Genetics doesn't typically work like that in any case. Particularly for behaviors. There's no "angry" gene. There's no "violence" gene. There's no "inquisitive" gene.
You realize you just posted two social components not biological right?
Why would you think that that the reaction to an environmental condition is purely social?
Put it like this: there is a specific species of lizard that has evolved to swim from one island to another in order to find more territory. However, due to the difficulties of these swims, many lizards may die. What's been discovered is that a certain percentage of these lizards are capable of actually changing their sex enough to create fertile offspring. I believe this case it was the females of the species that were larger and did the swimming. If only 3 of 20 lizards survived the trip and they were all female, sometimes they would die out on the island, but other times one of the females would actually partly change sex including producing sperm and inseminating other females. This cause the population to have male and female offspring, allowing the population to grow.
That's fucking weird and not human, and we know that the animals themselves don't have a "social construct" to talk about. However, there's no question that the environment caused a biological reaction. Specifically the lack of suitable males.
Obviously, genetics can create behaviors that modify your environment. However, environmental pressures can absolutely effect your genes.
I don't think it would be beyond reason to imagine that environmental stressors could cause a biological reaction in people that were predisposed to react in a certain way. If those stressors were a significant lack of potential mates of the opposite sex, it wouldn't surprise me that some small percentage of the male population would be predisposed to sexual activity with the male population, removing lower status males from the breeding pool of potential suitors for the few females, and creating a less violent and lethal environment for males fighting for breeding rights.
You do know aggression and most extremes of emotional disturbances are actually tied to genes? Kinda like schizophrenia, bpd, depression, anxiety. Family lineage is the largest indicator for mental illness. Arguing environmental factors as a biological factor is insane. No one would say nuclear radiation is a biological factor. Again the environment of humans is controlled, gay sex has preceded all controlled human environments. So your argument makes no sense. Unless you’re saying that we have had the same environment since Greek antiquity or earlier…
I'm not saying the fact that gay sex exists means it's the same environment.
I'm saying that I think that disproportionality of one gender or the other causes homosexuality to emerge in that group. It's reactive to an environmental pressure, which is going to be different depending on place and time.
Genetics doesn't typically work like that in any case. Particularly for behaviors. There's no "angry" gene. There's no "violence" gene. There's no "inquisitive" gene.
Why would you think that that the reaction to an environmental condition is purely social?
Put it like this: there is a specific species of lizard that has evolved to swim from one island to another in order to find more territory. However, due to the difficulties of these swims, many lizards may die. What's been discovered is that a certain percentage of these lizards are capable of actually changing their sex enough to create fertile offspring. I believe this case it was the females of the species that were larger and did the swimming. If only 3 of 20 lizards survived the trip and they were all female, sometimes they would die out on the island, but other times one of the females would actually partly change sex including producing sperm and inseminating other females. This cause the population to have male and female offspring, allowing the population to grow.
That's fucking weird and not human, and we know that the animals themselves don't have a "social construct" to talk about. However, there's no question that the environment caused a biological reaction. Specifically the lack of suitable males.
Obviously, genetics can create behaviors that modify your environment. However, environmental pressures can absolutely effect your genes.
I don't think it would be beyond reason to imagine that environmental stressors could cause a biological reaction in people that were predisposed to react in a certain way. If those stressors were a significant lack of potential mates of the opposite sex, it wouldn't surprise me that some small percentage of the male population would be predisposed to sexual activity with the male population, removing lower status males from the breeding pool of potential suitors for the few females, and creating a less violent and lethal environment for males fighting for breeding rights.
You do know aggression and most extremes of emotional disturbances are actually tied to genes? Kinda like schizophrenia, bpd, depression, anxiety. Family lineage is the largest indicator for mental illness. Arguing environmental factors as a biological factor is insane. No one would say nuclear radiation is a biological factor. Again the environment of humans is controlled, gay sex has preceded all controlled human environments. So your argument makes no sense. Unless you’re saying that we have had the same environment since Greek antiquity or earlier…
I'm not saying the fact that gay sex exists means it's the same environment.
I'm saying that I think that disproportionality of one gender or the other causes homosexuality to emerge in that group. It's reactive to an environmental pressure, which is going to be different depending on place and time.