all 17 comments

[–]clownworlddropout 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You're thinking too mechanical, evolution is blind. Even the minute functions of our cellular biology rely on statistical probabilities to function.

[–]Musky 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The so-called "gay uncle" hypothesis posits that people who themselves do not have children may nonetheless increase the prevalence of their family's genes in future generations by providing resources (food, supervision, defense, shelter, etc.) to the offspring of their closest relatives. (Rando internet search source)

Birth order isn't a factor at all, simply that gay relatives may actually be beneficial to a family rather than just representing a failed genetic line.

[–]IMissPorn 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I would be curious to hear what if any affect birth order has on sexuality, but I've never heard anyone make a strong claim about this.

[–]fuck_redditThou/Thee/Thy 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I have heard it claimed that the more older siblings you have, the more likely it is. Though I haven’t seen any studies on it.

[–]RedEyedWarriorThe Evil Cishomo 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'm gay and I have an older brother. My mother is also the youngest of a large family. Then again, my sister has a male friend who's gay, and this gay friend has a straight younger brother.

[–]fuck_redditThou/Thee/Thy 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Because biology isn’t deterministic. Something that is advantageous won’t always lead to the ideal setup.

[–]jet199 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

I'm pretty sure that the stats show that while having older brothers makes a man more likely to be gay they opposite is true of women, the first born is most likely to be lesbian or trans.

With men it's partly due to mother's getting an auto-immune reaction from bearing sons so they are less likely to product enough testosterone in later pregnancies. Maybe they produce too much for the first and turn their daughters gay.

The oldest daughter often acts as a third parent maybe it's good genetics wise if they don't have kids themselves.

Certainly the oldest daughter is more likely to be instilled with more masculine and self-reliant virtues by their parents but that having an effect on sexuality would go against the born this way narrative. They are more likely to have poor parenting as well because the parents are just learning what to do with the first born.

There is also a weird trend that the more younger sisters a woman has the more likely she is to be overweight. That would also seem to suggest that older sisters do sacrifice their own fertility to support their younger siblings.

[–]Q-Continuum-kin 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Also consider that previous to the year 2022 humans used to have far more children because the infant mortality rate was higher and also a mother had a high chance of dieing during the birth. Having some members of the tribe who don't engage in sex ends up increasing the survivability of the tribe overall.

[–]IkeConn 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I knew a set of fraternal twins growing up. One of them turned out to be queer as fuck.

[–]YJaewedwqewq 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

by providing resources to the offspring of their closest relatives

That's a funny way of saying "molesting children", because statistically speaking that seems to be how homosexuals and trannies 'reproduce'.

[–]loubag1997 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Food for thought—human beings are the only species that is known to have individuals that claim to be exclusively homosexual. Emphasis on the exclusivity… of course, all animals exhibit homosexual behaviors, but individuals are never exclusively homosexual except in humanity.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7484171/

Of course, before homosexuality became socially accepted in western civilization, those who would today be “exclusively gay” still got married to someone of the opposite sex, etc. So I would argue that the whole exclusive homosexuality thing in humans is entirely a social construct, to use a term they love using. Evolutionarily speaking, exclusive homosexuality makes little sense.

[–]FlyingKangaroo 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I heard some claims like that, perhaps social position can influence it sometimes but personally I wouldn’t view it as any strong claim. I have never heard yet of any big research about it, it was always closer to anecdotes.

BTW asexuality isn’t a sexuality, it’s a lack of thereof. Don’t feed the trolls (though I know you didn’t have bad intentions). Don’t equal that to LGB or “queers”.

[–]Alienhunter糞大名 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I've seen some YouTube videos of the "I know everything about everything" informational cartoon variety posit that "children after the first have higher estrogen and are therefore more likely to be gay" I think it's not very well proven or a very coherent theory. I personally think it's bullshit. But there might be some statistical basis behind it. Of course correlation is not causation and all that.

The gay uncle hypothesis is more an attempt to explain why homosexuality hasn't been naturally selected out of the genepool yet. Idea is basically, if some members of a family or tribe aren't reproducing but are helping to ensure the survivability of the tribe their siblings will survive to pass on their genes, true enough. I have another unfounded theory though. I think women selected out gay genes for survival over millennia. Nothing stoping gay men from fathering children, women kind of have a, at the very least this ideal of a well kept well mannered man that is somewhat along the lines of what we might consider to be a "gay" characteristic. I think that it's only in our recent modern society that sexual orientation is even a major consideration. In the past gay men just took wives and had kids anyway, why wouldn't their genes pass? Humans aren't animals only driven by primal urges. Gay people aren't free of the desire to have children. It's not like plenty of women dislike sex but do it anyway because they want babies no?

[–]BioEssentialism 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The gay uncle hypothesis is more an attempt to explain why homosexuality hasn't been naturally selected out of the genepool yet. Idea is basically, if some members of a family or tribe aren't reproducing but are helping to ensure the survivability of the tribe their siblings will survive to pass on their genes, true enough. I have another unfounded theory though. I think women selected out gay genes for survival over millennia.

No, it’s to prevent overpopulation. The only reason why homosexuality and bisexuality are more prevalent in families with a lot of siblings is because the parents are reproducing way beyond population replacement levels, thus the gay gene is more likely to occur in families with more than 2 children as a population mitigating effect.

Queerness only exists as an evolutionary mechanism so humanity doesn’t outbreed itself into extinction, resources and even sheer space on this planet are finite after all.

In the past gay men just took wives and had kids anyway, why wouldn't their genes pass?

Most of these men were bi not gay, there’s a difference. Historically most Kinsey-scale 6 gay men either became eunuchs, prostitutes, or were transed/classified as something of a 3rd gender. This is where the modern day concept of being trans comes from, you really think it was AGP middle aged “transbians” and “gay” transmen transitioning back in the day? Not likely.

[–]fuck_redditThou/Thee/Thy 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I recently heard a similar theory. There’s supposedly a few different genes that correlate with being gay: have all or most of them, and you’re gay. The interesting thing is, the more you have while still remaining straight: the more kids you have, on average. Some posit these “gay” genes help men relate to women up until they make people gay. It would be an example of heterozygote advantage, where having 0% or 100% of something is less advantageous than having 25-75% of something

[–]LyingSpirit472 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah. I heard there's a few big genes that can correllate: The "Bi gene" (likeliness of bisexuality), Intersex gene (same for intersex), Gay gene (as said), Cancer genex2 (double the likeliness of cancer eventually forming), Ovum gene (sometimes the gene that produces egg cells shows up in a man), and Keratin gene (the more your hair/skin/nails has, the likelier it will be.)

So really, whichever of your kids is likeliest to get BIG-COCK early in their life will end up gay. It's science.

[–]Q-Continuum-kin 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think women selected out gay genes for survival over millennia. Nothing stoping gay men from fathering children, women kind of have a, at the very least this ideal of a well kept well mannered man

You guys are all making this too complicated. The issue is that men and women have the same DNA aside from a single chromosome. The data to code a man and woman is built into thet single DNA pattern. The outcome relies on that Y chromosome correctly turning on and off every other gene in the code to generate a male who is attracted to a female. If the "attraction to males" genes don't get turned off then the male ends up gay.