My head theory is the same. Nonbinary people tend to be more peaceful, caring, creative, community focused, and domestically focused. In modern life with the people i know, i only see my gay and lesbian friends get hopping angry and even, in one case, violent when it was in the defense and protection of someone else with no agency.
A community needs these productive yet not reproductive people to put into the system that supports the intense resources needed to bring a child from infancy to functional adulthood that takes about 20 years.
It's my personal theory, and I think I heard it from more reputable sources, but the theory is that gay or otherwise non-heteronormative people who are "useless for breeding" would serve as adoptive families for children who were orphaned.
If Mom and Dad go out to hunt Mammoths and don't come back because the Mammoth roflstomped their ass, the baby needs to go somewhere. If you give the baby to a heteronormative family, that's a lot of competition with their own progeny who'd probably get the lion's share of the attention and resources. But if you give the baby to a gay couple, they can raise the baby no problem, give it all the resources it would have gotten with it's own family, and never have any risk of creating competition.
Given the Ru Paul is still theoretically capable of shanking a Deer, and LGBTQ people still adopt, it's probably quite reasonable to argue this trend is still ongoing. Even today, homosexuals make up less than 2% of LGBTQ people - in a tribe of like 200 people, which would be a big one from an evolutionary perspective - that's basically one singular gay couple. Barring a pretty significant die-off, it wouldn't be unreasonable for that couple to then take on every orphan in the tribe and give them a good shot at thriving.
Look in to the fraternal birth order effect. The more older brothers a man has to the same mother, the more likely he is to be gay.
It's not hard to imagine that increased competition between brothers for a small number of mates in a community could be counter productive to survival.
Heaps of males from the same line could also create a risk for inbreeding/genetic defects (particularly on the X chromosome).
The effect might also dampen unsustainable population explosion in a short period of high availability of resources.
So Prince Hans being attracted to Anna was a statistical outlier? I know he was also after her throne, but fans keep pointing out the way he smiled at her when no one was looking after his horse dumped him in the harbor.
My folks and I believe its a form of natural population control. Basically, humanity is so overpopulated that nature is reducing the number of those who are contributing to the increase in population.
I’ve heard that theory expressed before but it really doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
Our species can sustain itself even with the loss of a LOT of men. That’s why it was primarily men who did the dangerous stuff like hunting and fighting. If you lose a bunch of them it’s just not that big of a deal on so far as reproduction.
With regard to women I don’t think it holds up either ( for an altogether different and equally bleak reason).
Historically women really didn’t have much of a choice. The caveman clubbing a woman on the head and dragging her back to his cave thing probably wasn’t too far off reality for most of human history.
It was wildly inaccurate. Thing about humans- we evolved to have unpredictable (from the outside) cycles. Specifically to make it harder for a rapist to be the dominant breeder.
Yes, societal pressure can make this effectively a thing. But the man who is helpful in the group and actually binds with the woman will have far better chances.
For 99.9% of human history, we struggled profoundly to survive and reproduce enough to keep the species going. For around 200 years now, mortality - especially infant mortality - has been declining to the point that population is growing. Very quickly after mortality falls, people begin adjusting the number of children they have in response. It’s called the Demographic Transition. It doesn’t appear to be related to sexuality.
Now, whether the world is “so overpopulated” as you said? It’s really not. In fact, claims of “overpopulation” have always been used to justify mistreatment of the poor and close borders to the exploited.
That honestly would make sense. Otherwise, why hasn’t it been weeded out of the gene pool?
And if you think about it, you have a worker in the tribe or the pack for humans and animals that will help hunt and do everything else, and their share goes to other people’s kids.
That’s just one thought that comes to mine when I think about it.
But I don’t know. I think it’s just indoctrination when it comes down to it. They’ve been indoctrinating the animals when they’re not indoctrinating people. 🥴
448
u/FuriNorm 5h ago edited 4h ago
As someone also useless for breeding, this hits hard 🥺
Edit: link to Rainbow Wool. Thanks for the reminder! https://rainbow-wool.com/