SECTION 2
Turning sickness into superiority

SECTION 3
Cultural dominance is inherent and prehistoric too

SECTION 4
Gays producing culture instead of culture producing gays

SECTION 5
The Family Tree: Bipedals & Bicamerals

SECTION 6
3 sexes with 3 different brains, left, right & ambi

SECTION 7
Homo is "Homo"

A modest proposal : "Homo homo sapiens sapiens"-

The "third sex" that made men out of monkeys

Why does evolution continue producing non-reproducing gays ? What evolutionary advantages balance this out and to what natural result?   Did homosexual males dominate in prehistoric cultural development as they did in historic times?

Is the third sex responsible for the rise from apes to men?

Dead white men have for a century preached that manly hunting and warfare made men out of monkeys until the emancipation of "Lucy" made apemothers the driving force. Early ape-flocks had to center around the reproduction of brainier offspring to survive. But that only accounts for "Lucy" as she was an pre-cultural Australopithecus "fertilis" not a human. It was hormonal changes that made queer apes into modern men.

To get slow-reproducing apes into to the savanna their birth rate had to go up. That�s a no-brainer. With only one child in 6 years the chimps could not afford to cross the street let alone encounter lions in the open field. Bigger brains were useless anyway as you could not fill anything worthwhile into them. Philosophical gorillas had little survival edge. Bipedality developed because of sex. It was the suicidal low of reproduction rate of chimpanzees that necessitated the radical change into relative immobility of the inferior bipedality. The record-low reproduction rate of 1 child every 6 years was turned into a rate of 5-6 children at a time thus securing the survival on the deadly savanna. The freed hands could carry babies and food and the ape society centered about foodgathering for apemothers. So far so good. (See "Lucy", 1981 Granada, by Donald C. Johanson, chapter 16) See also here for further information.

"Lucy" went bipedal and fertile at the same time but she remained a dumb blonde. At her rate of brain development, humans would not happen. Aha, here the males had to enter the scene with tools and weapons to make the necessary brain-culture loop. But no no, the male values were animalistic more than humanistic. The matrilocal ape society was already centered around the mothers, and brawny brainless men were pass�.

Evolution instead made a value-added gay man with features borrowed from women. As every wife knows it is impossible to domesticate a man, childcaring and fitting out the nest could not be trusted males. The caring nurse-cum-interior decorator male was created instead. As apes thanks to bipedal modality at this point were wading in children: hence the nonreproductive new man�s same-sex orientation was welcome.

I suggest a prehistoric origin of *)"the gay little brother effect" of the last members of a large child-flock. The mothers hormonal warfare against the child in her womb was Nature�s way of birth control and means of installing female values intravenously in stead of lecturing tin-eared males. Born was the care-bear, the purser, the servant, the hairdresser, the pedagogue, the nurse, the scientist, the humanist, the Renaissance Man, the creative man, the social adept ape, the social climber, the interior decorator.

Gone was the aggressive, the criminal, the muscle man, the psychopath, the wifebeater, the absent father. The new kind of ape-man fits better into social hierarchies than aggressive males. Gay apes would at the same time have a contrarian role to the established society. This can be likened to the rebellion of puberty, rejecting present society, one of the most powerful evolution driving forces. To expand this into a lifelong opposition is evolutions� way of putting a turbo-charger on cultural development.

Turning sickness into superiority

Please note that the hormonal gay little brother effect discovered by science does not go for lesbians explaining the lower natural occurrence of lesbians being the size of the animal gay background noise. The reason for that is obvious. They already were women with the wanted features, and their orientation were irrelevant for the males that raped them anyway. They were as fertile as the rest of the lot.

Lesbian genes survive in the gene pool, while much af the gay genes are lost by same-sex relations. In spite of this suicidal evolutionary behavior the gays outweigh the fertile lesbians. It leads to the conclusion that nature prefer female qualities in males to male features in females. Or in other words the "Lucy"-theory of female values is confirmed while male hetero values are not treasured by nature.

Severe stress causes the same effect. This means that when mothers (and often their societies) are in crisis, evolution sacrifices reproduction to get to the cultural qualities of gays. The WW2 bombings of Germany should have caused an increase in gays.

But more significant as the new roles of the gay apes was their using of both brain halves. This is the missing link. Women predominantly use their creative right halves and men their analytical left halves. This halfbrained waste of scarce resources was solved with the third sex using both halves. As the resulting cultural development of apes is essentially the same as the origin of man, we have found the missing link.

As a modest proposal I hereby suggest a new sub-species, the bi-cameral "Homo homo sapiens sapiens". A description of his physical distinctiveness has been made when a material brain difference was found by Levay at the University of Southern California , Salk Institute, San Diego,who did the original research.

LeVay, S. (1991). "A Difference in Hypothalamic Structure Between Heterosexual and Homosexual Men." Science 253: 1034-1037.

Cultural dominance is inherent and prehistoric too.

I suggest that the cultural dominance of homosexual males in history (going back 4800-4900 years ago) dates back to the emergence of culture , in fact it is human civilization. And culture is the missing link between man and apes, as man is a cultural chimp, no more, no less. The "cultural revolution" in the last 30.000 years is unexplained as the fossil reflection of this is missing. A gay source for this is close at hand as they were responsible for all other revolutions of civilization. The first evolutionary consequental use of tools was the beginning of culture and man alike. It was the whole-brained approach of gay manapes that was the driving force behind all cultural development from 5.000.000 B.C. till now. Not only 5.000 years of history or the 100 years of social constructivists. The evolutionary balance sheet with non-reproducing gays does not add up, so the missing link had to be found. Take out the gay contribution to all kinds of culture in historic times and we would still live in caves.We would have little culture, hardly any science, and no democracy, the Greek contribution can be stricken, as would be the Renaissance, Humanism and the Enlightenment.

"Homo homo sapiens sapiens" has come out of the closet. The suppression of any such thought by science is obvious, as only those free of homophobia are really qualified to discuss the subject; men wouldn�t and feminist women , narrowly interested in establishing "Lucy"as the birth canal of humanity dwelled on this pleasant thought and had little reason to go further.

But it only lead to fertile apes not to men. It took very long time to grasp the real meaning of bipedality being the evolution�s escape out of too low a fertility rate brought on by too much brain. That nature should select an inferior mode of locomotion to survive is perverse. But to choose en evolutionary showstopper to carry on evolution is a paradox.

All our taboos and phobias block for any insight across the nature-cultural divide. This divide is behind our Pithecophobia. We can only handle apes as charichatures and sex as jokes and taboos. We are acutely embarrassed by nature when it shows up in ourselves. But when we cannot talk about sex we cannot talk about evolution from apes. The Pan paniscus chimps are pansexual, when we claim we are not we are lying. As long as we are lying about reproduction our evolutionary tales are just that.

White men can�t jump, they can�t tell the truth either. Homophobia and Pithechophobia result in apes dressed up to kill. The emergence of cultural man is just like the historic culture brought to us by middle-men between males and females. This unbeatable combination was nature�s way of creating unity out of a duality. Like a mule it will not reproduce, but its parents, the horse and the donkey are both inferior to it. Introducing the source of light, Shamash, the gay god of the sun.

The Family Tree: Bipedals & Bicamerals;

- each step to the right was a fertility-change causing bigger brains.

Bipedality is considered the way apes regained the fertility of monkeys. Instead of a single child the mother took care of 3-6 instead, but with many helping hands. The modern rate of reproduction confirms the "Lucy"-theory, but the theory is in trouble when it supposes that unrelated males provided food for other men�s children as this cannot be seen in modern male behavior. The only males having empathy for unrelated children or families are the gays. "Nurture"- genes has been discovered in mice. When the babyboom climaxed hormonal changes produced carers and less reproductive members. Hunter/gatherer level societies go at least two years between children clearly demonstrating that the Australopedicine fertility-level has been scaled back again.

If the overpopulation crisis stressed the mothers the same effect occurred. Fertility was traded for the qualities inherent to gay men. Their terriffic social skills made the increasingly complex apesociety develop. Their contrarian gay outlook stimulated change. This fertility strategy worked for 1-2 million years where brain development was minimal and millstoneteeth development was maximal. This pre-echo of the agrarian revolution made best use of savanna foods and it filled up with bigjawed, smallbrained Australopedicines. A success of uncultured knucleheads that could have continued till today.

If it had not been for the army of middle-men, that used both sides of the brain. The million year long preadaption of the bicameral care-bears was the steppingstone to bicameral toolmakers who were "aped" by the rest of the flock. It is the most parsimonious explanation, that the double brained gay apes were the first to grapple with tool-making, for brain capacity is the most scarce resource. Premen had bigger brains than apes due to a higher fertility; humans could not gain  further brainsize simply by scaling down the fertility again; it had to be accompanied to creation of a "third sex" or else the exercise would be detrimental. The nature simply had to use the bicameral brain as a similar development of a one-sided brain would take millions of years, and there was not time for that and no need because the development of the 3rd sex. Creativity and analytical skills were combined to make tools that started a new evolution loop. Here the dual quality of the brain was reflected in the quality of the tools that reached an evolutionary consequential level, a somewhat arbitrary point which normally define humans. But please remember that this point is prededed by a change in fertility "the gay little brother effect", the production of "homos" in both meanings of the word.

At one point the gay avantgarde made a small troupe to split off the vegetarian boneheads and concentrate on human brain development instead. The notion that one sex could be culturally more supreme is demonstrated by female Bonobo chimps  that are markedly better at using tools than males. With their tools came the artificial breeding of brainier offspring. A bewildering number of Australopedicine species have surfaced lately, but there has been no good overall explanation why all but "the human line" died out. Homo Habilis quickly became the all-time human succes the Homo Erectus, which like a simple Volkswagen just kept on rolling for a million years. This plateau in development in both Australopedicines and Homo Erectus can be explained by the lack of an underlying change in fertility. All of the increases and plateaus in brainsize are linked to fertilityrates. After the change to increased gay/human population, Nature had used up any worthwhile quantum-leaps in her fertility. And quantum-leaps they are, as tool-use would have produced a gradual increase in brainsize.  The Homo erectus wasn�t bound to a certain location like the woods or savanna. Destroy the woods, where chimps live and they will go extinct. But Erectus can survive any climate or surroundings. Only with Neanderthal and Homo sapiens came the weapons really into the equation with hunting and warfare, then came a new age of immobility with agriculture and culture. All agrarian cultures suffered under permanent overpopulation and hunger causing increased gay offspring.

As soon as we encounter recorded history we find that few gay percent of the population are the driving forces behind every human advance (Queers in History), especially where the homophilic cultural hegemony in culture had replaced matritheism. The Patriarchy of chimps was replaced by the matriarchy of Bonobo�s and Australopedicines to be replaced by homophilic cultural hegemony.

  _________________ 

3 sexes with 3 different brains, left, right & ambi

Again the Olympic gold goes to the gays, the silver medal goes to the females and bronze to the males. Where to put the lesbians? The jury is out. But Nature�s priority list is clear: women are more valuable than men, and it is possibly reflected in lesser numbers of lesbians, as female features in males seem to be more valuable than male features in females. It is hard to improve on the superior sex with features from the inferior sex. The lesbian imprint on history also seem to be small compared to the gay contribution. According to science lesbians have male ears, the first physical difference found.

As the fertility boom was curbed by homosexuality in large families of upright prehuman apes, there could be a further reason to place this development at this stage. The developing brain would call for dramatical increased communication among left-side males and right-side females to bridge the widening gap. This was not possible as prehumans could not talk with each other. The many "languages" the chimps had developed, sex, grooming, facial musles, expressive eyes could not bridge the deepening chasm between left and right brain-halves. These outgrew any means of communication at hand and therefore created the need for a bicameral man combining the creative and analytical, the emotional and rational, the deductive and inductive, the cultural and the natural, the holostic and the bean counter, the heart and the brain, the female and the male.

When speaking humans arrived the brain contents had again outrun the means of communication. And recently a study shows that men only use the left half of their brains to process language, while women use their whole brain for this. Even today arguments between males and females are as between the deaf and the blind and only mind reading could alleviate the problem unless you are gay. Bicameral men can see both sides of the issues, as they operate with an extra dimension creating unity out of complimentary halves. Where others see paradoxes, these are gone at a higher dimension. This could be the likeliest explanation why our culture and science largely is a gay invention. The exploding brainsize created the need for the 3rd sex. (Scientific support for this farfetched idea came the 28th November 2000: Score one for exasperated women: New research suggests men really do listen with just half their brains.
In a study of 20 men and 20 women, brain scans showed that men when listening mostly used the left sides of their brains, the region long associated with understanding language. Women in the study, however, used both sides).

The stepwise growth pattern of the brain/body ratios in our ancestors indicates that brain sizes are linked to quantum-leaps in fertility rather than gradual tool-use. The women made the Australopedicines and the gays made Homos.

The small Bonobo-chimps even went matriarchal from patriarchal rule of the bigger chimpanzees. This fundamental change was not radical enough as the Bonobos gained a bigger brain but no change of the suicidal fertility-rate. Going bipedal was a radical solution to increase the fertility rate. With the erect posture the freed hands could carry food to the increasingly immobile bipedal mothers. The brain/bodysize rate development went up to a new plateau characteristic of the Australopedicines/prehumans. The brains now were bigger than the apes but it never reached human levels. The upright stance gave the prehumans a normal fertility-rate, and first then the prehumans could venture into the savanna. There was no place for  prehumans stumbling into the savannah as any sickly or undeveloped individuals are removed in nano-seconds by lions as the naturefilms so often tell us.

The Australopedicines was all about fertility with bipedalism restoring fertile normalcy so that  prehumans found a place on the savanna like all the other healthy animal species there. The inherent tedency of apes of having bigger brains was released in the Australopedicines but their million years long reign in the savannah was marked by their brains only growing at the rate of their increasing body-size. Their succes was rather that they pushed by their own fertility could develop an increased utilisatization of their living space by altering their teeth and jaws. They lost their long apelike incisors to make a grinding motion of their jaws possible. Their "human-like"parabolic jaws were a result of their new small incisors enabling grinding jaw movements and they developed millstonelike molars to utilize ever coarser plant food. The result was that the Australopedicines became ever more plentyful as they developed to ever more specialized plant eaters. It is almost a mystery that such succesful savanna-dvellers don�t live there today. What happened?

It would be tempting to say the usual bit about be too specialized. But it is quite possible that they were killed by the smarter humans that for million of years had co-existed with them.  But what was the origin of humans? Countless explanations like change in climate, habitat, or whatever circumstances outside the prehumans themselves have been suggested. These are all less likely than an inherent trait in the near-apes themselves, namely the recurrent clash between brainsize and reproduction rate that can be traced back to Australopedicines, to the apes back to the monkeys. The prehumans gained a higher proportional brain/bodysize ratio by becoming more fertile; when the fertility gain had had its run the other shoe dropped: a further gain in the brain/body rate was gained by reducing the fertility rate again, the pendulum between brain & fertility had swung with the humans as a result. The apemothers of these protohumans via a hormonal "warfare" again the fetus in the womb produced non-reproductive gays. The fertilityrate dropped, a "third sex" with valuable properties and bicameral brains were created so that the survivability of these flocks were increased. The braindevelopment inherent and recurrent in the ape-tribe had here found another escape hatch making the bicameral gay early humans the avenue for the increased brain/bodysize of humans. We are the living proof that humans have a higher fertility than apes. This trait was the explanation of the pre-humans. The humans were made by a reduction in fertility by producing more gays. Without the "gay little brother"-twist this reduction would be detrimental and without meaning.

The bipedalism of prehumans made a higher brain/body-ratio possible by increasing the fertilityrate. When this was completed it was a reduced fertilityrate that made even bigger human brains possible.  The fertile bipedals were made out of an inner necessity to develop an ever growing brain, and the fertilityrate were reduced to the same effect: the nature had again shifted gears using the fertilityrate. This explanation of brainsize linked to fertility rates is more parsimonious than the universal accepted link of brains to tools. Apes uses tools, the Australopedicines probably also did so too, the link of tools to brainsize is not clear as it had been millions of years in the making. The unique experiment of the brainy apes has always been linked to fertility or sexual strategies, the chimps, the bonobos, the Australopedicines and of course the humans. The increased number of gay apes had a more "cultural" brains as history tells us in modern times. For the origin of the "Cultural Man" only look for the usual suspects, the gays behind every other "Cultural Revolutions" of humanity. The gay brain need not necessarily to have to have a higher IQ, the increased diversity  of 3 sexes inside the species was enough to be evolutionary significant. That and their different brains were the origin of homo.

Gays producing culture instead of culture producing gays

The term the third sex is used here to differentiate gays from males-females. It is not meant to be effeminate men, as probably a majority of these are heterosexual, the cultural qualities are those of less reproductive gays. There are born 106 men to 100 women, which indicates that the surplus consists of the 3rd sex so that a balance of 100 to 100 can be achived by comparing the number of heterosexual men to the total number of women. The gay men could then account for the difference as a separate gay group which have a special behavior more and less like women, allthough they are men. Genetic science could soon present anti-gay-baby pills to concerned mothers and the superior sex will hardly survive this unnatural selection: humanity will be stripped of culture, hetero drones and Neanderthals will hark back to the caves, the pining for the treetops will prove too much and we will go ape again!.

One somehow gets the drift, when one learns that the eradication of gays 600 A.C. that started the Dark Middle Age, and it was gays like Leonardo, Michelangelo, Erasmus, Bacon & Shakespeare that put on the light again. Voltaire gave us Enlightenment, and Goethe Romanticism. Tesla  gave us the electrical light and Eastman gave us film. H�ndel, Beethoven and Brahms & Tjaikovsky  took care of the music. The founding fathers of USA, Washington & Lincoln were probably gay; the "New England Flowering" was as gay as the "Beat-generation" which gave us the youth revolt. We learned about sex from gay researchers Kinsey and Hirschfeld. The gay proportion of 1-3% has created the society we live in today, a clear case of the tail "wagging the dog". For 700 other names see Queers in History. It is simply impossible to reconstruct human culture without the gay contribution. Before 600 A.C. (from what we can discern  J.C.�s sexuality, if any, was gay rather than heterosexual, monotheism was seemingly invented by gay Achenaton, while the Greeks gave us philosophy) a somewhat truthfull gay proportion appears and that amounts to the birth of culture itself. The Dark Ages are not over until a real gay Renaissance occurs.

Incredibly all observations of gay sex-behavior in animals until now have been regarded as mistaken. Now a definite tome on gay animal sex ha been published ("BIOLOGICAL EXUBERANCE: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity" By Bruce Bagemihl, St. Martin's Press, 751 pages, 1999) that documents that male homosexuality is slightly more prevalent, occurring in about 80 percent of the species of mammals and birds in which homosexuality has been observed, compared to some 55 percent of the females. Bagemihl estimates same-sex relationships probably occur in from 15 to 30 percent of the 1 million species that are known to exist, even though no more than 2,000 species have begun to be adequately described by scientists. Bagemihl examines in his book homosexual and transgender behavior among 300 species of mammals and birds. But Bagemihl stresses that not only the number of species counts, but also the diversity of the species. But he fails to explain the purpose of gay animals actions and the evolutionary effects thereof, which maybe is the main reason for the undereporting of seemingly meaningless gay data. Exuberance is not enough, surplus or excessive behavior does not add up on the evolutionary bottomline. Homosexuality must be a factor,  which has a function, in evolution. Chimps and humans are closer to each other genetically than to all other apes: humans have been described as "cultural chimps" as the main difference is culture, and the culture is gay.

 Like most theories this one is not only fossil-free, it is also fossil-proof, it is only a combination of already known facts ignoring all limitations of conventional wisdom. If one can�t see the overrepresentation of cultural  gays among millions of living humans today, a million of fosillized skeletons will not do the trick. Present "scientific" theories are only a result of a power struggle where the "Lucy" theory came into favour along with women�s lib. Science never changes its mind, it is always the result of a new generation taking over rejecting senile or dead ideas, reflecting old power structures. First we denied we came from apes, until the youth rebellion we denied the role of sexuality, today we deny our homosexuality.  The fossils have never told us anything, it is us who have dressed them up as Monkey � la Mode. If we do not know who we are, we will never find out who the fossils are. Any presentday distortions will ruin the interpretation of our ancestry. We are asked to judge who is looking straight back at us in the mirror, and of course it is a straight ape and not a "homo"!

Maybe this theory is wrong and the aparant fit only a coincidence. Believe it or not, this theory was not made up to satisfy any gay agenda, it largely wrote itself by pieces falling into place via several versions . If the answers are proven wrong, the questions are right. The gays must have had a role in prehistory, too. I would dearly like a scientist rip the whole thing apart and explain how the elements could fit in a better way. Giving seemingly negative modern findings a positive prehistoric function explaining both past and present will mean that everybody will have to come out of the closet as cultural chimps owing the cultural Homo part to "homo". The history list of queers make out the skeleton of human culture, science and progress. The advantage of gays in prehistory can be traced even today, their favourite occupations were vital roles in prehistory. The never answered question what role gays have in human society has now been answered: they made humanity and society. The role of gays has to be pretty fundamental to outweigh their evolutionary fatal non-reproduction, so it is not a matter of seeing the trees in the forest, but to look at the forest itself.

As long as it were the heteros who described homos it was always as a disease. Nowadays when queer studies has taken over, all hetero judgements are considered as discredited from the outset. But this goes for our ancestry, too. As hormonal warfare against children and severely stressed mothers made homosexuality look like an unfortunate affliction. The reverse is true. The costly production of unreproductive gays had the ultimate purpose of creating the "homo"-line. As gays are behind most historic civilization, they must also be behind prehistoric culture from the very start. Before that the babyboom of upright apes had caused a gay ape boom, playing a significant role in pre-human times, but their preadaptive unique bicameral brainstructure made braindevelopment worthwhile for nature, thus creating cultural man or "homo" as such. The evolution of explanations of our ancestry must mean the survival of the fittest explanation. And if the shoe fits you must wear it.

Homo is "Homo"

Existing explanations of the rise of humanity are ridicoulous like upright stance was a result of high savanna grass or a result of wading through water. Here is a scenario that reduces millions years of development to seconds: Apes jumped down from the trees into high savannah grass, had to go upright to look for lions and bent down to pick up a sharp stone to throw at them. But fossils show that bipedality was developed to perfection without spurring human brain development. Also we know now that too much fertility results in nonreproductive little brothers who used both both brainhalves. The homo- theory at least is better than conventional wisdom. And there are really no convincing theories out there how prehumans went human. The making of prehumans has been explained convincingly as a result of higher fertility. All good evolutionary explanations are about reproduction, animal concerns and making shortcuts. All bad theories have a human viewpoint legitimizing present societys power structure, racism & sexism, with crippled apes rising to their feet striving for human perfection. After the bone-hunters  other disciplines as biologists and psychology and sociology has come up with explanations that underline the importance of their fields and mostly are the same human-centric stories in new clothes.

Bipedality solved the suicidal low reproduction rate of chimpanzees, and the gay apes solved the overpopulation problem with non-fertile carers. The making of men out of apes is a endless exercise in shortcuts, going "retro" at every twist and turn, using all prior developments to a new purpose. And apes never looked forward to the glorious Parnassus. All solutions were made backwards robbing the craddle for infantile solutions (neoteny), and going bipedal was as crazy as going one-legged. Like the bees and ants making soldiers, female pre-humans made gay care-bears. A by-product was the bicameral mind.

But just as the scarcity of children was the trigger of bipedalism, it was the scarcity of brain development that made the gay avantgarde into the chosen people. Nature saved million years of brain development of the hetero majority by letting the preadapted bicameral gays take care of cultural development from the start of tool use to present day society where culture still is driven by gay dynamos and aped by hetero drones. Again the heteromen did not have the role in human development they had fancied so long, it was the homos that made Homos out of the pre-humans that were created by female apes. That heteromen didn�t dominate any part of human development has been masked by present hetero dominance of men distorting our ancestry. It has been impossible for heteromen to envisage a world where humans were not dominant, so the scenario with early hunters killing lions were created. We now know that early humans were at the bottom of the ladder as scavengers, a fatal blow to our manly pride. Our indentification with our forefathers are so strong that a gay past is an anathema. We instinctly abhors that prehumans were black-skinned, that early humans were scavengers and that homos made homo sapiens possible.

Homophobic white men think that gays were just as invisible in the past as in present society. Maybe gayness can be tolerated but it never could have a positive function. To indentify culture with gayness is to indentify humans as a product of gays. It is just as unthinkable as black men living close to the birthplace of humanity are more developed than white europeans. The emancipation of gays and blacks will strip off the phobias and prejudgements that decide our view of our ancestry. Anyway a byproduct of emancipation will always mean that confirmation of the new status will be sought and found in prehistory. The homophobia- stripped conclusion must be that "Homo" is "Homo".

The dual unanswered questions of human origin and the riddle of unreproductive gays are two sides of the same coin. Brain growth rates have today  been linked to fertility changes in apes  and this theory is merely another step of an established chain. The origin of humans is therefore only the latest manifestation of the apes� inherent tendency to larger brains held back by changing limitations of fertility. The emergence of humans was only awaiting a new sexual strategy to happen. The human culture revolution was only a backhanded effect with a new diversity that now included cultural gays. This is the explanation of the the stepwise growth om the human brain reflecting changes in fertility rather than tooluse: the apes uses tools and the ape-men probably too, so the use use of tools cannot explain the  stepwise braingrowth, that is linked to the quantum leaps in fertility. With the avalance of new findings and bewildering names the time has come for a theory to clean up the mess. This postulate of human evolution is probably the simplest and parsimonious ever as it is a combination of known facts. It even explains why there are more gays than lesbians (2.8% vs 1.4%).

�1998-2002  IHWO Queerstudies INTERNATIONAL HOMOSEXUAL WEB ORGANIZATION  All rights reserved �  IHWO 1 March 1998-2002  e-mail.

Jim McKnight

Jim McKnight�s theory is that gays are "oversexed" so that heteros are sexed enough. Also the "charm" of gays should rub off heteros. So the questions are: are gays really "oversexed" or is this label taken from old headlines. Has oversexed gays anything to do with the level of straight sexuality? And even  if Jim McKnight�s theory is right, isn�t it a terribly wasteful way to obtain the  desired effect in hetero males. Evolution is normally all about efficiency and not about wasteful excesses and surpluses. Jim McKnight�s theory is the main contender to the theory on this page, but it seems that his theory is quite limited and is even less founded in evidence, scientific or otherwise, than mine. His critic of hetero science is on the mark, but his ensuing underwhelming  gay evolution theory is for the believers. -ed

A more recent theory hinting at a gay role in evolution is the following:-

Psychologist: Gays help perpetuate race -
    Psychologist Frank Muscarella, an associate professor at Barry
University, has come to a conclusion that at first seems to be a
contradiction: Homosexuality helps perpetuate the human race and other
species.
    ''The theory holds that homosexual individuals in early human
societies may have helped close family members, either directly or
indirectly, to reproduce more successfully,'' Muscarella, 41, writes in a
study to be published by the Journal of Homosexuality. ''Thus, genes for
homosexuality would have been passed on indirectly through relatives.''
    Muscarella, who also wrote a recently published professional study
called The Homoerotic Behavior That Never Evolved, acknowledges his theory
''flies in the face of all contemporary thinking,'' but gives several
examples in humans and baboons.
    In early times, young men and women would leave home and form
alliances with others. These bonds often were with people of the same
gender and would include sexual relations. Through these alliances, they
would protect each other from enemies and help each other survive through
adulthood, Muscarella said.
    ''The individuals survived long enough to ultimately reproduce,''
Muscarella said. (...)
    Muscarella's theory is based upon the ''emerging field of evolutionary
psychology,'' which, he writes, ''examines human behavior in terms of its
adaptive value -- that is, its ability to contribute, either directly or
indirectly, to survival and reproduction.''
    He says his theory ''lends itself perfectly to an evolutionary
analysis.''
    ''How can a behavior that doesn't lead to reproduction contribute to
it?'' he asks rhetorically (...)

_______________________

*) Psychiatrists working at the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry in Toronto
report that chances of a male child being homosexual increase with the
number of older brothers he has. The findings are reported in an
article this month in the American Journal of Psychiatry.

It has been known for a while that birth order does have an effect on
homosexuality; homosexuals statistically have more older siblings than
heterosexuals. The current study indicates that the number of older
sisters is not significant, it's only older brothers.

The leading explanation for this has been sociological -- childhood
sexual play having an effect on the young(est) boy. Ray Blanchard, one
of the authors of the study, favours a biological explanation: he says
that the mother's immune system changes with each male child, and that
these changes may well have an effect on subsequent fetuses.

National Post Monday 2000 07 27 pg A10
Canada

SOME HOMOSEXUALITY LINKED TO HAVING OLDER BROTHERS: STUDY
*Affects mother's antigens*

by Neil Seeman

One in seven homosexuals owes his sexual orientation to having older
brothers, says a statistical study by Ray Blanchard, a world-renowned
clinical sexologist at the University of Toronto's Centre for Addiction
and Mental Health.  [formerly the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry and the
Addiction Research Foundation -- this building is visible out of my office
window, three doors west on College St]

The findings, which are currently under peer review, will be presented at
the sixth International Conference on Hormones, Brain and Behaviour in
Madrid this August.

For 60 years, sex researchers have been asking whether older siblings
increase or decrease the odds of homosexuality in later-born children.
But those studies, said Dr Blanchard, "didn't add up to anything and were
mostly speculative."

Dr Blanchard's research is the first to test the hypothesis using
statistical methods on a large homosexual population.  It is also the
first to quantify the proportion of homosexual men who are gay because of
having older male siblings.

Dr Blanchard attributes the "one-in-seven" phenomenon, to an excess of H-Y
antibody in the mother's bloodstream mounted in response to the H-Y
antigen of previous sons.

According to Dr Blanchard's hypotheses, the H-Y antigen penetrates the
mother's bloodstream during pregnancy with a male foetus, who carries the
antigen on his Y chromosome; the mother develops a defensive immunological
response to this antigen; her immune response then gains strength with
each successive male birth so that after several sons, a pool of H-Y
antibody collects within the bloodstream.

Dr Blanchard arrived at his "one in seven" figure by surveying more than
10,000 homosexual men in England, the Netherlands, Canada and the United
States.  Suspecting that each older brother increases the odds of
homosexuality in later-born male babies by a third, he then estimated the
number of homosexual men in this sub-population with older brothers, and
also estimated how many older brothers these men would have.  Those
statistical estimates, in turn, turned out to match almost identically the
actual, self-reported numbers of homosexual men with older male siblings,
a phenomenon that occurred in one out of seven cases.

"These are absolutely reliable findings," said Michael Bailey, a leading
researcher on homosexuality at Chicago's Northwestern University.  "there
is no way these findings could be spurious," said Prof Bailey.

As for the H-Y antigen hypothesis used to explain his statistical
findings, Dr Blanchard said:  "I can think of no other environmental
factor that could possibly explain the correlation."

Dr Paul Federoff, a staff psychiatrist at the University of Toronto's Law
and Mental Health programme, agrees.

"We now know that birth mothers are developing some sort of immunological
anti-male antibodies, which in turn cause some sort of lack of masculinity
in the later-born male foetus.  Nothing else could explain this," he said.

Although spokeswomen from the lesbian community have "been unanimously
hostile" to this line of enquiry, "gay men have tended to be more
open-minded," said Dr Blanchard.

But Alfred Tauber, the director of the Center for Philosophy and History
of Science at Boston University, said scepticism over this sort of
research is warranted.  "More often than not, studies like this amount to
ammunition in the ideological battles over homosexuality and should be
viewed with caution."

THE SCIENCE

#1917: Eugene Steinach, a Viennese endocrinologist, reports anatomical
differences between the interstitial cells (later determined to be the
cells that produce testosterone) in the testicles of heterosexual and
homosexual men.

#1973: The American Psychiatric Association votes to remove homosexuality
from its reference book, DSM-II: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of
Mental Disorders.

#1991:  Simon LeVay publishes in the journal *Science*, demonstrating that
INAH3, a tiny area of the human hypothalamus where life-dependent
functions are processed, is larger in heterosexual men than in homosexual
men, and that INAH3 in homosexual men is similar in size to that of
heterosexual women.  (No lesbians were included in the study, which was
criticised for having a small sample).

#1993:  Dean Hamer and colleagues at the National Cancer Institute in
Bethesda MD report a genetic variation at Xq28, the so-called "gay gene",
a variant of the X chromosome -- one of 23 chromosomes a boy inherits from
his mother.

#1998:  Neurologist George Rice and colleagues at the University of
Western Ontario publish an article in the journal *Science* which
challenges evidence that homosexuality is more likely in men who inherit
Xq28.

- - Neil Seeman, National Post

The "gay-little-brother" - effect is the cornerstone of this theory and the theory is much strenghtened by the confirmation of homosexuals as the result of the number of big brothers. The hominid ape-man would therefore due to the much higher fertility with more big brothers and the mother�s hormone influence in the womb cause a higher number of male homosexuals.

These would later reduce the overall fertility of the group, but would not reduce the fertility of the mothers in each family. The families would then be bigger with specialized homosexuals to take care of the children with prolonged childhood and adolescence. This "welfare-state" with a bigger public sector both caused and made use of the bigger brain thanks to the "cultural homos." -ed.

March 29, 2000
Hormones in womb linked to sexual orientation

    LONDON - Male hormones in the womb may influence the future sexual
orientation of the developing foetus, scientists in the United States said
on Wednesday.
    Researchers at the University of California at Berkeley conducted a
study which showed that higher levels of male hormones, or androgens, in
the womb can increase the chances of both males and females developing
homosexual tendencies.
    ``I believe there are many social and psychological, as well as
biological, factors that make up sexual preference,'' said Marc Breedlove,
a professor of psychology at Berkeley.
    ``Having said that, these data do suggest that there are some people
in the world who are gay because of foetal androgen levels,'' he added in
a statement.
    Breedlove and his colleagues measured finger length on the right hand
to determine how much of the male hormones participants in their study
were exposed to in the womb.
    Their research is published in the science journal Nature.
    Finger length patterns, particularly on the right hand, are sensitive
to androgen levels. The difference is accentuated by higher levels of
androgens during the development of the foetus.
    Women's index and ring fingers are usually the same length, but in men
the index finger tends to be shorter than the other digit.
    The researchers measured the finger lengths of 720 people, both men
and women, attending three street fairs in San Francisco in 1999.
    Each person also filled in a questionnaire about their sexual
orientation, birth order and the number and sex of their older siblings.
    The research showed that homosexual women tended to have a much
shorter index finger than ring finger on the right hand.
    GREATER LEVELS OF ANDROGEN
    Breedlove and his team said it ``suggests that at least some lesbians
were exposed to greater levels of foetal androgen than heterosexual
women.''
    There was not much difference in the finger ratios between straight
and gay men. But the researchers said finger lengths did seem to indicate
that gay men were exposed to higher levels of androgens which contradicts
the assumption that gay men are feminine.
    The research also reinforced findings from an earlier study which
showed that men with several older brothers are more likely to be gay than
other men.
    The gay men who took part in the Berkeley study had a ratio of 140
brothers to 100 sisters among older siblings, compared to a ratio of 106
brothers to 100 sisters in the general population.
    Men with older brothers also had a more masculine finger length
pattern than those without older brothers.
    ``This means that somehow the mother's body remembers how many sons
she has had and exposes successive male foetus to more androgen,'' said
Breedlove.
    ``It is mind-boggling to think that some men are gay because of the
number of boys their mothers had before their own birth. These events must
register in the woman's body before an individual is even conceived,'' he
added.
    But the researchers stressed that their findings are based on
statistical relationships and do not mean that biology alone can determine
sexual orientation. Not all homosexual and heterosexual men and women fit
the finger length ratio or birth order pattern, they added.
    ``This is not a test to be used on your friends and neighbours,''
Breedlove added

e-mail

Tim Susman, Jane Goodall Institute's Center For Primate Studies:

At 10:21 PM 3/7/98 -0600, you wrote:
>Question: Is there anything that could back up following lighthearted
> theory:
>The Emergence of "Homo"
>"Homo Homo Sapiens Sapiens"

We really appreciate you sending this "theory" along. Scientifically,
the short answer to your question is "No, there's nothing to back this up."
(It's very difficult to determine sexual orientation from fossils.) But
it was very entertaining to read, and we'll make sure to send it along to
friends in the primate field.

Thanks!
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Tim Susman | Info. Systems Specialist, JGI's Center For Primate Studies
| [email protected]
Red Fox page: | http://drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu/~furrball/urbanfox.html

"If a lion could talk, we would not understand it." - Wittgenstein

----answer----

(It's very difficult to determine sexual orientation from fossils.) ...

Lately the length of the right index finger in homosexuals has been shown to be shorter than their right ring-finger. It is a result of a hormonal change in the womb. Lesbians also have shorter right index fingers due to testosterone.

Prediction: The fossils of   Homo�s will show shorter index-fingers on the right hand than their Australopithecine relations,  pointing to an increased number of homosexuals. Indeed this is a sign of their Homo-origin according to this theory. (ed.-)

psychoceramics: "Homo" is homo

To: [email protected]
Subject: psychoceramics: "Homo" is homo
From: Mitchell Porter <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1998 01:42:21 +1000 (EST)
Sender: owner-psychoceramics


http://users.cybercity.dk/~dko12530/qstudies.htm
"Is the third sex responsible for the rise from apes to men?"

This is more a weird (i.e. *new*) idea than kookery of the sort we are
familiar with here. Personally I suspect that there's a vast underworld
of ignored or forgotten historical/anthropological/evolutionary theories
that would interest many people on this list.

A type of 'erroneous science' which I think I am beginning to discern
is that which explains every aspect of something complex by reference
to one factor. Here we have a theory that says gay men were *the* motor
of progress. (Actually, I've just noticed that Donna Kossy's next book
is _Aberrant Anthropology_, due out next year.) I think there are
quite a few medical examples also ('cure-alls'; monocausal theories
of illness).

-mitch

Sat, 11 Apr 1998 20:50:50 -0400

[email protected]

Speaking as a lesbian, with both halves of my brain working, your theory
appears about half-right. You say yourself that that it is this duality
in the brain that is the problem, and yet you can't see where lesbians
fit into the picture. If females are the more perfect sex, then
wouldn't it follow that a female with some masculine traits is going to
be more advanced, or at least as advanced, as a male with feminine
traits? If you look at modern lesbians, which it seems you haven't done
much of, I think you would find traits that are superior to those of
your other "three sexes." In my experience, gay men often have
excellent social and aesthetic skills, but they can also be incredibly
bitter, materialistic, mysoginist, self-centered, and just downright
mean. Lesbians bring, among other things, a much greater empathy, good
analytical thinking, and, as much as gay men like to de-value it,
athleticism. I think your theory has some merit, but it's awfully
self-serving and you make generalizations that are just ridiculous.

From Data Lounge News Rant:-
Homo slobiensis

I dunno... some of my gay friends definitely lack the decorator gene! :) or even the good house-keeping gene (or is it the "I-can-afford-a-housemaid gene?)... I guess it's just a guy thang...

Taxonomy can be taxing

Mmmmm... just love pop evolution, but I'll be briefer!... I'd vote for putting man & chimp in the same family (either Pongidae or Hominidae), or perhaps even genus, based on genetic similarity... thus either we'd become "Pan sapiens", or chimps would become "Homo troglodytes" and "Homo paniscus".

But I won't hold my breath till this suggestion, certainly a news-getter, gets accepted!

-- lesz
Thu Mar 12 12:16:41 EST 1998  

Its a very interesting theory. Still, i think its a
gross exaggeration to say that the only worthwhile
cultural contributions of society past&present are
'made in gay'. Many beautiful achievements have also
come from straightmen/women too. Also to say that only
gay men can be objective and caring is so absurd a
claim as to almost be unworthy of comment. That gays
in contribution to modern cultural society is a fact,
but whats also true is that gays like any other
minority (ethnic,religious...)are more likely to
encourage and help each other out. This is not unfair
nepeatism, it's just a fact. So just because the top
dog 'gayguy' is a very talented person dosen't
necercarily mean his fellow cronies are of the same
quality too. Still, i enjoyed your article. It would
be nice to see this theory get some serious research
but from a non gay. Impartiality is the only way to
convince the open minded.

Adam M.

Evolution: Homosexuality, athleticism, and human variation
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 03:40:55 EST

Look- I'm sorry for that e-mail that I wrote you before. If anything, I should
have read your site before expressing 5 years frustration on unrelated topics.
Sorry.

Kirb.

the intellectual scene - science

"Origins of "Homo"  A page that argues -- somewhat convincingly -- that
homosexuality is what lead to human evolution. "

http://www.nerve.com/nervelink/

Thu, 28 Jan 1999 20:23:41 -0800
From:
[email protected]

Origins of Homo
has been linked in the Nerdsex.org search engine.

About Nerdsex.org

Nerdsex is a safe sex or sex positive sex search engine (No
Porn). Nerdsex only lists what it believes are quality sex
information sites.

Gay and Lesbian Humanist

Autumn 1999
The article is available online at
http://www.galha.freeserve.co.uk/glh191w1.htm.

Another, Origin of Homo, is an anonymous essay proposing an amusing evolutionary theory in which it seems that gay men are responsible for the invention of monotheism and just about every other aspect of human cultural development!

Homo=homo?

I have major problems taking this seriously due to some major errors in
this essay - what, exactly, is "Australiopithecus fertilis"? Humans
don't have 5-6 babies at a time, hunter/gatherer level societies go at
least two years between children (can only carry one at a time). There
are probably others, but I must admit I had neither the time nor energy
to read the entire thing. I just have a question for you - what about
bonobos? Bonobos (Pan paniscus) practice homosexual sex on a very
regular basis. As a matter of fact, their entire society is structured
on interfemale relationships, since they are a matriarchal society.
Females practice homosexual sex, affectionately nicknamed
"genital-genital rubbing", on a very regular basis as part of the social
structure of the group - very similar in function to grooming. Males are
by no means excluded, although they don't tend to practice homosexual
sex as frequently as the females.

I am aware that you mentioned that bonobos are "pansexual" in the essay,
but if what separated us from our ancestors was homosexuality, I don't
see why bonobos didn't follow the same path. Regardless, I have extreme
problems with the concept of homosexuality as a genetic trait, which you
need to buy to assume it had any kind of influence on our evolution, at
any rate. It seems to me that since the driving force of much of our
behaviour is in ensuring our genes are passed down to another
generation, exclusive homosexuality goes completely against this. Seems
to me it's largely a cultural and psychological thing, but that's just
my two cents (as a biological anthropologist). Of course, I claim no
knowledge of those geneticists who have claimed to isolate a
"homosexuality gene" (which I have been told on numerous occasions, but
never been given proof of), but I take most offerings from the genetic
community with a healthy dose of salt. It is a very new and experimental
science, despite the perception of the public.

The truth is, the great thing that separates humans from other animals
at this point is that the "fittest" are no longer surviving. Many people
who, by society's standards, are evolutionarily "inferior" - take
junkies, for example - are having children young and often frequently,
while those "superior" - the well educated, for example - may hold off
on children for years, possibly never. Populations in third world
countries boom, while those in highly developed countries shrink. This
is an entirely subjective classification of what is "superior" and
"inferior", of course. The only true evolutionary success is survival of
your gene package in future generations. Never forget that the most
evolutionarily successful mammals are rodents, definitely not humans.

Finally, a point on evolution - you would be hard pressed today to find
a true scientist (by which I mean NOT a "creation scientist", which is a
mockery of the word "science") who does not believe in evolution by
natural selection as fact. It has been documented and observed
innumerable times in the fossil record and modern biological
populations. I will point out, most strongly, that the exact mechanism
of evolution is still very much up for interpretation and debate. This
disagreement within the scientific community of the mechanism of
evolution (for example, puncutated equilibrium theory vs. Dawinian
gradualism) is often mistook (or misrepresented) as disagreement over
the occurence of evolution, period.

Chris.

From: magek <[email protected]

Sent: Friday, September 10, 1999 7:01 PM

Subject: homosexuals in evolution

There are powerful suggestions that the neurological/hormonal
constellation of a large percentage of the contemporary gay and lesbian
community is characteristic of those human beings alive and well 50,000 years ago, before the conversion to patriarchal social structures that we live with today.

Your theory has a sister theory with a slightly different slant at web
site www.serpentfd.org

Even if you find shift theory a bit too different from your own, I think
you will be able to garner some sources that will be of use to you. There
are links to several hundred excerpts from our page.

(...)the papers by
Witelson, Hassler, Annett, and other European and Canadian female
neuropsychologists are doing the lion's share of the fascinating work
connecting homosexuality with developmental delay, left handedness, and anomalous hormonal/neurological structures.

It seems a certain group of people on the planet today are genetically
very closely connected. These are gays, lesbians, architechs, musical
composers, dancers, left-handed people, artists, the upper class of
athletes (30% of the highest level of male tennis players are
left-handed), basicly the more (mentally and physically) creative folk.
Your normal white guy has a more lateralized brain, higher testosterone
levels, and a hierarchially oriented view of the world.

There are some interesting excepts at  
http://www.neoteny.org/a/homosexuality.html    This is part of another site addressing these new issues in human evolution.
-Andrew Lehman

http://www.serpentfd.org/a/mccormick1990.html

DHEA-page:-

Etiology of Male Homosexuality and Current Rise of Male Homosexuality :

http://www.naples.net/~nfn03605/dheaetio.htm

Androgens in Human Evolution
A New Explanation of Human Evolution:  � 2000

http://www.naples.net/~nfn03605/dheaandr.htm

Queer studies has this as the reason for humans arising via this "third sex".

http://www.geocities.com/carrillo4/escritos/paco.html

Visita las p�ginas recomendadas.

1. Una tesis pol�mica:

http://users.cybercity.dk/~dko12530/qstudies.htm

Brain sizes are linked to fertility; bipedalism & human culture are backhanded results.

Survival in the savanna
The apes had to increase their fertility to survive the dangerous savanna

To conquer the world
The fertility rate had to drop again before a bigger-brained human could conquer the world

Queers in History

Recommended by: Big Eye

OutList

GAY HOLOCAUST

1st Partnership Page