Dr. Cochran thinks that gay men lisp because a pathogen has affected their brains. But most gay men don't lisp. It was only ever a cultural thing, it was never universal, and it's mostly gone out of fashion in the last few decades.
He says that preferential male homosexuality has only been observed in humans and sheep. This is utter bullshit. Homosexuality has been observed in hundreds of species, including primates, mammals in general, birds, reptiles, and arthropods. This is not new research: over 450 species were known in 1999.
It goes on and on. This kind of ignorance might have been understandable, if not excusable, in the '70s, but Cochran was writing in 2005. He's making confident scientific assertions based on lazy, decades-old stereotypes, and there's no excuse for that.
To answer your question: no, I didn't read the article, because I read one sentence and concluded that it was horseshit. I should have taken a closer look before commenting, but I've done that now and my first assumption was 100% correct.
you ought to read about toxoplasma if you think complex behavior resulting from pathogen infection is outside the realm of possibility. 'lisp' is not strictly accurate, but gay men cross-culturally tend to particular speech patterns, including over-enunciation of the letter s, even as children; this isn't universal but it's fairly common, and i can't think of a reason that it would result from sexual preference per se.
>He says that preferential male homosexuality has only been observed in humans and sheep. This is utter bullshit. Homosexuality has been observed in hundreds of species, including primates, mammals in general, birds, reptiles, and arthropods. This is not new research: over 450 species were known in 1999.
i looked this up and you skipped over an important qualification: he said "at the-few-percent level". you should really learn to read what you're replying to.
It is conceivable that a pathogen could alter speech patterns, yes. My point was that if Cochran thinks all or most gay men have a distinctive lisp, then at least half his understanding of gay men is based on locker-room rumors and stereotypes. If he can't be bothered to educate himself on those basics, it calls his entire article into question.
If that were that were my only issue with Cochran's article, it would still just be a nitpick. But he gets everything wrong:
> among the Kalahari Bushmen, there doesn't seem to be any at all. Typically, hunter-gatherers have trouble believing that homosexuality actually exists.
There is native Bushman rock art explicitly depicting male homosexuality. See Boy-Wives and Female Husbands: Studies of African Homosexualities, published in 2000. Lots of extremely conservative/traditional cultures will tell you that none of them are queer, despite all evidence to the contrary.
> increased neuroticism and depression
Yes, gay men are prone to depression and emotional trauma. There's been quite a lot of research done on the causes. It mostly concludes that, surprise, they get depressed because they're discriminated against.
> the idea that male homosexuality is caused by a pathogen makes good evolutionary sense, unlike every other explanation ever proposed.
I'll just give you the link. Note the 2004 Italian study, particularly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation...
> The only two species known to exhibit this behavior, at the-few-percent level, are men and sheep.
Despite your repeating this, it's still bullshit. There are plenty of species with homosexuality rates equal to or higher than humans: giraffes, lions, and elephants, just to name a few.
Any sources I haven't linked here can be easily googled in a few minutes. If you choose to believe that being gay is a disease, nothing I can say will change your mind. Just understand that this is something you believe because it "feels right", not because there's compelling evidence.
