[JumpCrisscross]

> not sure history shows parents have on average been comparatively kind to gay children

Historically parents weren’t kind to any children because they were costly and died a lot. (Almost no ancient culture condemned—as we do today—a parent exposing an unwanted baby, for instance, for reasons ranging from birth defect to family rivalry [1]. This behaviour, too, in conserved in animals [2].)

There was a good thread on this a few days ago [3], but TL;DR gay stigmatisation is more recent than homosexuality (or trans sexuality). The behaviour that is older and better conserved across geography and cultures is the underlying one, not the negative backlash. (Also conserved: bad parents.)

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide

[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide_(zoology)

[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40977331

[beaglesss]

Using absolute across the board lesser investment to dismiss comparative investment is a bit sloppy and a red herring.

The thread you reference is criminality and infanticide, not parental prioritization of kids old enough to be known as gay/trans. I suspect most people don't know if their infant is gay/trans. I also assert there is a difference between prioritizing relationships and resources on a parent to child level and views on what should be illegal.

A gay or trans person probably has as much evolutionary value to society as anyone else, the fallacy you've fallen into from your prior post is to confuse that population level dynamic with the parents drive to pass on their particular genes.

It seems absolutely insane to me that it isn't even possible to consider the parent has an instinct to prioritize relationships and resources with children most likely to reproduce. It seems some want to work hard to make sure it isn't seen as a reasonable hypothesis, because if it were those feelings would be as valid and baked in as homosexual feelings.

[JumpCrisscross]

> thread you reference is criminality and infanticide

The point is historically--and across the animal kingdom--the default is parents minimally "prioritising relationships and resources on a parent to child level." Irrespective of odds of survival.

> fallacy you've fallen into from your prior post is to confuse that population level dynamic with the parents drive to pass on their particular genes

The drive to pass on genes is biological. It operates at the individual and group levels. We have no evidence the desire to pass on one's genes has any biological roots; reckless abandon produces more offspring, after all, and plenty of species, including humans, show both kin preference and out-of-group sympathies.

> insane to me that it isn't even possible to consider the parent has an instinct to prioritize relationships and resources with children most likely to reproduce

We're having a discussion. It's being considered. The problem is the evidence is stacked against it. If a phenotype is conserved across animals and humans, the simplest hypothesis is it has utility. At that point, evolutionary pressure at all levels will tend to work to conserve it. Including through parental instincts.

> some want to work hard to make sure it isn't seen as a reasonable hypothesis

It's a reasonable hypothesis. The problem is it has no evidence for it and plenty for the null. Pigs roll over and smother their piglets. That isn't a sign of hidden selection pressure, it's just bad parenting.

That said, I'm not cleanly rejecting it. We don't yet have a good model for the genetic basis of mental disorders. And a lot of mental disorders, e.g. a tendency towards random violence, could have served someone well in antiquity. So it very well could be that parents rejecting kids who won't have children in high school is innate to some. But again, we have no evidence for it.