If being gay was genetic, natural selection would have weeded

>>8742294
Correct. There is no selective pressure for homosexuality or transsexuality. They are consequences of how one is raised.

>>8742294
>what are recessive genes
Also, plenty of closeted men and women have kids

Sisters of gays have much more children on average for some reason. That what I've read about potential reason.

I'm trans, I have two brothers with 6 kids total. My tranny genes are safe.

If I remain completely ignorant of all the relevant facts pertaining to whatever I choose to make an argument about, then how can I ever be proven wrong since I will never have any idea what anyone who replies to me is actually talking about?

>>8742294
>So is it behavioral?
That or, more likely, you have no idea what you're talking about.

>>8742314
Wasn't trying to piss anyone off but it looks like someone's mad

Look up gay uncle theory

OP here, just to be clear i AM GAY MYSELF. I was just trying to ask a scientific question, but I guess some people on here think this is hate speech

>>8742314
This lmao, there are plenty of evolutionary arguments for why homosexuality exists from actual biologists. Some things that prevent individual organisms from reproducing are useful to the super organism/society, like how worker bees don't reproduce, they get the queen to do it instead

>>8742320
there is no genetic benefit to being "mad", so obviously evolution removed that defect from our gene pool a billion years ago.
you are clearly mistaken, friend. this is hard science we are talking about here.

>>8742331
there is no genetic disadvantage to being mad, either. But being gay puts a huge disadvantage to the main deciding factor in natural selection, which is reproduction

>>8742331
>there is no genetic benefit to being "mad",

>As predicted, the effects of men's strength were much more robust. In both studies, when strength and attractiveness were entered into a regression, strength continued to independently predict anger, entitlement, success in conflict, fighting history, and judgments of the efficacy of personal and political aggression. Indeed, there was little or no diminution in the effect sizes for the instruments most related to aggression (Table S1 and Table S2).

http://www.pnas.org/content/106/35/15073.full

File: interdasting.jpg (51KB, 685x567px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 685x567px

>>8742335
So you're saying that gays are born infertile?

>>8742294
K I N S E L E C T I O N H Y P O T H E S I S
https://psmag.com/social-justice/the-old-way-to-be-gay-couples-love-evolution-67337
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kin_selection

>>8742371
P S E U D O S C I E N C E

if being stillborn with 2 chromosomes and a demon face were genetic, it wouldve been weeded out by now

hurr

durrrrr

genetics dont always produce rational results, nature isnt autistic

>>8742325
Genetic Evidence of Homosexuality:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/06/04/the-science-of-sexuality-how-our-genes-make-us-gay-or-straight/

http://archive.is/y64OH

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xq28

https://www.advocate.com/health/2015/10/09/study-dna-identical-twins-can-reveal-whos-gay

http://archive.is/GuptB

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/17/science/gay-men-in-twin-study.html

http://archive.is/PSmzQ

https://www.christiantoday.com/article/research.points.to.genetic.element.in.homosexuality/35856.htm

Straight males carry gay genes:

http://chaladze.com/files/publications/Chaladze2016ASB.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xq28

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2012.02785.x/abstract

Scientists find DNA differences between gay men and their straight twin brothers:

http://archive.is/g3lal

http://www.nature.com/news/epigenetic-tags-linked-to-homosexuality-in-men-1.18530

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xq28

Female relatives of gay men have 1.3x as many children:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2012.02785.x/abstract

Androgen receptor gene linked to XQ28

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAGEA11

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/11/study-gay-brothers-may-confirm-x-chromosome-link-homosexuality

http://archive.is/E3my1

>>8742518
The Chaladze link investigates how the gay gene could replicate if heterosexual men carry it, and determines through a computer simulation that it would persist over time.

File: 12586186-middle-aged-man-with-hand-on-beard-looking-up-thinking-Stock-Photo.jpg (110KB, 1300x863px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 1300x863px

>>8742294
>what is recessive inheritance
Is /tttt/ populated only by illiterate brainlets?

I remember reading that the more children a woman has, the most likely the boys are to be gay. This could mean that certain genes for fertility or attractiveness could be tied to the ones that lead to homosexuality. Additionally, an adult gay son can help raise his siblings, and this could increase the chances of his sisters and brothers who carry the gene but do not have it expressed survive to adulthood and have their own potentially gay children.
I have no idea how true this might be though. Thoughts?

>>8742557
>younger sons are gay
>so older gay sons can help raise their younger straight siblings
Thoughts? It doesn't add up.

>>8742581
So older sons don't compete for resources and if they are limited and the younger will be more dependent on the family which is a symbiosis.

pederasty

File: noyou.png (534KB, 750x746px) Image search: [Google]

534KB, 750x746px

>>8742294
Educate yourself instead of just making stupid guesses.

Woman who carry the gay gene are more fecund.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0051088

https://www.livescience.com/2623-gays-dont-extinct.html

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/oct/13/highereducation.research

http://www.economist.com/node/12465295

It's neither entirely genetic nor entirely environmental.

It's epigenetic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetic_theories_of_homosexuality

The epigenetic theory completely fills all the gaps in the 'nature vs nurture' type theories.

>>8742908
>gaps
>in nurture

>>8742294
>natural selection would have weeded out the gay gene by now
you can thank the christ cucks for that, they pushed faggots to have offspring to keep appearances, but you might go extinct now

>>8742309
Think of it this way. A woman with a male sibling who doesn't reproduce has a person in her life who can help her raise her children. Said gay uncle helps those kids grow and thrive, and in doing so the family genes survive.

>>8742924

I'm not sure what you're implying.

File: eWl7v9Ge.jpg (12KB, 240x240px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 240x240px

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innate_bisexuality
^This is kind of my take on it all

>>8743221
>WE WUZ SKANKS N SHIT

kek

>>8743192
That there aren't gaps in the nurture explanation.

>>8743221
funny, my take is innate asexuality

Being gay is clearly genetic and is seen in animals. There are a lot of different proposed explanations for why gay people would exist because it's not actually that obvious. Such as the gay uncle theory, the idea that a gene that's strongly beneficial for one gender can turn the other one gay but the net effect is positive, that it's a side-effect of things like elevated hormone levels in the womb which can make a child otherwise healthy, that being gay is simply a result of bad genes, etc.

However, it is a reality that people are "born gay". I've been hearing this being gay is a choice meme for so long and it's just so unconvincing.

I dunno what to say OP, read a fucking book. Trying to figure out why homosexuality exists, denying it's genetic, and assuming it's some sort of social construct, will result in you doing earth is at the center of the universe level mental gymnastics. It's just a shit explanation when homosexuality can be found in animals, across cultures, and in every period of recorded history.

>>8745575
I posted the best information I have as to biological causes of homosexuality above. If anyone has anything to add to that conversation, I would welcome that information (plus DOI if it is a research paper please).

>>8742518