Для альтернативно одарённых цитата из последней ссылки, которую я целиком и полностью разделяю: “In addition to these “shabby” GWAS data, there are actually several interesting observations reported in this paper which might encourage people to think a little more deeply about “same-sex sexual behavior” as a biological trait: Figure 1A. The percentage of same-sex sexual behavior was found to increase almost 4-fold in 30 years (!) – this is definitely a sign of a social/cultural trait instead of a biological trait; Figure 1B. The “reproductive disadvantage” of “same-sex sexual behavior” was very high – if this were a biological and evolutionary trait with any substantial genetic contribution, this trait would have decreased in rate, instead of this 4-fold increase in rate over the past 30 years; Figure 4. The genetic correlations with risky behavior (e.g. cannabis use), mental health, and number of sex partners – as well as the recent staggering 4-fold increase in 30 years – makes me tend to believe that “same-sex sexual behavior” is not a “primary biological trait” but rather a “secondary response” (i.e. a behavioral pattern under a specific cultural environment, e.g. leisure and affluence). My conclusion is somewhat different from the “politically correct” statement mentioned in the Wall Street Journal article [...] Lastly, I believe that “being gay or lesbian or whatever” need not be, and should not be, vindicated by biology.”

я бы добавил тут опен

"The percentage of same-sex OPEN sexual behavior was found to increase almost 4-fold in 30 years (!)...."