There is no evolutionary advantage to being gay. Its just some kind of defect. Its not a side effect of an adaptive trait, its just something breaking. Just like how cancer is just a disease, and not some negative side effect of something awesome.
Most traits are greatly heritable, but being gay isnt. However implausible it sounds, being gay is not all that genetic in origin.
But its obviously a fixed and biological trait, so there is probably some undiscovered pathogen that makes people gay if they get infected as kids.
I know that is crazy, but it's honestly the most plausible explanation.
>>11561354Societal benefit doesnt matter if the fitness penalty is 100%. Societal benefits only help evolutionarily if the people who provide those societal benefits have more kids as a result.
>>11561391But there is no reproductive advantage to being a little gay. Theres no sweet spot between gay and straight like there is between autistic and schziophrenic.
>>11561630>female relatives of gay men give birth to significantly more children.But think about how many more kids they would have to have for it to be worth it.
So the fitness penalty of being gay is 100%. 0 kids. If you have 2 kids you are at replacement. For a gay gene to be beneficial for women it would have to mean that on average women with it are having _at least_ 2 extra kids.
That is an enormous gap to fill. It doesnt happen.
>>11561737But if the nonviolent males have no kids, it doesnt matter how much it helps de-escalating fights. It would not survive evolution.
People with the trait need to have more kids for it to pay off. Gays have no kids at all.
