decisions, decisions

Or not so much

I generally figure a lot of things have strong genetic determinations. People probably have a certain amount or type of brain use for example. They're likely to have a particular manner of coordination (right/left hand dominance), etc. But we have a little bit of control of some of this. We can learn to compensate for these deviations from norms, but often only to a limited extent, and often only by creating compensatory behavioral norms of our own design instead of those compelled upon us by others (research on autistic behavior seems to point this direction, at least so far as I can tell).

Some thoughts.
1) I did not see the population estimates here as high (as Caplan did). I thought somewhere between 6-10% has been a well established estimate of homosexual prevalence in the human population for decades. Kinsey's scale tends to get much higher responses (approaching double), but I'm not sure if it includes something like weak to modest bisexual interests and habits as "non-heterosexual". Been a while since I've looked at Kinsey's research.
2) Looks like a 50-50 genetic/environmental reaction, except I'd venture to guess that genes are likely to be way more hard-coded than environmental features. In other words, where genetics are active, they're very active.
3) Women being more likely to be reported as homosexual (or especially bisexual) is unsurprising. From what I know of this population, and the comparisons in the studies to the habits of homosexual men, it's more or less like their counter parts in the heterosexual population: men seem more likely to seek additional sex, women seem likely to settle on a partner of some sort. I also don't see a whole lot of deviations on whether there's a higher incidence of something like polyamory among homosexuals than over heterosexuals. I'm sure there is some.
4) Seems like a neurological, rather than a pure behavioral or experiential, explanation would be useful given this level of plasticity and especially given the differences between men and women here (men being a bimodal distribution as opposed to Kinsey's conception of a natural distribution, which is a little closer to how the female population looks).

In any case, the documentation and research here on genetics goes back to the 50s and keeps coming up with a (strong) genetic component to sexual orientation. That would tend to mitigate against the logic that this is somehow a "choice". The treatment and reaction by the medical institutions that previously looked upon homosexuality as a disorder basically removed this by simply declaring that nomenclature a bias or a moral reaction/feeling to a somewhat rare behavior, with the only reason being to amend it that it is deemed harmful to the person involved rather than that it poses some danger or serious negative harms to others. Which the only reason being gay would is that other people would treat it so negatively, just as we've previously treated being black or even being left-handed. We look upon both of these reactions as morally absurd now. I suspect for good reason, as it makes about as much sense to express a strong moral displeasure against people who eat hot dogs instead of hamburgers. Preferences are what they are. In some cases, they're fluid. And sometimes they're plastic. The plastic ones we have to live with just as we put up with the random fluidity that gives us a random friend that likes a type of music we hate or who is a vegan while I eat meat, or some such.