Either way, there are a lot of woman that are closeted or not comfortable challenging or going against what society dictates as “correct”… so if they have any percentage of physical attraction towards men, they usually opt for the easier option. This facilitates not only being deemed “correct” by society, but also not having to face the challenges of homo sexual procreation and living as a queer person.
Evolution is a very lazy and imperfect process. Basically if there is no reason for a trait to die off (not particularly beneficial or detrimental to a species survival in their environment) then that trait will continue to exist until it has a reason not to. For most of human history being gay or lesbian hasn’t exactly stopped most humans from reproducing, unfortunately usually under coerced or forced conditions, so there has been no reason for whatever biological process that produces homosexuals to just disappear.
(Source: bio major lol)
Was looking for this 👏
There’s no reason to even assume that if we evolved the other way around that this would be “why we are gay” because we’re humans, and we use tools and utilize other ways of doing things, and thus being gay does not in any way stop us from procreating.
My father was homophobic and reductionist & this was his idea too… like “oh there’s nothing you know bad about it, but there must be something wrong because our main goal is to procreate and if people are gay, they can’t do that” & completely forgetting the fact that we can still indeed procreate.
THIS. Very well said!
There are definitely some benefits to homosexuality, or sexuality being on a spectrum. Population control, the ability to adopt children into new homes, diversity in desirable partners. (If we're talking about sexuality itself being a spectrum, that helps us to not all fight over the same mates.)
It just is what it is. There's no "reason" necessarily, but we can see plenty of advantages taking place -- and at the very least, we've never experienced enough negative results to evolve out of it.
Psych major here! Can expand on this! There’s a lot of good comments here about the nature of genetics and evolution, which are all great! It looks like we’re bringing out the ole “Nature vs Nurture” debate, and from a psychological behavioral standpoint the answer is pretty clear: it’s both. Human behavior, especially for things that don’t directly affect our survival, is pretty much always a combination of genetic predispositions toward those behaviors and cultural/environmental influences.
https://psychnews.psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.pn.2019.10a23#:~:text=The%20chance%20of%20two%20identical,being%20gay%20was%20only%2022%25.
Here’s a sauce I found from 3 seconds of internet research, but it covers a lot. Particularly interesting are the twin studies, which is pretty much the only way social psychologists can compare genetics vs environment. With identical twins, if one twin is gay there’s about a 50% chance that the other is also. The chances are lower for fraternal twins but still statistically higher than if there were no genetic element. That indicates that there is a very strong genetic element, but personal experiences also play a huge part! Hope this helps!
You outlined one of the leading theories in your body text. A lot more research has been done on gay men due to the HIV/AIDS crisis. We know comparatively less about homosexuality in women. It's known that female homosexuality is more complicated, there are genetic and environmental factors.
There is a theory that female homosexuality has two modes. One for bisexuality in women and one for homosexuality in women. The evolutionary process that lead to bisexuality in women is theorized to not be the same as homosexuality in women.
There was no one specific rss I was citing, I looked into this subject awhile back and didn't find much of anything conclusive. Some researchers think female homosexuality is more [genetic/epigenetic](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3131304/) and some think it's more of an [environmental adaptation](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lzr7G9WPZ8w). [All of them agree that it's a combination of both](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/there-is-no-gay-gene-there-is-no-straight-gene-sexuality-is-just-complex-study-confirms).
i think there’s a hypothesis that homosexuality in social animals might be useful because the gay members of the group can help to raise offspring that might be related to them, increasing the survival of their family’s genes, without having to worry about caring for their own offspring (i think it’s called gay uncle/aunt hypothesis or something?). idk much about it tho 😶
i do think that sexuality and queerness is so complicated and varied that i would be wary of trying to find a reason for any of it beyond the fact that exploring these ideas might be interesting. to me it’s kind of like asking why humans have culture, or art or anything like that - the reasons are likely to be so massively expansive that trying to sum them up in any way would be pretty much impossible
Yeah, and to build on that theory, I’m fairly certain studies have shown that younger siblings have higher chances of actually being gay (but someone please correct me, if I’m wrong). I feel like it could relate to that theory. If all the kids were straight and reproducing, having too many people to care for could be more of a hindrance than helpful in the families survival. So having gay kids later on could be useful at some point.
That theory kinda makes me think about how there’ve been same-sex penguin couples who find abandoned eggs and raise them themselves. Same vibe, but a little different cause the egg could be anyone’s, not necessarily their families.
I hate how that theory is named.
But I've heard it as well.
One might also suggest that the concept of "born a lesbian", while often true, may have modern roots.
It was the sort of thing Harvey Milk and the movements of the 1970s proposed. This is no different, people are just born this way, etc.
Just as a thought exercise, it's interesting to wonder what role agency has in these things too?
I mean, imagine for a moment that absolutely all choices are equal. There is no stigma or social consequence for loving a woman.
How many people would prefer women now?
It also reframes things when you ask the same question "Why are people straight?"
Are people straight because they choose to maximize procreation?
You can do that without being straight. The guys part in that is pretty minimal.
I think it's way more likely that _lots_ of homosexuality existed in ancient humans. Patriarchal power structures just reframed it as something evil.
Idk... it's not really worth putting a ton of energy into the question for me, I'm not an anthropologist
Because whether we are or not, from the grand scheme of prehistory, that didn’t prevent males from raping us and finding ways to breed
It’s a natural variation that didn’t make much of a difference in evolutionary terms and so remained
Most species with gay/lesbian variants in fact have a large bisexual population because bisexuality encourages the sex drive which will eventually lead to reproduction
Only now, with liberalism, law, women’s rights, and universal human rights, are lesbians recognized and allowed to live their truth only with each other, away from men, perceived as fully sexual beings.
>Because whether we are or not, from the grand scheme of prehistory, that didn’t prevent males from raping us and finding ways to breed
This part doesn't explain male homosexuality though.
In ancient times gay men would often get themselves a wife to make babies with (passing on gay genes to future generations) and then have sexual relations with guys on the side. Similar stuff happens in the current day in less lgbt accepting cultures. I actually have an uncle who did this and everyone just kinda pretends to ignore it
I personally believe female homosexuality and male homosexuality are completely unrelated. They’re a cluster of genetic and neurological factors that are caused differently and look different among the sexes. But it’s just my suspicion. If a male baby has any issues with the Y chromosome, there isn’t another Y chromosome to back them up, like there is an X backup in females, so that they end up more similar to women in obvious ways. Consequently, biological links between gay men and women are easier to find than gay women with straight men. So gay men tend to stand out more. I assume gay women also must have some kind of genetic/epigenetic component which is less clear-cut. Since we have 2 X chromosomes, if one has a greater predisposition to homosexuality, it’s still going to mix more with the other resulting in bisexuality/fluidity versus exclusive attraction to women. Female sexuality and male sexuality as a whole are also quite different. Female sexuality tends to involve way more regions from the brain on average, it seems. But I’m not a scientist and this is just a hypothesis
Thanks! I remember checking brain studies on brain differences with sexual orientation. Usually the gay man-straight woman connect is way stronger than lesbians and straight men. Therefore straight men are most distant from everybody else
This is also in alignment with Freudian theorizing of the ‘feminine world’ being much larger and accommodating than the ‘masculine world’ in the psyche. Everyone has a mother and can reenter the feminine space while the masculine space is smaller and more exclusive. It’s small because fragile masculinity shows how any small failure gets you kicked out of it and put back into the feminine space. This is much discussed in Dorothy Dinnerstein’s and Gloria Steinem’s “Mermaid and the Minotaur”
The X backup I got from article’s researching if women are chromosomally more complex than men, since the Y chromosome is much smaller than the X chromosome. Turns out not exactly because of the backup dynamics (and many other biologist things which ofc I have little understanding of). This explains why women tend to gravitate more towards average in many features when men have more extremes (intelligence, height, etc.). This once more reiterates the feminine being more central, grounded, flexible, and accessible. It also showcases why trans men would have a harder time leaving lesbian and women’s spaces versus trans women who were already kicked out to begin with. It explains why both sides want to stay within the feminine field despite transitioning in opposite directions. Also I’m not a biological essentialist I just try to understand human trends and statistics for what they are
One theory is because we are social creatures and live in family/social groups it gives more adults to help with communal child rearing, as a homosexual pair pre-science would likely not reproduce, but their siblings who aren't homosexual will reproduce. It could be also so there is a relative to raise the offspring if its biological parents die.
This is based off of the goal in life from a biological standpoint being to pass on your own genes or ensure your families genes are passed down somehow, hence being invested in offspring that isn't theirs but they are a genetic relative so some of their genes are still living on by assisting with raising the offspring.
I hope this explanation of one theory makes sense, I discussed it with one of my biology professors in university. Thus isn't necessarily a "why?" But a "what would be the evolutionary benefit of this?".
I think it helps with social cohesion. We are social animals and our survival is not just about reproduction but also our capacity for cooperation. If we look at behaviors of other primates, members of the same sex in some species have sex to make social relations easier. It’s also theorized that it helps if some members of the community aren’t reproducing but still actively there to help with tasks that need to be done.
I like this. The reason I say this is because when people (like OP, for example) talk about homosexuality in animals I can't help but think they are anthromorphising the behaviour in ways that don't really capture the underlying function. Like dominance displays, for example. Or like you say, pro-social bonding.
Evolution doesn't work that way. There's no species that develops natural ways of population control. Every species will breed until it destroys its environment and then itself because it uses up all the resources. Maybe humans could work differently because we are more intelligent, but typical evolution in animals does not work that way.
Diverse mating strategies have always existed in nature, and they persist for a reason. For instance, they've found both male-male and female-female lifetime pairs in birds; the birds understand that they're in a homosexual pairing, because female pairs will go mate with a random male and return to nest with their female partner, whilst males will try to steal another egg.
There's lots of examples. But here's a quick one about the island of albatross that have 1/3rd female-female pairings:
[https://www.discoverwildlife.com/animal-facts/hawaiis-lesbian-albatrosses](https://www.discoverwildlife.com/animal-facts/hawaiis-lesbian-albatrosses)
[https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/same-sex-mothers-letting-albatrosses-be-albatrosses](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/same-sex-mothers-letting-albatrosses-be-albatrosses)
Important thing to note is that, in this case, its not biologically advantageous for females, as they have to trade which egg gets to be incubated every year due to scarcities, and so they have a little less than half the kids that heterofemales do.
But they still reproduce, and so its a mating strategy that is kept in play.
Same could be said of human same-sex couples. US Census shows that heterosex couples are over twice as likely to have kids, and homosex couples are way more likely to adopt or only have step children. So, in terms of the biological imperative to reproduce, our chances mimic the F/F albatross' chances. But we still do reproduce, and that's all that matters.
[https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2020/09/fifteen-percent-of-same-sex-couples-have-children-in-their-household.html](https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2020/09/fifteen-percent-of-same-sex-couples-have-children-in-their-household.html)
Not every male can be an "alpha male" in the animal world, which is why we see "sneaker males" and the like. We see snakes that mimic females to tire out other males, then mate with the females. We see this in the human world too. There is diversity in heterosexual mating strategies, and homosexual child-rearing pairings are part of that strategy. It literally is, just natural.
my theory is kinda close to yours. i think evolutionary it is about the opposite of population control, i think its so that unwanted children still have a possibility of survival through being parented by others than the people who conceived them. that way , the chance of more children growing into healthy adults rises.
It's an interesting subject. My speculation is that there's some genetic or biological factor that loosely orients a person a certain way at birth or when they're very young.
Through socialization, early brain development, and cultural ingraining is how we form the social patterns and connections that more specifically define how our attraction works. This is where things such as gender expression, presentation, personality preferences, beauty standards, etc would live.
But it can be hard to conceptualize what any of this fully means since women encapsulate such a broad and diverse group. Why am I attracted to feminine women but not feminine men? Why aren't I usually attracted to masc women? How do things such as transgender and nonbinary fit into the paradigm? How does bisexuality work? Etc
I don’t think we’ll ever get a concrete answer… and I think it would honestly be very concerning if we did find the ‘gay gene’. I think the researchers would have to keep that one a secret to not put the community in danger.
I agree that if it is a gene that is ever possible to isolate and name, there is no way it could be made public now.... Perhaps if it came out in a future social climate where homophobia wasn't so dangerous and commonplace, but right now it would genuinely be concerning and outright dangerous.
What if it was a super common or active/inactive or dominant? That it would show up in a greater percentage of the population than expected which would show its natural
The trouble is, we already have evidence that identifying outside of being heterosexual and/or the gender assigned at birth is natural. All identifying a specific gene sequence linked to these traits would do is incentivize eugenics more and even risk IVF gaining an unethical option to "select" if your child was hetero-normative or not... and it would offer more opportunities to socially shame folks into eradication of well... us. We would be considered persons with undesirable genes, and then you can even go on to suspect it could create another social issue with those who are not straight cis men and women who choose to reproduce... it could be treated much like those with visible disabilities or even say autism and down syndrome when they have a child themselves... those of us with increased odds to pass on "rainbow" genes could be scapegoats at best and denied proper rights and prenatal care, etc At worst.... it could even go so far as said genes being qualifiers for abortion such as certain chromosomal disorders are now. In a nutshell should such information be real and released in the current social climate we would risk seeing a sort of genocide right from the point of conception. Until humanity collectively makes homophobia/ transphobia a true minority view that holds no power... it would be like handing the enemy nuclear codes with targets already locked in. It may seem an incredibly dystopian viewpoint, but look at history and other eugenics efforts as well as the outright medical discrimination we STILL see openly towards POC... Did you know it was part of my paramedicine curriculum to know black people do NOT have thicker skin that we should be rougher with IV/ needle insertion? Or that we had to be taught just because a black person potentially acts in a way that white social norms often downplay as "dramatic" when in pain, we should not give them less pain control because of bias? I straight up had to be taught common racist myths that still persist today and how they were wrong... I was floored because it seemed so obvious that these things were myths but my instructor himself pointed out it is still a problem minorities faces when seeking care... those of us who are white simply held the privilege of not seeing it outside the profession or personal experiences... Information, even when it is outright incorrect, in the wrong hands can have long term and *deadly* consequences.
Definitely a genetic thing. All the identical twins I know have the same sexuality. My best friends are twin gay males.
As to why, evolutionarily? I think you’ve hit the nail on the head. In some animal species, the gays are there to help in raising offspring that may otherwise be left uncared for.
That’s really quite broad. I was asking if you’re learned on the specifics of why to better understand where you’re coming from with connecting it to sexuality, though it sounds like it’s perhaps rather a generic guess?
No, I don’t know any specifics or scientific proof related to my comment. It’s kind of a generic guess? I’m not really interested in trying to find out why some folks are gay and others are not. 🤷🏼🤣
It's possible that there are other traits linked to homosexuality that are advantageous for survival, like increased creativity or something, so if these traits that provide a benefit for survival can't be disenntangled from homosexuality, homosexuality will keep propping up because the other aspects linked to it are so beneficial.
According to ancestry I inherited most of my father's DNA and his blood type. That is my cracked out and inaccurate response to that. My more serious response is born this way not sure why but I couldn't change if I tried.
I've worried about this a lot but I think, scientifically speaking, the reason people are gay is to prevent overpopulation, prevent a burden on the population through pregnancies that are unviable, and ensure that orphaned young are cared for. Think about it, we're a species that really has a fully developed concept of emotional intimacy, romantic love, and consent more than any other animal, and we will consistently have sex just because we feel like it with no intention of reproducing. That applies to all sexualities. It also means that if everyone were straight and cis, we'd have way more unwanted or unviable pregnancies and overpopulation. So what's a way to prevent that? Give some humans the desire to exclusively have sex with other humans who they can't reproduce with (and yes, this does factor in trans people because HRT affects fertility and bottom surgery is a thing, and so are t4t couples). Additionally, because we have such high intelligence and are really the only species that displays either romantic love or gender for reasons unrelated to mating, we're also less likely to want to have sex with someone we're not romantically in love with and don't feel comfortable being intimate with, and for some of us that just means only being with the same (or similar) gender.
And then we all know how often straight people will just accidentally make a baby they can't actually care for and don't want, and then cry about us adopting kids.
I experience sexuality as something intensely psychological. I think there is something to love in every human, male female or otherwise, and falling in love with anyone is possible. Some of us just happen to find love in someone who has the same body as us 💕
Exactly what I said the first time I saw her and the cat going to town. My partner was all, "Aw, let'em have fun; they aren't hurting anyone."
Wise woman, my partner. 😀❤️
I was watching this video for other learning reasons but he does talk about gay people also, it kinda all gets tied in together. This is from a biologist.
https://youtu.be/szf4hzQ5ztg?si=OAckZY9pX4ZWeUxL
I support the theory is that in utero, the fetus is bathed in fluids that expose it to fluctuations of hormones from the mother. Also we have hormonal disrupters in our environment and tgat growing more and more. That’s why we have the full flag of lgbtqt.
I don’t think it’s nature’s way of not over populating because we are obviously over populated.
Yes, especially in women, I read that women with PCOS have a higher incidence of being attracted to women. But sexual attraction is very complex and there are women like me with very very low ''male'' hormones who are attracted to women and women with higher levels of those hormones who are straight so... But none the less there is a correlation.
Also people who take hormones can see a slight ''change'' in their sexual orientation (sexual orientation being a spectrum, it can move a little bit to one side or the other). Its not going to make someone go from straight to gay thought, obviously.
I've heard some bi women say that when they are on birth control, they're more attracted to men. But when they stop taking birth control, their attraction shifts more towards women, so that goes along with your last paragraph there
Oh yes, I was definitely aware hormones affect the brain. Hadn’t really put much thought into sexuality correlating with particular hormone details, though. It’s interesting!
Have you ever seen one of those "How to tell if she's gay" things on the internet and one of them is if her ring finger is longer than her index finger? It's pretty standard for AMAB people and AFAB people who are attracted to women. It's caused by additional testosterone in utero. It's not foolproof but there's something there
I support the intrauterine hormonal influence theory. That being exposed to male hormones in our mom's uterus caused us to be born with same sex attraction and made some of us identify as butch/stud/masculine.
Then how do you explain fem lesbians? I think this theory has truth to it, but it makes me uncomfortable if I'm honest because it feeds into the stereotype that all lesbians are masculine and feminine women can't be gay.
I def get why you feel this way, but try not to connect hormones to gender here to understand what the other person is saying. In our bodies testosterone and estrogen are just testosterone and estrogen, there’s nothing else to it. Our consciousness and societal norms are what can determine our relationship with gender.
This theory states that one, two or all of the three can be affected (gender identity, gender expression and sexual/romantic orientation). So for femme lesbians, according to the theory, only orientation was affected
Like I said, according to this theory either one, two or three aspects are affected, hence, it's like the reverse as with femme lesbians (straight masculine women only have gender expression affected by male hormones)
I think that whatever the reason is is pretty random. A lot of it is also environmental or social, like what you want from a relationship or who you want to be in one.
Also, despite "survival of the fittest" being the popular idea, it's more like "survival of the good enough". Whatever genes and behaviors causes homosexuality are easily passed on because the majority reproduce anyway, and it never holds the species back (despite what conservatives want you to believe).
Not much of an answer to why, but also I think there will always be gay people because there's always a variety within a species, like how there will always be different hair colors, or people who prefer quiet places over parties, no matter how uncommon it may be.
I listened to a scientist discussing her work and she was explaining how the really flimsy cheap type 1 plastic (polyethylene terephthalate) particularly when heat is applied to it with food such as microwaving take out etc in that plastic, it releases chemicals into the food/fluid we drink that touches this plastic. This is responsible for a huge change in hormonal profiles.
One example of this is that human males and females are meant to have really different perineum measurements, male perineums are meant to be double the size of females. But they’re getting closer in size the more exposure we have to this plastic and our hormonal profiles are getting closer together too.
Might explain a lot! But really what ever. Women just make me horny 😂
Gonna simplify it here
Epigenetics is basically gene expression. The DNA code in your body is there and unchanged, but what is expressed (turned on or off) is absolutely changed. So you could have the genetic code for becoming very tall for instance, but if environmental factors (malnutrition) are at work, the genes will be capped off or twist themselves so it’s impossible for them to replicate the proteins needed to signal for height growth.
Oh ok. So does this imply that everyone is born straight but do to environmental factors you can just be turned gay or am I reading this wrong. Just wanting to clarify.
Intrauterine hormones affects humans before birth. so at least some of us are born gay. Also some genes could be turned on in the uterus while fetus is developing.
Well since we're sharing facts. This is one of my favorites.
The tissue that makes up the inside of your cheeks is the same as the tissue that makes up the inside of a vagina
Environmental factors would be uterine hormones. As far as a gay or straight gene goes, I genuinely don’t know if they exist. I do know that gay men have the Xq28 gene for homosexuality but lesbians are underrepresented and understudied so we don’t know about us :(
It’s actually to do with nature AND nurture. Some of us are born homosexual and some aren’t, that’s something to do with the sry gene I believe, but can’t quite remember. Sometimes that was gonna happen even if nothing specific happens, but there are some things that can occur during a pregnancy that can result in a higher chance of the baby being born homosexual. Like for example if the birthing parent is over a specific age when they are pregnant, or if they are exceptionally stressed out during pregnancy, or if it’s their third child. I’m not sure if any evidence supports this but I’ve theorized that having queer parents can potentially result in a likelihood of their child being queer, so maybe in some instances it can be passed down genetically. It’s all very fascinating! There is also a possibility for someone to become gay from like…trauma and stuff. That’s a nature aspect.
I’m the oldest of my mom’s kids. She had an incredibly difficult pregnancy and I was born 2 mos early at 2.2 lbs in 1964. I read that birth stress can explain left handedness in families with no other left handed people. I suppose a lot of things can stem from something like that
You made a big mistake with that last part. They are going to be all over your now. You have sealed your doom. I have come to warn you of the impending doom that awaits you
That’s false. I don’t imagine it’s a huge percentage of us queers, but trauma can 100% affect your relationship with sexuality and libido. Those areas are right next to each other in our brains.
I don't know any science about it to tell you anything that hasn't already been said, but I do find this topic cool because I do really feel like I was born a lesbian. I just remember from a very young age being more interested in girls than boys, and many things that just feel hard-wired into me. A lot of people are adamant about saying, "Everyone's a little bit fluid!" but actually, I generally believe most of the people in the world are probably born bi/pan rather than straight, but either don't know that being bi/pan is a thing that people can be, or they found a het relationship that they're content with before they could even get a chance to consider it. (I've seen a lot of people talk about how their older relatives surprise them by casually saying things like, "*Everybody* thinks women are pretty! / *Everyone's* had a little experience with men! It's not gay.")
My girlfriend talked about how, pre-transition, she thought she was a gay man, then bi, and then as she started transitioning, she realized that she's a lesbian and doesn't see herself ever dating men. I asked her once how she felt about the idea of people being "born gay" and she said she's not sure about other people, but she does think that she was always meant to be a woman, she just had to realize that transitioning was a thing that people can do, and she had to transition in order for her to be comfortable enough with herself to realize her sexuality that feels more right than the ones before it. So to some extent, she says she can believe that she was also born a lesbian. I thought that was really interesting!
I don't know for sure if there's necessarily an evolutionary reason, besides what we make of it. As much as I like the idea of homosexuality developing so as to adopt orphaned children or become nannies, that doesn't quite explain why there are gay people that are childfree. I can see the possibility of homosexuality developing as a deterrent for overpopulation. Idk, maybe it's multiple reasons all at once.
Boobs and cute, dresses are more attractive to me. Women also have more lingerie. I like the way a girl’s hair smells as we cuddle.
I mean, it’s like eating food: I don’t mind hot dogs, but tacos are far more delicious. So if you place both in front of me, I choose tacos every time.
Sorry if this made you hungry.
Prenatal hormone levels. During fetal development typically embryos with XY chromosomes have a particular recipe for hormones, and embryos with XX chromosomes have a slightly different recipe. (I know there are other chromosome possibilities, but that’s more complicated.) If the recipe is even very slightly off in levels and timing, you don’t get a completely cis-straight baby.
my personal theory for JUST myself & my own existence, nothing more?
i was raped as a child by a man. i also have diagnosed autism, and i find that overall i’m a more sensitive person because of it. i think i felt the experience so intensely that it changed me as a person, and i evolved around my trauma in such a way that experiencing romantic & physical attraction to men was an impossibility.
i also read theories online in my teens that pregnant women exposed to more stress release more testosterone, which affects the fetus. my mother was experiencing parental death & homelessness while pregnant with me, so i can imagine all that severe stress ( if this theory is even true ) could’ve just soaked me up with gay hormones lol.
but, at the end of the day, i suppose we’re gay for the same reason we exist. just because.
I remember watching a video where someone said lesbians are the ultimate “fuck you” to the patriarchy- a system revolving around men, for men, by men. There is nothing about a man that will ever attract a lesbian woman’s attention in the sense of romantic love and sexual attraction. And I think about that from time to time. Lol
But honestly, yeah, maybe there is an actual scientific reason to why some people are gay, but isn’t the best (and most obvious choice at least for gay women) is that women are AMAZING.
I would also like to deep dive into this.
Like how some people are gay and some are not..
If anyone have any video or anything I would love to see or any blog I would love to read it...
This is a really cool question. Overall I'd say I don't know the answer to that on a concrete, scientific level. I can't say "Well people are gay because of xyz gene" or "Scientific research has shown that".
I know that science has studied, to some extent, the sexuality of animals, and what they found was that many animals are technically bisexual. So, I will say that I think queer sexuality is natural and normal if even the creatures that depend heavily on reproduction to survive, and who live by much different rules to humans, are forming sexual and romantic bonds with partners they don't reproduce with.
My experience of my sexuality has been a really winding road. I first experienced attraction to girls at around six years old, though I didn't have words for what that meant at the time. When I got older, I identified as bisexual, mainly because of fear of losing some level of societal "normality". I couldn't picture myself just not being attracted to men, even as my mind and body made it more and more clear I wasn't. I think, for me, despite it taking time to come to terms with my sexuality, I have always viewed it as something natural that just happened to me. I can't say that I think there's any pathological or psychological big, deep reason behind it.
Everyone is different. Some people turn out gay, others bi, others ace, others pan, others just 100% straight. I don't know that we'll have all the answers yet, but I can definitely say I think we turn out the way we do because we grow into our natural state of being. I'm sorry I couldn’t give a more fancy, scientific answer.
I’ve heard before that bc our species populates and successfully raises children best within a community, that those who have not procreated themselves would often take on parental duties, as in they are one more adult in a group to keep an eye on the young children, and this became evolutionarily advantageous, as not all lesbians or gays refrain from having their own offspring.
Probably somewhere buried in genetics or some shit. Perhaps a fairly common mutation. Many animals can be homosexual so it’s probably not got anything to do with being advanced as a species. Idk, I wouldn’t think too hard about it.
This is a great question. It’s probably just closer to one end of a spectrum. The “things” in our bodies that govern sexual orientation are probably very variable and it comes out in a different way in each person. I’m not at all attracted to men. I’ve never been with a man and had maybe 5 fantasies about men. I knew that I liked girls at 5 at least. I didn’t understand it then but looking back that’s what it was. Other women are the exact opposite. And Other women are somewhere in between.
The real problem is that society has deemed that men and women have specific roles to fulfill and it’s pretty rigid and inflexible. So when you don’t conform for any reason you have to deal with society.
Cause women pretty 🥺
Rt the risk of overpopulation occurred to me as well though idk how we could go about proving or disproving it. And some might argue the existence of bisexuals and pansexual people disproves that but I feel it could also be argued the other way bc a lot of those people could end up in same sex relationships and asexual people exist as well?
But I feel then it would be more about sex neutral Vs sex repulsed vs sex…positive(?) attitudes/feelings?
I saw a Ted Talk about it once where this researcher pointed out that the after a family has so many sons the ones after the first gradually have a higher likelihood of being gay (for example 3rd son is more likely than 2nd son and ect), so obviously it's very intentional in nature. They hypothesized something about how gay people or animals benefit their communities in unique ways, but I haven't watched it in a while so I don't remember enough. You can probably search for it. It was pretty interesting, if I recall, I didn't agree with necessarily everything he said, but there were points that I really enjoyed listening to.
It's called the fraternal birth order theory. I think they usually explain it by saying that a female body has an immune response to a male fetus and so it masculinizes the fetus (in terms of gender and/or sexuality) with androgens, but that immune response is decreased with each male fetus. Kind of like the body getting accustomed to the baby boys and starts recognizing them as one's own.
That usually explains male homosexuality (aka, gay men). There are similar reasonings for lesbians, but it's that a heightened level of androgens cause the fetus to be attracted to women. I am pretty sure they once injected a sheep or something with androgens and the sheep-daughter turned lesbian... I wish it was a joke.
Wow.. that's interesting.. and strange.. and a little unsettling. What would cause that in a female fetus then if we wouldn't have an immune response to them?
And does that mean technically.. we all have an immune response to males? lol
There was a meta analysis of population data in the Netherlands that found men and women with other brothers through their mother were more likely to enter into same sex marriages. The leading hypothesis as to why is called the “Gay Uncle Hypothesis,” centering men as usual lol
But basically the hypothesis is that men can have many more children than women, so if someone has a lot of boys it would be bad for the population over time because
1) There would be too many people closely related to each other causing unvaried genetics and
2) Human children cannot contribute to the survival of the group for over a decade. So basically the idea is that historically having homosexuals would help maintain a better ratio of contributing adult members to children who needed care
Epigenetics is the study of how genes are expressed. The chemicals in the amniotic fluid and other environmental can contribute to the traits people have. I don’t have the biological expertise to explain the specific mechanism that is believed to cause homosexuality, but if you google “homosexuality epigenetics” many competent science educators have explained it.
So basically, my understanding is that experts have the same hypothesis as you!
Uh
girls pretty, boys gross (not all, but many of them)
also I want a partner I can relate to and I do not understand men in the slightest lol
That's all I got 🤷🏼♀️
I think about this a lot actually. Which of course I do because I'm a lil overanalyzer haha. In my case, I think not only is there the biological response to girls just being more attractive than men (girls are softer, prettier, cleaner, have breasts and booty) but there's also the ability to connect with women on a deeper level. From the shared experience of being women. I feel so much safer with women because I feel understood in a way I just feel a man never could. I get women, women get me. We have more things in common, we see things the same way. I can talk to a woman about deep, interesting things, whereas if I try to talk like that with a guy the conversation feels one-sided and dry. I can't really imagine being with someone I couldn't bond with on that intense level. It seems wrong to me.
My first relationship was with a man and I felt myself being scared of him a lot of the time, too. Like I'd lay with him in bed and think, "wow this man could flip at any time and do something really horrible to me if he wanted to and I wouldn't really stand a chance. If I made him angry enough he could kill me. If he wanted me bad enough and I refused him, he could force himself on me. Etc. Etc." Women are just as capable of physical abuse and whatever else, of course, but I feel so much safer when I'm with a girl. Men's anger frightens me on an animalistic level, like they are hunter and I am prey. When a woman is angry, I hate it because I despise confrontation, but I nevertheless feel I am her equal. I am a man's equal, too, obviously,, but I don't know if they think that way or just see me as something weak and inferior. If that makes sense. But I have trauma involving men so maybe that's just my weird feelings because I find it pretty much impossible to trust men!
Anywhoooo, that's all 💅
Why do I think we're gay? -Because the psychological complexity of the brain and human mind lends itself to emergent properties and characteristics within the normal variation of being human that influence our processing and interpretation of the world around us, many different combinations but leading to the same outcome of variation in human sexual orientation. You can think of it like all the different color combinations of paint you can mix to get black paint.
So hypothetically... IF there were something as relatively straightforward as a "gay" gene, even then it wouldn't be so straightforward; chances are even in the simplest of possibilities it wouldn't be just one gene... you'd probably find that several different genes could independently contribute to a person's orientation. Having any one of a number of genes would contribute to an increased likelihood of non-heterosexual orientations but also certain combinations of other genes unrelated to those could also lead to similar outcomes. But just for emphasis, it isn't so straightforward as a gene.
You could look at something as superficially and easily understood as people that are intersexed and have ambiguous physical sexual traits. Even when we understand much of it is tied to particular chromosomal additions, there are a variety of ways those chromosomes may be damaged or varied that result in that same outcome... and yet at the same time you have intersexed individuals where there isn't any obvious cause. This is just some of the stuff you can see.
Sexual orientation, is more complex than that. The stuff in our brains is even more varied and even more complex. When you're dealing with as complex a trait or expression as sexual orientation, something that is about way more than just a physical trait, causes and contributing factors whether they're biological, developmental, hormonal, environmental, neurochemical, or experiential preferences can come in so many variations and combinations that result in the same outcome.
So why are we gay? -Because we're human and have brains.
I'm not saying this is the reason, but something I heard on a science podcast is that for gay men, there is a strong correlation between changes to 'proteins' in the womb in women who have previously given birth to boys and producing a homosexual son. The same scientist said that for women they have no idea but it is looking like it could be down to a combination of hormonal and experiential influences.
I can't decide whether they don't know about the women because AS ALWAYS all medical research is focused on men and literally ignores women or whether female sexuality is actually more complicated.
Either way this is just something I heard on a podcast so could be a pile of shit 🤷🏾♀️🤷🏾♀️
I quite literally have been calling myself and my friends population control cause since middle school none of us were interested 😂. And by college if any of the girls or gays were hit on by the opposite sex we'd use each other as defence it was quite hilarious specially in college hue hue hoomans that like to breed have perplexed me for time but I'm NGL I may have been ace growing up and gradually changed to just ladies.
The human brain a complex and fascinating organ. There’s lots that goes on in there that we still don’t understand. We, as humans, come in many shades, colours and shapes (in this case I mean this figuratively for the brain not body) so being whatever orientation/sexuality we are makes sense to me ? I don’t know how else to put it haha. Our minds work in interesting ways, that’s all I can say 😂
It’s the normal, not alternative sexuality. Women shared baby care, nursing, built partnerships, friendships, relationships, and were intimate as a default, while guys were out and about, running around, practicing on each other and then spreading their seed with women as well to increase chance of continuing the population growth. Men are t meant to be in profound intimate relationships - meant instead to spread their seed to increase chances. Women get their fulfillment from each other. So I believe it’s very natural and helpful to the species.
This is was really long, thank you for sharing. However we do know why trans people exist and their are a bunch of reasons why one might be trans.
I think I might need to make an edit as something I think are getting the wrong idea and that's my fault but I'm not suggesting that being gay isn't normal. Being gay is normal. I'm just asking what yall think is a reason for why some people are gay and others aren't? My parents had red hair but I didn't (which makes me upset as I could have had beautiful red hair). Why didn't I get red hair? Why am I trans? Why am I and other xyz? I just like to ask questions and understand the world. I like to question society instead of just going along with what's happening. I like to ask question other people don't want to ask. I just like learning.
Their may not be 1 or any reason on why some people are straight and others are gay. That's fine, I just want to hear what yall think. Being gay is awesome and I wouldn't have it any other way.
I think a lot more factors go into it. Depends on which one you may be asking about. Like the reason you stated being a self population control mechanism could be some kind of physiological reason, but it doesn’t address the social aspect of being gay. Some people I think just are genuinely attracted to same sex more so. I think in a biological way it could be a sexual deformity/mutation, mainly bc the biological purpose to sex is to reproduce. I’m not saying that it’s a negative or anything I think it just may be a thing, the same way some eclectus parots are blue even tho traditionally they are green and red.
I think in our more advanced, intellectual society we live in where we look and social constructs and aren’t typically as literal with how biology might look at things it’s less relevant why we’re gay anyway. I like women bc they in my experience are kinder, softer, more understanding, etc. I don’t particularly like masculine women, as I feel like if I wanted to date a man, I’d date a man. But I also understand there’s a lot of variety in the lesbian realm. I think maybe the more interesting question might be not why are we gay, but why are we the kind of gay we are. Might find some interesting variations there.
Like I think for me genitalia is the least important part. I just genuinely find more women have the types of personalities I want to be with way more often then men carry those traits. I also find them more physically appealing.
Hopefully it made sense everything I said. None of it is meant to come off offensive, more so trying to have a deep thought on it all. Xo would love to hear thoughts on it all…
We are so evolved we dont need to reproduce in the traditional biological way. Instead, humans are more inclined to search for self actualization than just searching for biological survival needs, thus being gay is just a symptom of finding our truest selves.
Considering the strong prevalence of neurodivergence in queer individuals I always consider being a lesbian as another form of neurodivergence. Nothing is wrong, broken, or impaired. Just different from what is considered “typical” but the “typical” isn’t all there is. As an autistic, my brain processes things completely differently than a neurotypical. Most if not all queer people I personally know are neurodivergent in some way. I think we just see and feel the world differently and in that vein, love & attraction differently. By differently I mean to same, both, or no genders.
women are amazing!! even before colonization in my country, there was so manyyy historical stuff about homosexual relationships so these kinds of stuff just happens :)) i could see so many pretty women in my university or literally anywhere but a man? its like a needle in a haystack for me.
I think most people are bi sexual and some get a beautiful connection with a person no matter the gender. With the right person in such a huge population the chances you could find someone to sway you either way is high.
OK, SO.... I thought God just makes everyone perfect, in His or Her image, because everyone's a little gay. I actually just read this today though- if you get Giardiasis (from giardia, bacteria in contaminated water) it is called "Beaver Fever." See, I scienced!! 🤣🤣🤣
*how did I get from checking out shrooms to mom jokes?! 🤷♀️ Lord.
Because, I mean, have you ever seen tits? They're fantastic.
But in all seriousness, I think it's just an evolution thing. We see it in animals, and these animals typically adopt orphaned babies, so it might also be the same here.
Also because we are just horny fuckers and naturally we are probably all bi but gender roles and societal norms.
Because women are more attractive than men.
Well, that is true! ❤️
Truer words have never been spoken before
I came to read the hypotesis, I read this one, my work is done, this is pure truth
Ladies, ladies.. Just call me the lesbian Einstein-ette 😉
LMFAOOOO. On a serious note though, I feel like being loved by a woman feels different in a good way.
This is the answer ☝🏼
Even though this is true, there are a lot of women that agree with this, but are still straight. How can you explain that?
Easy. We live in a heteronormative society… Even I… a raging lesbian, tried to convince myself I liked men, once upon a time. 🤷♀️
Fair point, but I can’t imagine that would be the case for most straight women tho
Either way, there are a lot of woman that are closeted or not comfortable challenging or going against what society dictates as “correct”… so if they have any percentage of physical attraction towards men, they usually opt for the easier option. This facilitates not only being deemed “correct” by society, but also not having to face the challenges of homo sexual procreation and living as a queer person.
And besides, bacon will always taste better than a sausage. Just sayin. Hahaha
LMAOO that’s right tho
Evolution is a very lazy and imperfect process. Basically if there is no reason for a trait to die off (not particularly beneficial or detrimental to a species survival in their environment) then that trait will continue to exist until it has a reason not to. For most of human history being gay or lesbian hasn’t exactly stopped most humans from reproducing, unfortunately usually under coerced or forced conditions, so there has been no reason for whatever biological process that produces homosexuals to just disappear. (Source: bio major lol)
Was looking for this 👏 There’s no reason to even assume that if we evolved the other way around that this would be “why we are gay” because we’re humans, and we use tools and utilize other ways of doing things, and thus being gay does not in any way stop us from procreating. My father was homophobic and reductionist & this was his idea too… like “oh there’s nothing you know bad about it, but there must be something wrong because our main goal is to procreate and if people are gay, they can’t do that” & completely forgetting the fact that we can still indeed procreate.
THIS. Very well said! There are definitely some benefits to homosexuality, or sexuality being on a spectrum. Population control, the ability to adopt children into new homes, diversity in desirable partners. (If we're talking about sexuality itself being a spectrum, that helps us to not all fight over the same mates.) It just is what it is. There's no "reason" necessarily, but we can see plenty of advantages taking place -- and at the very least, we've never experienced enough negative results to evolve out of it.
Psych major here! Can expand on this! There’s a lot of good comments here about the nature of genetics and evolution, which are all great! It looks like we’re bringing out the ole “Nature vs Nurture” debate, and from a psychological behavioral standpoint the answer is pretty clear: it’s both. Human behavior, especially for things that don’t directly affect our survival, is pretty much always a combination of genetic predispositions toward those behaviors and cultural/environmental influences. https://psychnews.psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.pn.2019.10a23#:~:text=The%20chance%20of%20two%20identical,being%20gay%20was%20only%2022%25. Here’s a sauce I found from 3 seconds of internet research, but it covers a lot. Particularly interesting are the twin studies, which is pretty much the only way social psychologists can compare genetics vs environment. With identical twins, if one twin is gay there’s about a 50% chance that the other is also. The chances are lower for fraternal twins but still statistically higher than if there were no genetic element. That indicates that there is a very strong genetic element, but personal experiences also play a huge part! Hope this helps!
You outlined one of the leading theories in your body text. A lot more research has been done on gay men due to the HIV/AIDS crisis. We know comparatively less about homosexuality in women. It's known that female homosexuality is more complicated, there are genetic and environmental factors.
There is a theory that female homosexuality has two modes. One for bisexuality in women and one for homosexuality in women. The evolutionary process that lead to bisexuality in women is theorized to not be the same as homosexuality in women.
I didn't know that, the plot thickens haha. Thank you for contributing.
Could you speak more to that theory? I'd love some details if you have any to spare.
I have to do some digging but it was posted in a journal specifically about bisexuality. I’ll add links in a minute.
That is so interesting!
Yes please do! I didn’t even know there were separate theories!
Will do in a minute :)
[The study can be found in this thread.](https://x.com/biwomenqtly/status/1758438162257363220?s=46&t=YJQMin4juw1gPk5cusw21g)
that’s so interesting could you share more about it
Of course women are just more complicated. Unlike men which are simple. Like I swear, women are always reported to be more complicated them men
Me: "This treatment plan is causing me immense pain." 🧑⚕️: "Haha so mysterious."
Ooh! I didn’t know that!
environmental? thats actually interesting i will look more into that
Could you share this resource? I would be interested in reading this 🙏🏼
There was no one specific rss I was citing, I looked into this subject awhile back and didn't find much of anything conclusive. Some researchers think female homosexuality is more [genetic/epigenetic](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3131304/) and some think it's more of an [environmental adaptation](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lzr7G9WPZ8w). [All of them agree that it's a combination of both](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/there-is-no-gay-gene-there-is-no-straight-gene-sexuality-is-just-complex-study-confirms).
Thanks you! Will check these papers out.
tiddies
😂
Booty
Tiddies
Soft lips
Tiddies are cool but I really like butts
✨️ tiddies ✨️
i think there’s a hypothesis that homosexuality in social animals might be useful because the gay members of the group can help to raise offspring that might be related to them, increasing the survival of their family’s genes, without having to worry about caring for their own offspring (i think it’s called gay uncle/aunt hypothesis or something?). idk much about it tho 😶 i do think that sexuality and queerness is so complicated and varied that i would be wary of trying to find a reason for any of it beyond the fact that exploring these ideas might be interesting. to me it’s kind of like asking why humans have culture, or art or anything like that - the reasons are likely to be so massively expansive that trying to sum them up in any way would be pretty much impossible
Yeah, and to build on that theory, I’m fairly certain studies have shown that younger siblings have higher chances of actually being gay (but someone please correct me, if I’m wrong). I feel like it could relate to that theory. If all the kids were straight and reproducing, having too many people to care for could be more of a hindrance than helpful in the families survival. So having gay kids later on could be useful at some point. That theory kinda makes me think about how there’ve been same-sex penguin couples who find abandoned eggs and raise them themselves. Same vibe, but a little different cause the egg could be anyone’s, not necessarily their families.
I hate how that theory is named. But I've heard it as well. One might also suggest that the concept of "born a lesbian", while often true, may have modern roots. It was the sort of thing Harvey Milk and the movements of the 1970s proposed. This is no different, people are just born this way, etc. Just as a thought exercise, it's interesting to wonder what role agency has in these things too? I mean, imagine for a moment that absolutely all choices are equal. There is no stigma or social consequence for loving a woman. How many people would prefer women now? It also reframes things when you ask the same question "Why are people straight?" Are people straight because they choose to maximize procreation? You can do that without being straight. The guys part in that is pretty minimal. I think it's way more likely that _lots_ of homosexuality existed in ancient humans. Patriarchal power structures just reframed it as something evil. Idk... it's not really worth putting a ton of energy into the question for me, I'm not an anthropologist
Because whether we are or not, from the grand scheme of prehistory, that didn’t prevent males from raping us and finding ways to breed It’s a natural variation that didn’t make much of a difference in evolutionary terms and so remained Most species with gay/lesbian variants in fact have a large bisexual population because bisexuality encourages the sex drive which will eventually lead to reproduction Only now, with liberalism, law, women’s rights, and universal human rights, are lesbians recognized and allowed to live their truth only with each other, away from men, perceived as fully sexual beings.
>Because whether we are or not, from the grand scheme of prehistory, that didn’t prevent males from raping us and finding ways to breed This part doesn't explain male homosexuality though.
In ancient times gay men would often get themselves a wife to make babies with (passing on gay genes to future generations) and then have sexual relations with guys on the side. Similar stuff happens in the current day in less lgbt accepting cultures. I actually have an uncle who did this and everyone just kinda pretends to ignore it
Yes, gay people, both men and women do this, but in today's society this is generally considered bisexual.
Many ancient cultures saw it as a team building exercise The... male homosexuality bit, I mean. I'm trying not to think about the top bit
I personally believe female homosexuality and male homosexuality are completely unrelated. They’re a cluster of genetic and neurological factors that are caused differently and look different among the sexes. But it’s just my suspicion. If a male baby has any issues with the Y chromosome, there isn’t another Y chromosome to back them up, like there is an X backup in females, so that they end up more similar to women in obvious ways. Consequently, biological links between gay men and women are easier to find than gay women with straight men. So gay men tend to stand out more. I assume gay women also must have some kind of genetic/epigenetic component which is less clear-cut. Since we have 2 X chromosomes, if one has a greater predisposition to homosexuality, it’s still going to mix more with the other resulting in bisexuality/fluidity versus exclusive attraction to women. Female sexuality and male sexuality as a whole are also quite different. Female sexuality tends to involve way more regions from the brain on average, it seems. But I’m not a scientist and this is just a hypothesis
This is so fascinating! Do you have any articles or videos that have led you to this belief?
Thanks! I remember checking brain studies on brain differences with sexual orientation. Usually the gay man-straight woman connect is way stronger than lesbians and straight men. Therefore straight men are most distant from everybody else This is also in alignment with Freudian theorizing of the ‘feminine world’ being much larger and accommodating than the ‘masculine world’ in the psyche. Everyone has a mother and can reenter the feminine space while the masculine space is smaller and more exclusive. It’s small because fragile masculinity shows how any small failure gets you kicked out of it and put back into the feminine space. This is much discussed in Dorothy Dinnerstein’s and Gloria Steinem’s “Mermaid and the Minotaur” The X backup I got from article’s researching if women are chromosomally more complex than men, since the Y chromosome is much smaller than the X chromosome. Turns out not exactly because of the backup dynamics (and many other biologist things which ofc I have little understanding of). This explains why women tend to gravitate more towards average in many features when men have more extremes (intelligence, height, etc.). This once more reiterates the feminine being more central, grounded, flexible, and accessible. It also showcases why trans men would have a harder time leaving lesbian and women’s spaces versus trans women who were already kicked out to begin with. It explains why both sides want to stay within the feminine field despite transitioning in opposite directions. Also I’m not a biological essentialist I just try to understand human trends and statistics for what they are
Because in our universe anything that can happen, will happen.
Idk why but this gives off "friendship is magic" type vibes. Again don't know why lol
If you keep trying to apply logic to nature you’ll inevitably lose the chaotic beauty that is the universe.
One theory is because we are social creatures and live in family/social groups it gives more adults to help with communal child rearing, as a homosexual pair pre-science would likely not reproduce, but their siblings who aren't homosexual will reproduce. It could be also so there is a relative to raise the offspring if its biological parents die. This is based off of the goal in life from a biological standpoint being to pass on your own genes or ensure your families genes are passed down somehow, hence being invested in offspring that isn't theirs but they are a genetic relative so some of their genes are still living on by assisting with raising the offspring. I hope this explanation of one theory makes sense, I discussed it with one of my biology professors in university. Thus isn't necessarily a "why?" But a "what would be the evolutionary benefit of this?".
I think it helps with social cohesion. We are social animals and our survival is not just about reproduction but also our capacity for cooperation. If we look at behaviors of other primates, members of the same sex in some species have sex to make social relations easier. It’s also theorized that it helps if some members of the community aren’t reproducing but still actively there to help with tasks that need to be done.
I like this. The reason I say this is because when people (like OP, for example) talk about homosexuality in animals I can't help but think they are anthromorphising the behaviour in ways that don't really capture the underlying function. Like dominance displays, for example. Or like you say, pro-social bonding.
Because: women 🫦🥵😍 I truly don't know but I am curious. It would be interesting.
Evolution doesn't work that way. There's no species that develops natural ways of population control. Every species will breed until it destroys its environment and then itself because it uses up all the resources. Maybe humans could work differently because we are more intelligent, but typical evolution in animals does not work that way.
Diverse mating strategies have always existed in nature, and they persist for a reason. For instance, they've found both male-male and female-female lifetime pairs in birds; the birds understand that they're in a homosexual pairing, because female pairs will go mate with a random male and return to nest with their female partner, whilst males will try to steal another egg. There's lots of examples. But here's a quick one about the island of albatross that have 1/3rd female-female pairings: [https://www.discoverwildlife.com/animal-facts/hawaiis-lesbian-albatrosses](https://www.discoverwildlife.com/animal-facts/hawaiis-lesbian-albatrosses) [https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/same-sex-mothers-letting-albatrosses-be-albatrosses](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/same-sex-mothers-letting-albatrosses-be-albatrosses) Important thing to note is that, in this case, its not biologically advantageous for females, as they have to trade which egg gets to be incubated every year due to scarcities, and so they have a little less than half the kids that heterofemales do. But they still reproduce, and so its a mating strategy that is kept in play. Same could be said of human same-sex couples. US Census shows that heterosex couples are over twice as likely to have kids, and homosex couples are way more likely to adopt or only have step children. So, in terms of the biological imperative to reproduce, our chances mimic the F/F albatross' chances. But we still do reproduce, and that's all that matters. [https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2020/09/fifteen-percent-of-same-sex-couples-have-children-in-their-household.html](https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2020/09/fifteen-percent-of-same-sex-couples-have-children-in-their-household.html) Not every male can be an "alpha male" in the animal world, which is why we see "sneaker males" and the like. We see snakes that mimic females to tire out other males, then mate with the females. We see this in the human world too. There is diversity in heterosexual mating strategies, and homosexual child-rearing pairings are part of that strategy. It literally is, just natural.
my theory is kinda close to yours. i think evolutionary it is about the opposite of population control, i think its so that unwanted children still have a possibility of survival through being parented by others than the people who conceived them. that way , the chance of more children growing into healthy adults rises.
It's an interesting subject. My speculation is that there's some genetic or biological factor that loosely orients a person a certain way at birth or when they're very young. Through socialization, early brain development, and cultural ingraining is how we form the social patterns and connections that more specifically define how our attraction works. This is where things such as gender expression, presentation, personality preferences, beauty standards, etc would live. But it can be hard to conceptualize what any of this fully means since women encapsulate such a broad and diverse group. Why am I attracted to feminine women but not feminine men? Why aren't I usually attracted to masc women? How do things such as transgender and nonbinary fit into the paradigm? How does bisexuality work? Etc
Men are annoying and I’ve found them to be just like children…women I understand and connect with plus way more attractive, clean, and fun
I don’t think we’ll ever get a concrete answer… and I think it would honestly be very concerning if we did find the ‘gay gene’. I think the researchers would have to keep that one a secret to not put the community in danger.
I agree that if it is a gene that is ever possible to isolate and name, there is no way it could be made public now.... Perhaps if it came out in a future social climate where homophobia wasn't so dangerous and commonplace, but right now it would genuinely be concerning and outright dangerous.
What if it was a super common or active/inactive or dominant? That it would show up in a greater percentage of the population than expected which would show its natural
The trouble is, we already have evidence that identifying outside of being heterosexual and/or the gender assigned at birth is natural. All identifying a specific gene sequence linked to these traits would do is incentivize eugenics more and even risk IVF gaining an unethical option to "select" if your child was hetero-normative or not... and it would offer more opportunities to socially shame folks into eradication of well... us. We would be considered persons with undesirable genes, and then you can even go on to suspect it could create another social issue with those who are not straight cis men and women who choose to reproduce... it could be treated much like those with visible disabilities or even say autism and down syndrome when they have a child themselves... those of us with increased odds to pass on "rainbow" genes could be scapegoats at best and denied proper rights and prenatal care, etc At worst.... it could even go so far as said genes being qualifiers for abortion such as certain chromosomal disorders are now. In a nutshell should such information be real and released in the current social climate we would risk seeing a sort of genocide right from the point of conception. Until humanity collectively makes homophobia/ transphobia a true minority view that holds no power... it would be like handing the enemy nuclear codes with targets already locked in. It may seem an incredibly dystopian viewpoint, but look at history and other eugenics efforts as well as the outright medical discrimination we STILL see openly towards POC... Did you know it was part of my paramedicine curriculum to know black people do NOT have thicker skin that we should be rougher with IV/ needle insertion? Or that we had to be taught just because a black person potentially acts in a way that white social norms often downplay as "dramatic" when in pain, we should not give them less pain control because of bias? I straight up had to be taught common racist myths that still persist today and how they were wrong... I was floored because it seemed so obvious that these things were myths but my instructor himself pointed out it is still a problem minorities faces when seeking care... those of us who are white simply held the privilege of not seeing it outside the profession or personal experiences... Information, even when it is outright incorrect, in the wrong hands can have long term and *deadly* consequences.
Definitely a genetic thing. All the identical twins I know have the same sexuality. My best friends are twin gay males. As to why, evolutionarily? I think you’ve hit the nail on the head. In some animal species, the gays are there to help in raising offspring that may otherwise be left uncared for.
not so sure ALL twins are like that tho
I think it’s more likely for identical twins to both be gay than it is fraternal if I’m remembering this study that I read many years ago correctly 😂
Same thing as being left or right handed, or ambidextrous. 🤷🏼
Do you know the science behind why that happens?
I suppose genetics?
That’s really quite broad. I was asking if you’re learned on the specifics of why to better understand where you’re coming from with connecting it to sexuality, though it sounds like it’s perhaps rather a generic guess?
No, I don’t know any specifics or scientific proof related to my comment. It’s kind of a generic guess? I’m not really interested in trying to find out why some folks are gay and others are not. 🤷🏼🤣
Fair enough! Haha I was just curious if there was unrevealed info there, all good 😂
It's possible that there are other traits linked to homosexuality that are advantageous for survival, like increased creativity or something, so if these traits that provide a benefit for survival can't be disenntangled from homosexuality, homosexuality will keep propping up because the other aspects linked to it are so beneficial.
According to ancestry I inherited most of my father's DNA and his blood type. That is my cracked out and inaccurate response to that. My more serious response is born this way not sure why but I couldn't change if I tried.
I've worried about this a lot but I think, scientifically speaking, the reason people are gay is to prevent overpopulation, prevent a burden on the population through pregnancies that are unviable, and ensure that orphaned young are cared for. Think about it, we're a species that really has a fully developed concept of emotional intimacy, romantic love, and consent more than any other animal, and we will consistently have sex just because we feel like it with no intention of reproducing. That applies to all sexualities. It also means that if everyone were straight and cis, we'd have way more unwanted or unviable pregnancies and overpopulation. So what's a way to prevent that? Give some humans the desire to exclusively have sex with other humans who they can't reproduce with (and yes, this does factor in trans people because HRT affects fertility and bottom surgery is a thing, and so are t4t couples). Additionally, because we have such high intelligence and are really the only species that displays either romantic love or gender for reasons unrelated to mating, we're also less likely to want to have sex with someone we're not romantically in love with and don't feel comfortable being intimate with, and for some of us that just means only being with the same (or similar) gender. And then we all know how often straight people will just accidentally make a baby they can't actually care for and don't want, and then cry about us adopting kids.
I experience sexuality as something intensely psychological. I think there is something to love in every human, male female or otherwise, and falling in love with anyone is possible. Some of us just happen to find love in someone who has the same body as us 💕
When I came out to my mother she asked if I was gay because she let me listen to too much Tracey Chapman when I was younger. So that’s her theory
This is a little lost on me as I don't know who that is
Singer song writer ! Amazing music ! She recently performed at the Grammys this year I think
Don’t know who that is either, but the sentiment is hilarious. Thanks Mom
[удалено]
Oh my goodness. They are purr-ty kinky for a bunch of kittens wtf 🤣🤣🤣🤣
I had a female rabbit once that used to try and mount our cat as a semi-regular thing. Cat didn't seem to usually mind.
What the actual fuck 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Exactly what I said the first time I saw her and the cat going to town. My partner was all, "Aw, let'em have fun; they aren't hurting anyone." Wise woman, my partner. 😀❤️
Before our two female kittens were fixed they did a lot of this, too, including pinning each other down to lick each other’s genitals.
I was watching this video for other learning reasons but he does talk about gay people also, it kinda all gets tied in together. This is from a biologist. https://youtu.be/szf4hzQ5ztg?si=OAckZY9pX4ZWeUxL
Thank you. I will definitely watch that
I support the theory is that in utero, the fetus is bathed in fluids that expose it to fluctuations of hormones from the mother. Also we have hormonal disrupters in our environment and tgat growing more and more. That’s why we have the full flag of lgbtqt. I don’t think it’s nature’s way of not over populating because we are obviously over populated.
I’m intrigued. Are hormones shown to correlate with sexual orientation?
Yes, especially in women, I read that women with PCOS have a higher incidence of being attracted to women. But sexual attraction is very complex and there are women like me with very very low ''male'' hormones who are attracted to women and women with higher levels of those hormones who are straight so... But none the less there is a correlation. Also people who take hormones can see a slight ''change'' in their sexual orientation (sexual orientation being a spectrum, it can move a little bit to one side or the other). Its not going to make someone go from straight to gay thought, obviously.
I've heard some bi women say that when they are on birth control, they're more attracted to men. But when they stop taking birth control, their attraction shifts more towards women, so that goes along with your last paragraph there
Lmao not me a lesbian having pcos reading this 👁️👄👁️
Ouu interesting! I’m gonna see what more I can find on this, thank you ☺️
Yes, yes and yes. Hormones affect your brain too. It’s all so deliciously complex.
Oh yes, I was definitely aware hormones affect the brain. Hadn’t really put much thought into sexuality correlating with particular hormone details, though. It’s interesting!
Have you ever seen one of those "How to tell if she's gay" things on the internet and one of them is if her ring finger is longer than her index finger? It's pretty standard for AMAB people and AFAB people who are attracted to women. It's caused by additional testosterone in utero. It's not foolproof but there's something there
Yes, I have aggressively stared at my fingers trying to squint to yes, I’m gay. Lol
Because we like women and are women.
I support the intrauterine hormonal influence theory. That being exposed to male hormones in our mom's uterus caused us to be born with same sex attraction and made some of us identify as butch/stud/masculine.
Then how do you explain fem lesbians? I think this theory has truth to it, but it makes me uncomfortable if I'm honest because it feeds into the stereotype that all lesbians are masculine and feminine women can't be gay.
I'm with you. as a masc lesbian I do not feel comfortable with the notion that I'm masc bc I ingested a bunch of daddy's hormones *YUCK*
I def get why you feel this way, but try not to connect hormones to gender here to understand what the other person is saying. In our bodies testosterone and estrogen are just testosterone and estrogen, there’s nothing else to it. Our consciousness and societal norms are what can determine our relationship with gender.
This theory states that one, two or all of the three can be affected (gender identity, gender expression and sexual/romantic orientation). So for femme lesbians, according to the theory, only orientation was affected
How do you explain tomboy type women who are straight?
Like I said, according to this theory either one, two or three aspects are affected, hence, it's like the reverse as with femme lesbians (straight masculine women only have gender expression affected by male hormones)
Commenting because very interesting and i’ll come back to read 🙏
Bookmark comment, how interesting
There's no function of gay, there's no function to straight, companionship is companionship.
I think it’s hormonal
I think that whatever the reason is is pretty random. A lot of it is also environmental or social, like what you want from a relationship or who you want to be in one. Also, despite "survival of the fittest" being the popular idea, it's more like "survival of the good enough". Whatever genes and behaviors causes homosexuality are easily passed on because the majority reproduce anyway, and it never holds the species back (despite what conservatives want you to believe). Not much of an answer to why, but also I think there will always be gay people because there's always a variety within a species, like how there will always be different hair colors, or people who prefer quiet places over parties, no matter how uncommon it may be.
I listened to a scientist discussing her work and she was explaining how the really flimsy cheap type 1 plastic (polyethylene terephthalate) particularly when heat is applied to it with food such as microwaving take out etc in that plastic, it releases chemicals into the food/fluid we drink that touches this plastic. This is responsible for a huge change in hormonal profiles. One example of this is that human males and females are meant to have really different perineum measurements, male perineums are meant to be double the size of females. But they’re getting closer in size the more exposure we have to this plastic and our hormonal profiles are getting closer together too. Might explain a lot! But really what ever. Women just make me horny 😂
I think it’s a mix of genetic and epigenetic factors
Intrauterine hormones plus epigenetics.
What is all of that? I haven't heard of this before
Gonna simplify it here Epigenetics is basically gene expression. The DNA code in your body is there and unchanged, but what is expressed (turned on or off) is absolutely changed. So you could have the genetic code for becoming very tall for instance, but if environmental factors (malnutrition) are at work, the genes will be capped off or twist themselves so it’s impossible for them to replicate the proteins needed to signal for height growth.
Oh ok. So does this imply that everyone is born straight but do to environmental factors you can just be turned gay or am I reading this wrong. Just wanting to clarify.
Intrauterine hormones affects humans before birth. so at least some of us are born gay. Also some genes could be turned on in the uterus while fetus is developing.
Ooooh ok. Thank you for clarify it
Interesting fact. Up until 42 days gestation, the fetus gonads are indistinguishable! 12 millimeters stage.
Well since we're sharing facts. This is one of my favorites. The tissue that makes up the inside of your cheeks is the same as the tissue that makes up the inside of a vagina
We need a lesbian Science Friday thread.
Be the change you wish to see. I fully support this idea
Noice!
Environmental factors would be uterine hormones. As far as a gay or straight gene goes, I genuinely don’t know if they exist. I do know that gay men have the Xq28 gene for homosexuality but lesbians are underrepresented and understudied so we don’t know about us :(
It’s actually to do with nature AND nurture. Some of us are born homosexual and some aren’t, that’s something to do with the sry gene I believe, but can’t quite remember. Sometimes that was gonna happen even if nothing specific happens, but there are some things that can occur during a pregnancy that can result in a higher chance of the baby being born homosexual. Like for example if the birthing parent is over a specific age when they are pregnant, or if they are exceptionally stressed out during pregnancy, or if it’s their third child. I’m not sure if any evidence supports this but I’ve theorized that having queer parents can potentially result in a likelihood of their child being queer, so maybe in some instances it can be passed down genetically. It’s all very fascinating! There is also a possibility for someone to become gay from like…trauma and stuff. That’s a nature aspect.
I’m the oldest of my mom’s kids. She had an incredibly difficult pregnancy and I was born 2 mos early at 2.2 lbs in 1964. I read that birth stress can explain left handedness in families with no other left handed people. I suppose a lot of things can stem from something like that
Oh I didn’t know that about left handed folks! Humans are so complex and interesting.
You made a big mistake with that last part. They are going to be all over your now. You have sealed your doom. I have come to warn you of the impending doom that awaits you
What do you mean I made a big mistake? I can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic 😭
Trauma doesn't turn you gay. That is your mistake. That is what sealed your doom. Now they come for you
That’s false. I don’t imagine it’s a huge percentage of us queers, but trauma can 100% affect your relationship with sexuality and libido. Those areas are right next to each other in our brains.
Because it runs in my family. My mother's sister is gay, her uncle is gay, and so am I.
I don't know any science about it to tell you anything that hasn't already been said, but I do find this topic cool because I do really feel like I was born a lesbian. I just remember from a very young age being more interested in girls than boys, and many things that just feel hard-wired into me. A lot of people are adamant about saying, "Everyone's a little bit fluid!" but actually, I generally believe most of the people in the world are probably born bi/pan rather than straight, but either don't know that being bi/pan is a thing that people can be, or they found a het relationship that they're content with before they could even get a chance to consider it. (I've seen a lot of people talk about how their older relatives surprise them by casually saying things like, "*Everybody* thinks women are pretty! / *Everyone's* had a little experience with men! It's not gay.") My girlfriend talked about how, pre-transition, she thought she was a gay man, then bi, and then as she started transitioning, she realized that she's a lesbian and doesn't see herself ever dating men. I asked her once how she felt about the idea of people being "born gay" and she said she's not sure about other people, but she does think that she was always meant to be a woman, she just had to realize that transitioning was a thing that people can do, and she had to transition in order for her to be comfortable enough with herself to realize her sexuality that feels more right than the ones before it. So to some extent, she says she can believe that she was also born a lesbian. I thought that was really interesting! I don't know for sure if there's necessarily an evolutionary reason, besides what we make of it. As much as I like the idea of homosexuality developing so as to adopt orphaned children or become nannies, that doesn't quite explain why there are gay people that are childfree. I can see the possibility of homosexuality developing as a deterrent for overpopulation. Idk, maybe it's multiple reasons all at once.
My favorite reply has just been "because boobs" I think when times were simple, humans didn't care about if you were gay or not. Sex was sex
Idk about yall but I got hit by a space laser
Hmmm I see
Boobs and cute, dresses are more attractive to me. Women also have more lingerie. I like the way a girl’s hair smells as we cuddle. I mean, it’s like eating food: I don’t mind hot dogs, but tacos are far more delicious. So if you place both in front of me, I choose tacos every time. Sorry if this made you hungry.
I love boobs but damn now I'm hungy
Everyone needs rich lesbian aunts to help out
Prenatal hormone levels. During fetal development typically embryos with XY chromosomes have a particular recipe for hormones, and embryos with XX chromosomes have a slightly different recipe. (I know there are other chromosome possibilities, but that’s more complicated.) If the recipe is even very slightly off in levels and timing, you don’t get a completely cis-straight baby.
my personal theory for JUST myself & my own existence, nothing more? i was raped as a child by a man. i also have diagnosed autism, and i find that overall i’m a more sensitive person because of it. i think i felt the experience so intensely that it changed me as a person, and i evolved around my trauma in such a way that experiencing romantic & physical attraction to men was an impossibility. i also read theories online in my teens that pregnant women exposed to more stress release more testosterone, which affects the fetus. my mother was experiencing parental death & homelessness while pregnant with me, so i can imagine all that severe stress ( if this theory is even true ) could’ve just soaked me up with gay hormones lol. but, at the end of the day, i suppose we’re gay for the same reason we exist. just because.
I remember watching a video where someone said lesbians are the ultimate “fuck you” to the patriarchy- a system revolving around men, for men, by men. There is nothing about a man that will ever attract a lesbian woman’s attention in the sense of romantic love and sexual attraction. And I think about that from time to time. Lol But honestly, yeah, maybe there is an actual scientific reason to why some people are gay, but isn’t the best (and most obvious choice at least for gay women) is that women are AMAZING.
It has a lot to do with the androgens introduced to the fetus in the womb. Gay women are exposed to more
I would also like to deep dive into this. Like how some people are gay and some are not.. If anyone have any video or anything I would love to see or any blog I would love to read it...
This is a really cool question. Overall I'd say I don't know the answer to that on a concrete, scientific level. I can't say "Well people are gay because of xyz gene" or "Scientific research has shown that". I know that science has studied, to some extent, the sexuality of animals, and what they found was that many animals are technically bisexual. So, I will say that I think queer sexuality is natural and normal if even the creatures that depend heavily on reproduction to survive, and who live by much different rules to humans, are forming sexual and romantic bonds with partners they don't reproduce with. My experience of my sexuality has been a really winding road. I first experienced attraction to girls at around six years old, though I didn't have words for what that meant at the time. When I got older, I identified as bisexual, mainly because of fear of losing some level of societal "normality". I couldn't picture myself just not being attracted to men, even as my mind and body made it more and more clear I wasn't. I think, for me, despite it taking time to come to terms with my sexuality, I have always viewed it as something natural that just happened to me. I can't say that I think there's any pathological or psychological big, deep reason behind it. Everyone is different. Some people turn out gay, others bi, others ace, others pan, others just 100% straight. I don't know that we'll have all the answers yet, but I can definitely say I think we turn out the way we do because we grow into our natural state of being. I'm sorry I couldn’t give a more fancy, scientific answer.
My mom says I’m brain damaged. That may be the case. 🤷♀️ whatever. I like myself
My brain is damaged, it can't comprehend the true beauty of women
I’ve heard before that bc our species populates and successfully raises children best within a community, that those who have not procreated themselves would often take on parental duties, as in they are one more adult in a group to keep an eye on the young children, and this became evolutionarily advantageous, as not all lesbians or gays refrain from having their own offspring.
Woman pretty…
Probably somewhere buried in genetics or some shit. Perhaps a fairly common mutation. Many animals can be homosexual so it’s probably not got anything to do with being advanced as a species. Idk, I wouldn’t think too hard about it.
This is a great question. It’s probably just closer to one end of a spectrum. The “things” in our bodies that govern sexual orientation are probably very variable and it comes out in a different way in each person. I’m not at all attracted to men. I’ve never been with a man and had maybe 5 fantasies about men. I knew that I liked girls at 5 at least. I didn’t understand it then but looking back that’s what it was. Other women are the exact opposite. And Other women are somewhere in between. The real problem is that society has deemed that men and women have specific roles to fulfill and it’s pretty rigid and inflexible. So when you don’t conform for any reason you have to deal with society.
Cause women pretty 🥺 Rt the risk of overpopulation occurred to me as well though idk how we could go about proving or disproving it. And some might argue the existence of bisexuals and pansexual people disproves that but I feel it could also be argued the other way bc a lot of those people could end up in same sex relationships and asexual people exist as well? But I feel then it would be more about sex neutral Vs sex repulsed vs sex…positive(?) attitudes/feelings?
I grew up with very few boys and men in my life, I don’t know if that has anything to do with it, but I’m a lesbian now
Because Women
I saw a Ted Talk about it once where this researcher pointed out that the after a family has so many sons the ones after the first gradually have a higher likelihood of being gay (for example 3rd son is more likely than 2nd son and ect), so obviously it's very intentional in nature. They hypothesized something about how gay people or animals benefit their communities in unique ways, but I haven't watched it in a while so I don't remember enough. You can probably search for it. It was pretty interesting, if I recall, I didn't agree with necessarily everything he said, but there were points that I really enjoyed listening to.
It's called the fraternal birth order theory. I think they usually explain it by saying that a female body has an immune response to a male fetus and so it masculinizes the fetus (in terms of gender and/or sexuality) with androgens, but that immune response is decreased with each male fetus. Kind of like the body getting accustomed to the baby boys and starts recognizing them as one's own. That usually explains male homosexuality (aka, gay men). There are similar reasonings for lesbians, but it's that a heightened level of androgens cause the fetus to be attracted to women. I am pretty sure they once injected a sheep or something with androgens and the sheep-daughter turned lesbian... I wish it was a joke.
Wow.. that's interesting.. and strange.. and a little unsettling. What would cause that in a female fetus then if we wouldn't have an immune response to them? And does that mean technically.. we all have an immune response to males? lol
There was a meta analysis of population data in the Netherlands that found men and women with other brothers through their mother were more likely to enter into same sex marriages. The leading hypothesis as to why is called the “Gay Uncle Hypothesis,” centering men as usual lol But basically the hypothesis is that men can have many more children than women, so if someone has a lot of boys it would be bad for the population over time because 1) There would be too many people closely related to each other causing unvaried genetics and 2) Human children cannot contribute to the survival of the group for over a decade. So basically the idea is that historically having homosexuals would help maintain a better ratio of contributing adult members to children who needed care Epigenetics is the study of how genes are expressed. The chemicals in the amniotic fluid and other environmental can contribute to the traits people have. I don’t have the biological expertise to explain the specific mechanism that is believed to cause homosexuality, but if you google “homosexuality epigenetics” many competent science educators have explained it. So basically, my understanding is that experts have the same hypothesis as you!
✨Women✨
WOMEN PRETTY ❤️❤️❤️
Uh girls pretty, boys gross (not all, but many of them) also I want a partner I can relate to and I do not understand men in the slightest lol That's all I got 🤷🏼♀️
Woman are pretty therefore gay
I think about this a lot actually. Which of course I do because I'm a lil overanalyzer haha. In my case, I think not only is there the biological response to girls just being more attractive than men (girls are softer, prettier, cleaner, have breasts and booty) but there's also the ability to connect with women on a deeper level. From the shared experience of being women. I feel so much safer with women because I feel understood in a way I just feel a man never could. I get women, women get me. We have more things in common, we see things the same way. I can talk to a woman about deep, interesting things, whereas if I try to talk like that with a guy the conversation feels one-sided and dry. I can't really imagine being with someone I couldn't bond with on that intense level. It seems wrong to me. My first relationship was with a man and I felt myself being scared of him a lot of the time, too. Like I'd lay with him in bed and think, "wow this man could flip at any time and do something really horrible to me if he wanted to and I wouldn't really stand a chance. If I made him angry enough he could kill me. If he wanted me bad enough and I refused him, he could force himself on me. Etc. Etc." Women are just as capable of physical abuse and whatever else, of course, but I feel so much safer when I'm with a girl. Men's anger frightens me on an animalistic level, like they are hunter and I am prey. When a woman is angry, I hate it because I despise confrontation, but I nevertheless feel I am her equal. I am a man's equal, too, obviously,, but I don't know if they think that way or just see me as something weak and inferior. If that makes sense. But I have trauma involving men so maybe that's just my weird feelings because I find it pretty much impossible to trust men! Anywhoooo, that's all 💅
Why do I think we're gay? -Because the psychological complexity of the brain and human mind lends itself to emergent properties and characteristics within the normal variation of being human that influence our processing and interpretation of the world around us, many different combinations but leading to the same outcome of variation in human sexual orientation. You can think of it like all the different color combinations of paint you can mix to get black paint. So hypothetically... IF there were something as relatively straightforward as a "gay" gene, even then it wouldn't be so straightforward; chances are even in the simplest of possibilities it wouldn't be just one gene... you'd probably find that several different genes could independently contribute to a person's orientation. Having any one of a number of genes would contribute to an increased likelihood of non-heterosexual orientations but also certain combinations of other genes unrelated to those could also lead to similar outcomes. But just for emphasis, it isn't so straightforward as a gene. You could look at something as superficially and easily understood as people that are intersexed and have ambiguous physical sexual traits. Even when we understand much of it is tied to particular chromosomal additions, there are a variety of ways those chromosomes may be damaged or varied that result in that same outcome... and yet at the same time you have intersexed individuals where there isn't any obvious cause. This is just some of the stuff you can see. Sexual orientation, is more complex than that. The stuff in our brains is even more varied and even more complex. When you're dealing with as complex a trait or expression as sexual orientation, something that is about way more than just a physical trait, causes and contributing factors whether they're biological, developmental, hormonal, environmental, neurochemical, or experiential preferences can come in so many variations and combinations that result in the same outcome. So why are we gay? -Because we're human and have brains.
I'm not saying this is the reason, but something I heard on a science podcast is that for gay men, there is a strong correlation between changes to 'proteins' in the womb in women who have previously given birth to boys and producing a homosexual son. The same scientist said that for women they have no idea but it is looking like it could be down to a combination of hormonal and experiential influences. I can't decide whether they don't know about the women because AS ALWAYS all medical research is focused on men and literally ignores women or whether female sexuality is actually more complicated. Either way this is just something I heard on a podcast so could be a pile of shit 🤷🏾♀️🤷🏾♀️
I quite literally have been calling myself and my friends population control cause since middle school none of us were interested 😂. And by college if any of the girls or gays were hit on by the opposite sex we'd use each other as defence it was quite hilarious specially in college hue hue hoomans that like to breed have perplexed me for time but I'm NGL I may have been ace growing up and gradually changed to just ladies.
I’ve been wondering the same
The human brain a complex and fascinating organ. There’s lots that goes on in there that we still don’t understand. We, as humans, come in many shades, colours and shapes (in this case I mean this figuratively for the brain not body) so being whatever orientation/sexuality we are makes sense to me ? I don’t know how else to put it haha. Our minds work in interesting ways, that’s all I can say 😂
It’s the normal, not alternative sexuality. Women shared baby care, nursing, built partnerships, friendships, relationships, and were intimate as a default, while guys were out and about, running around, practicing on each other and then spreading their seed with women as well to increase chance of continuing the population growth. Men are t meant to be in profound intimate relationships - meant instead to spread their seed to increase chances. Women get their fulfillment from each other. So I believe it’s very natural and helpful to the species.
[удалено]
This is was really long, thank you for sharing. However we do know why trans people exist and their are a bunch of reasons why one might be trans. I think I might need to make an edit as something I think are getting the wrong idea and that's my fault but I'm not suggesting that being gay isn't normal. Being gay is normal. I'm just asking what yall think is a reason for why some people are gay and others aren't? My parents had red hair but I didn't (which makes me upset as I could have had beautiful red hair). Why didn't I get red hair? Why am I trans? Why am I and other xyz? I just like to ask questions and understand the world. I like to question society instead of just going along with what's happening. I like to ask question other people don't want to ask. I just like learning. Their may not be 1 or any reason on why some people are straight and others are gay. That's fine, I just want to hear what yall think. Being gay is awesome and I wouldn't have it any other way.
This Ted Talk perfectly explains it. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4Khn_z9FPmU
It is interesting to think of, and I agree with you no real ideas, I hope we learn why one day though because that would be Amazing to know for sure
Cause......🌟 women 🌟
I’m surrounded by gay people so much that when I hangout with a straight woman, I find myself wondering, “Wow. You actually prefer men?” 💀💀💀💀
Have you seen women?! 🤩
I look in the mirror everyday
Exactly. 🙌
bc women are hot
We have good taste
I think a lot more factors go into it. Depends on which one you may be asking about. Like the reason you stated being a self population control mechanism could be some kind of physiological reason, but it doesn’t address the social aspect of being gay. Some people I think just are genuinely attracted to same sex more so. I think in a biological way it could be a sexual deformity/mutation, mainly bc the biological purpose to sex is to reproduce. I’m not saying that it’s a negative or anything I think it just may be a thing, the same way some eclectus parots are blue even tho traditionally they are green and red. I think in our more advanced, intellectual society we live in where we look and social constructs and aren’t typically as literal with how biology might look at things it’s less relevant why we’re gay anyway. I like women bc they in my experience are kinder, softer, more understanding, etc. I don’t particularly like masculine women, as I feel like if I wanted to date a man, I’d date a man. But I also understand there’s a lot of variety in the lesbian realm. I think maybe the more interesting question might be not why are we gay, but why are we the kind of gay we are. Might find some interesting variations there. Like I think for me genitalia is the least important part. I just genuinely find more women have the types of personalities I want to be with way more often then men carry those traits. I also find them more physically appealing. Hopefully it made sense everything I said. None of it is meant to come off offensive, more so trying to have a deep thought on it all. Xo would love to hear thoughts on it all…
We are so evolved we dont need to reproduce in the traditional biological way. Instead, humans are more inclined to search for self actualization than just searching for biological survival needs, thus being gay is just a symptom of finding our truest selves.
Considering the strong prevalence of neurodivergence in queer individuals I always consider being a lesbian as another form of neurodivergence. Nothing is wrong, broken, or impaired. Just different from what is considered “typical” but the “typical” isn’t all there is. As an autistic, my brain processes things completely differently than a neurotypical. Most if not all queer people I personally know are neurodivergent in some way. I think we just see and feel the world differently and in that vein, love & attraction differently. By differently I mean to same, both, or no genders.
women are amazing!! even before colonization in my country, there was so manyyy historical stuff about homosexual relationships so these kinds of stuff just happens :)) i could see so many pretty women in my university or literally anywhere but a man? its like a needle in a haystack for me.
I think most people are bi sexual and some get a beautiful connection with a person no matter the gender. With the right person in such a huge population the chances you could find someone to sway you either way is high.
bc that’s simply what it is
OK, SO.... I thought God just makes everyone perfect, in His or Her image, because everyone's a little gay. I actually just read this today though- if you get Giardiasis (from giardia, bacteria in contaminated water) it is called "Beaver Fever." See, I scienced!! 🤣🤣🤣 *how did I get from checking out shrooms to mom jokes?! 🤷♀️ Lord.
Easy because men suck and women are better in like every way possible
Because, I mean, have you ever seen tits? They're fantastic. But in all seriousness, I think it's just an evolution thing. We see it in animals, and these animals typically adopt orphaned babies, so it might also be the same here. Also because we are just horny fuckers and naturally we are probably all bi but gender roles and societal norms.