<blockquote>What do we know about homosexuality's biologic determinants?</blockquote>

<p>Every story worth telling starts with <strong>boobs</strong>.</p>

<p>Ok, I don't know, not <strong>all</strong> of them, but at least a great majority. Lets just say that most stories that include boobs, eventually become good enough to be worth telling.</p>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1bsbhtoLXI
<br />
<p>Back to the topic: boobs.</p>

<p>To understand boobs' literal worthiness, first we need to understand what an <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exaptation" target=_blank">exaptation</a> is. The simplest way to looking at it is considering it a structure that at some point in our <strong>evolutive history</strong> had a function, but eventually it was used for another purpose than for the one it was originally designed. In this particular case, boobs applied pressure in natural selection because they were directly related to the abundant feeding of the offsprings; today, they are used as <strong>arguments</strong>: "Since I've boobs, I'll say and do any shit that comes to my mind, and you better take it well... Because: <strong>boobs</strong>. TV broadcasts helped this, a lot.</p>

<p>Yes, this <strong>objectifiying</strong>, worse this status in <strong>encouraged by the people that fight against the phenomenon itself</strong>. Most feminist internal grudges have strong roots based on how "feminine" the other one behaves. <strong>Throwing fallacies one at the other without a hint of common sense or rationality</strong>. "That woman", "those" boobs", <strong>glowing balls of saline solution wisdom</strong>, cheating millenia of natural selection while abusing the ability to speak through lips long cracked by age.<br />
I heard some traditionalist bitch say: <blockquote>I don't understand how a man can be with another man, that is not natural.</blockquote> 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4Mc-NYPHaQ <br />
As you may note, that... is another fallacy (<a href="https://steemit.com/science/@renzoarg/argument-and-fallacies-a-small-introduction-into-a-human-trait-part-2" target="_blank">appeal to nature</a>).<br />
That, may be replied with another fallacy, ad hominem. "...Said the woman with artificial boobs that has been barren by age for over 2 decades".
</p>

<p>Politically correct or not, it is out of the topic to actually inquiry about the quality of such a statement (even when it obviously has no validity under any circumstance). Leaving demagogics aside, we should take a look at such statement with a scientific scope (since, natural sciences <strong>IS</strong> something worth listening to, for a change)</p>
<hr />
<p>It took me around 10 seconds to find <strong>way too many papers exploring the scientific bases of homosexuality</strong>. PubMed took less than a second to list me over <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=homosexuality" target="_blank">26000 papers related to the topic</a> (it actually was decimals of seconds, but my PC is slow).</p>

<p>After diving into such amount while glancing back and forward from <a href="https://steemit.chat/channel/HispanoHablantes" target="_blank">my favorite steemit.chat channel</a>... <br />
Swimming for a couple of hours surrounded by lots of rational scopes that analyzed sexual orientation. I found a couple of things that are rather interesting.</p>

<p>Something that is "<em>clearly artificial</em>" such as homosexuality "should" be of humankind's monopoly grouping up with the rest of their anti-cultural traditions; so, the first thing I searched for was, at least, a minimum example in another parts of the animal kingdom. Some kind of trace in animals that hinted a slight deviation of the "natural" way that old lady mentioned, so occidental and christian, after all  "It is not good for the man to be alone" (Genesis 2:18). Here, things got weird.</p>
<p>It turns out that <strong>there IS homosexual animals</strong>. A couple of species... around over 2000. A bunch of <a href="http://www.hetnatuurhistorisch.nl/fileadmin/user_upload/documents-nmr/Publicaties/Deinsea/Deinsea_08/Deinsea_8_15_Moeliker_.pdf" target="_blank">gay ducks</a>, butterflies and sheep, among others. Of course, it cannot be that simple, "bekuz hiumaz R speshial, pazte dis in YeR FaCeBooK to protect uz agains sodomites".</p>
https://cdn.pixabay.com/photo/2017/01/24/08/34/romance-2004799_960_720.jpg <br />
<p>Since that is just not enough, the next inevitable step is to look for research done over humans, there's abundant data about that, well focused. Seeking to find the homosexuality gene, that gene would be lie the "X" gene in the X-Men... but for a good taste when picking clothes. This quest led into <strong>a genetic marker</strong> (a "tag" that tells us "this part of DNA is always involved in <em>this</em> process") that is called <strong> Xq28</strong>. Horrible name, as anything that has to do with biology and sciences (except a beetle named <em>Agathidium vaderi</em> honoring @lordvader , cool!). This tag es close to several proteins, among them, a particular one that is a receptor of <a href=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgen" target="_blank">androgens</a>. Now, finding a genetic marker related to a sexual hormone consistently and repetitively is <strong>a very tempting "evidence"</strong>, science magazines are not immune to yellow press. It cannot be <strong>that</strong> simple, wise men attempting to map and individualize a huge spectrum of behaviors reducing it to a single gene, they bottom line it with an evasive "it is <em>related</em>", not a necessary or conclusive condition. Of course, there's other factors.</p>

<p>I still had no solid answer, so I kept on digging, until I saw someone mention that it was not genetic, but <a href="https://steemit.com/science/@renzoarg/oedipus-this" target="_blank"><strong>epigenetic</strong></a>, that means that it is not related to the info <strong>IN</strong> the DNA, but with how it is packed and interpreted, so it is more or less accessible. This people kept on looking for a gene that encoded the adaptive advantage of being able to lend clothes to your couple, but in another way. Seeking more info about a specific pattern distributed in nature, several critters, including humans. A mechanism that should explain how we work, not as individuals, but as species.</p>

<p>One of the largest steps in our journey of understanding "why we feel what we are?" was taken when instead of looking at the DNA we looked at "how DNA becomes what we are".</p>

<p><strong>To understand who we sexually are, there was no option but to look at the two epicenters that correlate: genitalia and brain</strong>.</p>
<p>During the intrauterine growth stage, the brain develops in a masculine direction given the action of testosterone (just, because, there's a masculine direction and that is the same one that renders us unable to find things even when they are right in front of our noses and gives validity to the phrase: "Really, honey, I'm not thinking about anything"). In contraposition, that giant fat raisin develops into a feminine direction thanks to the absence of that hormone.</p>

<p>In this period many things that are related to <strong>gender identity</strong>, <strong>sexual orientation</strong> and other behaviors influenced by this brain development are forged: <strong>Masculine or Feminine</strong> (that has a cleared difference in the sexually dismorphic nucleus called INAH3 (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INAH_3" target="_blank">If you want to SMS it, neurally speaking</a>).</p>

<p>Now, this bunch of neurons develops after the second half of pregnancy, here's where the "but" comes in: Our genitals do not develop at the same time, <strong>they already did near the second month of development</strong>. It'd be a lot easier if we thought of both things as cause and consequence, but <strong>they are not</strong>. It looks like both processes are regulated independently of each other, that results in the possibility of a genital virilization that is not matched by an equal brain development. <strong>Welcome, to the world of shades of gray</strong>.</p>

<p><strong>It looks like life is stubborn, and nature loves to give us a wide spectrum of colors to paint it with. Natural shades of traits, just like being brunette</strong>.</p>

<p>Natural, like homosexual, but in hair color.</p>

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHZVyrNBBbQ