|
|
|
Hm. Interesting question posed by the OP.
Parents do have every evolutionary reason to support and tolerate their kids pretty much no matter what. Statistical outliers will always exist for one reason or another, but disownment as a concept is far too well known for it to be that rare. So why, then?
I am reminded of historical cultures who put unfit newborns out into nature to die, and it seems like it would be related. If I am eyeballing the state of being transgender right, then there is one underlying evolutionary rationale I can think of: The kid would be unfit for procreation, by grace of having a gender identity that would for one reason or another make it hard to mate with the opposite sex.
If transgender-ism, as I believe, is a spontaneous mutation resulting from the fetus starting out female and needing to grow male, and something going wrong during that inevitable process, leading the resulting human to become some mixture between the two, then it would be a trait impossible to evolve away from, and thus having always existed. And if so, it stands to reason that rejection of such individuals would have been adaptive to our ancestors, in that humans unfit to procreate were not allowed to burden their societies, leaving more resources for the gender-normative ones.
Heck if I know if that is the case, but I need something as extreme as that to make sense of why a parent would reject a child, which is about the most maladaptive thing any human can do. _________________ I discuss to learn, not to win. Then again, learning enough tends to translate to victory in the end anyway.
|
|