Just what did Darwin say about homosexuality?

[Ducky]

This thread is so gay.

 

[athon]

If sex was solely an act of procreation, I might see some validity in the question (aside from the fact that as others have pointed out, it's a strawman argument at best). And if sexuality was a dichotomy, again, I might hesitate to consider this line of questioning.

But it is neither. Sex is also involved with social interactions including the management of pecking orders, increasing social bonds and resource exchange. Rather than thinking of homosexuality as a perversion of 'normal', we should view all sexuality as a spectrum of bisexual practices, where individuals lie somewhere on a spectrum. Thus given that in biology variety is the spice of life, it becomes less of a confusing anomaly and more of a given that in many species, individuals will exist who lie on the 'mostly homosexual' end of that spectrum.

Athon

 

[John Hewitt]

I'm no scientist. I'm an artist. And while this article seems enlightened to me, I'm not sure about what's being said about Darwin.

http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/the_gay_animal_kingdom/

From the article: "Joan Roughgarden thinks Charles Darwin made a terrible mistake. Not about natural selection ...but about his other great theory of evolution: sexual selection. According to Roughgarden, sexual selection can’t explain the homosexuality that’s been documented in over 450 different vertebrate species. This means that same-sex sexuality—long disparaged as a quirk of human culture—is a normal, and probably necessary, fact of life. By neglecting all those gay animals, she says, Darwin misunderstood the basic nature of heterosexuality."

Is the writer confusing early Darwinism and current evolutionary thought?

I do not recall Darwin saying anything about homosexuality and would be very surprised if that recollection is wrong – he was concerned predominantly with supporting his *central* theses about evolution and doing so via general aspects of natural history and reproduction.

The question of the evolutionary origins of homosexuality is a topic which recurs on these fora and is a topic that has interested me. However, so it seems to me, there are always a good many misunderstanding about it and failures to address priorities. Roughgarden's work is an example.

I go into the origins of human sexualities on my web site http://www.sexandphilosophy.co.uk which makes extensive use of the idea of sexual selection.

So far as I know, obligate homosexuality (meaning sexual attraction *only* to one's own gender) is very rare in any species other than humans. Bisexuality, on the other hand, is well documented in many species and Bruce Bagemihl gave an extended list in his book "Biological Exuberance." Nonetheless, those examples were of bisexuality not homosexuality. It seems that one may regard human homosexuality as unique.

In reply to one person on this forum, I do not regard sexual selection as a subset of natural selection. From a data processing point of view, which is the bioepistemic way of looking at such issues, (and in my opinion the correct way) sexual selection is far more complex than is natural selection and, therefore, plainly not a subset of it.

However, sexuality has been discussed by Darwin's followers. Without emphasizing homosexuality as such, Julian Huxley did so in his essay "the uniqueness of man." He notes there that human sexual traits are quite unique. Human biology does indeed include a variety of unusual sexual traits, some of which plainly predispose us to non-reproductive sexual acts. In addition, there are several aspects of human sexuality (here meaning the psychological traits that lead to sexual acts) which also often generate non-reproductive sexual acts. Homosexuality is one example but it is a relatively minor part of this pattern. Hence, I suggest to you that the problem to be considered is larger than homosexuality. Indeed, it seems to me relevant that, given the choice, a significant proportion of the human population make conscious choices not to reproduce at all.

Therefore, in my opinion, the problem as it should be addressed is why humans have become so sexually unique that we often choose non-reproductive sexual behaviours. So, for example, one wants to consider why our heterosexual biology is so unusual and link that to why we are subject to the various sexual deviations. Those do include homosexuality but sadomasochism and fetishism are equally important and there are a variety of other such behaviours; masturbation might be considered in that group and does also merit consideration.

In summary, then, I find Roughgarden's work to make the same error as most discussion of sexuality. I find it to be much too focussed on the narrow problem of homosexuality. In effect, she sees a tree and asks how it grew, but does not seem to notice the forest of which that tree is a part or inquire into the origins of that forest. It seems to me she just asks the wrong questions.

 

[athon]

I do not recall Darwin saying anything about homosexuality and would be very surprised if that recollection is wrong – he was concerned predominantly with supporting his *central* theses about evolution and doing so via general aspects of natural history and reproduction.

I don't often nominate, I must admit, but this is essentially what I've thought but never managed to find the right way of expressing.

Nice post.

Athon

 

[Earthborn]

In summary, then, I find Roughgarden's work to make the same error as most discussion of sexuality. I find it to be much too focussed on the narrow problem of homosexuality.

If you think Roughgarden's work is too narrowly focussed on homosexuality, I can only conclude that you have tried extraordinarily hard to ignore her work. She places homosexuality in the much wider context of all gender-variant behaviour.

I do not recall Darwin saying anything about homosexuality and would be very surprised if that recollection is wrong

He didn't say anything about homosexuality, or even anything else that didn't fit into the 19th century ideas of femininity and masculinity, and that is the basis of Roughgarden's critique of his concept of sexual selection: because many relatively common behaviours do not fit well with the concept of sexual selection as originally penned by Darwin, she believes the whole concept should be replaced by the concept of "social selection".

While I like her concept of social selection, I believe her ideas go off the rails in a few ways:

1. She seems to me to argue the old fallacy of evolutionary change as a moral judgement; she believes there is nothing wrong with homosexuality and gender-variant behaviours, notes that they are fairly common and therefore concludes that they somehow must have been evolutionary advantage.
2. She assumes that such behaviours must have been passed on genetically from one generation to the next. I don't think there is much evidence to suggest this is true.
3. Social selection is certainly a good concept, as species do adapt (even genetically) to the social environment in which they live. But in critiquing sexual selection it seems that she misses a possibility more obvious than the falsehood of sexual selection: sexual selection may be a subset of the broader concept of social selection.

 

[Furcifer]

Both Earthborn and John Hewitt IMHO have tip toed around an issue I recently had opportunity to debate with a psychology masters student. She vehemently objected to my classifying homosexuality as "deviant behavior".I made it clear that under no uncertain terms do I consider gays as deviants, I merely objected to the practice being thrust in my face as "normal".

I'm not trying to offend anyone, and I find myself objecting to anyone putting forth prejudices against anyone engaging in "deviant sexual behavior". The human animal is, under our current social standards, free to engage in sexual activities "between consenting adults".

Not acknowledging homosexuality for what it is seems to be a major stumbling block in eradicating prejudices. It's not "normal" but it's "acceptable", and so am I.

 

[sol invictus]

One thing that makes this difficult to study is that it's not well understood even in humans. For example:

So far as I know, obligate homosexuality (meaning sexual attraction *only* to one's own gender) is very rare in any species other than humans. Bisexuality, on the other hand, is well documented in many species and Bruce Bagemihl gave an extended list in his book "Biological Exuberance." Nonetheless, those examples were of bisexuality not homosexuality. It seems that one may regard human homosexuality as unique.

You're making what I think is an entirely unwarranted assumption: that "obligate" homosexuality exists in humans, and moreoever that it can be defined in some way relevant to human biology (rather than society). You should bear in mind that the idea of "gay people" is a modern construction - it didn't exist at all even a few centuries ago. A large fraction of gay (not bi) men and women have had sex with people of the opposite sex in their lives. At some point they choose to do so no longer, and most would probably say that they are not attracted to them. But attraction is a vague concept that's very strongly affected by circumstance, society, belief systems, etc., so it's not at all clear what these implies biologically, if anything.

Since we're on the topic there's a hypothesis that hasn't been mentioned so far: the "sneaky male" theory. The idea applies to species (horses, seals, etc.) where a successful single male has multiple female mates - a "harem". For males that can't or haven't yet acquired their own harem, there might be an advantage in "pretending" not to be attracted to females but instead to males, or in acting more like females so as to appear less threatening to other males with a harem. This could allow them to sneak in and mate with a female. The theory is that the tendency towards this might be exaggerated in some individuals to the extent that they are no longer very interested in mating with females at all.

I don't find it particularly compelling, but it does go to show that evolutionary explanations are not out of the question.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

For males that can't or haven't yet acquired their own harem, there might be an advantage in "pretending" not to be attracted to females but instead to males, or in acting more like females so as to appear less threatening to other males with a harem. This could allow them to sneak in and mate with a female. The theory is that the tendency towards this might be exaggerated in some individuals to the extent that they are no longer very interested in mating with females at all.

I don't find it particularly compelling, but it does go to show that evolutionary explanations are not out of the question.

For that matter, there might be a group-level "gay uncle" advantage as group population increases. That is, childlessness might benefit the reproductive success of relatives' offspring simply by freeing up scarce resources when population pressure increases.

So the fact that "obligate homosexuality" is relatively rare in other species might say something about human overpopulation.

Again, not so compelling, but it's a thought.

 

[Ferguson]

To me the "gay-uncle" hypothesis makes a lot of sense, and the idea that it "couldn't be passed genetically" is absurd. It's like saying ant workers and soldiers can't be sterile because sterility wouldn't be passed genetically. It would be "advantageous" to have a non-mating segment of population, which pass their genes by supporting their family.

 

[Terry]

Not acknowledging homosexuality for what it is seems to be a major stumbling block in eradicating prejudices. It's not "normal" but it's "acceptable", and so am I.

How do you feel about left-handed people? People with red hair?

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Are these idiots forgetting that homosexuals have children? Even homosexual animals have offspring more often than not. Preferring one gender over another for sex doesn't mean sex with the other gender NEVER happens. And humans have surrogates, egg donation, sperm donation, etc.

 

[Earthborn]

Since we're on the topic there's a hypothesis that hasn't been mentioned so far: the "sneaky male" theory.

Not unheard of, though while it can explain some gender variant behaviour, it is hard to imagine how it relates to homosexuality. It isn't clearly visible that one isn't all that interested in females.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

And where homosexuality is taboo, of course it is going to be hidden, and a buch of kids will be sired out of a heterosexual union. Everyone forget about Brokeback mountain already??

 

[John Hewitt]

If you think Roughgarden's work is too narrowly focussed on homosexuality, I can only conclude that you have tried extraordinarily hard to ignore her work. She places homosexuality in the much wider context of all gender-variant behaviour.

...

While I like her concept of social selection, I believe her ideas go off the rails in a few ways:

1. She seems to me to argue the old fallacy of evolutionary change as a moral judgement; she believes there is nothing wrong with homosexuality and gender-variant behaviours, notes that they are fairly common and therefore concludes that they somehow must have been evolutionary advantage.
2. She assumes that such behaviours must have been passed on genetically from one generation to the next. I don't think there is much evidence to suggest this is true.
3. Social selection is certainly a good concept, as species do adapt (even genetically) to the social environment in which they live. But in critiquing sexual selection it seems that she misses a possibility more obvious than the falsehood of sexual selection: sexual selection may be a subset of the broader concept of social selection.

You may be right - perhaps I am too harsh with Roughgarden. I tend to assume that her own history predisposes her to ideological positions; the whole gender and sexuality debate does tend to be located in a social scientific frame where such ideology is quite common.

What is more, those fields are even less inclined to define their terms than is the biological literature. I do tend to put such reading matter down quite quickly and, possibly as a result, I am unfamiliar with the actual mechanism she invokes by her use of the term "social selection."

I, myself, do agree that sexual selection can apply in a social context and, in humans, I regard position in the social group as a major phenotypic target of sexual selection. However, sexual selection, as understood by Darwin, can perfectly well apply in species that are essentially non-social - that is, to species whose socializing activities are limited to those involved in the mating process itself.

So, please explain to me, "what is the precise mechanism I should understand by the term 'social selection?'"

 

[Furcifer]

How do you feel about left-handed people? People with red hair?

The way I feel about people is an entirely different thing all together. It has nothing to do with hair colour, sexual preference or which side of the plate you bat from.

There is evidence that red hair is genetic, so we can preclude this as deviant. Unless you are referring to people who dye their hair red? In that case there is room to consider some form of deviant behavior. If someone felt the need to constantly dye their hair red, and didn't feel comfortable otherwise I'd have to consider some sort of psychological factor influencing this behavior. Or maybe they just look better as a ginger.

Left handedness on the other hand isn't as clear. I'm not sure there are any genetic markers identifying people to that particular predisposition. Without it I'd have to say that left handedness could be considered deviant behavior. I write back handed, bat right handed, use left handed irons and right handed woods, skate goofy foot and shoot a puck from the left.

I'm the first one to admit this isn't normal behavior. I'm here, I'm ambidextrous get used to it!

 

[portlandatheist]

This assumes that there is a genetic component to homosexuality that natural selection could act upon. But if there is not a genetic component to homosexuality, then there can be no genetic pressures for or against it.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

I think it can be genetic (caused by genes coding for them to react to the same gender's pheremones or whatever causes attraction), but it is not selected for, and slightly against. I believe and pose that less homosexuals have kids, and that is why it is not the dominant sexuality. They still have kids though.

Plus, it could be genetics that happens the way something like Down's syndrome does, when egg meets sperm (is because of egg or sperm have this or that mutation randomly because of varying factors), and therefore not really "selected for" or against, it just happens sometimes. A Down's syndrom person wouldn't automatically have a Down's Syndrome child if they did end up having a child because that mutation is an extra chromosome that ends up in egg or sperm while the egg or sperm is being made only.

I also suggest some people wouldn't know if a parent was gay if the parent never came out of the closet.

 

[Earthborn]

So, please explain to me, "what is the precise mechanism I should understand by the term 'social selection?'"

The mechanism simply said is that often the reproductive success of an organism increases if it engages in cooperative strategies with other organisms rather than competitive strategies. You can hear Roughgarden herself explain some of it here.

You may be right - perhaps I am too harsh with Roughgarden. I tend to assume that her own history predisposes her to ideological positions; the whole gender and sexuality debate does tend to be located in a social scientific frame where such ideology is quite common.

No doubt she has her ideological view, but she argues in the video that her detractors do as well.

However, sexual selection, as understood by Darwin, can perfectly well apply in species that are essentially non-social - that is, to species whose socializing activities are limited to those involved in the mating process itself.

Social selection can as well.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

The mechanism simply said is that often the reproductive success of an organism increases if it engages in cooperative strategies with other organisms rather than competitive strategies. You can hear Roughgarden herself explain some of it here.

Awesome video. See, Darwin did consider these traits like antlers and peacock's tails. He did pretty good not knowing a darn thing about genes or genetics. My genetics teacher mused that it would have been quite a thing should Darwin and Mendel have ever met. We have learned a lot since then, and should never expect those who publish about something first knows every darn little thing about it. The greatest thing for us is that we can record what we learn so that others may build on it. And build on something like this we oh so can and have.

 

[Earthborn]

See, Darwin did consider these traits like antlers and peacock's tails.

That's not something anyone disputes. He explained them however in a way in which males and females take on specific roles "with the rarest of exceptions", which turn out to have quite a few exceptions.

He did pretty good not knowing a darn thing about genes or genetics.

No doubt.

My genetics teacher mused that it would have been quite a thing should Darwin and Mendel have ever met.

Consider also that Darwin has considered things like love, friendship and cooperation, and didn't see evolution as just the struggle for survival in a harsh and uncaring world. Maybe if Darwin and Roughgarden had ever met they would have gotten along fabulously.