Via Sullivan, William Saletan at Slate.com peruses a new study on “sexually antagonistic selection in human male homosexuality,” which concludes, bascially, that it’s inborn - and for a reason, too.
Saletan:
It starts with four curious patterns. First, male homosexuality occurs at a low but stable frequency in a wide range of societies. Second, the female relatives of gay men produce children at a higher rate than other women do. Third, among these female relatives, those related to the gay man’s mother produce children at a higher rate than do those related to his father. Fourth, among the man’s male relatives, homosexuality is more common in those related to his mother than in those related to his father.
Can genes account for these patterns? To find out, the authors posit several possible mechanisms and compute their effects over time. They conclude that only one theory fits the data. The theory is called “sexually antagonistic selection.” It holds that a gene can be reproductively harmful to one sex as long as it’s helpful to the other. The gene for male homosexuality persists because it promotes—and is passed down through—high rates of procreation among gay men’s mothers, sisters, and aunts.
So there may indeed be a biological imperative for it. Which makes sense, though it’s no less fascinating.
Gay women aren’t part of the study. But Saletan notes it ought to influence our thinking about gay men in several ways:
First, it implies natural limits to homosexuality. You don’t need to worry that gay teachers or television characters will “convert” hordes of boys. Sexually antagonistic selection is self-limiting and impervious to postnatal cultural factors. The authors’ computations show no scenario in which male homosexuality spreads throughout a population.
Second, by the same token, you can’t culturally eradicate the gay minority. It’s sustained by genetics and natural selection.
Third, if the authors are correct, we’re not really talking about genes for homosexuality. We’re talking about genes for “androphilia,” i.e., attraction to men. The importance of the genes lies in what they do not to men but to women, by increasing reproductive output so powerfully that these women compensate for the reduced output among their male relatives. You can’t isolate gay men as a puzzle or problem anymore. You have to see them as part of a bigger, stronger, enduring phenomenon.
Let the blanket denials begin.
We again go back to the whole idea that people “choose” to be gay. If this study - and don’t kid yourself; there will be more and more like them as time goes on, science will explain this phenomenon - is correct, the only “choice” involved is whether to act on the impulses.
Beyond that, though, is the idea that homosexuality can somehow be imparted - because daddy didn’t love you enough, or some other ridiculous thing. You can’t catch Teh Gay - but insisting that you can is a vital part of the “battle” against homosexuality by the far right; it explains away a lot of things, it provides a convenient excuse for those who are among the culture warriors but themselves experience same-sex yearnings - they can say, “It’s not my fault!” And that may well be true - though not in the manner they think.
