▲ 84 ▼ Young People Are Gayer Than Ever, New Study Says (www.vice.com) submitted 2 years ago by wit@lemmy.world [M] to c/gaybros@lemmy.world 23 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] stephfinitely@lemmy.world 34 points 2 years ago (1 child) Good let people be happy. permalink fedilink source hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] nethad@feddit.ch 6 points 2 years ago (2 children) Yeah, I wonder how long it will keep rising or what the "actual" numbers are in society if they face no discrimination. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Num10ck@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) are you just including the full lifestyle? or casual day passes? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] nethad@feddit.ch 3 points 2 years ago I wouldn't differentiate, just people that act on their same-sex attraction somehow I guess or admit they have the attraction. permalink fedilink source parent [–] The_v@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) We likely will never know the "actual" numbers because it's a moving target. Homosexuality is thought to be linked to higher fecundity of all the female relatives. As birth rates decline, a slightly higher fecundity will drive an increase in observed homosexuality/bisexuality as a percentage of the population. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] wit@lemmy.world [S] 2 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Homosexuality is thought to be linked to higher fecundity of all the female relatives. Do you have any source for this? I have never heard about this before.. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] The_v@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago 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 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] nethad@feddit.ch 6 points 2 years ago (2 children) Yeah, I wonder how long it will keep rising or what the "actual" numbers are in society if they face no discrimination. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Num10ck@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) are you just including the full lifestyle? or casual day passes? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] nethad@feddit.ch 3 points 2 years ago I wouldn't differentiate, just people that act on their same-sex attraction somehow I guess or admit they have the attraction. permalink fedilink source parent [–] The_v@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) We likely will never know the "actual" numbers because it's a moving target. Homosexuality is thought to be linked to higher fecundity of all the female relatives. As birth rates decline, a slightly higher fecundity will drive an increase in observed homosexuality/bisexuality as a percentage of the population. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] wit@lemmy.world [S] 2 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Homosexuality is thought to be linked to higher fecundity of all the female relatives. Do you have any source for this? I have never heard about this before.. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] The_v@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago 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 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Num10ck@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) are you just including the full lifestyle? or casual day passes? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] nethad@feddit.ch 3 points 2 years ago I wouldn't differentiate, just people that act on their same-sex attraction somehow I guess or admit they have the attraction. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] nethad@feddit.ch 3 points 2 years ago I wouldn't differentiate, just people that act on their same-sex attraction somehow I guess or admit they have the attraction. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] The_v@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) We likely will never know the "actual" numbers because it's a moving target. Homosexuality is thought to be linked to higher fecundity of all the female relatives. As birth rates decline, a slightly higher fecundity will drive an increase in observed homosexuality/bisexuality as a percentage of the population. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] wit@lemmy.world [S] 2 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Homosexuality is thought to be linked to higher fecundity of all the female relatives. Do you have any source for this? I have never heard about this before.. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] The_v@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago 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 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] wit@lemmy.world [S] 2 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Homosexuality is thought to be linked to higher fecundity of all the female relatives. Do you have any source for this? I have never heard about this before.. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] The_v@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago 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 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] The_v@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago 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 permalink fedilink source parent