4 ms·

> such a crippling failure for the organism This is just a homophobic mischaracterisation of sexuality. I recognise and don't appreciate how much of an effort

> such a crippling failure for the organism This is just a homophobic mischaracterisation of sexuality. I recognise and don't appreciate how much of an effort you made to fit this homophobia into your point. Also, 40% heritability is informally considered to be a high genetic component, not "very low", and e.g. heritability of eyebrow thickness is 37%.

0x737368 6y ago
I'm very certain the parent meant it in an evolutionary sense that the individual will not pass on their genes to offspring - nothing to do with homophobia.
- brodie 6y ago
  It seems like a very individual natural selection-based idea. I’ve personally always wondered if there could be tribe-level selection for tribes with some non-heterosexual members. But I also have personal experience, and I’ve met others who do as well, with life experiences that make me wonder if they could somehow affect sexuality. I know it might be presumptuous of me to consider the idea, but it’s only just an idea—one I usually keep to myself.
  - amanaplanacanal 6y ago
    It seems obvious to me that your childhood and especially adolescent experiences would impact what you find sexually attractive as an adult. Is this considered a radical position?
    - brodie 6y ago
      It’s a sensitive subject for some, I think.
- throwaway2245 6y ago
  The parent could have made the claim (that you believe they meant) without saying "crippling failure of an organism", and I would still think it was mildly homophobic: - there's literally nothing to stop a homosexual person from biologically reproducing, - it assumes that the only value of an organism is in its Darwinian fitness (its ability to reproduce), which is pretty gross. I reject this assumption. The parent appears to be applying this heuristic of value only so far as it implies a moral failure of homosexuality: it's not a typical measure of value. Humans value other animals more highly than this, without regard to whether they have reproduced.

0x737368 6y ago

I'm very certain the parent meant it in an evolutionary sense that the individual will not pass on their genes to offspring - nothing to do with homophobia.

brodie 6y ago
It seems like a very individual natural selection-based idea. I’ve personally always wondered if there could be tribe-level selection for tribes with some non-heterosexual members. But I also have personal experience, and I’ve met others who do as well, with life experiences that make me wonder if they could somehow affect sexuality. I know it might be presumptuous of me to consider the idea, but it’s only just an idea—one I usually keep to myself.
- amanaplanacanal 6y ago
  It seems obvious to me that your childhood and especially adolescent experiences would impact what you find sexually attractive as an adult. Is this considered a radical position?
  - brodie 6y ago
    It’s a sensitive subject for some, I think.
throwaway2245 6y ago
The parent could have made the claim (that you believe they meant) without saying "crippling failure of an organism", and I would still think it was mildly homophobic: - there's literally nothing to stop a homosexual person from biologically reproducing, - it assumes that the only value of an organism is in its Darwinian fitness (its ability to reproduce), which is pretty gross. I reject this assumption. The parent appears to be applying this heuristic of value only so far as it implies a moral failure of homosexuality: it's not a typical measure of value. Humans value other animals more highly than this, without regard to whether they have reproduced.