The discovery of the specific biological cause of homosexuality in one sex, but not the other, will most likely result in the following set of effects on people’s understanding of gender, sex and sexuality:  1. The discovery in question would legitimize even further the idea that one’s physical attraction to the representatives of the opposite sex is not the matter of the concerned person’s conscious choice. As Greenberg and Bailey noted: “Recent scientiﬁc studies have presented evidence that the chances that a child will be homosexual are greatly inﬂuenced by his or her genetic makeup” (425). In its turn, this should result in increasing the level of a societal tolerance towards homosexuals, as individuals who simply cannot help experiencing the urge to enter into specifically the same-sex romantic/marital relationships. At the same time, however, it would also undermine the legitimacy of the politically correct assumption that homosexuality is something that well deserves to be ‘celebrated’. The reason for this is that the mentioned discovery would make it possible for people to draw parallels between homosexuality, on one hand, and a number of the genetically triggered mental pathologies, on the other.  2. The discovery of a genetic marker, associated with homosexuality, would have a great impact on our current understanding of what the notion of gender stands for. That is, this discovery will naturally cause more and more people to think that the notion in question is discursively ambivalent, in the sense that the physiological aspects of one’s gender-affiliation only formally relate to the concerned individual’s ability to experience the sensation of an emotional comfortableness with either feminine or masculine existential values. As such, it would confirm the validity of Weininger’s idea that: “Homosexuality is merely the sexual condition of the intermediate sexual forms that stretch from one ideally sexual condition to the other sexual condition… all actual organisms have both homosexuality and heterosexuality” (30). In other words, the notion of gender can be best discussed as having been socially constructed, as one of the instruments of ensuring the society’s structural/functional integrity. This, of course, presupposes that the notion at stake (in its contemporary sense) is ill-suited to play a major role in the discussions, concerned with what accounts for the qualitative essence of how the representatives of the opposite sexes interrelate. The reason for this is that, as the hypothetical discovery of the ‘genetic marker’ of homosexuality would indicate, the law of a sexual attraction is far from being considered mechanically deterministic. Instead, it should be referred to as such that reflects the fact that the physiological subtleties of one’s sexual functionality are not necessarily consistent with the concerned individual’s gender-related subliminal anxieties.  3. The mentioned scenario is potentially capable of providing social scientists with a rationale to refer to homosexuality as the form of one’s existential degradation. The line of logic behind this proposition is as follows: Given the fact that homosexuality can be discussed in terms of an ‘intermediary sexual form’,