Sociologists on Transgender
rserven, October 5th

The journal Human Nature has a recent publication by Doug P. VanderLaan, Zhiyuan Ren, and Paul L. Vasey entitled Male Androphilia in Ancestral Environment.

The Kin Selection Hypothesis, as posited by sociobiologist E. O. Wilson, is that:

homosexual individuals help collateral relatives (siblings, nephews and nieces, cousins) so that "homosexual genes proliferate through collateral lines of descent, even if the homosexuals themselves do not have children."

The article linked above is given an alternative title:  Transgendered males seen as an asset to some ancestral societies. 

The study's position is that this kin selection is still at play in pro-transgender societies today.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/10/05/1244490/-Sociologists-on-Transgender#

Hmmm . . . I share the commentator's exasperation with the abstract.

That the study would equate ->-bleeped-<- with homosexuality indicates that academia still has a way to go in recognizing who we are.  Of course, we're dealing with sociologists, who are supposed to approach studies with fewer preconceptions than the rest of us, but it seems to me the methodology may be flawed if the conclusion is that homosexuality is genetic and not resident in the limbic system and that it is "expressed" as ->-bleeped-<-.

And that the continuation of homosexuality is propagated genetically runs counter to everything we as progressive people understand about both the nature of homosexuality as well as that of transsexualism.

What do you say to someone with a Sociology degree?
Big Mac & fries please

Don't like the misgendered jargon or the seeming confusion between gender identity and sexual orientation.

However, I do find the premise intriguing - that gay and transgender people are helpful to a society. I.e. contrary to claims that we all are "unnatural", in reality nature has supported our continued existence because of the advantages we confer in a culture.