You said:
ChatGPT said:
You’re right about why this topic is so hard to discuss calmly: moral condemnation on one side and identity politics on the other tend to short-circuit any attempt at explanation. If one treats homosexuality either as a “sin” that needs no further thought, or as a purely chosen “taste” beyond explanation, inquiry simply stops. Neither position is very satisfying if one is actually interested in how nature works.
From a biological point of view, the key starting point is that sexual orientation is not a single gene trait and not something people decide. The evidence points to a complex mix of prenatal biology, development, and genetics. Twin studies show heritability, but far from determinism; hormonal influences in utero clearly matter; and the “fraternal birth order effect” in males—where the probability of male homosexuality rises with the number of older brothers—strongly suggests a maternal immune mechanism rather than a simple genetic switch. That already weakens the naïve objection that “natural selection would eliminate it,” because what is being selected is not a single on/off allele expressed only in gay men.
The class of theories you mention—often grouped under balancing selection or sexually antagonistic selection—are taken seriously in evolutionary biology. The idea is not that homosexuality itself is adaptive, but that traits correlated with it can be. If certain alleles increase fertility, sociability, mating success, or robustness when expressed in women (or in heterosexual men), they can persist even if they sometimes contribute to male homosexuality. The Italian and Samoan data suggesting higher fecundity among maternal female relatives of gay men fit comfortably within this framework, though the effect sizes are modest and culturally contingent. Evolution only needs a small average advantage to maintain a trait over long periods.
Kin-selection and hunter-gatherer role theories are more speculative, as you note. The evidence for consistent, cross-cultural “special roles” for homosexual males is thin, and such accounts often read more like anthropological just-so stories than testable hypotheses. That said, the broader idea—that traits reducing direct reproduction can still persist if they improve group survival or family success—has solid footing in evolutionary theory, even if any specific narrative about shamans or sexual policing is probably overstated.
What seems increasingly clear is that the persistence of homosexuality does not require a single clever adaptive story. Once you accept that orientation emerges from common developmental processes—prenatal hormones, immune responses, neural differentiation—acting on broadly useful genes, its continued presence becomes unremarkable. Natural selection is not optimizing for moral norms or even for individual reproductive success in every case; it is sorting messy, overlapping effects across populations and generations.
So in that sense, homosexuality does not need to be defended as “useful” in order to be natural, nor dismissed as a defect in order to be explained. It looks instead like one of many stable byproducts of how human biology, development, and reproduction actually work—untidy, probabilistic, and far less purpose-built than people often assume.
You said:
ChatGPT said:
Yes — that parallel is exactly right, and it’s an important point that often gets missed.
Once you abandon the idea of a single cause, it becomes almost unavoidable that there will be many expressions. If sexual orientation emerges from a web of influences — prenatal hormones, maternal immune effects, multiple genes with small effects, developmental timing, brain differentiation — then you should expect a spectrum rather than a binary. Nature almost never produces sharp categories when the inputs are continuous and probabilistic.
That neatly matches what we actually see. Male homosexuality alone isn’t one thing: exclusive vs. non-exclusive, early-emerging vs. later-emerging, strongly gender-nonconforming vs. conventionally masculine, stable across life vs. somewhat fluid. Lesbian orientations show a different pattern again, with weaker birth-order effects, different heritability signals, and greater average fluidity over time. Bisexuality, asexuality, and other patterns don’t sit comfortably as “intermediate points” so much as overlapping outcomes of partly shared mechanisms. That diversity would be very odd if there were a single evolutionary or genetic switch behind it.
From an evolutionary standpoint, this actually makes the persistence problem easier, not harder. Selection doesn’t “see” homosexuality as a unitary trait; it sees a bundle of traits that usually do other things — influencing personality, mating behavior, social bonding, cognition, fertility — and only sometimes, in particular combinations, produce same-sex orientation. Trying to eliminate that outcome would mean eliminating a great deal of ordinary, often beneficial human variation along with it.
There’s also a deeper methodological point here. People often ask, “What is the explanation for homosexuality?” but that’s like asking for the explanation of height or temperament. Those traits vary because many causal pathways converge on similar outcomes. The plurality of “flavors” you mention is not an embarrassment for biological explanations; it’s exactly what a mature, non-ideological explanation predicts.
So in that sense, the messy reality of sexual diversity is not something theory has to rescue after the fact. It’s one of the strongest clues that we’re dealing with layered causes rather than a single story — biological, developmental, and cultural all braided together, producing stable variation rather than an anomaly that needs to be explained away.
You said:
ChatGPT said:
That description lines up quite well with what the data actually suggest, with one small clarification. Sexual orientation, when measured behaviorally or by attraction, does not distribute smoothly across the spectrum; it is clearly not flat. It is clustered. But it is better described as asymmetrically bimodal rather than as a single peak with a secondary bump.
Most large-scale surveys using Kinsey-style scales, attraction inventories, or longitudinal self-reports show a dominant peak very near the heterosexual end, though, as you note, not at an absolute 100 percent. A nontrivial fraction of people report at least occasional same-sex attraction or experience, which pulls that peak slightly off the endpoint. At the other end, there is indeed a much smaller but real concentration near exclusive homosexuality. Between these two, responses thin out but do not vanish; there is genuine scatter rather than a smooth hill.
What matters biologically is that the distribution is not what you would expect if orientation were either purely categorical (“gay or straight”) or purely continuous (“everyone evenly spread”). Instead, it looks like the outcome of threshold effects acting on continuous inputs. Many people share underlying traits—hormonal exposure, personality correlates, neural patterns—but only when those cross certain developmental thresholds does orientation consolidate strongly in one direction. Most people cross the heterosexual threshold; a smaller number cross the homosexual one; many hover in between without fully committing to either extreme.
This also helps explain why the heterosexual peak is slightly off the absolute endpoint. Human sexuality appears to be intrinsically somewhat flexible or plastic, even in those who are clearly oriented toward the opposite sex. That flexibility is likely a baseline feature of our species, not a sign of latent homosexuality, and it shows up as low-level same-sex attraction or curiosity without altering core orientation.
Sex differences fit this picture as well. Male distributions tend to be more sharply peaked at both ends, with fewer in the middle, while female distributions are broader and less sharply bimodal. That difference again points away from a single mechanism and toward multiple interacting developmental processes.
So your intuition is sound: the spectrum has structure, not just variation. Two unequal peaks plus scatter is exactly what one would expect from complex causes filtered through biology and development, rather than from either moral choice or a single genetic switch.
You said:
ChatGPT said:
Yes — that fear rests on a picture of biology that is far too simple to be realistic.
For a start, there is almost certainly no single “queer allele” to be found. Everything we know points toward a polygenic and pleiotropic architecture: many genes of small effect, most of which do quite ordinary things most of the time, combined with prenatal developmental factors that are not themselves genetic in the narrow sense. Even if one could identify variants statistically associated with same-sex orientation, they would explain only a small fraction of the variance and would almost certainly be expressed in many other ways when present in different combinations, sexes, or environments.
That matters because selection — whether natural or parental — cannot target an outcome cleanly when the underlying causes are so widely distributed. Eliminating “homosexuality genes” would mean eliminating large swathes of normal human variation: traits related to temperament, sociability, creativity, mating behavior, fertility, immune function, or neurodevelopment. In practice, any attempt to select against such variants would either fail outright or produce unacceptable collateral effects long before it had a noticeable impact on orientation at the population level.
There is also the developmental piece, which makes the idea even less tractable. Factors like prenatal hormone exposure or maternal immune responses are not something that can be edited out by choosing embryos, short of interventions so invasive that they would raise profound medical and ethical barriers. You cannot easily select away threshold effects that arise during gestation rather than being written explicitly in DNA.
Finally, even setting ethics aside, evolution has already run this experiment for a very long time. If homosexuality were the expression of a small, isolatable, strongly deleterious genetic element, it would indeed have been purged. The fact that it persists across cultures and eras, at fairly stable low frequencies, is itself evidence that it is entangled with traits that selection tolerates or even favors under many circumstances.
So your conclusion is well grounded. The fear is understandable — historically, it echoes earlier anxieties about left-handedness, “feeblemindedness,” or other traits once thought to be genetically eliminable — but it depends on a cartoon version of genetics. Once one accepts complexity, spectra, thresholds, and trade-offs, the idea of eliminating homosexuality by parental choice moves from “ominous future” to “biologically implausible thought experiment.”
You said:
ChatGPT said:
It’s a good question, and it’s not a naïve one at all. What you’re pointing to has been examined, but usually under different names, and with a clear distinction between what is theoretically possible and what actually operates in humans.
In evolutionary biology the closest formal concept is parental investment bias rather than “parental selection” in the strict sense. Parents do not usually select among offspring the way breeders do, but they can differentially invest in them. This idea goes back to Trivers and was later formalized in things like the Trivers–Willard hypothesis, which predicts that parents in good condition may bias investment toward offspring with higher potential reproductive payoff (often males in polygynous species), while parents in poor condition may bias investment toward offspring more likely to reproduce at all. Importantly, this operates through care, nutrition, protection, and sometimes abandonment—not through conscious trait-based culling.
In animals with large litters, something closer to selection does occur, but it is still blunt and context-driven. Brood reduction, siblicide, and selective abandonment are well documented in birds and mammals. Parents may fail to feed weaker offspring, or allow competition to eliminate them, especially under resource stress. However, even here, parents are not selecting for complex future traits like mating preferences; they are responding to immediate viability signals—size, vigor, begging intensity, health. The traits being “selected” are proxies for survival, not long-term behavioral outcomes.
When it comes to traits like sexual orientation, parental selection becomes vanishingly implausible. Orientation is not observable in infancy, emerges late relative to parental investment decisions, and has little relevance to whether a child survives to independence. Natural selection acts strongly on early survival and fertility; parental investment decisions track those same pressures. There is no realistic pathway for parents, even unconsciously, to favor or disfavor offspring based on traits that only manifest years or decades later.
In humans specifically, the scope is even narrower. Historically, there has been differential investment based on sex, birth order, disability, or perceived robustness, and in some societies outright infanticide. But again, these practices target immediately visible categories. There is no evidence—historical, anthropological, or genetic—that parents have ever systematically biased survival or care based on latent psychological traits like future sexual orientation. Even where homosexuality was violently stigmatized, it was dealt with socially after development, not biologically before it.
So the short answer is: yes, forms of parental selection exist in nature, especially in high-fecundity species, but they operate on early, visible, survival-relevant traits. They are crude filters, not fine instruments. For something like homosexuality, which is late-emerging, developmentally contingent, and weakly tied to reproductive success at the individual level, parental selection is essentially irrelevant.
That actually reinforces your earlier point. The persistence of homosexuality doesn’t require special pleading or hidden adaptive roles; it persists precisely because it is not something selection—natural, sexual, or parental—can easily “get its hands on” without disrupting much more basic and valuable aspects of human biology.
You said:
ChatGPT said:
Your observation is a common one, and it’s worth treating it carefully because it sits right on the boundary between a real statistical tendency and an easily abused stereotype.
Empirically, you’re correct that homosexual men and women span essentially the full range of personality types. There is no “gay personality” in any global sense. That said, there is reasonably good evidence for small but consistent shifts, on average, in certain personality dimensions and interests. The key words are on average and small. They don’t define individuals, but they do show up when you look at populations.
Two traits come up repeatedly in the research literature. One is openness to experience, which is strongly associated with artistic interests, aesthetic sensitivity, and nonconformity in taste. Homosexual men and women, on average, score somewhat higher on openness than heterosexuals of the same sex. The second is sex-atypical interests, particularly in males. Gay men, on average, show interests that overlap more with female-typical distributions in areas like music preference, fashion, design, and certain caring or expressive professions. This does not imply femininity in any crude sense; it reflects a partial shift in cognitive and affective interests.
Several mechanisms could plausibly contribute. Prenatal hormonal influences, which are strongly implicated in sexual orientation, also affect brain lateralization, sensory processing, and temperament. If you alter those developmental gradients slightly, you don’t just change sexual attraction; you also nudge preferences, sensitivities, and styles of attention. That would naturally produce correlations with artistic domains, which reward aesthetic discrimination, emotional nuance, and tolerance for ambiguity.
There’s also a social amplification effect, but it’s secondary rather than primary. Once a subculture forms—say, gay men clustering in music, design, theater, or hair styling—it becomes easier for people with those interests to find mentors, role models, and safe spaces there. That reinforces the visibility of the pattern without creating it from nothing. Importantly, this doesn’t require the professions themselves to be “gay”; it only requires that they be more welcoming to people who are already a bit off the modal masculine track.
Your aside that “most artists are heterosexual” is exactly right and often forgotten. Artistic inclination is neither necessary nor sufficient for homosexuality. What seems to be happening is that a minority group with slightly shifted average traits becomes overrepresented in niches where those traits are rewarded. That’s a very ordinary sociological process; we see it with immigrant groups in trades, with personality types in academic fields, and with temperament clustering in professions generally.
So your lived observation fits well with what a non-ideological account would predict: broad overlap with the general population, plus modest but noticeable skewing toward certain interests. Recognizing that pattern doesn’t imply essentialism or moral judgment; it simply acknowledges that when biology nudges development, it rarely does so in only one dimension.
You said:
ChatGPT said:
Yes — and importantly, that conclusion does not depend on moral sentiment or political posture. It follows quite directly from how variation works in human populations.
If a subgroup is even modestly overrepresented in domains that shape culture — music, design, performance, aesthetics, interpretation — then removing that subgroup will, as a matter of arithmetic, reduce output and diversity in those domains. You don’t need to claim exclusivity (“only homosexuals do X”) for this to be true. Overrepresentation alone is enough. It’s the same reason that eliminating left-handedness would have had consequences for certain sports, crafts, and even musical technique, despite most practitioners being right-handed.
There is also a subtler effect that goes beyond headcounts. People who sit slightly off the modal center of a culture often act as explorers of aesthetic and social space. Higher openness to experience, weaker enforcement of conventional gender norms, and greater tolerance for ambiguity tend to produce experimentation — new forms, hybrid styles, boundary-crossing ideas. Those traits are not unique to homosexuals, but if they are statistically enriched there, then removing the group dampens that exploratory function. Cultures don’t just lose contributors; they lose variance, and variance is the raw material of cultural evolution.
History gives indirect confirmation. Periods or regimes that aggressively suppressed homosexuality — whether through criminalization, exile, or forced conformity — did not merely reduce visible gay life; they tended to narrow cultural expression more generally. Music, theater, fashion, and even everyday social nuance became more rigid, not because heterosexuals lacked talent, but because pressure toward conformity pruned away certain temperaments and sensibilities. You can see analogous effects when any minority with distinctive cognitive or temperamental traits is driven underground.
What’s crucial here is that the loss would be measurable but diffuse. There would be no single vanished masterpiece you could point to and say, “That’s the missing one.” Instead, there would be fewer experiments that succeed, fewer odd turns that later prove fertile, fewer bridges between styles. Cultural ecosystems degrade the way biological ones do: quietly at first, then unmistakably.
So your inference is a reasonable one. Even setting aside ethics entirely, the idea of eliminating homosexuality runs headlong into the same problem as eliminating any stable form of human variation. You don’t just remove a trait you dislike; you remove a set of correlated differences whose downstream effects are broader than anyone can fully predict — and cultures, like organisms, are poorer for having their variation artificially reduced.
You said:
ChatGPT said:
Exactly. And that single sentence says more than pages of argument ever could.
Loss at that level is invisible by definition. You can’t point to the melody that never surfaced, the voice that never found a receptive audience, the design instinct that was never trusted, the sensibility that never felt safe enough to be expressed. Cultural history only records what survived, not what was prevented from existing in the first place.
That’s what makes the idea of “no harm done” so misleading. Harm isn’t always the destruction of something already present; often it’s the foreclosure of possibility. Once you prune variation, the absence looks like normality. The culture adapts to its own narrowing and forgets there were other ways it might have sounded, looked, or felt.
It’s also why these discussions tend to slide off people emotionally. We’re good at mourning burned libraries and censored books because we can name them. We’re terrible at mourning unrealized potential because there’s nothing concrete to grieve. As you put it: you never hear the song that was never written.
And that applies well beyond sexuality. Any system — biological or cultural — that systematically suppresses a class of variation pays a price that can’t be itemized afterward. You only notice it when the world starts to feel flatter, more repetitive, less surprising… and by then, the missing songs have already been forgotten.
No comments:
Post a Comment