Genetic Factors Increase Fecundity in Female Maternal Relatives of Bisexual Men as in Homosexuals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Recent studies on male homosexuals showed increased fecundity of maternal female relatives of homosexual probands, compared to those of heterosexual controls. We have suggested that these data could be explained by the transmission, in the maternal line, of an X-linked genetic factor that promotes androphilic behavior in females and homosexuality in males. AIM: Our original studies were on relatives of male subjects who declared themselves to be exclusively homosexual. However, the relationship between homosexuality and bisexuality, including the possibility of shared genetic factors, is complex and largely unexplored. To cast light on this issue, in the present study we examined whether relatives of bisexuals show the same indirect fitness advantage as previously demonstrated for homosexuals. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Subjects completed a questionnaire on their sexual orientation, sexual behavior, and their own and their relatives' fecundity. METHODS: We studied 239 male subjects, comprising 88 who were exclusively or almost exclusively heterosexual (pooled to comprise our "heterosexual" group), 86 who were bisexual, and 65 exclusively or almost exclusively homosexual individuals (pooled in our "homosexual" group). Bisexuals were here defined on the basis of self-identification, lifetime sexual behavior, marital status, and fecundity. RESULTS: We show that fecundity of female relatives of the maternal line does not differ between bisexuals and homosexuals. As in the previous study on homosexuals, mothers of bisexuals show significantly higher fecundity, as do females in the maternal line (cumulated fecundity of mothers, maternal grandparents, and maternal aunts), compared to the corresponding relatives of heterosexual controls.This study also shows that both bisexuals and homosexuals were more frequently second and third born. However, only homosexuals had an excess of older male siblings, compared to heterosexuals. CONCLUSIONS: We present evidence of an X-chromosomal genetic factor that is associated with bisexuality in men and promotes fecundity in female carriers.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".