
Homosexuality in giraffes and other non-human animals - okket
https://www.queerty.com/excerpt-giraffes-mostly-homosexual-20190323
======
MatekCopatek
My go-to link for countering "<insert sexual practice> is unnatural" was [1],
this article seems like a great one to add to the arsenal :).

That's not to say I believe human behaviour should somehow be judged by
finding equivalents in the animal kingdom (what a silly concept!), it's just
fun to point out to someone that even their ridiculous point is technically
incorrect.

[1]
[http://web.archive.org/web/20140723175514/http://www.blaghag...](http://web.archive.org/web/20140723175514/http://www.blaghag.com/2009/04/natural-
sexuality.html)

~~~
ng12
> it's just fun to point out to someone that even their ridiculous point is
> technically incorrect.

What's ridiculous is looking to the animal kingdom to judicate what's normal
for human homosexuality in either direction. Lots of mammals eat their young,
I wouldn't use this as evidence to normalize infant cannibalism.

~~~
zwkrt
I get your point but this seems to also be an argument in bad faith. The point
is to show that it is likely that homosexuality is more innate than "a choice"
or something you can catch, for the purposes of informing our moral
judgements.

~~~
andrewflnr
"innate" is another word for natural; they have the same root. That _doesn 't
even matter_ for the question of whether homosexuality is beneficial or moral.
Completely orthogonal questions.

~~~
zwkrt
As a gay person myself I agree conceptually, but it is hard to back the "even
if it's a choice what do you care" argument when discussing something that
from my perspective is so obviously and irrefutably not a choice.

I liken it to saying that someone shouldn't be judged by having a face tattoo,
because it is a personal choice that affects no one negatively. In practice
however people with face tattoos are judged pretty harshly, and in a way that
people with alopecia or facial birth marks are not, specifically because
choices carry moral weight.

Another issue is that the choice argument comes with a lot of baggage for
people who take it to mean that I am somehow intentionally upending what would
otherwise be a lovely, traditional family with 2.3 kids and a dog because I
chose to fraternize with men instead, but that since it is a choice it is also
one I could undo at any time (see gay conversion therapy).

------
AlexTWithBeard
Does it have to do anything with nature? For example, having sex is completely
natural, but doing so in public is frowned upon. On the other hand, walking on
arms upside down is completely unnatural, but perfectly acceptable in the
middle of town center.

~~~
qwerty456127
It doesn't. Many people just dislike other people having sex (and this
probably is natural). They can't say anything against people doing it in
accordance with the standard but as soon as something doesn't fit in the
puritan template they find an excuse.

~~~
johannes1234321
Disliking other people having Sex? — You should tell the porn industry so they
adapt their business model.

Maybe people don't like to be watched, but I think there is a string driver to
also reproduce and for men to put one's semen, ideally replacing the other
man's.

~~~
qball
>You should tell the porn industry so they adapt their business model.

Where have you been the last 50+ years? Porn has been and continues to be
under constant attack by society. In the United States, even the First
Amendment hasn't been as solid a defense as its wording would make it seem for
pornographic works, and some states still have laws on the books banning
"obscene devices" (though admittedly sex toys aren't speech)

People don't like others having sex, don't like knowing about it (unless they
themselves are horny and want to see it, but heaven forbid anyone else be
allowed the same privilege, which is the main reason you see so many anti-gay
male politicians being caught in compromising positions with other men), and
want to control everything about it.

There are two evolutionary reasons for this.

The first is pregnancy; and the difference between societies that have evolved
without access to effective natural birth control and ones that have is as
stark as you'd expect it to be.

The second is scarcity, which is related to the first thing (i.e. people weigh
sex against major negative consequences if having sex can have major
consequences), but can be slightly abated by a massive distribution network of
pictures and videos of sex (while not the same thing, unlike physical hunger
sexual appetite can be satisfied by the equivalent of simply looking at a
picture of a tasty meal for a few minutes).

Modern society has only had 50 years with technology that does those two
things reliably. Society at large just hasn't had enough time with these
factors in play to loosen up, but the cracks are beginning to show.

~~~
Razengan
An other reason might be that almost all animals seek to control their peers'
access to mates.

Humans have developed elaborate bullshit to achieve basically that. Monogamy,
possession, shame.

~~~
qwerty456127
I don't say monogamy is a natural rule everybody should follow but it also is
not unnatural "bullshit" invented by humans. As far as I know many wild
species are monogamous. Many bird species in particular. I don't mind anybody
being polyamory (and even some sort of adore them for breaking a taboo) yet
many people are happy in monogamy and they are not necessarily constraining
themselves artificially. Also shame can hardly be considered "invented" \-
whenever you feel that blushing you don't invent it, it's a physical body
reaction although particular reason behind usually is "invented".

~~~
Razengan
I was speaking of repressive cultures, especially those with far less choices
available to women.

~~~
solidsnack9000
These are typically cultures also where men have few choices. There is
probably no way that a sustainable advantage of one sex over the other, in a
reproductive sense, could be maintained by evolution.

------
chess93
What I never understood is why these animals are actually considered
"attracted to the same sex" when they really just "have sex with the same
sex".

Perhaps this distinction does not seem like it matters but I predict in the
future this distinction will be extremely common (in humans at least).

~~~
kakarot
I don't typically have sex with things I'm not attracted to... And even if
psychologically my sexual impulse seems different from that of an animal's,
it's biologically the same.

What purpose does this distinction serve?

~~~
dTal
Many people do have sex with people they're not attracted to, and many people
do not have sex with people they _are_ attracted to. The distinction is
useful.

Consider:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men_who_have_sex_with_men](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men_who_have_sex_with_men)

~~~
kakarot
The article you linked mentioned the term was coined during the rise of the
AIDS/HIV epidemic when we needed to statistically account for men who had sex
with other men but whom did not feel comfortable identifying with the words
"gay" or "bisexual".

I'm personally in the camp that if you have sex with genders outside the
opposite of your own, then you're either gay or bisexual. I don't
differentiate between whether you're attracted to the same sex or just
seriously, uncontrollably horny and desperate to shag anything with an
orifice.

I guess I still don't see the relevance of a distinction beyond that of
psycho-semantics.

------
nintendo95
Serious question: does anyone know how are homosexual monkeys treated by their
peers? Basically, I was wondering if there is a proof of them being
discriminated/treated badly by their peers.

~~~
EGreg
I don’t know who badgerigar is, but his comment was flagged and killed, even
though it is scientifially correct.

Although animals have been observed to have same-sex coupling, they mix it up
with males and females. In the animal kingdom the only species that have been
observed to have exclusively homosexual sex are humans and domesticated sheep.
One would think that a sexual organism never having heterosexual sex would be
a huge evolutionary fitness disadvantage, and such a trait would be extremely
uncommon. There are some caveats, for example: Sharks are able to reproduce
asexually, and frogs can “switch” genders AFTER reproduction, during adverse
conditions. But lifelong homosexuality has not been observed in species other
than humans and domesticated sheep, which suggests that relaxed evolutionary
pressures may be a necessary component.

From Wikipedia

 _Simon LeVay introduced caveat that "[a]lthough homosexual behavior is very
common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual
animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the
exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one
can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity."[8] One species in
which exclusive homosexual orientation occurs, however, is that of
domesticated sheep (Ovis aries).[9][10] "About 10% of rams (males), refuse to
mate with ewes (females) but do readily mate with other rams."[10]_

~~~
contras1970
> _One would think that a sexual organism never having heterosexual sex would
> be a huge evolutionary fitness disadvantage_

Genes do not "care" for individual organisms. If they did we would be
immortal. Jared Diamond argued that the presence of homosexual uncles/aunts is
the same kind of an advantage as the presence of no-longer-breeding
grandparents.

> _such a trait would be extremely uncommon._

Homosexuality _is_ pretty rare, isn't it?

~~~
toasterlovin
The key difference between a gay aunt or uncle and a no longer reproducing
grandparent is that the grandparent has already reproduced.

Also, if homosexuality is a strategy for childcare, why do homosexual
relatives contribute so little to their nieces and nephews? And if it is a
successful strategy, why does it occur at such a low prevalence?

------
fenwick67
I am always so torn when people make the argument that homosexuality is
natural and therefore okay.

It relies on the naturalistic fallacy which I don't like, but it also shuts
down people who make the argument that homosexuality is unnatural and
therefore bad, which I do like.

Ultimately, homosexuality in humans is fine not because it's natural, but
because we should, by default, let consenting adults do what they want
together.

~~~
blfr
_because we should, by default, let consenting adults do what they want
together_

Why? This strikes me as a very shallow moral principle. As 'presscast notes it
completely misses the point of the nature of a life well-lived.

Ironically, in practice it goes against human nature. Atomized society of
people passing each other indifferently is certainly freer in some sense but
it's also lonely and depressing for many of its members. It goes directly
against our most basic needs for social belonging.

~~~
nemo1618
The modern emphasis on individualism is understandable as a reaction to the
collectivism of the past. But as usual, we over-corrected. So now we're
entering a period of reaction against individualism. We'll almost certainly
over-correct again, but it won't be as severe. "Progress" is not a straight
line, it's an attenuated wave.

~~~
jessaustin
It's depressing to contemplate, but this prediction might be correct...

------
sigmaprimus
Sigh, I clicked on this link and now Google Add Sense or whatever browser
tracker is pushing gay dating site banners to my browser...who knew hot young
Russian men wanted to meet me!?!

~~~
908087
Is not using an ad blocker a conscious decision on your part? I just have
trouble coming up with any logical reason for an even remotely technically
skilled person to be risking browsing the modern web without one.

The only people I know personally who aren't using them end up immediately
installing one or asking to have one installed as soon as they find out it's
an option. This group typically consists of grandparents and other people who
know little to nothing about the internet.

~~~
sigmaprimus
Ever browsed the Web on an Android tablet? I'm a little concerned with
installing apps that require full access to my location, files and everything
else that should not be shared. Maybe there is a trustworthy chrome add on
that would not require all of these escalated privlages that you could
suggest?

~~~
jasondclinton
Firefox for Android allows extensions including uBlock. That's the reason that
I use it on mobile: blocking all of those trackers actually improves
performance.

~~~
sigmaprimus
Thanks for the tip, I don't have FF installed on my tablet but will look into
it!

------
4FNET7
Technically speaking, the animals he is talking about are bisexual. But this
was a truly great article. Please post more like this, queerty.

~~~
rectangletangle
Exclusive homosexuality is found in nearly 10% of male sheep, as well as a
bunch of other species of mammals and birds.

What’s interesting with the giraffes is the really high prevalence (94%),
which suggests it’s an adaptation to some form of natural selection. Even the
rate of 10% would suggest an adaptive response, but the really high rate
emphasizes this.

~~~
usrusr
One way in which it could be an adaption that actually helps its bearer's
genes would be as an overpopulation safety valve. Instead of the whole group
starving (all of them closely related genes), pause breeding for a while? I
would expect that most species that have some form of throttling reaction like
that would apply the brakes to female fertility because that is also relevant
for individual survival, but it should not be impossible for throttling to
appear in males as well. If the giraffe evolution happened to stumble upon a
particularly sensitive shortage-sensing circuit breaker in the form of a
gender preference flip, then we would see it firing non stop in a time of
dramatically shrinking giraffe habitat. It's been a while since giraffes could
be observed outside of crisis.

(or they just like it, it does not have to be an evolutionary trick)

~~~
int_19h
There are a bunch of plausible theories that ethologists have come up with for
evolution of homosexuality. This is one of them - and it does show up in other
experiments, e.g. with rats: if you make their population denser, a higher
proportion exhibits same-sex behavior.

But it's not the only one. Another is that species that employ K strategy (low
reproduction rates, high investment into offspring to ensure its survival) and
that are social, gradually develop some kind of social safety net mechanisms
for offspring, in cases where e.g. the parent dies or is sick and unable to
provide proper care. One way to do that is to have some proportion of the
population that does not breed on their own, thus ensuring that they are
always available to rear others' offspring. Since evolution generally takes
the path of least resistance, it's easier to achieve this by redirecting
sexual drive than by switching it off entirely. And this can even make sense
from a "selfish gene" perspective of one individual, because if you help
enough of your close relatives (who share many genes with you) keep their kids
alive, it may actually be more effective than betting on a few children of
your own surviving to carry more shared genes.

(If this theory is right, that has interesting implications for all those laws
restricting adoption by same-sex parents...)

~~~
meruru
The K strategy theory looks reasonable, but I don't see how evolution could
develop a population-control mechanism like the parent comment postulated. If
you start with an overly-dense population that's half straight and half gay,
the straight ones are still at an evolutionary advantage relative to the gay
ones. It doesn't matter that they'll all die when they reach the reproduction
rates of a 100% straight population, that's still where the evolutionary
forces will take them.

~~~
int_19h
In case of population density, it might be epigenetic.

But also, don't forget that evolution does not "care" about organisms, only
about genes; and a gene can be carried across generations without manifesting
itself. Suppose it is beneficial to carry the "gay gene", because it means
that more of your descendants don't die, even if some of them won't procreate
- producing a net gain in the propagation of your genes on the whole,
ironically. That would trigger selection, once such a gene appears.

~~~
meruru
>Suppose it is beneficial to carry the "gay gene", because it means that more
of your descendants don't die, even if some of them won't procreate

That doesn't work because even though less of your gay descendants will
starve, the straight organisms in the population will also reap the benefits
and they'll still be at an evolutionary advantage.

~~~
int_19h
I didn't mean to imply that all descendants would be gay, only that all would
carry the gene and pass it to their descendants in turn. Most would still
breed.

And in your original example, the straight organisms still die in the end. So
over the lifetime of multiple colonies, the ones that survive would carry more
"cooperative" genes, no? I mean, isn't this basically how biological altruism
develops in general?

~~~
meruru
>I didn't mean to imply that all descendants would be gay, only that all would
carry the gene and pass it to their descendants in turn. Most would still
breed.

It doesn't matter. It's a gene that, in the long term, slightly increases the
chance of every other individual reproducing while immediately greatly
decreasing its own chance. That just doesn't work.

>over the lifetime of multiple colonies, the ones that survive would carry
more "cooperative" genes

Evolution already works extremely slowly when its forces are applied to
individual organisms. Any theory that requires evolution to act on entire
populations is extremely unlikely. Also, you'd need a way for the gay gene to
spread among a colony population in the first place in order for that colony
to be selected in the way you postulate.

Another problem is that if ever a cooperative (in this particular sense of
abstaining from reproduction) population meets an uncooperative one,
eventually the uncooperative genes are going to take over again. It would need
to speciate before that happens.

>I mean, isn't this basically how biological altruism develops in general?

I'm not really familiar with the concept, but it's easy to predict some
things: Biological altruism will generally mean an organism helping another at
a small or no cost and/or the benefited organism is a close relative that
likely shares the gene. The gay gene fits neither criteria. The examples on
Wikipedia do:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism_%28biology%29#Example...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism_%28biology%29#Examples_in_vertebrates)

Lastly, nature has other ways to solve overpopulation. Organisms can evolve to
require less food, change their diets to something else, become aggressive
towards other individuals of the same species (killing the competition), or
best of all: combining those last two things by resorting to cannibalism (this
was the actual result of an experiment that applied evolutionary pressure over
populations of insects).

~~~
int_19h
> It's a gene that, in the long term, slightly increases the chance of every
> other individual reproducing while immediately greatly decreasing its own
> chance. That just doesn't work.

Don't forget that all those other individuals in vicinity carry some of the
same genes - the closer, the more genetically related they are, in general.
You'd need to compute how much that small but broad effect can add up to the
total percentage of genes propagated indirectly.

I get that it doesn't sound very "common sense", but I don't think it can be
rejected outright without doing the numbers and modeling first. Which is
exactly what people in the field do, and if they say that it's plausible (i.e.
that they can come up with models that are consistent with observations, and
that demonstrate stable propagation), then it can't be dismissed out of hand.
Look up "group selection" for the kind of models that they use.

Also, that Wikipedia article gives some far more extreme examples of
biological altruism, like self-sacrificing ants - noting that this is still
evolutionary viable because of how much shared genetic material is there in
the rest of the colony (indeed, one could say that the very social structure
of ant colonies with non-reproducing workers is an extreme example of
biological altruism taken to 11 by evolution). And then we have our own social
mores, which have included literal self-sacrifice for the sake of one's
"tribe" as a virtue for pretty much as long as we can trace human culture back
- and it's not on its way out, either. Clearly, we aren't ants, but in this
case, is it really a qualitative difference, or simply the result of the same
process applied to different starting conditions and different evolutionary
pressures, producing different points on the same scale?

Side note: when I was digging into modern evolutionary theory, one surprising
(to me) thing that came up is that there have been substantial revisions in
the estimated speed of evolution as a process since Darwin's days. Sexual
selection in particular is a mechanism that turned out to work much faster
than originally anticipated, and can in fact push other traits that wouldn't
be viable otherwise over the viability threshold. One theory is that it
developed in the first place because faster selection - i.e. adaptability - is
itself a selected-for trait, so it's kinda getting very meta. And there's a
fringe but intriguing argument that our human culture (and its building
blocks, like language) is, essentially, a further development along these
lines to reduce the lag even further - memes can change faster than genes, so
population groups that rely less on genetically hardcoded behavior and more on
transmitted social mores, are more adaptable. But of course the genes are
still there, so those transmitted behaviors that can be implemented on top of
hardwired stuff are going to be stronger, even if the original effect was very
subtle - e.g. modern concepts of fairness and justice (presumably evolved from
hardwired behaviors like parochial altruism).

~~~
meruru
In the case of ants, the beneficiary of the altruism/self-sacrifice is the
queen, which always carries the gene. That's why I said:

>Biological altruism will generally mean an organism helping another at a
small or no cost and/or the benefited organism is a close relative that likely
shares the gene.

Ants and bees are extreme examples of the later.

In your theory, the only beneficiaries of fewer individuals reproducing are
the straight (and bi) individuals who are still reproducing. It's a really bad
theory to explain homosexuality and I don't know why anyone would insist on it
when it's so easy to come up with better ones. Just think of something that
would benefit the individuals carrying the genes themselves. Maybe an
attraction to muscles (or some other manly characteristic in that species)
that leads to stronger offspring when the individual mates with muscular
females, but can go too far sometimes leading to homosexuality.

>one surprising (to me) thing that came up is that there have been substantial
revisions in the estimated speed of evolution as a process since Darwin's
days. Sexual selection in particular is a mechanism that turned out to work
much faster than originally anticipated, and can in fact push other traits
that wouldn't be viable otherwise over the viability threshold. One theory is
that it developed in the first place because faster selection - i.e.
adaptability - is itself a selected-for trait, so it's kinda getting very
meta.

That's actually really interesting! Got any good links on that? The speed of
evolution is something that sometimes bothers me when looking at highly
complex adaptations.

~~~
int_19h
Most of my reading about this was in Russian, and I don't remember the exact
sources that were cited there. This particular stuff was mentioned kinda in
passing in a broader conversation on evolution of human behavior, as an
explanation of how it could get so complicated so fast. But searching around,
it looks like there are some very specific papers on it - e.g. this looks
interesting:

[http://www.unm.edu/~gfmiller/new_papers2/todd%201997%20biodi...](http://www.unm.edu/~gfmiller/new_papers2/todd%201997%20biodiversity.pdf)

"This paper presents theoretical arguments and simulation results in support
of our view that sexual selection creates new fi tness peaks (and thus new
niches), helps species escape from old local optima to find new, better peaks,
and promotes speciation to increase the number of lineages searching for
peaks."

