The 'gay gene' paradox

What causes homosexuality? The predominant understanding is that the causes are genetic, but this seems to be in conflict with the notion of natural selection: an individual who does not reproduce is a dead-end for the genes that they carry; therefore, the 'gay gene' should have gone extinct. A number of hypotheses have been proposed, attempting to resolve this paradox, but they are not very convincing. In this post I present a couple of my own hypotheses, which I believe do a better job at resolving the paradox.

(Useful pre-reading: About these papers)

One prominent scientist who has publicly addressed the paradox of the 'gay gene' is professor Richard Dawkins. In his YouTube Channel "The Poetry of Reality" he attempts to give some possible answers to the question, in a video titled "How is the 'Gay Gene' alive?" (Y).

• The environmental activation hypothesis suggests that the gay gene's primary function might be something unrelated to homosexuality, and it may manifest as homosexuality only if certain environmental factors are present.

• The gay uncle hypothesis suggests that genes for homosexuality are passed on through relatives. A homosexual individual does not have offspring of their own to look after, so they look after other members of the extended family. This way, each member of the family has more caregivers, thus increasing the member's chances of survival.

• The sneaky fucker hypothesis suggests that homosexuals propagate the gene by using their perceived non-threatening nature to gain the trust of dominant males, thus being very successful at covertly mating with females.

I do not deny that these hypotheses have some explanatory merit, but I find them rather weak.

• The environmental activation hypothesis is weak because homosexuality has been studied so much, that if there were any such environmental factors, we would have known them by now.

• The gay uncle hypothesis is weak because having additional caregivers within a family is a rather small benefit which does not offset the immediate and severe disadvantage of having individuals within the family who do not propagate their genes. If the gay uncle hypothesis worked, then every family should be having only one child at a time, so as to maximize the number of caregivers per child, but this directly contradicts known fact: the archetypal family always had as many children as possible.
  

• The sneaky fucker hypothesis is weak because it invokes some alleged non-threatening nature of homosexuals, which is entirely arbitrary, it assumes some complex social interactions which are actually rather rare among humans and have no equivalents in the (rest of the) animal kingdom, and it completely disregards the question of homosexuality among women.

So, instead of the above, I would like to propose another hypothesis which is very simple, accounts for lesbianism, and is also in line with what is observed in the (rest of the) animal kingdom:

The bisexual propagator hypothesis

The 'gay gene' puts individuals in a spectrum between homosexuality and bisexuality. Each individual who becomes strictly homosexual represents a dead-end for the gene, but each individual who becomes bisexual ensures the propagation of the gene.

Note that the sneaky fucker hypothesis is also based on the assumption that the 'gay gene' proliferates by means of bisexuals; however, the rest of the mechanism proposed by that hypothesis is unwarranted: bisexuality is sufficient by itself to explain the proliferation of the 'gay gene' without the need to invoke false stereotypes, without any complex social interactions, and without requiring any sneakiness in the fuckery. Also note that the sneaky fucker hypothesis is inapplicable to lesbianism, whereas the bisexual propagator hypothesis explains that too.

The hypotheses mentioned by professor Richard Dawkins could at best amplify the proliferation of the 'gay gene' rather than fully explain it, but if we are looking for amplifying hypotheses there is another one that I would like to propose, which again, I believe, has a far greater explanatory power than either 'gay uncle' or 'sneaky fucker'.

The reluctant propagator hypothesis

The propagation of the 'gay gene' is in part due to homosexuals being under very strong societal pressure to engage in heterosexual behavior.

For the greatest part of human history, and in the vast majority of cultures around the planet, the heterosexual majority has been treating the homosexual minority with extreme enmity. Sure, there have been some cultures in which homosexuality was accepted, but they are very few and far apart. Throughout human existence, homosexuality has, as a rule rather than an exception, been associated with severe social stigma. As a matter of fact, in most cultures, homosexuality has historically carried the death penalty, and in some places it still does. Any capable individual who did not seek to mate with the opposite sex and procreate could be suspected of being a homosexual, and would therefore suffer that stigma, and possibly even risk that fate.

Thus, due to societal pressure, homosexuals have historically had a very strong incentive to engage in heterosexual behavior, despite it being against their innate desires. (The desire to survive trumps all other desires. Even the desire to be socially accepted can trump many other desires.) The consequence of this is that people who would have otherwise lived a strictly homosexual lifestyle have ended up living a bisexual or strictly heterosexual lifestyle, thus passing on their genes.

As a side note, another historically successful strategy for homosexuals to avoid social stigma and death has been to join the (celibate) clergy. This way, they could avoid engaging in heterosexual behavior without drawing suspicion upon themselves. This perhaps explains certain observations of certain habits of certain clergies.

---

Cover image by digitale.de on Unsplash.