Why Were There No Homosexuals in Victorian England, Like Today in Iran?!

What made me extremely anxious during my studies was the time when I had to stand and explain my research to others. The first time I did this was among a group of classmates whom I thought would both support me and behave kindly. When it was over and while my heart was racing and my mouth was dry, I asked: "Well, does anyone have a question?" The first question I received was: "If we consider the presence of homosexuals, can we say that Darwin's theory regarding human behavior is inadequate?" It was a logical question. Homosexuals cannot reproduce and pass on their genes. So if that is the case, why have they not biologically "gone extinct"? This is a question that psychologists in the field of evolution have researched and written about extensively. Unfortunately for me, as this was not the subject of my research, I was in no way prepared to answer such a question. At that moment, I thought there was no logical discussion that could convey a point in my mind. As a result, I uttered the first foolish thing that came to my mind: "I think based on my understanding of gay men, they can all be good fathers and husbands. Perhaps in the past, gay men married women and had children." The gentleman who had asked me this question, who was very cheerful and handsome, smiled, which made me feel a bit calmer, and he continued, "Yes, many of my female friends say that if I married a woman, I would be a very good husband." A few years later, during one of the lectures by Belgian philosopher Andreas de Block, I realized that the answer I gave was not so far off. Love between homosexuals has a long history among humans and other species. The specific issue of human societies is that there has always been cultural diversity; how homosexuals were, who they were with, and whether society accepted it or not, largely depends on different times and societies. However, there is a historical fact that until very recently, those who were homosexual married the opposite sex and had children. The simplest reason why this number of homosexuals is still seen today is that in the past, there was no barrier to their reproduction. The idea that a class of human beings can be separated and labeled as "homosexual" and said to have no interest in reproduction was invented about 200 years ago in Europe. Even Oscar Wilde (creator of works such as "The Picture of Dorian Gray" and "The Importance of Being Earnest"), who was convicted of "sodomy" and imprisoned in 1895, did not call himself homosexual. I mention this because Oscar Wilde was married and had two sons. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the term "homosexual" entered the vocabulary nearly 100 years ago, 12 years after Oscar Wilde's death. If there was no word for it, it is hard to find someone who would identify with that title, even someone like Oscar Wilde. On the other hand, the earliest evidence of the term "sodomy" dates back to 1297. So when someone raises a definition in accordance with Darwin's theory regarding homosexuality, their real question is: "Why did Europeans in the 19th and early 20th centuries invent the term 'homosexual'?" I think I have an answer to this question, and yes, it can be explained according to Darwin's theory of evolution. Everything is related to economic development. Every society, after industrialization, witnesses a serious change in the beliefs, behaviors, and values of its members. Each member sets aside "traditional" ways and tries to create "modern" methods. Sociologists who have studied and documented this process of cultural change over decades have seen similarities in these trends of change. What sociologists cannot agree on is the reason for these changes and why there is a trend. One of the first modern behaviors in societies is that the wealthier people are (here, wealth means having security, enough food, housing, and healthcare), the smaller their families will be because they want a calmer and more interesting life. One reason that proponents of Darwin's theory should pay attention to this puzzle is that one of the trends of change remains a mystery to us: people behave less and less in the way that Darwin's theory predicted. There is much evidence (from historians and anthropologists) showing that economically underdeveloped societies behave as if they have a high biological capacity. For example, poor families who cannot even feed their children give birth to many children, not only to serve as labor for them but also to take care of their siblings in old age. Women also work hard because their role as mothers or grandmothers is very important. Kinship is also very important. People expect their relatives and tribes to help them. If there is no family, friends or even strangers help them in the form of charitable organizations, but there is no government institution to assist them. One of the first modern behaviors in societies is that the wealthier people are (here, wealth means having security, enough food, housing, and healthcare), the smaller their families will be because they want a calmer and more interesting life. It is interesting to observe how a society adopts modern behaviors; the better the situation, the lower the fertility rate of women decreases. (You can see the fertility status and its relation to the economy of each country with this UN table). This behavior has been seen in European (or Western) societies, and in the 19th and early 20th centuries, the fertility rate decreased. Since then, Western culture has undergone changes that lead people less towards motivating biological capacity. Child-rearing methods have changed, more children go to school, and spend less time at home learning from their elders. Being a mother is no longer the only duty of women. Women have become inclined to do things they consider more important and that bring more money. Soon, women's employment outside the home became normal. Marriages became less stable and weakened child-rearing methods. The emergence of homosexuals was just one change in this complex cycle of changes. Another reason that proponents of Darwin's theory should show interest in modernization is that, like other cultural changes, it is a cycle based on the same Darwinian evolution. We inherit our culture from those members of society who lived before us, just as we inherit genes from our parents. Just as we pass our genes to the next generation, we also pass our culture along. In other words, culture evolves just like genes or populations. Evolution, as Darwin said, occurs for culture. Cultural change happens much faster than genetic change, but if we want to analyze and understand it, we must look at genetic change. We must identify the forces that push culture to change in a specific direction. It seems logical that economic development leads people to adopt modern ideas. But why and how does it happen? There is a common view among sociologists (including Ronald Inglehart) that does not rely heavily on Darwin's theory and says that people change their beliefs and values after their situation improves and they feel secure. They no longer need to worry only about survival, and as a result, they focus on other things they can do in their lives. They do different things and are more tolerant of others doing different things, for example, if they want to identify as homosexual. But for supporters of Darwin's theory, such a reason for cultural change does not make sense. How can a homosexual family with a small family and modern behavior be the result of wealth and comfort? We have reached a generation that when their situation was good, they had more children, not that if their situation improved, they would have fewer children. One idea consistent with Darwin's theory is that this change has occurred with differences in people's social networks. When a society witnesses economic expansion, all individuals in the human community experience transformation. People gain jobs, schools open, and with technological advancement, travel and communities expand. Before economic expansion, people did not just "live" with their families; a family worked together and learned from each other. Connection with family through birth, marriage, or both is not only of practical importance but also socially significant. In modern societies, people are aware of belonging to many groups. We are members of a work family, classmates in a school, fans of a football team, and other matters. But this is a completely new way for humans. In almost all of human evolutionary history, membership in a family was the most important identity factor for each person. People were influenced by their family members and united and agreed with each other in sharing "the preservation and survival of the family." In such a social environment, it was natural for local communities to maintain norms that loyalty to family transcended individual interests and desires. A young family member was expected to marry one of their relatives. If a woman had gone through the brink of death during the birth of her previous child, she was still expected to give birth. In times of hardship and difficulty, young people were expected to help feed the small children of the family. Randomly having children and exposing them to poverty is a great sin. People had interests and desires, but they needed to be controlled. This was because the goal of life was not individual achievements, but rather to leave behind a viable generation like other animals, just as Darwin's theory states. Even in the West, where industrialization began in the 18th century, culture is still rapidly changing, and there is still opposition regarding "family values" and belief in homosexuality. The United States, for example, is completely divided on this issue because most of the population of America consists of immigrants from countries like Mexico, where economic development is much newer compared to Europe, and the generation left from Europe witnessed economic development much earlier. Economic development creates opportunities for new social groups that compete for the time and attention of families. The result is that the norm of family expansion is weakened. This change is not static, of course, as people gradually change their norms and still carry some of what they grew up with from childhood. The first reaction to increased wealth and economic security is that society quickly moves towards population growth, but it soon witnesses change. Nowadays, only in a few countries, particularly in Africa, is having a large family still observed. Change is on the way and, of course, is happening. It is evolutionary change and will take several generations to implement. Even in the West, where industrialization began in the 18th century, culture is still rapidly changing, and there is still opposition regarding "family values" and belief in homosexuality. The United States, for example, is completely divided on this issue because most of the population of America consists of immigrants from countries like Mexico, where economic development is much newer compared to Europe, and the generation left from Europe witnessed economic development much earlier. Currently, in the West, there is concern that people from other countries are not keeping pace with and accepting a Western-based concept called human rights, and are moving very slowly. Such individuals who benefit from economic expansion ask why other people do not support ideas like "women's rights" and "gay rights"? Some of them even still do not accept that there are homosexuals in their society or country! Some people even think it is acceptable to send their children to work in a factory! All of this makes sense when viewed from the perspective of evolutionary change. It took the West some time to invent the term homosexual and even longer to accept same-sex marriage. It is unreasonable to expect other cultures to reach the same point as quickly as the West has. Social evolution in some countries has likely begun with family limitation. Is there a way to understand how the stages of modernization are? One way is to compare the year of declining fertility in a country with the people of a country whose people have accepted the Western idea of homosexuality. We have this possibility because a few years ago, a global survey was conducted on people's views on homosexuality, and its results showed: Acceptance of homosexuality is much higher compared to a country like Iran, where social change is still new. Perhaps that is why a former president of Iran said he and many people do not believe that homosexuals exist. People in Britain during the Victorian era also did not believe in the existence of homosexuals.