Evolutionary Perspectives on Male Homosexuality: A Literature Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This review provides a comprehensive coverage of the leading evolutionary hypotheses to date on male homosexuality (namely the sexual antagonism model, the tipping-point model, and the kin selection hypothesis). It does so by first (1), surveying prominent findings on the nature and biological causes of male homosexuality; second (2), discussing the effects of male homosexuality on individual fitness; and third (3), outlining the contending evolutionary theories on male homosexuality and critically evaluating each against current pertinent empirical evidence. This review reveals that male homosexuality is a complex, multifaceted phenomenon influenced by an interplay of genomic and environmental factors that may have had unique evolutionary trajectories. Thus, there is likely more than one evolutionary mechanism at play responsible for the maintenance of gay alleles in the human population. Current research largely supports the notion that gay alleles bestow fitness benefits on heterosexual carriers. The tipping-point model and sexual antagonism model, but not the kin selection hypothesis, are in line with current empirical evidence. Future research into the genomic underpinnings of sexual orientation in homosexual males and its genetic equivalents in heterosexual males and females may allow for further evaluation of these hypotheses. Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Keywords: human evolution, evolutionary psychology, mating preferences, sexual orientation, homosexuality
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".