Homophobia is the prime motivation for non-consensual cosmetic surgery on intersex infants.
Scientific discovery has a way of shattering our preconceptions whether we are scientists or not. That is certainly true of homosexuality. As Psychology Today recently reported, biologists, who long ago concluded that homosexuality could not have been favored by natural selection are being forced to revise their views from two perspectives: evidence of gay genes and gay animals…
So far, the evidence for male homosexuality as a possible female adaptation lines up perfectly with the first prediction. What of the requirement that females who carry a gene for male homosexuality must enjoy some sort of advantage that allows them to out-reproduce females who are not carriers? Recent studies have found that female relatives of male homosexuals do indeed produce more children (and the same is true of bisexual men).
Why exactly the female relatives are more fertile is also interesting. It seems that they are more fertile because they have a comparatively high sex drive. It is tempting to imagine that the high sex drive of female carriers of the putative “homosexual” gene is partly due to their greater attraction to male bodies. This idea is corroborated by similarity in the brains of male homosexuals and female heterosexuals in a part of the brain linked to sexual behavior.
The theory that male homosexuality evolves because the gene/s causing it increase/s the sexual activity and reproductive success in female carriers is scientifically neat.
Some researchers nevertheless argue that homosexuality can provide a net biological benefit for the homosexuals themselves whether they are males or females. They point to homosexual behavior of other species. I reserve discussion of gay animals to another post.