Why Did Gayness Evolve?

Gayvolution
I have a new piece up on the Blowfish Blog. In it, I discuss the current scientific thinking about sexual orientation being genetically determined, at least partly if not mostly or entirely. I pose the question that this thinking automatically leads to: namely, if homosexuality evolved, why? What evolutionary purpose would it serve? And I point out that, when discussing the evolution of particular traits, we have to be sure we’re asking the right question.

It’s called Why Did Gayness Evolve?, and here’s the teaser:

But when you accept the idea that homosexuality is genetically wired, you get faced with a very puzzling question:

Why would that be?

Why, from an evolutionary perspective, would a not-insignificant number of us have been born wanting to boff people we have zero chance of reproducing with?

Why wouldn’t that trait have been selected out long ago?

There are lots of hypotheses as to why this might be. I’m not going to argue for or against any of them here (if for no other reason, it would make this piece way too long). Instead, I want to point a very important and often overlooked fact about evolution:

To ask “What is the evolutionary reason for (X)? Why did (X) evolve?” is often the entirely wrong question.

To find out why this might be the wrong question, read the rest of the piece. Enjoy! (Oh, and for the record: Someone has already corrected the error I made about spandrels being less likely to evolve out of existence. Please just ignore that. Thanks.)

{advertisement}
Why Did Gayness Evolve?
{advertisement}

7 thoughts on “Why Did Gayness Evolve?

  1. 2

    Arrggg… I work in this theocratic hellhole which is Saudi Arabia and they block Blowfish Blog….
    All the more reason why we must fight religion, not only in the US but around the world.
    And, as much as I hate to say it, as bad as Christianity is, Islam is INFINITELY worse!!!!

  2. 3

    Was it an error, though?
    What I understood you to be saying (and the scientist commenter missed it) was that IF homosexuality (1) is entirely genetic and (2) evolved because it provided a direct evolutionary benefit, the fact that fewer and fewer gay folks are biologically reproducing these days (because fewer are finding themselves in unfortunate closeted straight marriages) could well lead to the “gay gene(s)” disappearing from the gene pool. I thought you were referencing the fact–a fairly clear one, I think–that, in a gay-friendly society, gay folks’ genes get passed on less frequently than straight folks’ do.
    None of which applies to spandrels.
    No?

  3. Ben
    5

    I was under the impression homosexuality didn’t evolve. It’s natural variation of heterosexual populations and a mere reshuffling of heterosexual traits (or rather just human traits). How can men like other men? Well, there are those pesky women that like men. Women that like women? Well there is some proof of genetic concept there too with the men. Homosexuality isn’t something novel that is sprung on a gene pool ex nihilo and neither did it develop via evolution. It’s just a one shot deal that happens occasionally cuz its just not that far off the beaten path of the rest of our species. Same goes for the gay animals.
    Right? Am I missing something?
    Ben

  4. Ben
    6

    I see that is the position the linked article took.
    I am curious though why anyone feels the need to feel a part of the scheme of evolution? Is it really important to be left out of the grander scheme of things? It’s not like you can guarantee anyone is necessarily contributing to the “next big thing” further down the line as far as evolution goes. No one can definitely claim that and even if they could, it would take so freaking long to amount to anything it’s hardly worth cheering for as an individual. Seems superfluous to what should constitute social praise and acceptance in the here and now.
    Don’t know if that means anything to anyone.
    Ben

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *