>>13069454and you can also think about this from the population standpoint
the amount of testosterone in a females offspring is the sum of "competitiveness" of her genes. this has to be a fixed amount under the integral, otherwise you could have a parents that produce hundreds of children who are all hyper-competitive, despite how bad they are (think back in the day, high infant mortality).
biology rewards good parents by allowing first attempts to be hyper-competitive (often more significant in society, personality wise as well).
non-hyper-competitive (low t, girlish) might be viable for families where kids keep dying, but it obviously means they need a lot of help. needing help is a female trait, which will attract a male to help her survive.
>>13069428in some way this is correct. if you're having tons of kids, the chances one boy will be gay is high, and the population really doesn't need that many men with the same genes (it only takes one, after all). females are fine, but they're often more choosy, and if they can't find something viable, generally don't go with anyone (not a population problem)
gays are at least partially due to you having too many kids
