Queer Theory and what it apparently advocates

I would find it extremely hard to believe that homosexuality could be all genetic even without studies. A moment's thought would reveal that those genes are going to be selected against so hard by evolution. I'm honestly surprised studies revealed any genetic connection at all.

Kin-groups having a certain number of non-reproducing individuals has been repeatedly demonstrated to be advantageous in humans, beyond the possibility that the genes are incidental to fertility in heterosexual females--either explanation would be sufficient for the modest effect shown.
 
I can think of all sorts of hypotheses for how gay genes, or at least genes that increase the inclination to be gay, could be spread. It may well be the case that in our evolutionary past, such genes manifested differently than how they do now. In fact, the idea that someone is either gay and is exclusively attracted to the same sex, or straight and exclusively attracted to the opposite sex, is a rather modern idea that would have been unusual even as recently as the Victorian Era and would seem very odd to many of the people of antiquity. How the gay tendency genes affected stone aged people with the radically different lifestyles and social structures they had might be different from how they affect modern people.

It could be the case that if you have two caveman brothers in a tribe, who both share the similar DNA, that the family or even the tribal DNA gets passed along better if one of those brothers is gay and one and straight rather than both being straight. The straight one just gets twice the girls, as harems were a big thing back then. The number of children a tribe can have is limited by the females anyway, who seem to be less affected by gay genes than males. If a few guys in the tribe are having sex with each other, the tribe as a whole can still reproduce just as much as long as the women are having babies. Those gay genes might just piggyback on the straight or bi siblings, maybe they are even carried by relatives of the opposite sex.

These are just some random musing by me, I really don’t know. Though ultimately, just about everything about us is going to have some genetic component, even those traits which we imagine are purely environmental. Humans are a product of both genes and environment, you can’t remove the influence of either one.
 
I would find it extremely hard to believe that homosexuality could be all genetic even without studies. A moment's thought would reveal that those genes are going to be selected against so hard by evolution. I'm honestly surprised studies revealed any genetic connection at all.
Very few things are purely genetic.

The last twenty years or so has seen us shift from "everything is genetic" to "most things do not have a single genetic cause, and what matters more is how genes are expressed, not what genes you have."

As for how homosexuality would be an advantage, others have sketched it out. Basically, it's a check on population growth without the extreme of, say, lemmingesque mass suicide. Homosexuality turns a potential competitor to a caregiver. While it is quite pleasurable to try knocking the boyfriend up, it's not likely to be successful. So. Instead of competing with you for mates, and siring cousins to compete with your offspring, a gay sibling becomes a doting uncle or aunt.
 
behaviors are obviously not purely genetic
and even if they are it's not like there's going to be a literal crime gene or a little role I love yellow team at least not directly it's going to be a little things interacting the cause of prevalence that will show up for instance admiration of color and a strong response the the color yellow and yet that doesn't necessarily mean you'll like it so much as having strong response to it

However with a course of homosexuality I think the most important thing is that our society was mistreating it and it wasn't until a possibility of it being genetic came up and became that of a poplar parlance that it wasn't a choice for a sad but an actual intrinsic aspect that couldn't be changed like a bunch of fashion choices that people actually started tolerating in treating it with respect and what have you.

I have heard about the twin the theory but I've also heard the opposite that identical twins can end up sharing it sexual orientation as opposed to being different.

I guess the number one thing that bothers me is when it's treated as if this is just a trick or deception that's so easy to change because that rhetoric is highly tied to abuse and dismissal. Even if it's technically true. It's kind of like patriarchy Theory it's totally real but it falls under that all models are false but some are useful thing. But others taking out some sort of religious Revelation and break everything down due to that aspect as opposed to keeping it as one part of the academic social analysis

I guess my main problem especially to the post that I was responding to is the idea that women are faking of War you can convert a lesbian if you find the right man was just disgusting to me. I'm sorry for accusing a fellow poster like that. They were ultimately just reporting on their experiences and even if I disagree with what they'd done them being honest about what's happened is way more important for everyone
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top