, and material wealth stops increasing per capita?
And because labor is so expensive, it’s hard to live/get things done?
Like….. has been increasingly the trend?
We have a ways to go, but population decreases leave a vacuum - and nature abhors a vacuum.
Birth control allows us to resist nature, but at some point someone is going to come up with something that neutralizes its effects (ideological, I’m guessing), and that person/group is going to reproduce to fill the vacuum.
LGBT doesn’t need to materially impact the numbers to be targeted - they just need to be clearly having an easier time while the other groups are ‘working harder’. That is more than sufficient to get demonized/‘other’d’/targeted, etc.
However, if left ‘unchecked’ (in a religious/societal sense), I’d be shocked if LGBTQ didn’t move the population growth rate needle at least 5-10%. Maybe as much as 25% if we count bi/trans/aro/childless by choice/BDSM/poly in the mix - anyone not producing children in the socially ‘right’ way.
Society wide? That is huge.
At least based on all the conservative sex scandals, and wives who suddenly learn their husbands have a side boy toy (or are going to the nearest public park or gay club at 2am), and women I’ve know that suddenly realize they’re actually lesbians when they’re 40.
If you claim it’s not immutable, you enable quacks who torture people thinking they can “convert” them to “straight” and promise parents that they can “““fix””” their kids.
Conversion “““therapy””” does not work, it is torture and has never worked but religious nutjobs keep insisting because they think it’s a choice, or because they like it, or because they think it’s their duty to “fix” people.
This isn't the basis: even if such a thing were a choice there would be no good reason to persecute those who made that choice. Secondly, such things can be immutable or at least very hard to change even if they are not affected by genetics.
There are plenty of ‘good’ reasons to persecute people for making choices like this - like for instance if someone themselves was forced to pretend they weren’t gay, hates themselves and society for it, and is pissed off that someone else might not be forced to do the same.
Or at least that’s what I’ve noticed seems to happen sometimes.
If society feels it’s important that everyone ‘follows the plan’, those folks will be recruited into places of power and give atta-boys every time they make the news, no?
And considering how much (often scary and unfun) work it is to raise kids, and how hard it is to deal with the opposite sex (for both sides), a large portion of the population will happily tell society to go fuck itself and party unless someone like that ‘holds the line’.
Hard for society to grow and be strong when it’s easy to ‘dodge the draft’, as it were.
I think that exaggerates the argument into something brittle and thus weaker. Immutability is sufficient but not required.
The issue isn't whether something can technically be changed or not, the issue is whether it is wrong to coerce people in that direction.
Imagine if tomorrow someone invented magic (de)tanning bed where a few weeks of treatments would permanently change your skin color. Would that new capability suddenly make it acceptable for employers to hire only certain shades?
For that matter, we can talk about things like discrimination on the basis of religion, which has already been mutable for all recorded history.
The basis of the civil rights movement and the LGBT+ community is not, to the best of my understanding, that these characteristics are immutable on the basis of genetics.
In fact, this breakthrough research is the first to link human bisexual behavior to any gene. Which actually should have been the focus of the article.
Yeah, I mean think what you want about trans people but to say acceptance of different sexual orientations is because it's an immutable quality but that gender dysphoria, the well documented medical disorder that has resisted all forms of therapy based treatment and reconditioning -- that causes such constant distress that it drives sufferers to suicide isn't also based on the idea that it's an immutable quality is nuts.
I can't fathom how people believe that subjective tinnitus exists and (at the extremes) causes a constant distress that drives people to suicide despite the fact that all evidence of its existence is self-reported by sufferers but then turn around at gender dysphoria and be like, "seems fake."
If it is meant to describe sexual attractions, and since he is cherrypicking letters he likes in what is actually an unified political movement, and to be facetious, shouldnt it include the most popular sexual attraction type?
The article is literally about bisexual and same sex behavior. So in this case it would not make sense to include heterosexuality, even though that is the most common.
Although immutability is the basis for the LGBT+ political movements, it is known that in some cases sexual orientation fluctuates over time or even flips either way by itself, although there is no known and reliable way to force such changes at will.
>Because human same-sex sexual behavior (SSB) is heritable and leads to fewer offspring, how SSB-associated alleles have persisted and whether they will remain in human populations are of interest. Using the UK Biobank, we address these questions separately for bisexual behavior (BSB) and exclusive SSB (eSSB) after confirming their genetic distinction. We discover that male BSB is genetically positively correlated with the number of offspring. This unexpected phenomenon is attributable to the horizontal pleiotropy of male risk-taking behavior–associated alleles because male risk-taking behavior is genetically positively correlated with both BSB and the number of offspring and because genetically controlling male risk-taking behavior abolishes the genetic correlation between male BSB and the number of offspring. By contrast, eSSB is genetically negatively correlated with the number of offspring. Our results suggest that male BSB–associated alleles are likely reproductively advantageous, which may explain their past persistence and predict their future maintenance, and that eSSB-associated alleles are likely reproductively advantageous, which may explain their past persistence and predict their future maintenance, and that eSSB-associated alleles are likely being selected against at present.