Male Sexual Orientation and Avuncularity in Canada: Implications for the Kin Selection Hypothesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Androphilia refers to sexual attraction and arousal to adult males, whereas gynephilia refers to sexual attraction and arousal to adult females. The Kin Selection Hypothesis (KSH) posits that genes for male androphilia can persist if androphilic males offset the fitness costs of not reproducing directly by enhancing indirect fitness. In theory, by directing altruistic behavior toward kin, androphilic males can increase the reproduction of kin, thereby enhancing indirect fitness. Evidence supporting the KSH has been documented in Samoa. Samoan transgendered, androphilic males, known locally as fa’afafine , are socially accepted by the majority of Samoans. In contrast, no supportive evidence has been garnered from other cultures (i.e., USA, UK, Japan) that are characterized by less social tolerance toward male androphiles. Tests of the KSH in Canada might be more likely to yield findings consistent with Samoa because Canadian social and political attitudes toward male androphiles are markedly more tolerant and accepting. Here, we compared the willingness of Canadian androphilic men, gynephilic men, and androphilic women to invest in nieces and nephews as well as in non-kin children. Consistent with the KSH and findings from Samoa, androphilic men exhibited a significantly greater cognitive dissociation between altruistic tendencies directed toward kin versus non-kin children relative to gynephilic men and androphilic women. The present study, therefore, provides some tentative support for the KSH from a culture other than Samoa. Findings and future directions for research are considered within the context of the existing cross-cultural literature.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".