Might be worth revisiting this video from 2015 where Richard Dawkins hypotheses - admittedly, based on no evidence at all - that "modern" male homosexuality might be a result of bottle-feeding, whereas a breastfed baby wouldn't be homosexual.
I'm not joking.
I'm not joking.
The full video, where he also hypotheses that perhaps dominant males with harems who went hunting left behind "ostentatiously homosexual" males to guard the women, and that's how homosexuality escaped being "got rid of" by the evolutionary process?!
The video starts well, but once he starts offering wild ideas about how homosexuality survives the evolutionary process, it certainly doesn't "refresh my mind with science." It gives you the idea of a man stabbing the dark, when the best answer is, "I don't know, but it did."
He says he has been asked this question a lot, but he still hasn't figured out that the "bottle-fed" example is a terrible example, not least because homosexuality is also observed in other animals whose feeding "technology" has not changed in millennia.
It also gives some credence to the idea that it's something that parents do that *makes* their children homosexual, which is an obviously dangerous idea, so as a scientific communicator wouldn't you be a little bit careful about throwing out such an unevidenced notion?
When it comes to the science behind what makes people lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender, it is obvious, to me, from observing human behaviour, across cultures, and time, that these things are innate, beyond any weird theories about how people are fed as children.
How we came to be the way we are, as a species, is an interesting question, but it should not determine how we treat other people. We should not need a robust scientific theory of how a human came to be homosexual to treat them with humanity.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
