15 ms·

Homosexuality in giraffes and other non-human animals

121 points by okket 8y ago

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
4FNET7 8y ago
Technically speaking, the animals he is talking about are bisexual. But this was a truly great article. Please post more like this, queerty.
- ec109685 8y ago
  How do you know they are bisexual?
- rectangletangle 8y ago
  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 8y ago
    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 8y ago
      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 8y ago
        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 8y ago
        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.
  - jessaustin 8y ago
    ...really high prevalence (94%), which suggests it’s an adaptation... I don't have anything to back this up scientifically, but ISTM this phenomenon doesn't have to be adaptive in and of itself, since it could be a side effect of something else that is adaptive. (Human example: getting sick from sickle cell is not adaptive, but resistance to malaria is.) TFA describes female giraffes as only occasionally fertile, and somewhat aloof even then. Perhaps it takes a real horn-dog to persist given all the rejection. Well that's nice once every two years, but what is a horn-dog to do the rest of the time? What do human horn-dogs do when placed in environments without women, like prison? It's interesting that the inherent ungainliness of giraffes allows females to reject coitus as they choose. Of course this is just an idea, which, even if it describes some of the male giraffes, may not describe all of them. I don't mean to suggest that homosexual giraffe sex is in any respect less important than heterosexual giraffe sex.
fenwick67 8y ago
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.
- have_faith 8y ago
  Exactly, an appeal to nature is not needed. Humans could be the only species ever observed with homosexual traits and it wouldn't make a difference when it comes to matters of whether something is ok or not.
  - lisper 8y ago
    Neither of you are wrong, but given that this is a political issue as much as it is a [insert your favorite label here] issue, I think it's a mistake to pass up an opportunity to discredit the opposing side's fallacious arguments.
- ulucs 8y ago
  I think it's bad, as it opens the door for the "valid" retort of ducks being necrophiliac. Is a fallacious argument the hill we want to die on? I'd rather just support the positives of a liberal approach.
  - lisper 8y ago
    It's easy to side-step that. If someone argues that homosexuality is wrong because it's unnatural just incorporate the retort into the counter-argument: there are gay giraffes and necrophiliac ducks, and, while we're at it, lots of species that eat their own young. Do you really think we should be modeling our behavior on what is "natural"?
    - k__ 8y ago
MatekCopatek 8y ago
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.com/2009/04/natural-sexuality.html http://web.archive.org/web/20140723175514/http://www.blaghag...
- ng12 8y ago
  > 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 8y ago
    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.
    - ummonk 8y ago
      Wait, how does its existence in the animal kingdom affect the likelihood that it is innate vs. environmentally acquired?
      - zwkrt 8y ago
        In a baysian mindset, I could have the hypothesis that homosexuality in humans is innate. At this point in time I have no proirs so I think the chances are 50/50. After gathering additional evidence that other animals "natuarlly" have same sex relations, that should shift the needle for me some amount in one direction, seeing as how I do not believe humans to be "more" but just differently evolved, and having evolved on the same planet in a complex web of species divergence with these other animals.
sigmaprimus 8y ago
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!?!
- ams6110 8y ago
  Get an ad blocker. I can't remember when I last saw ads on a website. I recommend uBlock Origin.
- meruru 8y ago
  https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ublock-origin/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ublock-origin...
- 908087 8y ago
  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 8y ago
    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 8y ago
      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.
AlexTWithBeard 8y ago
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 8y ago
  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 8y ago
    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 8y ago
      >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.
lorriman 8y ago
I saw a dog on heat being followed around by a cluster of dogs. One of them tried to hump her head. Animals have no idea what they're doing. Calling them 'homosexual' is highly presumptuous. A lot of dogs, for instance, will hump a leg. Is that 'natural'? Nope? Genes for it? Nope? Hormones and lack of opportunity? Yup. Even teens get crushes on other teens of the same sex, but grow up and they are totally heterosexual and couldn't imagine doing anything with the same sex. It's just mixed up feelings and hormones and confusion.
chess93 8y ago
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 8y ago
  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 8y ago
    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
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - kakarot 8y ago
      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.
  - ElFitz 8y ago
    Differentiating the facts from speculations and of the projections of our perceptions and experiences as a species onto other species? Who am I to say why an animal who's mind I have no insight into is having sex? I wouldn't even dare to begin supposing pretending I have any idea of what's going on in an octopus' mind(s). (Although I did once read a fascinating fiction on some blog about exactly that. Can't find it now)
nintendo95 8y ago
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.
- badgerigar 8y ago
  There are no homosexual monkeys. While nearly all mammalian species have homosexual sex, homosexual individuals have only been observed in sheep and humans.
  - fastball 8y ago
    What exactly is the distinction being made here?
- wyxuan 8y ago
  discrimination is a purely human thing. animals see sex and reproduction as a leisure activity, and as a result, don't nearly give it as much though as much as humans do. Plus they don't have the bible, which can be interpreted as not allowing for homosexual relations.
  - refurb 8y ago
    Really? If you took an animal and shaved it, you don’t think it would be ostracized even though nothing is wrong with it and it has no impact on its peers? I’d bet it would. I’m sure animals do it based on behavior as well. If a peer is acting sick (even if not), I’m sure their behavior changes.
    - mkl 8y ago
      Actually, no: https://designbump.com/when-these-chimpanzees-saw-their-strange-looking-brother-how-they-treated-him-is-eye-opening/4/ https://designbump.com/when-these-chimpanzees-saw-their-stra... or https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leicestershire-36924808 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leicestershire-36924808 Sorry about the blogspam link. I have seen more reputable articles about chimpanzees with alopecia, but my search skills are failing me now. The gist always seems to be that hairless chimpanzees (there have been several in zoos) aren't treated differently by others.
aaron695 8y ago
So homosexuals like having sex with females? Is it ok to assume this about a homosexual person? I think not. So this article does nothing but prove bi-sexuality might exist in the animal kingdom. You'd have to prove the giraffes know the difference between male giraffes and female giraffes. When animals have sex with dead animals are the necrophilic or confused? This article isn't based in science.
cjdrake 8y ago
I'm so glad such interesting content is hitting the front page of HN. This was right underneath "Computer Scientists Create Reprogrammable Molecular Computing System". Who wants to read about reprogrammable molecular computing systems, when I can read about gay giraffes. Top quality stuff, guys. Carry on.

121 points by okket 8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

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

ec109685 8y ago
How do you know they are bisexual?
rectangletangle 8y ago
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 8y ago
  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 8y ago
    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 8y ago
      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 8y ago
        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.
- jessaustin 8y ago
  ...really high prevalence (94%), which suggests it’s an adaptation... I don't have anything to back this up scientifically, but ISTM this phenomenon doesn't have to be adaptive in and of itself, since it could be a side effect of something else that is adaptive. (Human example: getting sick from sickle cell is not adaptive, but resistance to malaria is.) TFA describes female giraffes as only occasionally fertile, and somewhat aloof even then. Perhaps it takes a real horn-dog to persist given all the rejection. Well that's nice once every two years, but what is a horn-dog to do the rest of the time? What do human horn-dogs do when placed in environments without women, like prison? It's interesting that the inherent ungainliness of giraffes allows females to reject coitus as they choose. Of course this is just an idea, which, even if it describes some of the male giraffes, may not describe all of them. I don't mean to suggest that homosexual giraffe sex is in any respect less important than heterosexual giraffe sex.

fenwick67 8y ago

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.

have_faith 8y ago
Exactly, an appeal to nature is not needed. Humans could be the only species ever observed with homosexual traits and it wouldn't make a difference when it comes to matters of whether something is ok or not.
- lisper 8y ago
  Neither of you are wrong, but given that this is a political issue as much as it is a [insert your favorite label here] issue, I think it's a mistake to pass up an opportunity to discredit the opposing side's fallacious arguments.
ulucs 8y ago
I think it's bad, as it opens the door for the "valid" retort of ducks being necrophiliac. Is a fallacious argument the hill we want to die on? I'd rather just support the positives of a liberal approach.
- lisper 8y ago
  It's easy to side-step that. If someone argues that homosexuality is wrong because it's unnatural just incorporate the retort into the counter-argument: there are gay giraffes and necrophiliac ducks, and, while we're at it, lots of species that eat their own young. Do you really think we should be modeling our behavior on what is "natural"?
  - k__ 8y ago

MatekCopatek 8y ago

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.com/2009/04/natural-sexuality.html http://web.archive.org/web/20140723175514/http://www.blaghag...

ng12 8y ago
> 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 8y ago
  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.
  - ummonk 8y ago
    Wait, how does its existence in the animal kingdom affect the likelihood that it is innate vs. environmentally acquired?
    - zwkrt 8y ago
      In a baysian mindset, I could have the hypothesis that homosexuality in humans is innate. At this point in time I have no proirs so I think the chances are 50/50. After gathering additional evidence that other animals "natuarlly" have same sex relations, that should shift the needle for me some amount in one direction, seeing as how I do not believe humans to be "more" but just differently evolved, and having evolved on the same planet in a complex web of species divergence with these other animals.

sigmaprimus 8y ago

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!?!

ams6110 8y ago
Get an ad blocker. I can't remember when I last saw ads on a website. I recommend uBlock Origin.
meruru 8y ago
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ublock-origin/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ublock-origin...
908087 8y ago
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 8y ago
  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 8y ago
    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.

AlexTWithBeard 8y ago

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 8y ago
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 8y ago
  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 8y ago
    >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.

lorriman 8y ago

I saw a dog on heat being followed around by a cluster of dogs. One of them tried to hump her head. Animals have no idea what they're doing. Calling them 'homosexual' is highly presumptuous. A lot of dogs, for instance, will hump a leg. Is that 'natural'? Nope? Genes for it? Nope? Hormones and lack of opportunity? Yup. Even teens get crushes on other teens of the same sex, but grow up and they are totally heterosexual and couldn't imagine doing anything with the same sex. It's just mixed up feelings and hormones and confusion.

chess93 8y ago

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 8y ago
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 8y ago
  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
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - kakarot 8y ago
    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.
- ElFitz 8y ago
  Differentiating the facts from speculations and of the projections of our perceptions and experiences as a species onto other species? Who am I to say why an animal who's mind I have no insight into is having sex? I wouldn't even dare to begin supposing pretending I have any idea of what's going on in an octopus' mind(s). (Although I did once read a fascinating fiction on some blog about exactly that. Can't find it now)

nintendo95 8y ago

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.

badgerigar 8y ago
There are no homosexual monkeys. While nearly all mammalian species have homosexual sex, homosexual individuals have only been observed in sheep and humans.
- fastball 8y ago
  What exactly is the distinction being made here?
wyxuan 8y ago
discrimination is a purely human thing. animals see sex and reproduction as a leisure activity, and as a result, don't nearly give it as much though as much as humans do. Plus they don't have the bible, which can be interpreted as not allowing for homosexual relations.
- refurb 8y ago
  Really? If you took an animal and shaved it, you don’t think it would be ostracized even though nothing is wrong with it and it has no impact on its peers? I’d bet it would. I’m sure animals do it based on behavior as well. If a peer is acting sick (even if not), I’m sure their behavior changes.
  - mkl 8y ago
    Actually, no: https://designbump.com/when-these-chimpanzees-saw-their-strange-looking-brother-how-they-treated-him-is-eye-opening/4/ https://designbump.com/when-these-chimpanzees-saw-their-stra... or https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leicestershire-36924808 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leicestershire-36924808 Sorry about the blogspam link. I have seen more reputable articles about chimpanzees with alopecia, but my search skills are failing me now. The gist always seems to be that hairless chimpanzees (there have been several in zoos) aren't treated differently by others.

aaron695 8y ago

So homosexuals like having sex with females? Is it ok to assume this about a homosexual person? I think not. So this article does nothing but prove bi-sexuality might exist in the animal kingdom. You'd have to prove the giraffes know the difference between male giraffes and female giraffes. When animals have sex with dead animals are the necrophilic or confused? This article isn't based in science.

cjdrake 8y ago

I'm so glad such interesting content is hitting the front page of HN. This was right underneath "Computer Scientists Create Reprogrammable Molecular Computing System". Who wants to read about reprogrammable molecular computing systems, when I can read about gay giraffes. Top quality stuff, guys. Carry on.