Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Homosexuality in giraffes and other non-human animals

queerty.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 163 posts

Re: Homosexuality in giraffes and other non-human animals

#111

Post by jessaustin »

jhbadger wrote: post #69
chasereed wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, but as a gay ex-Mormon, I have seen that educating people about the (mostly) biological origin of homosexuality is the most effective way to break through people’s dogmatic shields and make them start empathizing with gay people.

The danger of assigning a biological cause is that now with CRISPR there is the argument that we should find the site(s) responsible and edit them out in future embryos. Just accepting the result without assigning a cause doesn't have this problem.

Are you predicting that CRISPR will succeed at this odious task? Or that it won't? Because either way... that would seem to settle the question, wouldn't it?

Re: Homosexuality in giraffes and other non-human animals

#112

Post by mkl »

refurb wrote: post #89
wyxuan wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Actually, no: https://designbump.com/when-these-chimpanzees-saw-their-stra... or 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.

Re: Homosexuality in giraffes and other non-human animals

#113

Post by firstplacelast »

chess93 wrote: post #57

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).

The same can be said about heterosexual sex. How do you know people are “attracted to the opposite sex” when they really just “have sex with the opposite sex.”

Re: Homosexuality in giraffes and other non-human animals

#114

Post by Razengan »

AlexTWithBeard wrote: post #53

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.

> For example, having sex is completely natural

Entire societies and cultures have been built around the idea that sex is unnatural and requires special rituals and public approval to be had, and even then you're not supposed to actually enjoy it.

Re: Homosexuality in giraffes and other non-human animals

#115

Post by Razengan »

qball wrote: post #102
johannes1234321 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>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…

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

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

Re: Homosexuality in giraffes and other non-human animals

#116

Post by chess93 »

firstplacelast wrote: post #113
chess93 wrote: post #57

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).

The same can be said about heterosexual sex. How do you know people are “attracted to the opposite sex” when they really just “have sex with the opposite sex.”

People can be asked and answer truthfully while animals are unable to do the same.

There are definitely gay people who get married and have kids though. An alien who doesn't understand humans might classify them as heterosexual.

Re: Homosexuality in giraffes and other non-human animals

#117

Post by zamalek »

MatekCopatek wrote: post #5

My go-to link for countering " 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...

I have no scientific rigor for this, but the possibility for relationships that do not bear offspring makes a ton of evolutionary sense.

By including homosexuality into a species, you have members who are able to gather and process energy without contributing to population growth. Population growth is a good thing, but too much is detrimental to the species (at least if you don't have access to agriculture). In addition, if the species is a social species, you can have richer communities without the burden of additional offspring, including non-binary genders (as primitive gender roles need not apply to homosexual members). This is especially true for humans, as our offspring is unusually vulnerable for an unusually extended time. Include adoption into the equation, and your species would have a bank of potential parents for abandoned (due to death or otherwise) offspring: in humans, bearing offspring is risky and consumes a lot of energy. Evolutionary speaking, it's not a good thing if all the energy expended in that newborn is left to waste.

The possibility of homosexuality is mathematically optimal and it is therefore a deeply natural phenomenon. You don't even need to look at the animal kingdom, it's right there in nature (assuming I'm correct, but I think my argument is compelling).

Re: Homosexuality in giraffes and other non-human animals

#118

Post by d0mine »

saalweachter wrote: post #98
ng12 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Just as importantly, science is always open to revision. You have to be careful how you use science in informing your morals for that reason. If in ten years, this research into animal sexuality was show to be falsified, misinterpreted, or just not representative of a wide range of nature, would you then decide human homosexuality is morally wrong? That's the real risk of taking something which should be more of a mo…

> "science open to revision"

It doesn't mean that you can't make statements that are always true (today, tomorrow, in a hundred years, etc).

Once something is discovered and we understand the limits of the model, it is true forever e.g., Newton's laws under appropriate assumptions (not too fast, not much mass).

Re: Homosexuality in giraffes and other non-human animals

#119

Post by qwerty456127 »

Razengan wrote: post #115
qball wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

An other reason might be that almost all animals seek to control their peers' access to mates. Humans have developed elaborate bullshit to achieve basically that. Monogamy, possession, shame.

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

Re: Homosexuality in giraffes and other non-human animals

#120

Post by jessaustin »

rectangletangle wrote: post #12
4FNET7 wrote: post #3

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

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.

...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.

Post reply on HN