A new study by Canadian researchers adds weight to the theory that the evolutionary role of gay men may be to serve as “super uncles” who help close family members survive.

Paul Vasey, an evolutionary psychologist at the University of Lethbridge, sought to address an entrenched scientific riddle: If homosexuality appears to be inherited, how have gay men, who are less likely to reproduce, continued to pass on their genes without becoming extinct?

According to The Gazette of Montreal, one long-running theory argues that gay men serve the evolutionary role of acting as “super uncles” who assist close relatives and indirectly increase the chances of passing on their genes.

“The idea is that homosexuals are helping their close relatives reproduce more successfully and at a higher rate by being helpful: babysitting more, tutoring their nieces and nephews in art and music, and helping out financially with things like medical care and education,” reports The Gazette.

Vasey and his colleague Doug VanderLaan tested the theory on the Pacific island of Samoa, where they studied women, straight men, and the fa’afafine, men who prefer other men as sexual partners and are accepted within the culture as a distinct third gender category.

“Vasey found that the fa’afafine said they were significantly more willing to help kin, yet much less interested in helping children who aren’t family — providing the first evidence to support the ‘kin selection hypothesis,'” reports The Gazette.

“Maybe it’s in this way that they’re indirectly passing on at least some of the genes that they’re sharing with their kin,” said Vasey.

The findings are published online this week in the journal Psychological Science.

Researchers are now exploring whether the fa’afafine actually follow through on their stated willingness to help family members by giving more money to relatives.

  • @ksynwa@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    82 years ago

    If homosexuality appears to be inherited

    That’s a pretty big if. Don’t think it makes sense to just presume something like this.

    • @ster@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      12 years ago

      It’s unlikely that genetics play no role. One of the main factors is believed to be the conditions in utero. These are, of course, affected by the genes of the mother, at least in part.

  • Torrid
    link
    fedilink
    72 years ago

    As soon as the phrase “indirectly passing genes” shows up you know this is crazy people nonsense.

    • Torrid
      link
      fedilink
      52 years ago

      As a follow up to this, you could also assume from this article that gay people play such a positive role in their community, it’s possible that it makes people around them comfortable enough to explore their own sexualities

    • @ster@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      02 years ago

      I don’t disagree with your conclusion, but why does that phrase indicate it’s nonsense?

      • Torrid
        link
        fedilink
        02 years ago

        the article is stating 2 nonsense ideas (as in, ideas that make no sense if you spend a second thinking about it)

        1. a gay gene exists
        2. genes can be passed through proximity alone

        Sure, people are influenced by one another as time goes on, but that has nothing to do with genes. Pure nonsense

        • @ster@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          02 years ago

          Just because there isn’t a gay gene doesn’t mean genetic factors don’t affect sexuality. It’s believed to be a combination of genetic factors, conditions in the uterus (which are affected by the genes of the mother as well) and other factors.

          Siblings share a lot of genetic similarities. A gay uncle who supports their siblings at raising children will improve the probability that those shared genes are passed on.

          • Torrid
            link
            fedilink
            12 years ago

            The main issue with any of that is wishy washy unproved and unconfirmed. Some published papers say genetics may influence 32 percent of gay individuals, but then you have people who have all the genetic history and patterns that are supposed to be a match for same-sex inclinations but have none whatsoever, and vice-versa.

            There’s no ‘gene’ and no ‘genes’ that determine a person’s sexuality, and much like how a person may be raised by gay parents, doesn’t mean that they themselves will be gay.

            Raising a person does not give them genes, does not pass genetic material down or any nonsense like that. If you raise someone, they will be influenced as an individual by the way you treat them. If you expose a person to new ideas, this will influence the way they understand the world. You aren’t giving them or ‘activating’ genes.

            You think kids raised by parents in the Westboro Baptist Church have some sort of ‘hateful gene’ because of how they were raised? Plenty have left and don’t practice that lifestyle. You can’t just give someone new genetic material by being around them or helping raise them into adulthood. Quite frankly, it’s a very dumb suggestion.

            • @ster@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              02 years ago

              unproved and unconfirmed

              Sure, but it’s not relevant. It’s unlikely that genetics plays no role whatsoever, and impossible that it is completely determined by genetics.

              Raising a person does not give them genes

              Yes, I know. That’s not what the article is suggesting at all. The gay uncle supports his siblings in raising children. Those children share genes with the uncle, therefore the “gay” genes get passed on.

  • @TheConquestOfBed@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    42 years ago

    I kinda get the point, but I don’t like the conflation of indigenous gender norms with western sexual norms. The title feels clumsy and sexist as though it were written in the 90s.

    It feels a bit like people are still hesitant to just let lgbt people exist for the sake of existing as a quirk of the universe and have to assign some capitalistic use value. We’re not here to increase the national birthrate or GDP. We’re just trying to get by.

    • @vis4valentine@lemmy.mlOPM
      link
      fedilink
      32 years ago

      Yeah. Neil Tayson said to Ben shabibo that whatever we find out what is the origin of homosexuality, the results most not matter in people’s lives. Im OK with trying to find the scientific reason to homosexuality, its fascinating since its present in every mamal species and other kind of animals, but of course it will always be polemic

  • @Lightbritelite@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    32 years ago

    “ Researchers are now exploring whether the fa’afafine actually follow through on their stated willingness to help family members by giving more money to relatives. ”

    This sounds like the article writers and researchers are in cahoots with the relatives to get those sweet super uncle bucks. Good luck on your “research” fellas!

  • @Lightbritelite@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    3
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    What about my coworker and his partner raising children together, are they not parents, but two gay super uncles? What about me, straight, single, and a super uncle? Am i now indirectly passing my straight genes on to my nieces and nephews?

    I think their whole starting premise is a bit strange, but just for fun I can think of a few evolutionary benefits to being gay - less likely to contribute to over population being a big one, while also being able to adopt and care for kids that are in foster care and in need, generally swell taste in fashion contributes to cultural expression, etc.