I have to confess that I haven't read the article linked in the post at the top of the thread--I was responding just to what you wrote. Now the link doesn't work, and a search of the Guardian site turns up nothing on the obvious keywords. So, by reintroducing the question of the "fox gene", you've put me on the spot.

I too am a bit skeptical of stereotypes, especially when a scientific theory purports to verify a stereotype. Often stereotypes are a perceptual trick, some behavior that's weighted in memory by association with some other vivid characteristic that's not really related to the behavior in question. Maybe visible homosexuals--"flamers"--just make a stronger impression on people than less flamboyant people in the same creative field. I think it's especially true when the perceiver has a problem with the subject; for example, racists would have you believe that only African Americans are on welfare, when in fact they make up a minority of welfare recipients. It's just that their attention is riveted on Blacks.

I dunno. I think I've let the thread fizzle out. Sorry about that.

--Robert