Talk:Homosexual behavior in animals/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Penguin reference

In the section Research On Homosexual Behavior in Animals it is stated:

"Others have argued that social organization theory is inadequate because it cannot account for some homosexual behaviors, for example, penguin species where same-sex individuals mate for life and refuse to pair with females when given the chance.[23]"

This link no longer works or the page does not exist. Also, just how credible is an activist website in general? I obviously haven't seen the page. Did/Does it contain references to its sources? Was its source a newspaper human interest article that was anything more than a reporter noting two males involved in some kind of activity they thought was 'gay' and rushed off to meet the deadline, grabs a quote about animal homosexuality from wikipedia and another article is in print that a gay activist website links to and voila, a scientific sounding confirmation of another gay animal. I mean I just can't tell that the basis for the mention of these penguins is anything other than a flight of fancy. I realize it may have once been better sourced but it isn't now. ^ a b "Gay Penguins Resist 'Aversion Therapy'". 365 Gay.com. February 11, 2005. http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/02/021105penguins.htm. Retrieved 2007-09-10. David4442 (talk) 01:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I updated a few of those sources last week, then got distracted by other issues. Yes, the sourcing is a mess, but it's not hard to find reliable back-ups, at least it wasn't for me, and I'm pretty lazy. Mark it with a fact tag, and if you can't find a source, I'll add it to my to-do list. Auntie E. (talk) 01:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree that the sourcing is a mess. I have found two or three more already. I'm off to figure out how to fact tag, or if anyone is so inclined you could explain it to me, please.

In the meantime this source is bad too, from the same section: "Its use in animal studies has been controversial for two main reasons: animal sexuality and motivating factors have been and remain poorly understood, and the term has strong cultural implications in western society that are irrelevant for species other than humans.[13]" ^ Dorit, Robert (September-October 2004). "Rethinking Sex". American Scientist. http://www.americanscientist.org/template/BookReviewTypeDetail/assetid/35487. Retrieved 2007-09-11. I think this is one of the more important statements in this article to properly understand the issue and the state of scientist's beliefs and do not quibble with the content. I could edit it slightly, source it and remove the current footnote and be confident of it if no-one has an objection. I don't believe i would be changing the substance of the statement.David4442 (talk) 01:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

oops the above is from the section "Applying the term "homosexual" to animals" and not "Research On Homosexual Behavior in Animals" sorry about thatDavid4442 (talk) 01:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I fixed the dead link.Petter Bøckman (talk) 08:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello! I fact tagged Footnote #23 because it is a dead link, and therefore the statement is unsourced. I think there is some confusion because i have made arguments which say that other source material is ok in reliability if gay activist websites are. That is not why i fact-tagged. I fact tagged because this link does not work. Please check to be sure a link works when it is fact-tagged rather than assuming something else. I proposed editing this in discussion above. This discussion references TWO separate links, one of which was fixed. 24.206.128.207 (talk) 19:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

A dead link does not mean unsourced, it simply means the online verifiability for that exact link is at least temporarily dead. It can be fixed or replaced depending on if the page was moved or archived. -- Banjeboi 14:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Incest

A user has put in information on incest in animals in the lead paragraph. I strongly suggest removing it. Incest is 1) not relevant to this article, and 2) not a behaviour that has only in recent time become understood. Incest boils down to "outbreeding" and "inbreeding" groups of animals, and is, unlike homosexuality, part of textbook zoology. Petter Bøckman (talk) 21:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to un-merge

List of animals displaying homosexual behavior has been hastily merged into this article and then blanked. The list was tagged for 30 minutes and then merged with no opportunity for discussion. My restoration of the list has been reverted (rather than discussing in accordance with BRD). I propose this the articles are restored and the proposal to merge discussed if there is interest. Ash (talk) 22:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely no need to merge these articles. Petter Bøckman (talk) 08:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted the merged-in text as the above list has been un-blanked. Ash (talk) 10:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately Jstanierm (talk · contribs) has merged in the list for a second time without a consensus on the previously challenged merge, see (diff). As s/he has accused me of edit-warring based on my one revert, I am reticent to restore the article without a clear consensus. Ash (talk) 15:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I have asked several times for a reason the articles should not be merged. If you want to discuss then please do so, I am happy to hear any arguments against the merger. I have reverted your edits because your only issue was

a "lack of discussion.". But as I have said to you before that is not an appropriate reason. Again I am asking why the articles should not be merged. Jstanierm (talk) 17:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed merge is dumb. One is a list, the other isnt. Like GDP and List of countries by GDP (nominal)

Jstanierm, you assume homosexuality is contrary to Darwinian evolution which is not the case. [1] SO thats WP:OR. Linking incest with homosexuality is WP:OR. And if there are no recessive negative genetic conditions, incest could be advantageous from an evolutinary point of view. Phoenix of9 17:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

References to other 'non-mainstream' sexual proclivities in animals

I included a small reference to incest as observed in animals and added the page in the 'see also' portion.

Taking a cue from this page I also created a stub article "Incestuous behavior in animals." I am not a biologist or a scientist of any kind but I am fascinated in these kind of divergent behaviors being found in animals. I would like to see the stub article flourish. I know there's lots of documentation out there. Jstanierm (talk) 18:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted this addition as homosexual behaviour is not the same thing as incestuous behaviour. Your additions appear non-neutral, as per the guidance of WP:BRD, you have attempted to make changes and they have been reverted, so now please discuss before attempting further reverts or additions. Please note the talk page convention of adding new comments at the bottom of the page. Ash (talk) 10:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

'Homosexual' behavior in animals is interesting because from a strictly Darwinian point of view, it is sexual activity that does not result in the continuation of a genetic strain. Similarly, incestuous activity in animals is sexual activity that does not diversify the strain and can potentially weaken a species. No doubt there are many interesting and diverse explanations for each species, but still these are curious behaviors. I do not understand your 'non-neutral' comment, because I did not realize that there was a side to take on this matter, or that the behavior of animals is some kind of political issue. Furthermore, I already spoke to you about the merged article, I do not understand why you have yet reverted the edit once again without a good explanation. I am reverting that merge, I again ask you to please offer a reason why we should not merge the two articles.Jstanierm (talk) 14:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

No, you did not discuss the merge with me, you promoted your point of view and accused me of edit-warring (diff). You are taking the article off-topic and creating an unnecessary content fork. Revert your additions if you want to your claims of having a neutral point of view and wishes to discuss the matter to be taken seriously. Ash (talk) 15:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed merge is dumb. One is a list, the other isnt. Like GDP and List of countries by GDP (nominal) Phoenix of9 13:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Jstanierm, you assume homosexuality is contrary to Darwinian evolution which is not the case. [2] SO thats [OR]. Linking incest with homosexuality is [OR]. And if there are no recessive negative genetic conditions, incest could be advantageous from an evolutinary point of view. Phoenix of9 17:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Phoenix, I understand that you may feel strongly in your personal opinions about homosexual behavior in animals; however, this is an encyclopedia. This article is clear that homosexuality is common and found in nearly every animal species. Having an article that lists every species that displays this behavior has notability issues, i.e., in order for it to be complete and accurate the article will presumably and trivially include every single species on the planet. If the article is not complete or accurate then the encyclopedia appears unprofessional.

Also, this is clearly a contentious issue for which no resolution has been arrived and for which there has been virtually no discussion with regards to exactly why the article should or should not be merged (other than your assertion that the merge is 'dumb'). Your revert was inappropriate.Jstanierm (talk) 17:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Ash, I accept your discussion regarding kin recognition; please note that this is not at issue.Jstanierm (talk) 17:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

This is an article on homosexuality as a phenomenon. The list is a list of all animals registered by Bagemihl as having some sort of homosexually related practises. Some of these animals do not practice homosexuality as described in this article, but are cases where hormonal affliction makes for “transgender” individuals or where same-sex sociality is common, and same-sex sexuality is expected. Merging the list with the article is a case of merging, if not apples and oranges, at least two kinds of apples. Basically, not a god idea.

As for the idea that homosexuality can not contribute to Darwinian fitness, I suggest you read this article through. Petter Bøckman (talk) 18:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I am sure you didn't intentionally take my comment out of context, but if you re-read what I actually wrote I never said that 'homsexuality can not contribute to Darwinian fitness.' What I said in fact was that homosexuality and close-kin sexual pairings are both *interesting* from a Darwinian point of view.Jstanierm (talk) 18:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

RfC Proposed merge of list into article on homosexual behaviour in animals

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Resolved

 – Apart from the proposer, on the basis of the list being trivial, all other opinions were against a merge. Ash (talk) 06:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

---

An issue has arisen regarding whether "List of animals displaying homosexual behavior" should be merged with "Homosexual behavior in animals".Jstanierm (talk) 17:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• Against (reason above). Petter Bøckman (talk) 18:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
• Against There is no clear benefit in a merge. The list is substantial enough to make integration as prose impossible and merging as an embedded list a pointless change. Ash (talk) 18:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
• For there is no need for a separate page trivially listing every observed species participating in what is accepted as universal behavior. There is no list of animals that breathe oxygen with lungs that I know and that is not even a universal behavior. The list is trivial, lacks notability, cites the same source over 100 times and basically only reiterates what is said in this article in more detail. So much coverage on an unremarkable activity betrays the enclyclopdia's npov. Jstanierm (talk) 18:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
• Two points:

1. The sentence in the lede of this page "A 1999 review by researcher Bruce Bagemihl shows that homosexual behavior has been observed in close to 1500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them." says it all. Why would we also need a list of those 1500 (or 500) species?

2. It is not a "List of animals displaying homosexual behavior", but a list of animals observed to display homosexual behaviour (and also transgender behaviour). It seems fairly clear that there are likely to be many more species in which such behaviour is manifest, and that we are just listing those where it has been observed. What is the point? Thehalfone (talk) 10:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, do you have an opinion on the RfC? We are not discussing the rationale for existence of the list, only the proposed merge. Ash (talk) 10:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the point of the list article. I don't think that much of that article would be useful here. Any information worthy of being contained in the lede there should certainly be here, but then it should be even if the list is kept. The "list" part does not belong here. So I favour deleting the list and merging any useful content here, I think it will inevitably be more of a deletion than a merge. Thehalfone (talk) 10:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be no consensus to either merge the list here, delete the listed examples off this article or delete the list articles altogether. That you don't see the point is a valid opinion and others simply disagree. If you wish to try to delete the list article you certainly can try but based on the last attempt it seems wholly unlikely. -- Banjeboi 14:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• Against It's justified to have an extra article on the list. To merge the two would lead to an overly long article. I don't see any benefit at all. SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 10:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Against. Ridiculous, That list is huge and generally only includes animals that researchers have named, and generally is limited to just a link to each animals' article. This article includes some examples to show the diversity among species and practices. Merging would compromise all. -- Banjeboi 11:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Against Compare GDP vs List of countries by GDP (nominal) Phoenix of9 03:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Against It would make this article too long. However, I do think the lead for the list is rather too detailed and duplicates too much information form this article. Richerman (talk) 11:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Against. The list article can be improved as Richerman says. It should not be put into this article. MiRroar (talk) 23:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Incidently, this looks more like a vote rather than a discussion. I realise this will be a sensitive area for some but let's try and find concensus! Thehalfone (talk) 10:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I think folks are simply registering their opinion rather than belaboring philosophical points which is not what this is for. The question is if folks believe a merge should happen and the underlying consensus seems to suggest that folks are opposed to a merge. -- Banjeboi 14:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Propose speedy close - I suggest this RfC is now closed with a SNOW-type rationale against the merge. Running for a full 30 days seems pointless as it is unlikely that any fresh viewpoints will be revealed. Ash (talk) 14:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd say let it go so no one feels the RfC has been gamed. Having stated that I would have closed it myself if I hadn't already participated so anyone one else is certainly welcome to close but I'm in no rush, we have plenty of other work to do and can revisit this if needed. -- Banjeboi 15:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed; "consensus seen to be done" should always trump "housekeeping". Ash (talk) 14:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• Against. On an only slightly related note: some of you who are reading this are gay, and are proud. We get it, and a good many of us simply don't give a rats ass (like... me). Yea, there are bigots out there that will do terrible things to you or your friends just because you or they are gay, and I do feel bad about that and do speak out against it (or do more then that, sometimes) when I'm made aware of it, but... I'm not one of them! Just because I'm a straight, sports loving, beer guzzling, white American male no more makes me the "enemy" as you being homosexual makes you worthy of a beatdown. Let's get on with actually building some content around here, OK?
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 10:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
• Against Lists as long as that one merit their own linked page, with a seperate heading, hyperlink, and sumerizing paragraph--Eion (talk) 23:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vandalism?

User:72.39.250.213 has made several questionable edits to this article. I am not an expert on the subject, so I didn't revert them. Will someone please check the history? Thanks.

Not vandalism at all. I removed content which presents a great deal of bias in addition to content which contradicts other information in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.39.246.41 (talk) 01:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Arguments for homosexuality in humans

The second paragraph of this page isn't relevant to this article. It reads "The frequent observation of homosexual behavior in animals has been seen as an argument for the acceptance of homosexuality in humans[...]" This page is about homosexuality in non-human animals and shouldn't contain any information on the arguments for or against LGBT practices in humans, and some might view the paragraph as promoting a certain view point. I suggest that the paragraph is moved to a page which is more relevant to arguments for or against homosexuality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpsousa4 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree. I think it should be part of this article to say some words about the way this topic is discussed in society. Lova Falk talk 19:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

What with humans being animals and all. Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

While humans are animals, there's a whole other page on human sexuality. This page is about sexuality in non-human animals and shouldn't talk about the arguments for how "natural" or "unnatural" homosexuality is; that's a completely different topic. In addition to the irrelevance of arguments for or against the ethics of homosexuality, the article contains weasel words. ". . . many experts in the field are reluctant . . ." ". . . Some consider it also counters . . ." ". . . with some arguing that it is illogical to use animal behavior . . ." Really, the only unbiased and decently worded part of this paragraph is the first half of the first sentence ("behavior in animals has been seen as an argument") and even it has weasel words (although they may be considered a fuzzy exception, so I'm leaving it untagged.) If this paragraph isn't moved, it should at least be reworded to reduce propaganda or bias and to include facts, or just removed altogether. Until then, I'm going to tag each of these sentences. Jpsousa4 (talk) 07:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The moral implication has very much been a factor in research on animal homosexuality, bout implicitly and explicitly. The two "fathers of the field", Bruce Bagemihl and Joan Roughgarden has written extensively on it in their works cited here, Bagemihl spending 2 full chapters and Roughgarden a third of her book exploring it. While the article is about homosexuality in animals, it would be dishonest not to bring up this subject. It is, if anything, to little mentioned. You may find it relevant that Bagemihls work has been cited in the Lawrence v. Texas case which ended up with the Texan Sodomy law being stricken. Petter Bøckman (talk) 18:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't disagree with you that it should be at least mentioned slightly; however, I couldn't let the biased language go. It seemed as though people were tacitly arguing with one another and using wikipedia as a front. I edited the second paragraph slightly. I removed language that could appear to be biased, included the court case you mentioned (kudos!) and rearranged some of the existing information to fit better. There was also poorly sourced material which made a claim that the source said nothing about -- I completely removed it. And, in keeping with my initial intentions, I linked the page to a separate page which readers interested in such arguments may find more relevant. Jpsousa4 (talk) 06:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Article move

I see the article has been moved - where was the discussion about this? Richerman (talk) 17:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• I propose that the move is reverted, as there is no discussion or consensus for it and I am personally against it. There is no need to clarify "non-human", considering that there is a section on humans in the article that then directs the reader to homosexuality. In that manner, since humans are included in the article, putting "non-human" is clearly false. Anyone else think this move should be undone? Silverseren^C 18:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Agreed. If you look at User talk:Heegoop he or she seems to have a history of moving pages without discussion. Richerman (talk) 18:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Should we just move it back? Silverseren^C 21:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
      • I can't see why not. Richerman (talk) 21:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
        • I agree with move back, "non-human animals" is just unnecessary. The Interior (talk) 21:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Done. Silverseren^C 21:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Good!--Petter Bøckman (talk) 12:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, compare to other existing articles such as infanticide (zoology), Homosexuality (zoology) would be a better choice of article title. But of course, discussion first. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 13:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The main issue with that is that just using the term "homosexuality" by itself connotes a sexuality, which is what we don't want to give the impression of. There is no way for scientists to say that any animal species has a "sexuality" (which is a man-made concept anyways), which is why this article is titled "Homosexual behavior in animals". And before you point it out, "Homosexual behavior (zoology)" really doesn't work, it sounds wrong. The current title is the most descriptive for the subject matter. Silverseren^C 15:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Why is this Start-Class?

I wonder how long ago this article was classified. It looks quite lengthy and comprehensive to me, and every section contains references. How/when does an article get reclassified? - 68.50.246.127 (talk) 11:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Good question, I have tried in vain to find the procedure for reassessment. If we are to follow the guidelines, this article is at least B-class, quite possibly A-class.Petter Bøckman (talk) 12:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

You would have go to each project page that has a banner on here and ask if someone could reassess it. However, if you think it's ready it would be easier to put in a request for a Good Article assessment see:Wikipedia:Good article nominations. The nominator will have to be prepared to deal with anything the assessor brings up though. Would you be up for that Petter? You seem to be the one who knows most about the subject. Richerman (talk)

Ouch, I'm really struggling to get Labyrinthodontia up and running, not sure about this one. Is this one good enough for Good Article status? I'm not sure, and I haven't had the chance to follow the field for the last couple of years. I won't be able to do it on my own. Petter Bøckman (talk) 17:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Homosexual/Bisexual/Transgender

This article is rife with bisexual erasure. Very little distinction is made between bisexual behavior (willing to have same-sex sexual encounters), and homosexual behavior (refuses opposite-sex couplings). While it can be sometimes difficult to make the distinction (issues like availability of partners crops up), there is obviously a world of difference between the sexuality of, say, bonobos and rams. In the first section, "Applying the term 'homosexual' to animals," this is discussed, however, conflation between the two is still made throughout the article. Also, since the relevance/context of the topic is often times whether homosexuality in humans is "natural", this really is an important distinction to make.

First of all, this is offensive to bisexuals and the rest of the queer community. The conflation of queer people with homosexual people is one of the largest misconceptions we face. But it is also borderline factually inaccurate, and makes the article difficult to interpret. Since the lack of distinct terms obscures this distinction, I think the best course of action would be to separate the "purely homosexual" animals into a different section. Other distinctions could also be useful, for instance, whether homosexual behavior is practiced universally by the species, or by a minority.

The leading sentence in the article also mentions transgender behavior in animals. The only mention past this is in reference to American bison, where the justification given is that intersex bison are described with the same word as transgender people, by a particular group of people. This is absurd. The views of the Lakota people are simply irrelevant to the topic, even if the vocabulary of their language was really claiming any sort of fact. Even if you hold that intersex people are a subset of transgender people (or that transgender people are intersex), you would then want to mention all instances of intersexuality in animals, a daunting task. And even though this intersex = transgender claim is defensible, it is controversial at best. Furthermore, since being transgender is usually defined in terms of gender identity (and not gender expression), it is very unclear what transgender even means in reference to animals. I went ahead and edited the article to reflect this. 70.36.140.158 (talk) 07:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, it's not clear to me why cross species sex is given a section in this article. The implication seems to be that zoophilia falls under LGBT, a very controversial claim. I recommend deleting the section, perhaps leaving a link to Animal sexual behaviour#Cross species sex in the above section, simply as a related example of non-reproductive sexual behavior in animals.

I might also complain about fetishism (pigeons) and gang rape (bottlenose dolphins) as being outside of the article's scope and being offensive to queer people, but these aren't major issues. 70.36.140.158 (talk) 08:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sensitive to the issue of bisexual erasure for human beings -- but I think that in the context of this article, the expression "homosexual behavior" is being used to describe individual sex acts, not an individual animal's overall sexual behavior. If this is unclear, what different terms should we use?

The expression "bisexual behavior" makes sense if we use "behavior" to mean overall behavior instead of individual acts; or if the individual acts involve three or more participants. But if we assume a gender binary (and yes, I know that's problematic for humans), then any individual sex act with only two participants can only be heterosexual or homosexual.

Part of the problem here is that applying human sexual-orientation terms to other animals can be pretty silly. A ram can't tell us what he's thinking about when he mounts another ram: is he thinking about rams, or ewes, or both, or nothing at all? So calling the ram "homosexual" (or "bisexual") as an orientation is always going to be based solely on observed patterns of behavior only.

Obviously it would be wrong to call a ram "homosexual" if he habitually mounts both rams and ewes. But in the vocabulary of this article, we might say that the ram engages in both homosexual and heterosexual behaviors. Does that make sense? What vocabulary would you suggest? --FOo (talk) 18:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

There is research that would support both a bisexual and trans section and maybe useful to discuss the differences and how the researchers who study this view the subject.```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.9.151 (talk) 07:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Good points are made here, but I would suggest to sticking to a biological view of the topic, which would best serve this rather good article's neutrality. I think phrases such as "falls under LGBT" should be avoided as much as possible in these discussions. LGBT is a human view with a lot of value-concepts attached to it, which are irrelevant here. Whether something relevant to this article is offensive to LGBT people or not, it should not be included or excluded on that basis. And even if "the relevance/context of the topic is often times whether homosexuality in humans is 'natural'", it is all the more reason to keep it as neutral and scientific as possible, free from any possible allegation that is influenced by a human societal agenda. I agree with FOo that the article is better merely referring to "incidents of behaviour" or "acts" rather than any sense of an "orientation", unless there are documented evidence of a lifelong bonding perhaps, as may happen with some types of penguins and swans. But even then, a sense of "orientation" is problematic, since it conveys the idea of preference, where there may have been no preference to begin with (i.e. an equal chance of same-sex or opposite-sex bonding). — Gk sa (talk) 14:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Nasal Sex

'Amazon Dolphin The Amazon River dolphin or boto has been reported to form up in bands of 3–5 individuals enjoying group sex.[46] The groups usually comprise young males and sometimes one or two females. Sex is performed in non-reproductive ways, using snout, flippers and general rubbing, without regards to gender.[46] They will sometimes perform homosexual penetration of the blowhole, a hole homologous with the nostril of other mammals, making this the only known example of nasal sex in the animal kingdom.[47] The males will sometimes also perform sex with tucuxi males, a small porpoise.'

I was suprised by this and I read the reference. The reference says:

'A model — the one that invariably draws most giggles from the exhibition’s younger visitors — shows a male Amazonian river dolphin penetrating another’s blowhole. “This is the only example of nasal sex we have in nature,” Brockman observes.'

Its a model from an exhibition! Not the real thing, or even a photo of the real thing! Plus it is only one account of one species. It is not one species does it. I think this should be removed. Sweetie candykim (talk) 00:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The model is from the exhibition Against Nature?. The original referenec is a figure in Bagemihl. I'll see if I can dig up where he has it from.--Petter Bøckman (talk) 15:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes it was, but the reference is this [3] and the thing that was misquoted was 'A model — the one that invariably draws most giggles from the exhibition’s younger visitors — shows a male Amazonian river dolphin penetrating another’s blowhole. “This is the only example of nasal sex we have in nature,” Brockman observes.'

I just think it is jumping to massive conclusions based on a fictional model. I can't find any other references other than that same quote Sweetie candykim (talk) 00:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit: Better now? --Petter Bøckman (talk) 04:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's a much better source. Thanks Sweetie candykim (talk) 10:56, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Intercourse

Quick question: Do any of the types mentioned in the article -besides humans- perform same sex (genital) intercourse?Kazemita1 (talk) 15:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Whose genitals? It's really only mammals and some insects that have genitals that fit into each other. Homosexuality in these groups obviously can't involve genital intercourse. The whales come close though, using the genital infolding during male-male homosexuality. Female mammals necessarily use other body parts to performe penetration on their female partners. Genital rubbing is quite common in some primate species, though I don't know if it satisfy your critera for "intercource". Anal sex is quite common between males, thoug again it only involve the genitals for one of the partners. In birds and reptiles, the "cloacal kiss" performed between male-female partners can ofte be performed between same sex partner (a lot of examples). Really, read the article. Petter Bøckman (talk) 16:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. You mentioned anal sex. I wonder which species engage in anal sex (again other than humans)?Kazemita1 (talk) 23:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Giraffes are one, it seems:

"An example of overlooking homosexual behavior is noted by Bruce Bagemihl describing mating giraffes where nine out of ten pairings occur :between males.

Every male that sniffed a female was reported as sex, while anal intercourse with orgasm between males was only "revolving around" dominance, :competition or greetings.[22]"

I would also guess bonobos, they seem to do everything.

Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Please note that the Wikipedia is not a forum and that article talk pages are meant for discussion on how to improve the article, not discussions about the article topic. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 13:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and answered the user's question on their talk page in order to avoid this becoming a forum. Silverseren^C 20:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Roosevelt University's PSYCH 336 project

Hello, We are are going to be editing and adding to the Genetic and Physiological Basis section of this Wiki page for our Psych 336 class. Here are the resources we have found, and a rough outline of our ideas so far. Let us know what you think, we are open to suggestions. Thanks! We look forward to working with everyone. Tjm66680 (talk) 20:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Working Bibliography

Bpetersenroosevelt (talk) 19:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Outline

Research

1. Research (primarily hormonal research) is split based on the definition of homosexual behavior given by researchers. This can refer to either bisexual behavior (both heterosexual and homosexual behaviors exhibited by the same animal) or strictly homosexual behavior.
   

Physiological Basis

1. "There is no evidence to support a hormonal or other physiological 'explanation' of animal homosexuality, and there is considerable evidence against it" (Based on concept of animals with exclusive same-sex tendencies) (Biological Exuberance)
2. Sex Hormones (levels varying based on sexual orientation)

• "The close temporal relationship in many species between mate choice and mating behavior itself suggests that sex steroid hormones originating from the gonads might play some important role (in mate choice)." (Adkins-Regan)
• Estrogen synthesized by aromatase from testosterone (Adler)
  
• "Testosterone or estradiol treatments make females more likely to engage in homosexual behavior with other females." (Adler)
  

Neurobiological Basis

1. Specific neurotransmitters
2. Role of serotonin

Genetic Basis

1. Specific genes
2. Gene mutations that appear frequently

• Aromatase enzyme in preoptic area of brain is more active in homosexual rams (Adler)
  • Alteration and concentration of the aromatase enzyme

Bpetersenroosevelt (talk) 15:52, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Plans For Research
We plan to keep researching the role of specific genes, hormones, and neurotransmitters in animal sexual behavior, in addition to exploring the two opposing viewpoints concerning the role of hormones in affecting animal sexual behavior. Bpetersenroosevelt (talk) 15:52, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Instructor's comments

• Group, I edited your headings a bit to make your section stand out from other editors' comments
• You have a good start on finding resources. A number of your references are primary sources of info. Please continue to look for secondary sources of information. Please also put your references in appropriate format.
• Use the Wikimarkup cheatsheet to help organize your outline so that it's easier to read.
• Keep up the nice work!

Neuropsychprof (talk) 18:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Article additions

Research

A majority of the research available concerning animal homosexual behavior, lacks specification between animals that exhibit same-sex tendencies exclusively, and those that participate in heterosexual and homosexual mating activities interchangeably through out their lives. This lack of distinction has led to differing opinions and conflicting interpretations of collected data amongst scientists and researchers. For instance, Dr. Bruce Bagemihl, author of the book Biological Exuberence: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity, emphasizes that there is no anatomical or endocrinological differences between exclusively homosexual and exclusively heterosexual animal pairs.<ref>{{cite book|last=Bagemihl|first=Bruce|title=Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity|year=1999|publisher=St. Martin's Press|location=New York, New York}}</ref> However, if the definition of "homosexual behavior" is modified to include animals that participate in both same-sex and opposite-sex mating activities, then differences in the levels of key sex hormones, such as testosterone and estradiol, have been found when comparing the hormone levels of these animals to those that are exclusively heterosexual.

Physiological basis

A definite physiological explanation or reason for homosexual activity in animal species has not been agreed upon by researchers in the field. Numerous scholars are of the opinion that varying levels (either higher or lower) of the sex hormones in the animal<ref>{{journal|last=Adler|first=Tina|title=Animal's Fancies|journal=Society For Science And The Public|date=4|year=1997|month=Jan|volume=151|issue=1|pages=8-9|url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/3980720|accessdate=10/1/2012}}</ref>, in addition to the size of the animals gonads<ref>{{book|last=Bagemihl|first=Bruce|title=Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity|year=1999|publisher=St. Martin's Press|location=New York, New York}}</ref>, play a direct role in the sexual behavior and preference exhibited by that animal. Others firmly argue that there is no evidence to support these claims when comparing animals of a specific species that exhibit homosexual behavior exclusively and those that don't. Comprehensive endocrinological studies revealed that both sides of the argument were in fact accurate. Researchers found no evidence of differences in the measurements of the gonads, or the levels of the sex hormones of exclusively homosexual Western and Ring-billed Gulls<ref>{{book|title=Homosexual Behavior In Animals: An Evolutionary Perspective|year=2006|publisher=Cambridge Press|location=Cambridge|editor=Somer, Volker and Vasey, Paul L.|accessdate=9/31/2012}}</ref>. However, when analyzing these differences in "bisexual" rams, males were found to have lower levels of testosterone and estradiol in their blood, as well as smaller gonads then their heterosexual counterpart.

Additional studies pertaining to hormone involvement in homosexual behavior indicate that when administering treatments of testosterone and estradiol to female heterosexual animals, the elevated hormone levels increase the likelihood of homosexual behavior. Additionally, boosting the levels of sex hormones during an animal's pregnancy have been found to increase the likelihood of it birthing an offspring that exhibits homosexual tendencies.<ref>{{journal|last=Adler|first=Tina|title=Animal's Fancies|journal=Society For Science And The Public|date=4|year=1997|month=Jan|volume=151|issue=1|pages=8-9|url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/3980720|accessdate=10/1/2012}}</ref>

Tjm66680 (talk) 10:45 UTC 23 October 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpetersenroosevelt (talk • contribs) 16:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Neurobiological basis

A study conducted on fruit flies found that inhibiting the dopamine neurotransmitter inhibited lab-induced homosexual behavior. <ref>{{cite journal|last=Zuk|first=Marlene|title="Same-sex insects: what do bees-or at least flies-have to tell us about homosexuality?"|journal=Natural History|date=22|year=2011|month=November|volume=119|issue=10|pages=22|url=http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA275489098&v=2.1&u=scha51546&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w}}</ref>

Genetic basis

One study has found that by manipulating a gene in fruit flies (Drosophila), homosexual behavior was induced. However, homosexual behavior was not the only abnormal behavior exhibited due to this mutation. <ref>{{cite journal|last=Terry|first=J.|title="'Unnatural Acts' in Nature: The Scientific Fascination With "|journal=GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies|year=200|month=April|volume=6|issue=2|pages=151, 43|url=http://ezproxy.roosevelt.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=9362273&login.asp&site=ehost-live}}</ref>

Bpetersenroosevelt (talk) 16:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

We in the Roosevelt Brain and Behavior Class Group made some additions to the article today as per our class project. However, when adding the references, something went wrong and they display quite unusually/abnormally in the reference list. Any help in diagnosing the problem would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for your understanding/patience and any help/advice that you have to offer.

Bpetersenroosevelt (talk) 16:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

There's an answer on your talk page, after a problem was flagged up at WP:HD. - David Biddulph (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Critique 1

• The article could use a few more hyperlinks, specifically in the 'Physiological Basis' section. More information can be included in the 'Neurobiological Basis' section. Explain what the results of the study mentioned under this section mean. What else can be said about Serotonin's role in the sexual orientation of mice? Also, a few words appear red when hyperlinked. The article shoudl also be made a little more balanced. The research section is vastly disproportional to the other sections. Can it somehoew be divided into subsections, or can the other sections be expanded to include more information? Other than that, this article is sound in the information it presents. Phineurosia8 —Preceding undated comment added 00:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Critique 2

• I think this article does a good job at remaining indifferent to basis's and personal opinions, which is really important for the general reader. Some of the words in the Research section (Peter Bockman, Paul Vasey) are red when hyperlinked, which is a quick fix. I enjoyed reading the Research section, but I feel it is too lengthy and unbalanced for this Wikipedia article, and should be shortened up a bit by minimizing some quotes and not stating the references used. I agree with the first critique of expanding the Neurobiological Basis section. More can be said about serotonin, and maybe can include more information about the research in this field. I liked the pictures in the wiki article, and I think a visual is helpful when reading an article with so much text, but if possible, I would move the pictures to points where those animals are discussed. Overall I found it very interesting though and generally easy to follow. ~sbenduha —undated comment added 09:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any more information on the neurobiological basis, the thing about Serotonin was all that I could find. Also, somebody else (existing before the group project) contributed to the research section which we did not feel was appropriate to prune too significantly. However, something did need to be added regarding the controversy over whether there are endocrinological causes of homosexual behavior in animals. Bpetersenroosevelt (talk) 06:51, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

As was already stated, not all of the research section was contributed by us, we simply added to it and expanded upon a few issues. However, since numerous people have pointed out the red links in the research section that was already in the article, I went ahead and removed the broken links for those particular authors. Tjm66680 (talk) 19:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Critique 3

I enjoyed reading this article. It was well thought out and flowed easily. My only suggestion is to add more information to the Neurobiological Basis. I'm not sure if there's not enough sources on the subject or if there was a time constraint to add more to this section. Good job none the less! Reva m18 (talk) 16:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Critique

I think that your article was very well thought out and the information was relevant and accurate. I know that the topic was about animals but I am personally always interested in how concepts relate to humans because I feel that it makes them much easier for people to read and understand. Maybe some information about that while the Neurological section is expanded a little bit. This was a great article however. Psychmjr12 (talk) 17:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC)psychmjr12

Thank you so much for your compliments about our article! I agree that a section comparing the results to human findings would be interesting, however, since our topic was limited to only findings in animals I think it would be best to refrain from discussing humans in this particular article. Tjm66680 (talk) 19:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Instructor feedback

• "Comprehensive endocrinological studies revealed that both sides of the argument were in fact accurate" is language that passes judgement. Try "There are empirical support from comprehensive endocrinological studies for both interpretations." Because you stated "comprehensive endocrinological studies," can you provide more than one reference?
• Do not capitalize "Western and Ring-billed Gulls"
• Clarify which hormone in the sentence, "...when administering treatments of testosterone and estradiol to female heterosexual animals, the elevated hormone levels increase the likelihood of homosexual behavior." This needs a reference.
• Please insert links in sections that you edited
• Need more info in the Biological basis section. Note in headings, only the first word should be capitalized.
• Nice job!

Neuropsychprof (talk) 22:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I added a second source for the "comprehensive endocrinological studies" statement.

Bpetersenroosevelt (talk) 18:41, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Critique 4

• Word "behavior" spelled incorrectly in the paragraph starting with “ it is important.”
• When citing some researcher I think it is enough to reference him/her or the article cited in the reference format only and not actually state the name of the researcher in the body of the article : for example …”said Professor Chankyu Park of the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology in Daejon, South Korea, who led the research.”
• Overall I think your input is well written and flows very well, and I am looking forward to read the final form of the article. 69.38.189.54 (talk) 18:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for catching the spelling error! I didn't realize that I had my laptop spell check set to English (British). In regards to citing the researcher with in the sentence, I chose to do that because the other contributors to the article also wrote in that fashion and I wanted there to be a cohesive style to the article. By keeping the writing style consistent through out the article it appears as if it was all written by the same person, rather than numerous individuals. Tjm66680 (talk) 19:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

How about covering the research related aspects

I know that the labs that are doing it are getting fire-bombed etc., but how about covering the lab research on inducing homosexuality in animals via deprivation of nutrients during and stress during pregnancy? North8000 (talk) 20:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Penguins

I suggest updating the last paragraph of the penguin section to reflect that the separation has happened, and that one has paired with a female.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2011/12/12/gay-penguins-breeding-toronto.html

http://www.news24.com/SciTech/News/Gay-penguin-finds-female-partner-20111213

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/12/12/gay-penguins-no-more-buddy-and-pedro-find-female-partners-zookeeper-says/

124.168.224.32 (talk) 10:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Animals and humans

Without prejudice to the issue of whether humans ought to classified, biologically, as a type of animal, I think it's clear from context that this article is exclusively about "non-human" animals. We are using the word in the title in the same way a recent law in Florida was using it, i.e., in the colloquial sense of "animals other than human beings" or animals as opposed to human beings.

I don't think there is a Wikipedia:Standard of usage for "human" and "animal", and I'm not trying to score any points. I just want to avoid confusion.

One major reason for the existence of this article is to provide background for those who are seeking to score points:

• those who say homosexuality does not occur in nature, i.e., among animals; so it's "unnatural" and should be curbed (currently a vanishing minority think this)-
• those who say homosexuality occurs in many animal species, i.e., among non-humans; so it's "natural" and should not be curbed

I'd like to make the article as clear as possible, so that those seeking to draw conclusions about human beings have a stable reference point. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Did you just add the "non-human" bit into the lede? Because it wasn't there before. This article is about homosexual behavior in all animals, humans included. However, since human sexuality is extensively discussed in a separate article, we just gave a link to that article. I think the Humans section should be reinstated. Silverseren^C 22:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

No, the phrase "behavior in various (non-human) specie" was already there. " --Uncle Ed (talk) 03:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Huh, must have been added by someone else at some point fairly recently. There have been multiple discussions about the use of humans in this article and there's no reason why there shouldn't be a section heading and a link to Homosexuality, as has always been done. Silverseren^C 05:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

It could easily be solved by having a link like "For homosexual behaviour in humans, see XXX" at the start of the article. I agree with Uncle Ed in that the common use of the word animal excludes humans. Petter Bøckman (talk) 10:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd be fine with doing that, though I still disagree with what the common understanding of animal is. Silverseren^C 20:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Checked and don't believe I have an edit here. As for the thread issue, regardless of the matter of fact, this article is distinguished in subject matter from the other by the species coverage, exclusively human in the other, the complement of that here. So a move to Homosexuality (non-human) would be ideal but hardly necessary. FTR, pretty sure the Wikipedia standard is that human is an animal species. At least as it stands now, that page doesn't explictly state "Humans are a species of animal" but it doesn't have to, since it's implicity in everything else, the taxonomic position, the details of evolution, etc. By application of a principle of economy in language though, the current title can be taken as implying that humans are already not animals even though they have yet to transcend the condition. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 21:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of conventional Wikipedia standards, from a scientifically empirical view, human beings are animals. In many philosophical views, human beings further still are not distinguished from animals and even others as being lesser creatures than the animal kingdom. The great naturalist Charles Darwin, for example, despised the term "savage" for aboriginal peoples and was against slavery in that, through his research, he could see that mankind and the "savages" and animals are no different from one-another from a sociological and behavioural perspective, with the only difference being that of having technology. As a general rule of thumb, I believe most people use animal colloquially to refer to non-human, non-bacterial animals even though most do understand that mankind itself is an animal even in a non-poetic sense of the word. It is simply faster and easier with colloquial speech to say "animal" as opposed to "non-human animals". Sardonicus (talk) 14:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Homosexual as an ORIENTATION in animals?

Is it true that animals can be HOMOSEXUAL, as an ORIENTATION? Such as, EXCLUSIVELY pairing with the same gender throughout their lives? Without being influenced in that direction, such as through stress, being caged, etc.? Are there homosexual animals in the wild? Or do animals just end up engaging in sex acts with ANYTHING? What makes homosexuality different from, say, "doing it" with a piece of fruit? Would there be an implied evolutionary reason for homosexuality -- such as to curb overpopulation, perhaps? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.202.28 (talk) 21:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The "Applying the term homosexual to animals" section goes over some of your questions. Flyer22 (talk) 22:52, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Homosexuality is not the same thing as Bisexuality

To call an animal Homosexual means that they PREFER the same sex. Not that you simply observed them having sexual activity with another animal of the same sex. That is called bisexuality — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.129.95 (talk) 21:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Like I stated in this discussion at the Homosexuality article, the term homosexuality covers all same-sex sexual attraction and same-sex sexual activity. The spelling variation homosexual is used more so for sexual orientation, but even so researchers often use the term homosexual to describe same-sex sexual behavior (such as "homosexual acts" between men), which is why they also apply the term to non-human animals. Most scientists do not assign sexual orientation labels to non-human animals, except for when describing the behavior of those animals (which the Applying the term homosexual to animals section goes over). Most scientists do not do this (except for, as I stated, describing behavior) because non-humans animals cannot communicate with humans in the same in-depth way that humans can, and most non-human animals cannot communicate with humans in any in-depth way at all. Therefore, assessing their sexual orientation, what goes on in their minds as opposed to their behavior (considering that sexual behavior does not always match up with one's sexual orientation), is very difficult. The American Psychological Association, an authoritative source on this topic, also defines homosexuality in terms of behavior in addition to attraction, and so do a good majority of sources in the Homosexuality article. That's why the lead of that article makes sure to define homosexuality in general terms first, and then to describe the sexual orientation aspect of it. That's why that article does not only discuss homosexuality in terms of the sexual orientation aspect (what goes in the mind). Flyer22 (talk) 21:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

And if it's not clear from what I stated above in this section, the sexual orientation vs. sexual behavior matters also applies to the terms heterosexual/heterosexuality and bisexual/bisexuality. For example, a person may engage in heterosexual sexual activity, but that does not mean that the person is heterosexual. Flyer22 (talk) 22:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I saw the rational used in the article, and it was nonsense. Basically you are using the 1890's definition of homosexuality instead of a modern one. I think it's pretty well established that scientific opinion on homosexuality has changed quite drastically since the 1890's. I for one am actually interested in the scientific data on homosexuality in the animal kingdom and it's disturbing to see it muddled up with nonsense. Yes, a male dog will hump another male dog, but if a female dog in heat walked in the room they typically will go for the female. But sometimes they might not; just like in humans. This article is supposed to be about those cases where they do not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.129.95 (talk) 22:33, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Per what I stated above, I do not see how it is nonsense. There is no way to know the sexual orientation of non-human animals, except for non-human animals that show sexual interest only in the opposite sex or the few non-human animals that will seek out same-sex partners exclusively. But even then, scientists are generally cautious with regard to calling an animal heterosexual or homosexual. Same goes for calling an animal bisexual. Unless it is with regard to sexual behavior only. Again, it's pointed out in the article why scientists are cautious with regard to calling a non-human animal by those terms. One reason is the estrus factor you mentioned. Humans are not driven to have sex in the same way that non-human animals are; estrus, which most sources state no longer exists in humans, does not dictate humans (at least, if it still exists, not in a way that causes them to drop what they are doing and to go have sex right away). So if a man is having sex with a man, he will of course not suddenly go to a woman who walks into the room solely because she is ovulating. What you call nonsense in this case is supported by most scientists. They will use the term heterosexual to describe sexual activity between a man and woman even when neither the man nor woman is heterosexual; they will do this because the sexual act is heterosexual. Similarly, unless using a term such as men who have sex with men or women who have sex with women, they will use the term homosexual to describe sexual activity between a same-sex couple even if neither are homosexual; they will do this because the sexual act is homosexual. These are not simply 1890s' definitions; the term homosexual/homosexuality is the term that the majority of sources in this article, the significant majority of them modern sources, use to describe same-sex sexual behavior. And per WP:Verifiability, we go by what the sources state, especially what the significant majority of reliable sources state...per WP:Undue weight; that's why this article is titled Homosexual behavior in animals. And it's not just researchers; society in general uses these terms to refer not only to sexual orientation...but to sexual behavior. The ality part of these terms usually encompasses behavior more than sexual orientation (so homosexual vs. homosexuality). And of course, like the American Psychological Association makes clear, sexual behavior is an aspect of sexual orientation. And like that organization also states, scientists are not certain what causes sexual orientation. That's what some of our articles on sexual orientation, such as Biology and sexual orientation and Environment and sexual orientation, also address.

Also, remember to sign your username at the end of the comments you make on Wikipedia talk pages. All you have to do to sign your username is simply type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. A bot signed your username for you above twice. Flyer22 (talk) 23:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: SNOW close: It's pretty clear that consensus is against the suggested title. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 03:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

---

Homosexual behavior in animals → Homosexual behavior in other animals – Because Homosexual behavior in humans exists (in the form of Homosexuality) and humans are a type of animal Epicgenius (talk) 18:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. As far as I'm concerned, per this discussion, this move proposal is a WP:POINT violation by Epicgenius. Like I stated in the aforementioned linked discussion, it is already clear what the Homosexual behavior in animals article is about, per its WP:Hatnote and lead. By contrast, we have plenty of articles that are human-focused without having the term human in their titles while pointing people to the article that deals with that topic with regard to non-human animals; the Homosexuality article is one such article. Furthermore, using the word other begs the question as to what comes before "other." In human-focused articles, use of other is clear because the article is about humans. I will alert WP:LGBT to this discussion. If anyone wants to alert the other related WikiProjects to this discussion, okay then. Flyer22 (talk) 19:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:TITLE and WP:COMMONNAME. The logic of the move proposal is sound, but not beneficial from a practical standpoint. - MrX 19:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per Flyer22. The current title is fine and easy for readers to understand. We don't need to be moving the article to a longer and more complicated title in the name of pedantry. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I am not sure where the policy might be, but at WP:WikiProject Medicine, the issue regularly arises about whether medical articles should be named to refer to humans. Consensus and precedent is to assume that all articles which could refer to humans need not be titled to specify that. For example, there is an article on "Medicine", not "human medicine". Naming this article to indicate that articles should have a human/other animal differentiation would break this precedent. If this article says "animals", then it would keep congruence with all other articles in indicating that human scope is the default and any exceptions refer to something other than humans. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. We all know that "animals" is commonly used to mean non-human creatures. Yes humans are animals in the animal/vegetable/mineral distinction, but there is no real ambiguity here. The phrase "other animals" just leads to confusion (Other than what? The proposed title doesn't say). "Homosexual behavior in non-human animals" makes more sense, but is unnecessary and prolix. Paul B (talk) 20:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose and suggest WP:SNOW close. Besides the points already made above, the current title is consistent with similar articles titled Foo in animals. The nominator's argument is technically correct but too pedantic for this move to result in any real benefit. --BDD (talk) 21:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per Flyer22. People are generally not that stupid, they'll find articles on bisexuality of humans without much effort. Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I've nothing to add that others haven't already said well. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 02:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose and Trout the OP. I oppose this per WP:TITLE and WP:COMMONNAME. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
• OpposeThe common meaning of "animal" is non-human and so the title is already optimized.North8000 (talk) 03:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Humans and animals are not interchangeable. Nor is it okay to to identify homosexuals as animals as this could be construed to mean. --DHeyward (talk) 03:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move (2)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved per consensus.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 07:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

---

Homosexual behavior in animals → Homosexuality in animals – If homosexuality exists, why not, per WP:COMMONNAME. Homosexuality in animals is more direct and concise, and avoids the controversial spelling of "behavior"/"behaviour". Epicgenius (talk) 17:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• Seriously? First, per WP:ENGVAR, the spelling of behavior is not controversial. Second, homosexuality and homosexual behavior are two different things, and it very much is controversial whether homosexuality in the sense of an orientation exists among animals; this article covers behaviors that would seem to indicate homosexuality without actually passing a final judgement on whether homosexuality exists. See the section "Applying the term homosexual to animals", particularly the sentence "In most instances, it is presumed that the homosexual behavior is but part of the animal's overall sexual behavioral repertoire, making the animal "bisexual" rather than "homosexual" as the terms are commonly understood in humans". The article's title is fine, just leave it alone. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:19, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Thank you, Writ Keeper. As you may have seen, I've addressed that topic in the #Homosexuality is not the same thing as Bisexuality section above. The reason the article should not be moved to what Epicgenius proposes in this second request, is because, like I stated above, "Most scientists do not assign sexual orientation labels to non-human animals, except for when describing the behavior of those animals (which the Applying the term homosexual to animals section goes over). Most scientists do not do this (except for, as I stated, describing behavior) because non-humans animals cannot communicate with humans in the same in-depth way that humans can, and most non-human animals cannot communicate with humans in any in-depth way at all. Therefore, assessing their sexual orientation, what goes on in their minds as opposed to their behavior (considering that sexual behavior does not always match up with one's sexual orientation), is very difficult." Flyer22 (talk) 17:34, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Ha, funnily enough, I had not seen that. I guess we're just on the same wavelength about this. :) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose strongly. Homosexuality is not the same as homosexual behaviour, whether or not it has a "u" in it. In some species there may be something like sexual orientation, comparable to human sexuality, in other cases the behaviour may be determined by wholly other factors that simply cannot be equated with a sexual orientation. The way in which sexual behaviour is triggered in animals varies dramatically from species to species, so the term behaviour is relevant. I don't think the term "bisexual" is appropriate either in most cases. Paul B (talk) 18:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't buy the argument that "homosexuality" and "homosexual behavior" are two different things; "homosexuality" is a broad term, and obviously includes behavior among other things. However, the current article title seems fine to me. There is no need to move the article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

FreeKnowledgeCreator, I was thinking similar with regard to homosexuality vs. homosexual behavior; however, I'm sure that the point the others are making is that homosexual behavior is but one part of homosexuality. It's clear to me that Writ Keeper, for example, is using the term homosexuality to mean the sexual orientation as distinct from having engaged in same-sex sexual behavior; in this way, homosexual behavior does not automatically equate to homosexuality. And indeed, as this article discusses, some non-human animals engaging in same-sex sexual behavior likely has nothing to do with true sexual attraction. Flyer22 (talk) 19:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

That may be the point they're making, but if so it's a misleading way of making it. To be accurate, you would have to say clearly that a homosexual orientation is not the same thing as homosexual behavior. "Homosexuality" is such a generic term that it clearly can refer to behavior also. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Homosexuality refers to a form of sexuality, as the word itself indicates. Paul B (talk) 19:56, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Your point being? "Sexuality", like "homosexuality", is a generic term that includes behavior. Like I say, try using a dictionary. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

(No, this has nothing to do with the page move) According to the Wikipedia page for Human sexuality (No, I am not citing a source here), "Human sexuality is the capacity to have erotic experiences and responses." The prefix "homo" means "same" from Greek. Thus, Homosexuality is "the capacity to have erotic experiences and responses for people of the same sex". Not exactly a behavior, if you ask me. (OK, it has to do with the page move, but I don't really care.)Epicgenius (talk) 20:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

It's foolish to think that you can show anything about what a term means by appealing to its roots; meaning is determined by a word's usage, and "homosexuality" (like "sexuality") is used in different ways. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Look at the definition of "homosexuality" in a dictionary. It is pretty much along the same lines. Epicgenius (talk) 00:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose "Homosexuality is not the same as homosexual behavior" as per above. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment What do you think that even means? Just look up a dictionary, and you'll see that "homosexuality" has a range of possible meanings. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:37, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
    • The point is that we don't want a word with a range of possible meanings. "Homosexuality" includes "homosexual behavior", yes, but it includes a lot of other stuff, too, including the orientation, which is probably its primary definition. We don't want all that other baggage: this article is about homosexual behavior, so we should use the precise, unambiguous phrase "homosexual behavior" instead of the imprecise, ambiguous "homosexuality", since if someone interprets "homosexuality" as something other than just behavior (which is eminently possible), they might misunderstand what the article is about. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
      • That's fine, I agree with that. Thanks for clarifying your position. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. As communication with other species is somewhat limiting to discussion of sexuality, we have to go by observable behavior, and apply scientific standards to what is observed. Sportfan5000 (talk) 21:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose There is so much to say here, but I'll keep it short. I am in broad agreement with most of the foregoing opposition. I would add that it isn't broken and does not require fixing. The dog (as opposed to a bitch) humping another dog (as opposed to a bitch) may or may not be a homosexual dog (how would we know?), but it is exhibiting homosexual behavio(u)r. Unless one is Doctor Doolittle one cannot know what is in the dog's mind. Fiddle Faddle 17:52, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Just give it up already. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 04:57, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Whiptail info is incorrect

With whiptail lizards, only hybrid populations are all-female and reproduce via parthenogenesis. Basically many species are male/female and reproduce the same way as other sexually reproducing species. However when a mating occurrs between two species, the result will be offspring that are all female with double the chromosomes. These females will reproduce by pathenogenisis or the can reproduce sexually with a male from a non-hybrid species producing yet another all female hybrid species (I believe with even more chromosomes)

Anyway, the section on lizards needs to be re-written by an actual biologist familiar with whiptail lizards because right now, it is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.185.87.153 (talk) 12:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

'This article duplicates, in whole or part, the scope of other article(s) or section(s)' tags

I believe these tags are misplaced or inapplicable. I believe this article complies with the style guidelines. Animal Sexual Behavior is a more general article, and this is a more detailed article. Therefore this article repeats some of the information in Animal Sexual Behavior while adding more detail. There does not seem to be any solution to the problem the tags point to. Removing all discussion of homosexuality in the general sexuality article would paint an inaccurate picture. However, moving the entire discussion of homosexuality to the main article would give undue weight to homosexuality. Removing any general discussion of animal sexual behavior from this article would also potentially raise pov / inaccuracy issue. I propose that the tags should be removed. Puddytang (talk) 17:19, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Remove dead duck sex

The recent addition about ducks having homosexual sex with dead ducks is just from a one-off paper. It's not been mentioned by any secondary sources. Moreover, the source itself says it's the first time it's been observed. It's inclusion here is WP:UNDUE at the very least. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

It's one sentence giving a factual report of an uncontroversial observation with no analysis or conclusions drawn. I don't see how that contravenes WP:UNDUE or WP:PRIMARY. The section on vultures has only two examples backed up by newspaper stories, the one on pigeons has no citations and other primary sources are used in the article. Why should newspaper stories be considered a better source than papers in scientific journals? Richerman (talk) 06:32, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Secondary sources are preferred, yes. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:16, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Primary sources are fine as long as you don't draw your own conclusions from them or synthesize but newspapers are often very poor on scientific subjects. Richerman (talk) 10:51, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Transgender

I see the intro speaks of "transgender" alongside "momosexual", "bisexual" etc. Is there such a thing in the animal kingdom? Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 12:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

The only place I can find the word transgender is in the title of reference 64 which links here. It explains in that article what is meant by the term. I presume momosexual is a typo. Richerman (talk) 13:47, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't see where the lead (introduction), as it currently is, mentions transgender and monosexual. But from what I know of the topic of transgender, the term transgender is usually used differently for humans than for non-human animals. Flyer22 (talk) 01:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

That is very odd indeed. But I couldn't be dreaming. I wonder whether I had wandered off the page to here and here, where the word is used. I do recall that I was on these pagee too. At any rate, thanks for looking into it, even though there was nothing to look at. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 23:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Transgender is defined as a belief that you are the opposite sex. Since the beliefs of animals can not be measured, no animal besides humans can be said to be transgender. There are likely animals which can have gender nonconformity, although that doesn't seem to be founded in any evidence and is certainly not the same thing as transgender — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.136.200 (talk) 01:51, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Observed in 1,500 species

Does anyone know the original source for this figure? Our article cites Bruce Bagemihl's book and an interview with him, neither of which appear to contain it. Bagemihl only supports the "well documented in about 500 species" part. The actual source seems to be this exhibition and news articles about it. KateWishing (talk) 14:52, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I still can't find a peer-reviewed source for this figure, despite e-mailing the exhibit organizers. It is mentioned in some non-specialist books, probably via the exhibit, but not in any recent review articles about homosexual behavior in animals. Unless we find a better source or someone disagrees, I'll attribute it to the Against Nature? organizers. I wouldn't be opposed to moving it out of the lead or removing it altogether. KateWishing (talk) 02:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Complete and utter BS sources cited in this article

Reeks Osy (talk) 16:19, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Osy, mind pointing to some examples? Flyer22 (talk) 16:44, 4 July 2015 (UTC)