Friday, April 27, 2012

Homosexuality in Nature: Gay Animals

Oftentimes when browsing the internet or listening to a right-wing tirade from some backwards-thinking fundamentalist, I find arguments against homosexuality. The most common one is: “it’s unnatural”. Disregarding arguments from religion, apparently if a species were to “go gay” it would die out due to a lack of reproduction, which is why homosexuality is unheard of in animals.

This is, of course, entirely false. This article, in the spirit of the last, will address common misconceptions about homosexual behaviours outside of the human species.

”Doesn’t it only exist in a few species?”

No. Homosexual behavior has been noted in nearly every family of birds, mammals and reptiles, if not every species. Everything from giraffes to lions to penguins to goats, the tendency of which to be exclusively gay is problematic to many farmers.

”But it’s a dominance thing!”

No, it’s not. As it is with female-male relations, the submissive participant in homosexual intercourse is usually the initiator. Furthermore, in gay “relationships” in many species, there is not a single partner who is always submissive and the other always dominant. The partnerships also exist within species that do not have a real social hierarchy. Finally, as it is in heterosexual partnerships, a great deal of affection may be shown.



It should also be noted on a more intimate note that homosexual activities between males is often penetrative, depending on the species (nearly all mammals).

”It only happens in captivity.”

Also wrong. Many of the photos and articles given above were taken in the wild. The fact is that it is much easier to observe animals in captivity, so most of any animal behaviours we’re aware of, we’re aware of through observation of captive animals, at least initially. Naturalistic observation, though, confirms homosexual activity of a wide variety of species outside of human influence.

”It’s a freak of nature; their genes don’t get passed on. They’re going against evolution!”

I see and hear this one a lot, and it’s patently stupid for two reasons.

The first of these reasons is that evolution is not a god. It does not have some grand master plan in mind. There is no driving goal behind evolution except to ensure that a given species thrives in a given environment. While this means that a species must have proper energy usage, tools for utilizing its environment, a certain social structure if necessary, etc., it also means, perhaps even more importantly, that a species must be quite various. If a species’ gene pool is small, not only do you get birth defects as damaging recessive genotypes are realized, but you also have the problem in which if the environment changes radically or some similarly traumatic event occurs, the species is unlikely to be able to adapt. It can never be well-told what a species will be required to adapt to, so it is always good to have as much variety as possible without speciation.

The second reason is something called colloquially the Gay Uncle Theory. This theory has received a great deal of acknowledgment in relevant fields, and essentially states that a while homosexuals are less likely to breed than heterosexuals, they are more likely to assist their relatives in child-rearing, increasing what we call inclusive fitness. Those relatives’ children will be more likely to thrive, and they will also be likely to have the same genes that contribute to homosexuality, so they will be likely to pass on those “gay genes” (on that note, it should be considered that homosexuality only has a genetic factor of about 20%). This theory works primarily with humans and other highly social creatures.

What about those who are not terribly social? It should be recognized that sex in animals is not so much like sex in humans, because they lack that cultural taboo and other lofty implications: it’s simply a mutually pleasurable activity. Some early human societies recognized this, and we of course know of Greek soldiers being encouraged to engage in homosexual activities to strengthen bonds in the army. Animals, it seems, think similarly. Whether they are bonobos trying to chill their group out, or a trio of male lions looking to found or capture a pride of their own, homosexual intercourse seems to play a potentially large role in strengthening important social bonds.

Hopefully this article has cleared a few things up for some people. Though I’m afraid that the people that really need to read this likely won’t, and probably wouldn’t change their minds even if they did, and actually, given the nature of this blog, would probably become even more staunchly homophobic, I imagine that those intelligent people who are reading this will later be able to use these facts, reasons, and sources in future debates with the bigots. Godspeed.

2 comments:

  1. A few points based mostly on the misuse and misunderstanding of terminology:

    These arguments are pointless because they show a fundamental misunderstanding of what people mean when they call something 'unnatural'.

    The assumption that they'd be referring to 'nature' in the sense of; "the non-human world" or something along those lines makes no sense. Almost any imaginable animal behaviour could be called 'unnatural' by these very same people see for example: cannibalism, polygynandry, and so on and so forth.

    So by 'unnatural' they of course they don't refer to something in contrary the 'natural' world but against human 'nature' which makes a lot more sense considering human 'nature' is seen (by these people) as one of strict order and self-control which is actually itself 'unnatural' compared to the chaos and debauchery readily depicted beyond our world.

    Human 'nature' is of course a difficult thing to define. We are all of course physically very similar and our physical characteristics are easily called our 'nature'. Once you get into the meta-physical; the mind and it's conscious behaviour and conscious though things are so strongly influenced by the environment; by society, by culture that discerning human 'nature' from social norms is impossible.

    So what people mean when they say human 'nature' referring to the meta-physical cannot be said to be true human 'nature' rather it is the 'nature' of our society of culture. This is a 'nature' determined by shared group values and is therefore a reflection on individual and group morality not human 'nature'. Somebody saying homosexuality is 'unnatural' isn't so much as saying it's against the 'natural' world or even true human 'nature' rather it is opposed to his values and his morality and the morals he perceives as key to the functioning of our society. He is in effect calling homosexuality immoral, not 'unnatural'.

    Second:

    Homosexual behaviour in animals should not under any circumstances be confused with homosexual orientation in humans, it is not the same thing. People studying animal behaviour use the term homosexuality to refer to any sexually related behaviour between to member of the same sex; no matter how small, and no matter the cause (which in many cases is simply accidental). People studying human sexuality use the term homosexuality to refer explicitly to the sexual orientation. For example Volker Sommer (2011) says this:

    "[We] deliberately decided against the catchy phrase ‘Animal Homosexuality’ and instead chose the more cumbersome ‘Homosexual Behaviour in Animals’. We did this because ‘Homosexuality’ implies a sexual attraction, often exclusively, towards members of one’s own sex."

    and that:

    "Many of the behaviours ... are not reflections of a sexual orientation."

    Which makes sense given the idea of sexual orientation is an entirely human invention; a social construct. Compared to the number of animals found to display homosexual behaviour very few have been found to display homosexual preference or homosexual exclusivity (Bailey & Zuk, 2009), let alone homosexual orientation!

    Thank you for saying: "It should be considered that homosexuality only has a genetic factor of about 20%" though. Every time somebody claims to be 'born gay' I die a little on the inside.

    References:

    Sommer, V. (2011). Animal Homosexuality: A Biosocial Perspective (Book review). doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.08.009

    Bailey, N. W., & Zuk, M. (2009). Same-sex sexual behavior and evolution. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2009.03.014

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The terminology here is your own: unfortunately, there is a great deal of argument on the side of homophobes that true homosexual behaviour does not exist in animals, which is what this article is addressing. It is not merely a baseless insult; if it was, it would not be arguable.

      This article does not go any ways towards explaining human nature, as human nature is, as you said, quite indefinite as it stands. It can be said, though, that human nature is what exists separately from culture, which can be examined both by looking at cross-cultural studies and ethological studies. You say that our behaviour is metaphysical, but it truly is not: we are not governed by some unknowable entity or soul. Although our behaviour is shaped by our environment, it is shaped in a way that is precipitated physiologically, and this can be examined and to an extent predicted even with our limited knowledge of neuroscience. So in short, there is nothing metaphysical about human nature, and homosexuality does fit easily within human nature as it is defined here.

      Also, the idea of, "accidental" homosexual activity is quite laughable. The observations made are not simply of two males happening to be on top of each other: courtship behaviours, affection, and long-term pairing are observed. ( http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2907.1984.tb00344.x/pdf )

      People study animal behaviour do not use the term homosexuality to refer to any sexually related behaviour between members of the same sex: they call that homosexual behaviour. The quote you gave states this, opposing the statement you made immediate before, so I'm not sure why you gave it. Homosexuality is an orientation and, as stated here, does exist as a set of exclusive sexual behaviours within multiple species, as has been evidenced numerous times, and at least one example given in the article above. The reason we do not typically call animals, "homosexual" is because when we call humans the same, it is based on self-report, not on behaviour. All the statistics you see on the prevalence of homosexuality are based on self-report.

      As far as the number of species with documented members who are seen to be exclusively homosexual, consider that animal sexuality is not a very heavily studied field, and due to issues with observation in the wild versus in captivity, the rarity of some species, and difficulties with research viability, advancement in ethology is particularly slow. Most studies are on captive animals, which are not often published; with the rarity of homosexuality in any species, it is incredibly difficult to observe in most species in the wild beyond ones we might label, "hypersexual" at least sporadically such as bonobos and lions. You can't expect every species to be so well-documented.

      You can expect, though, given research thus far, that the majority of macrofauna, including mammals and birds, have exclusively homosexual members; it is not very sensible, given the variety of species and special social structures we have observed such individuals within, to assume that somehow the animals we have not been able to thoroughly study do not exhibit the same behaviours.

      I recommend examining the book by Poiani that the review you read is on. There is a great deal of good, recent information in there.

      Delete