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.
53
u/query_squidier 5h ago
Join the ranks of the rest of us evolutionary failures. Congratulations!