From a population genetics standpoint, the amount of homosexuality around is a puzzle. Because homosexual individuals have negative fitness (aka they don’t make many babies), they should be very rare if it’s genetically linked. There has to be a counter-benefit to the genetic family to maintain them in the population.
Why it’s important: If there is no counter-benefit, then homosexuality logically has no significant genetic component. It’s all environmentally influenced.
Original study proposing the concept in for homosexual mens families.
From a population genetics standpoint, the amount of homosexuality around is a puzzle. Because homosexual individuals have negative fitness (aka they don’t make many babies), they should be very rare if it’s genetically linked. There has to be a counter-benefit to the genetic family to maintain them in the population.
Why it’s important: If there is no counter-benefit, then homosexuality logically has no significant genetic component. It’s all environmentally influenced.
Original study proposing the concept in for homosexual mens families.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/abs/10.1098/rspb.2004.2872
A few more recent ones discussing it.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12110-017-9309-8
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-007-9191-2
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513808000688
And the ladies.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12110-017-9309-8