Homosexuality

The Evolutionary Persistence of Male Homosexuality: An Integrated Theory of Genetic Architecture, Developmental Canalization, and Balancing Selection

Male homosexuality has long presented what appears to be an evolutionary paradox: a phenotype with substantial heritability (8–32% from SNP-based and twin studies) that reduces direct reproductive fitness—often by 70–100%—yet persists at stable frequencies of 2–5% across diverse human populations (Ganna et al., 2019; Zietsch et al., 2008; Apostolou, 2022). This apparent paradox dissolves, however, once we abandon the assumption that homosexuality is a unitary trait requiring a single mechanistic explanation. The convergent evidence from genomics, neuroendocrinology, immunology, and evolutionary biology now supports a comprehensive theoretical framework: male homosexuality emerges from multiple partially independent developmental pathways, each maintained by distinct evolutionary forces that collectively produce positive or neutral average fitness effects across all carriers of the relevant alleles. Far from representing evolutionary dysfunction, homosexuality constitutes an emergent property of adaptive systems governing behavioral plasticity, brain sexual differentiation, and social bonding—systems maintained because they confer reproductive advantages in the majority of contexts while producing same-sex attraction as a low-frequency phenotypic outcome.

This synthesis advances three central claims. First, male homosexuality arises primarily through sex-discordant epigenetic canalization of androgen signaling pathways during prenatal neurodevelopment, with effects modulated by polygenic predispositions and maternal immune responses. Second, these developmental mechanisms yield at least two phenotypically distinct pathways—feminized and masculinized—each associated with different biomarkers and behavioral profiles. Third, persistence is ensured through sexually antagonistic pleiotropy, whereby alleles reducing male fitness through homosexuality simultaneously enhance mating success in heterosexual carriers or reproductive success in female relatives. The resolution to the “paradox” thus lies in recognizing that from the gene’s-eye perspective, homosexuality-associated alleles successfully propagate because their average fitness effects across all carriers remain positive.

Phylogenetic Context: Same-Sex Behavior as Derived Social Adaptation

Understanding human male homosexuality requires contextualizing it within the broader phylogeny of same-sex sexual behavior (SSB) in mammals. Contrary to traditional views that SSB represents a derived “paradox” requiring special explanation, indiscriminate sexual behavior—encompassing both same-sex and different-sex interactions without strict mate discrimination—likely represents the ancestral state for sexually reproducing animals (Monk et al., 2019). In early-branching lineages such as echinoderms, SSB and different-sex behavior coexist, suggesting that perfect mate discrimination evolved later, contingent on costly secondary sexual characteristics for sex recognition.

Within mammals, however, phylogenetic reconstructions indicate SSB as a derived trait, independently gained and lost multiple times, with stronger clustering in social clades such as primates and carnivores (Gómez et al., 2023). Ancestral state analyses place the most recent common ancestor of placental mammals as lacking SSB, with SSB-positive nodes being significantly younger (5.6–7.6 million years) than SSB-negative ones. Phylogenetic signal (D = 0.44–0.83) and directional trait evolution tests demonstrate SSB evolving contingent upon sociality, particularly in males where it correlates with adulticide driven by mating competition (Gómez et al., 2023). This pattern implies that human male homosexuality is not a direct retention of ancestral indiscriminate sexuality but an elaboration of SSB functions that emerged in social mammals to mitigate intrasexual conflict and maintain alliances.

The loss of TRPC2 (transient receptor potential cation channel subfamily C member 2) functionality in catarrhine primates approximately 25–40 million years ago created permissive conditions for SSB elaboration (Pfau et al., 2021). In rodents with functional TRPC2, knockout models induce same-sex mounting, reduce sexual dimorphism in brain morphology (particularly in the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis), and alter sex-typical behaviors. This mirrors catarrhine patterns, where SSB prevalence exceeds that in platyrrhine monkeys retaining functional TRPC2. The evolutionary significance lies not in TRPC2 loss causing homosexuality per se, but in removing directional selection against SSB variants, permitting their accumulation under balancing selection when they confer social advantages.

In ancestral hominins, male-male sexual behavior likely reinforced coalitional bonds critical for cooperative hunting, resource defense, and intergroup conflict—functions analogous to genito-genital rubbing in bonobos, where male-male mounting constitutes up to 33% of sexual interactions and promotes alliance formation (Savolainen & Hodgson, 2010). Ethnographic data from 76 pre-industrial societies reveal homosexuality as normative in 64%, often institutionalized within age-structured initiation systems or alliance contexts (Kirkpatrick, 2000). Human male homosexuality thus represents an anthropic specialization of mammalian SSB, where persistence reflects selection for social bonding mechanisms enhancing inclusive fitness in kin-structured societies.

Genetic Architecture: Polygenicity and Antagonistic Pleiotropy

Genome-wide association studies have definitively established that male SSB follows a highly polygenic architecture, with genetic factors explaining 8–25% of phenotypic variance but no single locus accounting for more than 1% (Ganna et al., 2019; Mills, 2019). Multiple loci on autosomes (chromosomes 7, 8, 10, 13, 14) and the X chromosome (Xq28, Xq27.3) implicate genes involved in sex hormone regulation (GNRH1, STAR), olfaction, neurotransmission (SLC1A3, GRID1), and transcriptional control (ZNF536, FMR1NB) (Ganna et al., 2019; Bragazzi et al., 2023; Alagha et al., 2025). This distributed genomic architecture immediately suggests that homosexuality is not a unitary trait under simple selection but rather emerges from pleiotropic effects of numerous variants influencing multiple phenotypic domains.

The critical evolutionary insight comes from positive genetic correlations (r_g ≈ 0.18–0.40) between same-sex behavior and number of opposite-sex partners among predominantly heterosexual individuals (Zietsch et al., 2021). Crucially, these correlations reflect mating success rather than fertility per se (r_g = 0.01 for offspring number), indicating that homosexuality-associated alleles enhance access to mating opportunities through behavioral traits rather than directly increasing reproductive output. Computer simulations confirm that even modest fitness advantages (10–20% increased opposite-sex partner number) in heterosexual carriers can maintain SSB-associated alleles at observed population frequencies despite 20–80% fitness reductions in exclusively homosexual individuals (Zietsch et al., 2021).

The mechanism operates through genetic variants enhancing traits valuable in mating competition: risk-taking propensity, openness to experience, and sociosexual orientation. These traits demonstrably correlate genetically with same-sex behavior and plausibly increase mating success through enhanced courtship initiative and novelty-seeking in mate selection. Song and Zhang (2024) demonstrated that bisexual behavior shows positive genetic correlation with offspring number (r_g = 0.156) attributable specifically to horizontal pleiotropy through risk-taking; when risk-taking is statistically controlled, this correlation disappears, confirming that bisexuality-associated variants enhance reproduction via their primary effects on risk-taking rather than through any direct reproductive advantage of bisexuality itself. The low genetic correlation between bisexual and exclusive same-sex behavior (r_g = 0.281) indicates partially distinct etiological pathways, with exclusive homosexuality potentially involving additional mechanisms beyond simple risk-taking pleiotropy.

Twin data provide direct support for shared genetic factors underlying homosexuality and mating success. Heterosexual males with a nonheterosexual twin report significantly more opposite-sex partners than controls, with structural equation modeling attributing approximately 44–50% of this covariance to common additive genetic factors (Zietsch et al., 2008). The pleiotropic path coefficient (~0.3) indicates that the same genetic variants influencing sexual orientation simultaneously influence traits enhancing heterosexual reproductive success. This represents balancing selection where intermediate “doses” of feminizing or risk-enhancing alleles maximize fitness, while extreme expressions produce exclusive homosexuality.

Sexually Antagonistic Selection in the Maternal Line

A complementary maintenance mechanism operates through X-linked or maternally inherited factors enhancing female fecundity while increasing male homosexuality risk. Camperio-Ciani et al. (2004) provided direct evidence: female maternal relatives of homosexual men exhibited 31% higher fecundity than maternal relatives of heterosexual men (mothers: 2.69 vs. 2.32 children; maternal aunts: 1.98 vs. 1.51 children), with no comparable difference in the paternal line. This pattern strongly implicates X-linked genetic factors or mitochondrial inheritance, as these transmission routes explain both the maternal specificity and the maintenance of alleles reducing male fitness.

The magnitude of this fecundity advantage is sufficient to offset reproductive costs of male homosexuality under plausible parameter ranges. Mathematical models by Gavrilets and Rice (2006) confirm that such alleles reach equilibrium frequencies despite male costs, particularly on the X chromosome where expression is sex-limited. The mechanism likely operates through alleles affecting sensitivity, empathy, or nurturing behavior that enhance maternal investment and pair-bond quality in females while, through pleiotropic effects on brain sexual differentiation, increasing same-sex attraction probability in males carrying the same variants.

However, systematic tests of the classical sexually antagonistic gene hypothesis (SAGH) in its strongest form have produced mixed results. Fořt et al. (2024) found that mothers of gay men exhibit equal or lower fertility than controls after accounting for fraternal birth order effects, with no compensatory increases in maternal aunts or grandmothers. This suggests the antagonistic pleiotropy mechanism operates primarily through enhanced mating success rather than enhanced fertility per se—consistent with the “desirable dad hypothesis” (Felesina & Zietsch, 2024). Heterosexual men with same-sex attracted relatives score significantly higher on femininity, warmth, and nurturance (η² = 0.004–0.007), and experimental evidence confirms that women rate feminine male profiles as more romantically appealing (d = 0.83) and as depicting better fathers (d = 1.56). Homosexuality-associated alleles thus reduce aggression and enhance empathy through pleiotropic effects on androgen receptor sensitivity, creating an optimization trade-off: in heterosexual carriers, these alleles produce an attractive phenotype combining masculinity with prosocial traits; in individuals exceeding some threshold of feminization, they produce exclusive same-sex attraction.

Prenatal Neurodevelopmental Mechanisms: The Hormonal Organization of Sexual Orientation

The translation from genetic architecture to behavioral phenotype occurs primarily through prenatal neurodevelopmental processes organizing sexually dimorphic brain circuits. The organizational-activational hypothesis holds that androgens sculpt dimorphic brain circuits prenatally, which are then activated pubertally to drive sex-typical attraction (Ngun et al., 2011). Prenatal androgen exposure during critical gestational windows (weeks 8–24) masculinizes hypothalamic nuclei including the interstitial nucleus of the anterior hypothalamus 3 (INAH-3), which differs systematically between homosexual and heterosexual men (LeVay, 1991). Reduced androgenization or altered receptor sensitivity during these periods can produce female-typical neural organization despite male genital development, as sexual differentiation of genitalia (gestational weeks 8–12) precedes brain sexual differentiation (extending through late pregnancy), permitting dissociation between anatomical sex and sexual orientation (Garcia-Falgueras & Swaab, 2010).

Critically, however, the relationship between prenatal androgen exposure and sexual orientation is not linear but curvilinear (U-shaped): both hypo- and hyper-androgenization predispose to homosexuality (Manning et al., 2024). Biomarkers like 2D:4D digit ratios show apparent heterogeneity—some studies find feminized (higher) ratios in gay men, others masculinized (lower)—with meta-analyses yielding null results due to masking effects (Grimbos et al., 2010). Reanalysis of large datasets (n = 108,000) reveals U-shaped associations in right-left 2D:4D differences, with extremes correlating to elevated same-sex attraction (Manning et al., 2024). This duality manifests phenotypically: “bottom” (receptive) gay men show feminized 2D:4D, “top” (insertive) masculinized, suggesting distinct developmental pathways (Swift-Gallant et al., 2021). Handedness parallels this: elevated extreme left- and right-handedness characterize gay men (Lalumière et al., 2000; Bogaert, 2007).

This nonlinearity has profound theoretical implications. Hypo-androgenization yields feminized homosexuality via attenuated signaling in attraction circuits, while hyper-androgenization yields masculinized variants via over-sensitization, potentially disrupting typical different-sex targeting. The pattern is consistent with maternal condition-dependent hormone signaling: low-resource environments may feminize offspring (consistent with Trivers-Willard predictions), while high-resource environments may masculinize, with homosexuality emerging as a byproduct at both extremes. Empirical support comes from U-shaped associations between parental income and offspring homosexuality in large cohorts (n = 116,904), with peaks in lowest (6.1%) and highest (5.3%) income quartiles (Manning et al., 2022).

Epigenetic Canalization: Resolving the Heritability Paradox

Genetic variants alone cannot fully explain observed heritability patterns, particularly the substantial monozygotic twin discordance (~50%) despite high heritability estimates (20–50% from twin studies). The epigenetic canalization model (Rice et al., 2012) resolves this apparent paradox by proposing that sexually antagonistic epi-marks—DNA methylation and histone modifications canalizing androgen signaling—provide the missing mechanism. These epi-marks evolved because they buffer individuals against androgen overexposure (in females) or underexposure (in males), enhancing canalization of sex-typical development. Normally erased between generations, these marks occasionally persist transgenerationally, causing gonad-trait discordance in offspring.

The mechanism operates as follows: XY epi-marks normally amplify testosterone responses in males, while XX epi-marks attenuate them in females. When maternal feminizing epi-marks escape erasure and transmit to sons, they reduce androgen receptor sensitivity in hypothalamic nuclei governing attraction, yielding homosexuality without gonadal anomalies (Rice et al., 2012). Mathematical modeling demonstrates that such epi-marks can maintain homosexuality at observed frequencies while accounting for moderate heritability without identifiable DNA polymorphisms. The mechanism operates stochastically: inheritance of strong opposite-sex epi-marks combined with weak de novo marks produces homosexuality in approximately 8% of offspring. This explains low twin concordance—epi-marks vary independently between monozygotic twins sharing identical DNA—while preserving heritability through parental epi-mark strength.

This model predicts sex-discordant epi-marks at androgen-regulating loci in homosexual individuals, with weaker concordant de novo marks. The asymmetry—epi-marks benefit the producer (by enhancing developmental canalization) overwhelmingly while rarely harming offspring—allows fixation via selection for developmental stability rather than requiring implausible fitness benefits in homosexual individuals themselves. Polygenic variants likely influence epi-mark establishment, with environmental stressors (e.g., childhood adversity) interacting via genes like COMT and MTHFR to alter methylation patterns (Alagha et al., 2025; Bragazzi et al., 2023).

The Maternal Immune Hypothesis: Immunological Programming of Sexual Orientation

A mechanistically distinct pathway operates through maternal immune responses to male-specific antigens, accounting for an estimated 15–29% of male homosexuality cases (Blanchard, 2018; Semenyna et al., 2022). The fraternal birth order effect (FBOE)—whereby each older biological brother increases homosexuality odds by approximately 33%—represents one of the most robustly replicated findings in sexual orientation research. Meta-analytic evidence across 26 studies (N = 7,140 homosexual and 12,837 heterosexual males) yields a pooled older brothers odds ratio of 1.47 (p < .00001; Blanchard, 2017), with the effect persisting even among brothers reared apart, confirming prenatal rather than social origins (Bogaert, 2006).

The maternal immune hypothesis (MIH) proposes that mothers develop progressively stronger immune responses to Y-linked proteins across successive male pregnancies, analogous to Rh immunization (Blanchard & Klassen, 1997). With each successive male pregnancy, maternal production of antibodies against proteins such as neuroligin-4 Y-linked (NLGN4Y) increases, and these antibodies cross the placental barrier during subsequent pregnancies, binding to male fetal brain tissue and disrupting masculinization of sexual orientation circuits (Bogaert et al., 2018). Direct evidence comes from elevated anti-NLGN4Y antibody titers in mothers of homosexual sons with older brothers compared to controls, establishing biological plausibility for the epidemiological pattern.

The FBOE exhibits several features indicating a distinct etiological pathway. First, it shows strict male-specificity: older brothers increase homosexuality risk, but older sisters do not. Second, the effect is stronger in feminine or gender-nonconforming homosexual subgroups, supporting phenotypic heterogeneity in developmental pathways (Blanchard, 2017). Third, it interacts with handedness, occurring primarily in right-handed males (Blanchard et al., 2006). Fourth, it operates independently of genetic factors, persisting after controlling for familial clustering and being absent in firstborn homosexual men (Fořt et al., 2024; Raymond et al., 2023). The neurodevelopmental consequences likely involve disrupted androgen signaling during critical periods of hypothalamic organization, with affected individuals exhibiting feminized neuroanatomical structures and behaviors consistent with reduced INAH-3 volumes and gender-nonconforming traits.

Recent methodological critiques suggest appropriate caution in effect size estimates. Vilsmeier et al. (2023) demonstrate that standard statistical controls for family size can induce artifactual birth order effects, and multiverse meta-analysis reveals smaller, more heterogeneous effects than previously reported. Nevertheless, the biological specificity of the effect—limited to biological brothers sharing the maternal womb—remains difficult to explain as pure artifact.

Neurobiological Manifestations: Sex-Atypical Circuitry

These developmental processes culminate in sex-atypical brain organization detectable through neuroimaging. Homosexual men show female-like cerebral asymmetry (symmetric hemispheres rather than leftward asymmetry) and amygdala connectivity patterns (Savic & Lindström, 2008). Hypothalamic responses to pheromones invert sex-typical patterns: androstadienone elicits female-typical activation, estratetraenol male-typical (Savic et al., 2005). The INAH-3 nucleus is smaller in homosexual men, resembling women’s volumes (LeVay, 1991; Alagha et al., 2025).

These neuroanatomical differences reflect organizational differentiation of circuits involving oxytocin, vasopressin, and dopamine signaling in nucleus accumbens, medial preoptic area, and sexually dimorphic hypothalamic nuclei (Blumenthal & Young, 2023). During prenatal development, androgen receptor and estrogen receptor signaling, modulated by local aromatase expression, establish the neuroanatomical and neurochemical architecture later activated by pubertal hormones. Disruptions to this process—whether through genetic variants affecting hormone synthesis or receptor function, epigenetic marks altering receptor expression, or maternal antibodies interfering with Y-linked neurodevelopmental proteins—canalize these circuits toward same-sex preferences. The molecular pathways likely involve alterations in oxytocin receptor density in nucleus accumbens, vasopressin receptor distribution in hypothalamus, or dopaminergic innervation patterns determining which social stimuli acquire incentive salience.

This neurodevelopmental framework explains the multidimensional nature of sexual orientation. Rather than a simple binary, sexual attraction exists along continua reflecting the extent and pattern of masculinization across different neural systems. Genetic variants, epi-marks, hormonal environments, and immune factors produce partially independent effects on different circuits, yielding the observed heterogeneity in sexual orientation phenotypes from exclusive homosexuality through bisexuality to exclusive heterosexuality.

Etiological Heterogeneity: Distinct Developmental Pathways

A critical insight from biodevelopmental profiling is that male homosexuality comprises etiologically distinct subpopulations rather than a homogeneous phenotype. Latent profile analysis of Polish gay and straight men (N = 690) using handedness, digit ratio, childhood gender nonconformity, fraternal birth order, and familiality identified six profiles with divergent sexual orientation distributions (Folkierska-Żukowska & Dragan, 2024). The largest profile (masculine 2D:4D, masculine childhood behavior, extreme right-handedness) was predominantly heterosexual (80%), while profiles characterized by high familiality or extreme gender nonconformity were mostly homosexual (>70%). Crucially, FBOE-dominant and left-handed profiles showed no sexual orientation bias, indicating that fraternal birth order operates independently of androgen-related markers.

This heterogeneity suggests additive or pathway-specific mechanisms rather than a single developmental trajectory. One subgroup may owe orientation primarily to maternal immunization (FBOE pathway), showing feminized traits but typical 2D:4D ratios. Another subgroup may reflect polygenic variants affecting androgen receptor sensitivity, producing hypermasculinized 2D:4D in some gay men and feminized ratios in others (Swift-Gallant et al., 2021). A third subgroup may emerge from familial clustering reflecting shared pleiotropic variants increasing both homosexuality risk and heterosexual mating success in relatives. The independence of these pathways is supported by the persistence of FBOE after controlling for genetic factors (Fořt et al., 2024) and curvilinear relationships between prenatal androgen markers and sexual orientation.

Evolutionary Synthesis: Resolution of the Paradox

The evolutionary maintenance of male homosexuality reflects not a single adaptive explanation but a portfolio of mechanisms operating at different levels. At the population genetic level, antagonistic pleiotropy maintains alleles enhancing mating success in heterosexual contexts while probabilistically producing homosexuality when present in particular combinations or genetic backgrounds. Sexually antagonistic selection through enhanced female fecundity provides additional maintenance, particularly for X-linked or maternally inherited factors. These genetic mechanisms establish a baseline frequency of same-sex attraction alleles maintained by balancing selection.

At the developmental level, epigenetic canalization and maternal immunization translate this genetic variation into phenotypic outcomes through effects on prenatal brain organization. These mechanisms introduce stochasticity—the same genotype can produce different outcomes depending on epigenetic mark transmission and birth order—while preserving heritability through parental epi-mark strength and immunization history. This developmental noise explains moderate heritability without strong genetic signals in GWAS and accounts for substantial monozygotic twin discordance.

The integration resolves the evolutionary paradox: homosexuality persists not despite its fitness costs but because the genetic variants contributing to it provide fitness benefits in other contexts—enhanced mating success in heterosexual males carrying fewer risk alleles, increased female reproduction in carriers of X-linked variants, and behavioral plasticity advantageous in variable social environments. The trait appears maladaptive only when considering exclusively homosexual individuals in isolation; from a gene’s-eye perspective, homosexuality-associated alleles successfully propagate because their average fitness effects across all carriers remain positive.

This framework represents what might be termed “overdominance at epigenetic loci”—heterozygosity for epi-mark transmission buffers androgen instability across generations, yielding low-frequency homosexuality as a stable polymorphism maintained by selection for developmental canalization rather than by any direct benefit to homosexual individuals. The prediction is that populations should exhibit equilibrium frequencies of homosexuality determined by the balance between fitness costs in exclusively homosexual individuals and fitness gains through mating success enhancement and female fecundity across all carriers of the relevant alleles.

The kin selection hypothesis, while receiving empirical support in some cultural contexts (elevated avuncular investment among Samoan fa’afafine; VanderLaan et al., 2013; VanderLaan & Vasey, 2016), likely contributes modestly to maintenance rather than serving as a primary mechanism. In patrilocal societies, the FBOE may additionally function to reduce sibling competition, enhancing overall family fitness (Raymond & Crochet, 2023). These inclusive fitness effects supplement rather than replace the pleiotropic maintenance mechanisms.

Conclusion

Male homosexuality emerges from the complex interplay of polygenic architecture maintained by antagonistic pleiotropy, sexually antagonistic selection enhancing female fecundity, and prenatal neurodevelopmental processes involving hormonal organization, epigenetic canalization, and maternal immune responses. Rather than representing evolutionary dysfunction or mere byproduct, homosexuality reflects the inevitable consequence of genetic variation in systems governing behavioral plasticity, risk-taking, and brain sexual differentiation—variation maintained because it provides reproductive advantages in the majority of contexts while producing same-sex attraction as a minority outcome.

The integrated framework advanced here makes several testable predictions that should guide future research. First, epigenome-wide association studies should identify sex-discordant methylation patterns at androgen receptor and aromatase loci in homosexual versus heterosexual individuals, with effect sizes varying by etiological subgroup. Second, maternal antibody profiles should predict offspring sexual orientation in a dose-dependent manner moderated by androgen receptor polymorphisms. Third, biodevelopmental profiling combining genetic risk scores, birth order, 2D:4D ratios, and childhood gender nonconformity should yield latent classes with distinct neuroanatomical signatures and sexual orientation distributions. Fourth, heterosexual siblings of homosexual men should exhibit elevated mating success through feminized personality traits, with the relationship mediated by shared polygenic scores for same-sex attraction.

The recognition that homosexuality reflects multiple mechanisms, rather than a unitary phenomenon, transforms the empirical question from “why does homosexuality exist?” to “through which pathways does each subtype arise, and how do gene-environment interactions modulate their expression?” Sexual orientation should be conceptualized not as a discrete category but as a multidimensional phenotype reflecting the developmental state of multiple partially independent neural systems. The mechanisms maintaining homosexuality likely also maintain broader variation in gender-typical behavior, mate preferences, and parenting investment, suggesting that sexual orientation variation is intrinsically linked to the evolution of human behavioral flexibility and social complexity. Future research integrating genomics, epigenomics, developmental neurobiology, and evolutionary modeling will be essential for fully elucidating these mechanisms and their interactions across development and evolutionary time.

References

Alagha, M., Antoun, F., Bacha, C., El Nabbout, T., & El Khoury, N. B. (2025). Biological, genetic, neurological and environmental influences on homosexuality—A narrative review. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 19, 1574713. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2025.1574713

Apostolou, M. (2022). The direct reproductive cost of same-sex attraction: Evidence from two nationally representative U.S. samples. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 51(4), 1857–1864.

Blanchard, R. (2004). Quantitative and theoretical analyses of the relation between older brothers and homosexuality in men. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 230, 173–187.

Blanchard, R. (2017). Fraternal birth order, family size, and male homosexuality: Meta-analysis of studies spanning 25 years. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 47(1), 1–15.

Blanchard, R. (2018). Fraternal birth order, family size, and male homosexuality: Meta-analysis of studies spanning 25 years. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 47(1), 1–15.

Blanchard, R., & Bogaert, A. F. (1996). Homosexuality in men and number of older brothers. American Journal of Psychiatry, 153(1), 27–31.

Blanchard, R., Cantor, J. M., Bogaert, A. F., Breedlove, S. M., & Ellis, L. (2006). Interaction of fraternal birth order and handedness in the development of male homosexuality. Hormones and Behavior, 49(4), 405–414.

Blanchard, R., & Klassen, P. (1997). H-Y antigen and homosexuality in men. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 185(3), 373–378.

Blumenthal, S. A., & Young, L. J. (2023). The neurobiology of love and pair bonding from human and animal perspectives. Biology, 12(6), 844.

Bogaert, A. F. (2006). Biological versus nonbiological older brothers and men’s sexual orientation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103(28), 10771–10774.

Bogaert, A. F. (2007). Extreme right-handedness, older brothers, and sexual orientation in men. Neuropsychology, 21(1), 141–148.

Bogaert, A. F., & Skorska, M. (2011). Sexual orientation, fraternal birth order, and the maternal immune hypothesis: A review. Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology, 32(2), 247–254.

Bogaert, A. F., Skorska, M. N., Wang, C., Gabrie, J., MacNeil, A. J., Hoffarth, M. R., VanderLaan, D. P., Zucker, K. J., & Blanchard, R. (2018). Male homosexuality and maternal immune responsivity to the Y-linked protein NLGN4Y. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(2), 302–306.

Bragazzi, N. L., Converti, M., Crapanzano, A., Zerbetto, R., Siri, A., & Khamisy-Farah, R. (2023). Probing the genomic landscape of human sexuality: A critical systematic review of the literature. Frontiers in Genetics, 14, 1184758. https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2023.1184758

Camperio-Ciani, A., Corna, F., & Capiluppi, C. (2004). Evidence for maternally inherited factors favouring male homosexuality and promoting female fecundity. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 271, 2217–2221.

Felesina, T., & Zietsch, B. (2024). The desirable dad hypothesis: Male same-sex attraction as the product of selection for paternal care via antagonistic pleiotropy. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 53(4), 1731–1745.

Felesina, T., & Zietsch, B. P. (2023). Emerging insights into the genetics and evolution of human same-sex sexual behavior. Trends in Genetics, 39(5), 402–414.

Folkierska-Żukowska, M., & Dragan, W. Ł. (2024). Biodevelopmental correlates of sexual orientation in men: Evidence from a Polish sample. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 53(8), 2825–2838.

Fořt, J., Flegr, J., Kuba, R., & Kaňková, Š. (2024). Fertility of Czech gay and straight men, women, and their relatives: Testing the sexually antagonistic gene hypothesis. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 53(4), 1747–1761.

Ganna, A., Verweij, K. J. H., Nivard, M. G., Maier, R., Wedow, R., Busch, A. S., Abdellaoui, A., Guo, S., Sathirapongsasuti, J. F., 23andMe Research Team, Lichtenstein, P., Lundström, S., Långström, N., Auton, A., Harris, K. M., Beecham, G. W., Martin, E. R., Sanders, A. R., Perry, J. R. B., … Zietsch, B. P. (2019). Large-scale GWAS reveals insights into the genetic architecture of same-sex sexual behavior. Science, 365(6456), eaat7693.

Garcia-Falgueras, A., & Swaab, D. F. (2010). Sexual hormones and the brain: An essential alliance for sexual identity and sexual orientation. Endocrine Development, 17, 22–35.

Gavrilets, S., & Rice, W. R. (2006). Genetic models of homosexuality: Generating testable predictions. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 273, 3031–3038.

Gómez, J. M., González-Megías, A., & Verdú, M. (2023). The evolution of same-sex sexual behaviour in mammals. Nature Communications, 14, 5719. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-41290-x

Grimbos, T., Dawood, K., Burriss, R. P., Zucker, K. J., & Puts, D. A. (2010). Sexual orientation and the second to fourth finger length ratio: A meta-analysis in men and women. Behavioral Neuroscience, 124(2), 278–287.

Kirkpatrick, R. C. (2000). The evolution of human homosexual behavior. Current Anthropology, 41(3), 385–413.

Lalumière, M. L., Blanchard, R., & Zucker, K. J. (2000). Sexual orientation and handedness in men and women: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 126(4), 575–592.

LeVay, S. (1991). A difference in hypothalamic structure between heterosexual and homosexual men. Science, 253(5023), 1034–1037.

Manning, J. T., Churchill, A. J. G., & Peters, M. (2007). The effects of sex, ethnicity, and sexual orientation on self-measured digit ratio (2D:4D). Archives of Sexual Behavior, 36(2), 223–233.

Manning, J. T., Fink, B., & Trivers, R. (2022). Parental income and the sexual behavior of their adult children: A Trivers-Willard perspective. Evolutionary Psychology, 20(4), 14747049221142858.

Manning, J. T., Fink, B., & Trivers, R. (2024). Digit ratio (2D:4D; right-left 2D:4D) and multiple phenotypes for same-sex attraction: The BBC Internet study revisited. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 53(1), 213–222.

Mills, M. C. (2019). How do genes affect same-sex behavior? Science, 365(6456), 869–870. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aay2726

Monk, J. D., Giglio, E., Kamath, A., Lambert, M. R., & McDonough, C. E. (2019). An alternative hypothesis for the evolution of same-sex sexual behaviour in animals. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 3(12), 1622–1631. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-019-1019-7

Ngun, T. C., Ghahramani, N., Sanchez, L., & Vilain, E. (2011). The genetics of sex differences in brain and behavior. Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology, 32, 227–246.

Pfau, D. R., Jordan, C. L., & Breedlove, S. M. (2021). Response to commentaries: Sniffing out consensus on the evolution of primate same-sex sexual behavior. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 50(5), 2317–2320.

Raymond, M., & Crochet, P.-A. (2023). Carving non-proximal explanations for same-sex sexual orientation. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 52, 3007–3012. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-022-02497-z

Raymond, M., Turek, D., Durand, V., & Nila, S. (2023). Stable partial homosexuality among men cannot be maintained by balancing selection from overdominant genetic effects on fitness. Evolution, 77(7), 1590–1603.

Rice, W. R., Friberg, U., & Gavrilets, S. (2012). Homosexuality as a consequence of epigenetically canalized sexual development. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 87(4), 343–368.

Savic, I., Berglund, H., & Lindström, P. (2005). Brain response to putative pheromones in homosexual men. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102, 7356–7361.

Savic, I., & Lindström, P. (2008). PET and MRI show differences in cerebral asymmetry and functional connectivity between homo- and heterosexual subjects. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105, 9403–9408.

Savolainen, V., & Hodgson, J. A. (2010). Evolution of homosexuality. In T. K. Shackelford & V. A. Weekes-Shackelford (Eds.), Encyclopedia of evolutionary psychological science. Springer.

Semenyna, S. W., Gómez Jiménez, F. R., & Vasey, P. L. (2022). Confounds, causality, and sexual orientation: The implications of a population-level study of sibling characteristics and same-sex attraction. The Journal of Sex Research, 59(6), 690–696.

Song, S., & Zhang, J. (2024). Genetic variants underlying human bisexual behavior are reproductively advantageous. Science Advances, 10(1), eadj6958.

Swift-Gallant, A., Di Rita, V., Major, C. A., Breedlove, C. J., Jordan, C. L., & Breedlove, S. M. (2021). Differences in digit ratios between gay men who prefer receptive versus insertive sex roles indicate a role for prenatal androgen. Scientific Reports, 11, 8102.

Swift-Gallant, A., Aung, T., Rosenfield, K., Dawood, K., & Puts, D. (2023). Organizational effects of gonadal hormones on human sexual orientation. Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology, 9(3), 344–370.

VanderLaan, D. P., Ren, Z., & Vasey, P. L. (2013). Male androphilia in the ancestral environment: An ethnological analysis. Human Nature, 24, 375–401.

VanderLaan, D. P., & Vasey, P. L. (2016). Kin selection hypothesis. In V. A. Weekes-Shackelford & T. K. Shackelford (Eds.), Encyclopedia of evolutionary psychological science. Springer.

Vilsmeier, J. K., Kossmeier, M., Voracek, M., & Tran, U. S. (2023). The fraternal birth-order effect as a statistical artefact: Convergent evidence from probability calculus, simulated data, and multiverse meta-analysis. PeerJ, 11, e15623.

Zietsch, B. P., Morley, K. I., Shekar, S. N., Verweij, K. J. H., Keller, M. C., Macgregor, S., Wright, M. J., Bailey, J. M., & Martin, N. G. (2008). Genetic factors predisposing to homosexuality may increase mating success in heterosexuals. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29(6), 424–433.

Zietsch, B. P., Sidari, M. J., Abdellaoui, A., Maier, R., Långström, N., Guo, S., … Verweij, K. J. (2021). Genomic evidence consistent with antagonistic pleiotropy may help explain the evolutionary maintenance of same-sex sexual behaviour in humans. Nature Human Behaviour, 5(9), 1251–1258.

This article was composed using a combination of the above-cited primary sources, Grok (grok.com), Claude (claude.ai), and my own editing. It can be cited as:
Moore, T. M. (2025). The Evolutionary Persistence of Male Homosexuality: An Integrated Theory of Genetic Architecture, Developmental Canalization, and Balancing Selection. Retrieved from https://mooremetrics.com/homosexuality.