I recently read a biography of William Shockley, a physicsist who won a Nobel prize for work on the first the transistor (of course there's plenty more to that story!), and later in life went on to research eugenics and how we could best apply evolutionary knowledge to benefiting society the greatest. He was largely ostricized and ridiculed for even bringing up the subject, as it was a foundational theroy of the Nazi's, and brought up the division of races, hot button issues for the '50's and on.

Anyway, some of his research parrallelled another favorite of mine Ed Wilson. A Harvard professor in Entomology for the Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, who later (in the relation to the period of the first book I mentioned) went on to write a book on sociobiology and it's relation to the human race. Very much in the vein of continuing Darwin's theories and applying them to humans (as is only logical). So it all led me to re-read Ed Wilson's book "On Human Nature" paying attention to the snubbing of Willaim Shockley, while acknowledging all of the same people that worked with him. I also haven't read this book from the perspective of a transexual before, and it was intersting to pay a little closer attention to that angle.

It's often only the people who already agree with the viewpoint of the author who are inclined to even read such a book in the first place, but I hope that maybe some of you who may not otherwise find this type of information are willing to open yourself to the ideas.

The book was originally published in 1978, so keep that in mind!

The chapter on sex is quite interesting in defining gender roles from an evolutionary stand point. The way that some societies have tried to eradicate gender roles, only resulting in the strengthening of the seperation of them. Also, how hereditarily we generally have a polygynous additude, but that we seek monogamy as a bonding strategy to ensure the proper raising of children. And how bonding strategies are very rare in the animal world.

He goes on to discuss homosexuality and posits how even though genetically this was a trait never directly passed on, the homosexual was generally a leader in or around a family, allowing his/her relatives to be more succesful in mating and providing for their family, thus succesfully passing on the genetics that they carried.

He discusses why western religion has failed in recognizing proper theory behind evolution as a biological theory and its identification of sex soley as a tool for procreation, instead relying on a flawed "natural law" theory and he describes how theologians have misinterpreted the idea. He also chastises them for thier treatment of homosexual people. Leaving this quote, "There is, I wish to suggest, a strong possibility that homosexuality is normal in a biological sense, that it is a distinctive beneficent behavior that evolved as an important element of early human social orginization. Homosexuals may be the genetic carriers of some of mankind's rare altruistic impulses."

Then he goes on to briefly discuss transvestitism. Keeping in mind the date here, he says, "In modern societies, but not primitve ones, transvestites are only rarely homosexual..." Now we all know it was common practice for transexuals to lie in any study to attain treatment back then and before, so it's easy to surmize the data he had at the time was corrupted. I'm sure a general poll here on CD.com would yeild quite contradictory results. But intersting to look further back and see that our behavior today mimics that of our ancestors quite closely.

He closes the religion/homosexuality discussion with this; "All of this information amounts to little more than a set of clues. It is not decisive by the usual canons of science. A great deal of additional, careful research is needed. But the clues are enough to establish that the traditional Judeo-Christian view of homosexual behavior is inadequate and probably wrong. The assumptions of this religion-sanctioned hypothesis have lain hidden for centuries but can now be exposed and tested by objective standards. I beleive it entirely correct to say that the kin-selection hypothesis is more consistent with the existing evidence.

The juxtaposition of biology and ethics in the case of homosexuality requires sesnsitivity and care. It would be inappropriate to consider homosexuals as a seperate genetic caste, however beneficient their historic and contemporary roles might prove to be. It would be even more illogical, and unfortunate, to make past genetic adaptedness a necessary criterion for current acceptance. But it would be tragic to continue to discriminate against homosexuals on the basis of religious dogma supported by the unikely assumption that they are biologically unnatural."

Let me preface the closing by saying I don't want to open up the whole what's straight/what's gay debate, I hope there's been enough other threads on that topic that by now we all have an idea where each other stands on that and can move past it. In scientific terms I think it is just to say that most of us fall into the homosexuality category, even if not by means of same sex relations, by the fact that we engage in sexual activity for pleasure/bonding and not procreation.

For me, a person not invested in sex as a means of procreation, I struggled to find a role in life, and even more importantly the foundation for the role I was to fill from an evolutionary stand point. I figured if I live or die, it doesn't really matter, especially in the grander scheme of evolution. Reading a little into the past has helped me feel a little foundation in the future. Perhaps for some of you who may be wrestling with some similar thoughts can find some resolution in researching the past.