Why we won't find a gay gene.

(A Hypothesis Regarding Homosexuality in Men, and Gay Hate/Homophobia)

Note that this is a hypothesis which has not been tested by the scientific method. It is merely a simple theory which I would expect to be a leading candidate for explaining incidences of hatred toward gay people, and perhaps homosexual behaviour itself, and so I’m posting it to see what kind of objections there are to the argument.

I am going to attempt to be entirely neutral on the subject – I hope I will not offend any readers, as it is not my intent to describe anyone’s sexual interests in a negative manner. Also, this explanation will be rather simplistic for some people – my aim here is only for people to understand the general idea, rather than to present a full analysis of the claim.

The idea relies on a basic understanding of evolutionary theory. All I am asking the reader to believe here is that at least some of humankind’s current behaviour is influenced by the chance of it producing offspring. There is selective pressure for men to be attracted to women (and vice versa), because this greatly increases the chance of some of their genetic makeup continuing through time (and hence creating more women-liking men etc.).

Now picture a time when man was not so highly adapted to his environment. His communication skills are very basic, and he doesn’t have anyone to teach him about the world. Part of his (evolutionary heritage) gives him the ability to recognise objects in the world through his senses, like vision. A genetic makeup that is to continue through time must make him sexually attracted to a particular group of these objects – female humans. If it doesn’t, then alternatives that do will dominate future generations.

So selective pressure is initially working on making men sexually attracted to women. How do we do this in the psychological realm? By creating a structure in the brain that generates a sexual response when a woman is recognised. And how do we recognise women? Unfortunately, there is no simple way to instantly tell if an object is a woman - Olympic officials not so long ago required complete visual verification, even with the benefit of millions of years training.

Human brains can recognise characteristics though, and incrementally build up a belief that an object is a woman. This belief must be constructed from many factors – basic factors that rule out many other objects are: must move around, walk on two legs, be warm, be fleshy with skin and not fur, must make human-like noises etc. The list goes on, and will get more refined through generations. The more factors that are recognised, the stronger the sexual response. This is fairly obvious today if you look at the kind of women that are used to sell magazines to men – youthful, with prominent breasts, and other features that make it obvious that they are fertile females.

So you can think of the brain “ticking boxes” as traits are recognised – at a certain level, man becomes sexually interested, and this interest is strengthened by the number and importance of the boxes ticked (the object’s ‘female’ score). Thus selective pressure is going to produce genetic code that makes men more sexually attracted to an object the more female traits it exhibits. But here’s the problem with this code: other males will also tick many of these boxes. The closest match to a human female is a human male – the difference is only quite clear today because evolution has had a lot of time to get this recognition right. In addition, men generally share more interests with other men and spend more time in the company of other men. Without any additional coded behaviour, lots of men are going to have sexual relationships with other men.

This is a problem in terms of evolutionary selection because mating with other males never produces offspring. For evolutionary success, men should be as sexually interested in other men as any other non-female object, which is to say not at all. So selection will favour men who are attracted to females and at the same time are not at all attracted to males, despite them sharing so many of the same traits.

How do we (genetically) code for this optimal combination? The most simple modification (and therefore the most likely to appear first in genetic optimisation), is the addition of an aversive response when an object of sexual interest to the male (or an object showing sexual interest in the male) exhibits male-like traits. This aversive reaction must be strong enough to nullify any sexual attraction (or the interest of the other male).

I don’t think I need to argue that this kind of aversion exists in many males today, and is well-known. Think of Jim Carrey’s (over the top) reaction as Ace Ventura when he realises that the woman who has been flirting with him is actually a man.

But not all reactions are like this - some males react in an aggressive, violent, or otherwise confrontational manner. This is easy to explain. Humans already have pre-existing aversion psychology for dealing with all kinds of situations - the oft-mentioned “fight-or-flight” code in the brain. Instead of creating an entirely new kind of aversive behaviour, it is much easier for selection to introduce a hook into the “fight-or-flight” response.

And a strong aversive trigger in males naturally predisposed to the ‘fight’ strategy is going to lead to feelings of anger and aggressive behaviour. In most cases, other social code will prevent outright hostility (or in the flight case, running away), but in certain social situations where they feel less inhibited, such males may become violent. This is gay hate or homophobia – the expression of psychological code to prevent men mating with other men combined with an aggressive disposition in a social setting conducive to expression of dislike.

And being gay itself? Simply not having code for (or having a weakened version of) the aversive connection between sexual interest and male traits. If a man doesn’t have this aversive behaviour coded for, it’s not hard to see why he wouldn’t find other men more attractive – after all, men generally share more interests with other men, and genuinely enjoy each other’s companionship without any biological imperative. The “Gay Gene” is not coding to make a person gay, it is the absence of coding to make them not gay.

---