From: Robert Divers To: J <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Phone call Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2019 20:14:59 +0000 many thanks for your detailed message not quite sure why you thought Honour killing would be detrimental my reasoning goes way back to when i was first working on basic theory 45 years ago and thought it was natural to be attracted to anything that appeared to contradict fundamental logic—male homosexuality was my choice then —how on earth could natural selection raise this clearly counter-reproductive tendency to —3%— recurrent mutation alone could at best get it up to 1110,000 as the years rolled by, 3 things stood out: 1) childhood sex inappropriate behaviour was the best predictor—dolls instead of trucks, pink colour instead of blue, 2) the older brother effect-30% higher chance with each older brother and 3) discovery in 1993 of a gene or genes on the X chromosome—so you inherit the tendency from your mother—this immediately suggested the gene might be "sex antagonistic"—bad in males but good in females. For autosomal genes the net effect better be positive but X's are twice as frequent in women as in men, so the female benefit need only be greater than HALF the cost in males to spread sure enough, elevated frequency of male homosexuality is only found on maternal side—your maternal uncle, your mother's male cousin-furthermore later work showed that maternal female relatives of male homosexuals showed higher RS than female relatives on the paternal side (since then we have discovered a minor gene on the 8th chromosome) David Haig at Harvard also recently discovered a most novel genetic argument for the 'older brother effect' so when i came across Honour killings, i thought this is even worse than male homosexuality—how on earth does it benefit you to slit the throat of your 17 year old daughter, whom you have invested 17+ years of work raising, maybe even with a little love—because you find lipstick in her purse or phone numbers