The Desirable Dad Hypothesis
Why are some people gay?
It seems like an innocent question, comparable to "Why are some people blonde?" or "Why do some people enjoy spicy food?"
In fact, the way we answer the question can have profound implications for the well-being of anyone who identifies as non-heterosexual.
For instance, "social" explanations assume that people are born heterosexual but can be molded by gay-positive cultural influences, sexual encounters initiated by experienced individuals, and so on. These explanations lead to demonization. A particularly nasty example is a mass email sent by the Colorado Republican party last week that refers to the entire LGBTQ+ community as "godless groomers" who seek to harm children.
An alternative to social explanations is the assumption that sexual orientation is inherent to a person. A person is gay because that's how they are. Being gay (or straight, or bisexual, or anything else) is neither a choice nor a matter of being chosen.
For some people, this is the end of the story. They celebrate – or at least welcome – diversity in sexual orientation, and no more needs to be said.
Unfortunately, explanations that implicate a person's "nature" aren't necessarily positive. For instance, Yoweri Museveni, the president of Uganda, has called homosexuality a psychological "disorientation", a sickness, and, more vaguely, a kind of innate deviance. (He has also blamed social influences, such as grooming and Western corruption.) These are ancient prejudices, but they're more than just prejudicial. This April, Uganda's Constitutional Court upheld a 2023 law, strongly supported by Museveni, that calls for life imprisonment for anyone caught engaging in gay sex, and Uganda remains one of at least nine countries where the death penalty is possible.
Scientific approaches
Scientists treat the question of why some people are gay roughly the same way they treat the question of why some people are blonde or like spicy food: They accept diversity in sexual orientation and try to account for it, just as they would any other variable. For instance, in this newsletter I'll be discussing a new study from University of Queensland researchers on the "desirable dad" hypothesis – one hypothesis among many that scientists have explored recently, none of which, if accurate, would justify negative attitudes or discrimination.
The treatment of sexual orientation as a variable is a relatively new approach among scientists and often grounded in statistical modeling. For instance, in the study I'll be discussing, the researchers rely on analyses that only became widely used after Ronald Fisher's Statistical Methods for Research Workers was published in 1925. You might say that roughly a century of statistics-driven methodology has entered a very old, prejudice-laden conversation.
Statistics aren't inherently tolerant. Fisher, one of the fathers of modern statistics, was a eugenicist and used the very concepts and tests he helped develop to justify the merits of encouraging "the most valuable classes" of people to bear more children, while advocating for the sterilization of the "feeble-minded". Even so, his conceptions of population genetics and his specific statistical innovations help enable scientific inquiry that seeks to understand rather than to judge sexual orientation.
A semantic note
As experts point out, being "gay" could refer to one's identity, preferences, and/or behaviors. It could be purely sexual or have little or nothing to do with sex. It could be a matter of degree.
The study I'll be discussing focuses on same-sex sexual attraction. Most people would consider this essential to what it means to be "gay", but you don't have to share that perspective. The key point is that this kind of attraction interests scientists in part because same-sex behavior doesn't lead to reproduction.
A Darwinian paradox
Studies suggest that anywhere from 2 to 10% of people are "gay", depending on how the term is defined. These figures may be underestimates, given that social stigmas and, in some places, criminalization, inhibit peoples' willingness to acknowledge non-heterosexual orientations. (Since only about 2% of the population is naturally blonde, I would conclude at least that the world contains more gay people than blondes.)
Scientists assume that the prevalence of non-heterosexual orientations tends to be stable over time, thanks to their genetic underpinnings. Although a 1993 study led to much talk of a "gay gene", the results were never replicated, and scientists now view same-sex attraction as polygenic – emerging from the influence of many genes – and attributable to complex interactions among genes and environments. In short, it has become more accurate to speak of "gay genes" – alleles that predispose some people to same-sex attraction.
Because same-sex attraction has a genetic basis, scientists view it as an evolutionary paradox. If gay people only have sex with each other, they won't reproduce, and their genes should eventually disappear from the gene pool. And yet, from one generation to the next, the percentage of gay people seems to remain fairly stable. Accounting for this paradox is the focus of the study I turn to now.
The "desirable dad" study
The new study, published in Archives of Sexual Behavior this January, was conducted by Thomas Felesina and Brandon Zietsch at University of Queensland. (Ordinarily, the "new" studies I discuss have only been out for a week or two; I've been saving this one for Pride Month.)
Felesina and Zietsch presented data on the "desirable dad" hypothesis for same-sex attraction. This hypothesis starts with an explanation of same-sex attraction among men. A key assumption is that some heterosexual men are genetically predisposed to being more "feminine" – in other words, warmer, kinder, more nurturing, etc. They men aren't necessarily less masculine. They might exhibit traditionally "masculine" traits such as strength and assertiveness. But they also have more of those traditionally feminine traits, and these traits signal the potential for being a more committed, responsive parent.
During our evolutionary development, these men had a reproductive advantage. Because they seemed warmer, more nurturing, etc. they were more likely to find mates and pass their genes on. Why was that? Because women, being far more likely to reproduce than men, could afford to be choosy, and they tended to choose men who seemed more likely to be supportive fathers. However, the very genes that made some men look like promising fathers also predisposed a few of them to same-sex attraction.
Here's a simple way to think of it: Among men who seemed like they'd be devoted fathers, many of them were especially likely to have offspring, and a few of them were especially likely to be attracted to men. Those in the first group who had offspring passed their genes on to the next generation.
Thus, even if gay males rarely produced biological offspring themselves, each new generation of people would include gay men. Each new generation would also include straight men with genes that gave them just enough femininity to increase their chances of passing those genes on to the next generation, where some of their male offspring would be gay too.
As for gay women, Felesina and Zietsch speculate that if women tend to be attracted to men with some feminine characteristics, they might pass along genes that predispose at least some of their female offspring to same-sex attraction.
Some evidence
Felesina and Zietsch reported three studies, each exploring a different aspect of the desirable dad hypothesis. I'll have the most to say about the second and third studies.
Study 1
The point of the first study was to suggest that there's a set of genes that (a) run in families and (b) give rise to feminine characteristics as well as same-sex attraction. For this study, Felesina and Zietsch surveyed 1,632 heterosexual men and found that those who were higher in warmth and nurturance (according to self-reported survey responses) were also more likely to have non-heterosexual male family members (father, brother, uncle, etc.). This study wasn't intended to prove anything specific about genetics; rather, it was simply meant to show a pattern that's consistent with the desirable dad hypothesis.
Study 2
Study 2 explored heterosexual women's preferences among dating profiles. Would women prefer more masculine men, more feminine men, or those with a mix of masculine and feminine characteristics?
For this study, 152 adult women who identified as heterosexual viewed 18 dating profiles and answered questions about them. Each woman viewed just one of three versions of the same profile. Here are three versions of one profile the researchers used:
–Masculine:
I am a friendly, adventurous, and ambitious guy. I can be ultra-competitive and a little assertive at times, but I’m also able to unwind too. I enjoy camping, golf, and coffee. I’d say I’m a logical guy, and I love solving all sorts of problems. I’d love to find a girl to match my drive and adventurousness. An ideal Friday for me would involve working on my side projects and having a beer.
–Feminine:
I am a friendly, softhearted, and sociable guy. I can be emotional and a little sensitive at times, but I’m also able to unwind too. I enjoy baking, poetry, and coffee. I’d say I’m an intuitive guy, and I love helping people with all sorts of problems. I’d love to find a girl to match my warmth and cuddliness. An ideal Friday for me would involve working on my side projects and having a beer.
–Combined masculine and feminine:
I am a friendly, honest, and likable guy. I can be emotional and competitive at times, but I’m also able to unwind too. I enjoy traveling, eating good food, and coffee. I’d say I’m a balanced guy, and I love working with others to solve technical problems. I’d love to find a girl to match my warmth and drive. An ideal Friday for me would involve working on my side projects and having a beer.
After viewing each profile, women rated their agreement with the statement "I’d be interested in dating this person" on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
Felesina and Zietsch found that combined masculine-feminine profiles received the highest ratings, followed by feminine profiles and then the masculine ones. The differences were not large (the means on the 7-point scale were 4.47, 4.16, and 3.40, respectively) but they were significant – and consistent with the researchers' hypothesis, as was a separate finding that preferences for feminine profiles were greater for long-term committed relationships than for short-term casual ones.
Study 3
In Study 3, a different sample of 153 heterosexual women were shown the same profiles as in the previous study, with some light editing to exclude any references to parenting or children. (The three versions of the profile I presented above would not have been edited.)
This time, after viewing each profile, women rated how much they agreed with the statement "This person would be a good father" on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
In this study, feminine profiles received the highest ratings, followed by combined masculine-feminine profiles and then masculine ones (the means were 5.22, 4.88, and 3.94, respectively).
The common thread across studies 2 and 3 is that the "masculine" men were least appealing, either as short- or long-term romantic partners or as fathers. Men with more feminine characteristics, or a mix of feminine and masculine characteristics, were favored.
Some evaluative remarks
Felesina and Zietsch conclude that their data "offer preliminary support for the plausibility of the desirable dad hypothesis." I agree, so long as we stick with their carefully-chosen wording here.
If the desirable dad hypothesis were a fully elaborated theory that had been pitted against others in prior research, you could quibble about the methodology of studies 2 and 3. You could argue that women's actual choices of partners need to be studied rather than their responses to hypothetical scenarios. You could argue that the dating profiles are a bit too generic. You could argue that the effects are small (and in any case it's unclear how large they'd need to be to support the desirable dad hypothesis). And you could argue that cross-cultural data is needed, because Felesina and Zietsch are making a claim about the entire species.
The scope of the desirable dad hypothesis is the main reason I don't think concerns like these carry much force. Statements about how partner preferences evolved over hundreds of thousands of years of evolutionary development don't readily lend themselves to simple tests. I doubt any single study could "prove" the desirable dad hypothesis correct. Rather, Felesina and Zietsch did the best anyone could do, which is to lay out the substance of their hypothesis and gather data that's consistent with it. As Felesina noted in an email to me, their paper is just "a preliminary test of our hypothesis". (I want to acknowledge his patience in answering a number of data-related questions.)
Practically speaking, one of the most important characteristics of this study is that it illustrates a way of thinking about the Darwinian paradox that can be further scrutinized, debated, proven right or wrong, etc. without jeopardizing the well-being of gay people. This reflects a kind of victory over millennia of prejudice and discrimination.
Final Thoughts
We're in the midst of Pride Month (or, as President Biden officially proclaimed, "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and Intersex Pride Month"). Predictably, there has been backlash, like that mass email from the Colorado Republican party last week with the subject line "God hates Pride."
I am fairly sure that God doesn't hate Pride (upper case), even if pride (lower case) is not divinely encouraged. I'm not so sure about those who speak for God. Two days ago, Pope Francis was accused, again, of using an anti-gay slur during a meeting with priests. Whether he did or not, sources present at the meeting say that the pope advised steering gay men away from the priesthood, on the grounds that what they need instead is spiritual guidance or a psychologist. Evidently, the pope's welcoming of same-sex unions in recent years continues to be offset by some very traditional biases. (I'm guessing Pope Francis doesn't care how many budding priests are blonde or like spicy food.)
Non-heterosexual orientations may be increasingly accepted in some quarters, but they continue to be harshly treated in others, as reflected in the growing number of LGBTQ+-related book bans at public and K-12 school libraries. Dr. Jessica Hines, a visiting professor of English at Whitman college, wrote an intriguing piece for The Conversation last month in which she commented on resonances between contemporary and medieval censorship of queer texts. As she notes,
"Both have been shaped by a sort of "Don't Say Gay" mindset: an assumption that even seeing or talking about LGBTQ+ themes poses a threat to children and society..."
I reached out to Dr. Hines for more details. She noted that although these periods of censorship differ in many ways, there are also parallels, such as in the way "so much of the political rhetoric is tied to the idea that there is something corrupting and socially damaging....about homosexuality." She added too that medieval writers often appear to assume "that if a person never reads or hears about homosexual desire, then they would never naturally come to feel it."
You can see this kind of assumption lurking behind Florida's 2023 "Don't Say Gay" bill. Even after its revision in March of this year, the law prohibits K-3 instruction in sexual orientation or gender identity. At least some supporters of the bill (including Governor DeSantis) have publicly expressed their fear that, in essence, kids might learn to become gay.
Both scientific data and informal anecdote are clear that this is not how it works. What kids might learn, if they don't know it already, is that they already are gay (or bisexual, or something else). They need a safe and supportive environment where they can be who they are. In such an environment, they can ponder the desirable dad hypothesis if they wish – or, like many of us, simply accept who they are without questioning how they came to be that way.
Thanks for reading!