As do gay men. As do bisexuals. And I'm not just referring to the efforts of fertility clinics. Consider, just for starters, the number of children fathered by closeted men in the U.S. before the culture shifted away from demonizing and pathologizing them.
In addition to not acknowledging the fluidity and variety captured by various studies of human sexuality (much of it work building on and revising Kinsey's work), the discussion also suffers from applying a contemporary definition of homosexuality to the past. Consider, as an obvious example, the widespread phenomenon of men in ancient Greece who had recreational sex with boys and yet produced children with their wives. To label them "homosexual" in contemporary terms is a considerable cultural error. That should bring us to a larger point of caution about presuming absolutes in the determination of "reproductive fitness" since the dawn of humanity, but I'll let it go at that. I think it's easy to take offense when someone is blinded to how their presumptions inform their supposedly-pure science. We could simply say that the statement that homosexuals have zero reproductive fitness is factually and historically wrong, sure, but it's bias masking as neutrality, if not certainty, that ruffles. Tracie Rubeck, Ph.D. Academic Department Coordinator Amherst College Biology Department McGuire Life Sciences Building Amherst, MA 01002 413-542-2097 [email protected] -----Original Message----- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Leslie M. Adams Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 9:46 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Exclusive homosexuality Homosexuals are both male and female. And Lesbians do indeed have children. Leslie M. Adams, Ph.D. Adjunct Professor of Plant Systematics Professional Training and Development University of New Hampshire http://home.comcast.net/~leslie.adams/ Home Office: 603 / 659-6177 Adjunct Associate Professor of Environmental Sustainability School of Undergraduate Studies (online) University of Maryland University College Adjunct Professor of Life Sciences New Hampshire Institute of Art "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." - Albert Einstein -----Original Message----- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Culliney, Thomas W - APHIS Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 8:30 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Exclusive homosexuality The statement that "homosexuals have a fitness of zero," which is a true statement, implies nothing about desires, which cannot be known. It implies everything about reproductive rate, which, in a homosexual, is zero. Nothing about this topic, which is scientific in nature, should give offense, borderline or otherwise. Tom Culliney -----Original Message----- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Matt Schuler Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 7:58 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Exclusive homosexuality Many of you seem to be implying that a "high" frequency of homosexuals in human populations must imply that there is an "inclusive fitness benefit" for heterosexual individuals, and therefore you are implying that there is an adaptive explanation to homosexuality. This simply isn't true. Sexuality is complex, and we know that multiple genes interact to affect sexual preferences, sexuality, and sexual traits. Epistasis with linkage to a desirable trait can lead to the increased and maintained frequency of any trait that lowers the fitness of a population (whether it is ~3% or 10% doesn't matter). Any population genetics textbooks will have great examples of this. We know that there is individual variation in sexual preferences, even if we only divide it into 3 categories (straight, bisexual and homosexual); that is enough to maintain a frequency of individuals that are 100% homosexual. The 100% homosexual group can have a fitness of zero (non reproductive) and never offer any fitness benefits to other individuals in the population. See the sickle cell anemia example and malaria. The fact that there is variation in genes of sexual preference leads us to the conclusion that there can easily be variation in the phenotype. Social scientists have known this for a long time, it is called the Kinsey Scale (see more here <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_scale>). Now that we have confirmed variation in sexual behavior, please stop assuming that all individuals who associate with "homosexual" behavior do not want to have children, and that all those who associate with heterosexual behavior have never acted on an alternative desire. The statement that "homosexuals have a fitness of zero" implies that you know that all homosexuals have no desire to have children, which simply is not true, and is borderline offensive. I believe Wayne's original question has been answered, homosexual behaviors exist in other animals. Matt This electronic message contains information generated by the USDA solely for the intended recipients. Any unauthorized interception of this message or the use or disclosure of the information it contains may violate the law and subject the violator to civil or criminal penalties. If you believe you have received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete the email immediately.
