Explaining (Away) Animal Homosexuality

I n August 1995 a historic event took place: a special symposium on sexual orientation in animals was held at the 24^th International Ethological Conference (ethologists are zoologists who study animal behavior). This was an unprecedented occurrence: the first time that animal homosexuality was formally recognized by a zoological organization as a legitimate subject of inquiry unto itself. As hundreds of zoologists and other scientists gathered from more than 40 countries around the world to discuss the latest findings and hypotheses, this conference held the promise of inaugurating a new era in the study of animal homosexuality—one characterized by an absence of the judgmental attitudes chronicled in the previous chapter.

Unfortunately, what actually transpired at the conference is symbolic of the pitfalls that have plagued discussions of animal homosexuality throughout the scientific study of this topic. The symposium’s stated mission was to explore “behavioral correlates of sexual plasticity”; its organizer’s opening remarks even invoked Paul L.Vasey’s recent work on primate homosexuality—to the visual accompaniment of giant photographs of human gay couples projected on the screen.¹ Yet only a handful of papers at the symposium even mentioned homosexuality, let alone dealt with it in any depth. Most were concerned with the hormonal and neurological correlates of male and female differences in behavior and anatomy—reflecting the still widespread view that homosexuality is simply an example of gender “inversion” or “gender-atypical” behavior (e.g., males exhibiting “female” behavior patterns and vice versa). Ironically, among the conference attendees were a veritable who’s who of zoologists who have observed homosexual behavior firsthand in wild animals—a treasure trove of information on the topic that went virtually untapped by the symposium’s organizers and all but unnoticed by the conference-goers.² On the final day of the conference, after it became apparent that animal homosexuality would receive no more than a cursory discussion in any of the formal presentations, one zoologist tacked a hand-scrawled note on the public message-board: “I am looking for examples of homosexual affairs in insects, please contact …”—a cogent reminder of both the desire for, and lack of, information on this subject at the very locus where it should be most available.

What happened at this conference is not unusual. The scientific discourse surrounding animal homosexuality has been preoccupied with finding an explanation for the phenomenon, often at the expense of providing comprehensive descriptive information about, or acknowledgment of, the actual extent and diversity of same-sex activity throughout the animal kingdom. Rather than being seen as part of a spectrum of natural variation in sexual and gender expression, homosexuality and transgender are viewed as exceptions or anomalies that somehow stand outside the natural order and must therefore be “explained” or “rationalized.” In most respects, by trying to answer the question “Why do some animals engage in homosexual behavior?” scientists have simply found an opportunity to continue many of the same homophobic attitudes documented in the preceding chapter (while ignoring the biases inherent in such a question in the first place). Significant numbers of zoologists are willing to concede that same-sex courtship, copulation, and pair-bonding are indeed “sexual” or “homosexual” activities. However, they commonly propose alternative explanations for these behaviors premised on the notion that this activity is still in some way “anomalous” or “aberrant.” Ultimately, most such attempts to find an “explanation” have failed outright or are fundamentally misguided. In this chapter we’ll explore four such “explanations” that crop up repeatedly in the scientific and popular discourse surrounding animal homosexuality—the idea that homosexuality is an imitation of heterosexuality, a “substitute” activity when the opposite sex is unavailable, a “mistake,” or a pathological condition. These explanations need to be addressed not only because they are widespread within the scientific establishment, but also because they form part of the popular mythology surrounding animal homosexuality. Each of these ideas or analyses is in fact incorrect—or at the very least, only partially relevant.

Significantly, each of these explanations has also been proposed at various times as the “cause” or “reason” for human homosexuality, and equally as often shown to be false. In fact, the language and logic of many of these explanations for animals are directly out of the psychopathological analyses of human homosexuality from the 1940s and 1950s (which, in turn, are a continuation and elaboration of earlier prejudicial attitudes about “abnormal” behaviors). So similar are they to the luridly homophobic accounts of these eras that many such descriptions would be entirely interchangeable were it not for use of the word animals in one and people in the other. The nearly seamless continuity between attitudes toward human and animal homosexuality is exemplified by the following pair of “observations,” each of which reduces homosexuality to a form of role-playing imitative of heterosexuality:

… one woman lying on top of another and simulating in movements the act of intercourse … gratifies her masculine component …. Some authorities regard [the partners of these] women … as pseudohomosexuals. The number of sex-starved women who yield to homosexuality … is much greater than one might suppose.

—F. S. CAPRIO, female homosexuality, 1954

female [s] … occasionally carry out elaborate homosexual pseudocopulatory manoeuvres. Usually one female assumes the male role and mounts another female … and the two animals then perform a remarkably realistic pseudocopulation.

—from a scientific description of Northern Fur Seals, 1959³

Sadly, such perspectives on animal homosexuality are still prevalent today among both scientists and nonscientists alike. In many cases, people are still reapplying to animals the same outmoded views of homosexuality that were used to condemn and pathologize the behavior in humans throughout most of this century. Such “explanations” have since been shown to be untenable (if not downright laughable) for people, and they should similarly have been abandoned long ago by scientists studying animals.

“Which One Plays the Female Role?”—Homosexuality as Pseudoheterosexuality

One of the most prevalent and pernicious misconceptions about animal homosexuality is that it is simply an imitation of heterosexuality and heterosexual gender roles.⁴ In numerous species, animals that participate in homosexual interactions are assigned—sometimes arbitrarily—to one of two roles: “male” or “female.” Masculine or feminine, malelike or femalelike, male-acting or female-acting, male mimicry or female mimicry, pseudo-male or pseudo-female are just some of the other terms widely used to refer to the participants in homosexual interactions.⁵ In other words, homosexuality is seen merely as a replica of heterosexuality—male—female patterns transposed onto same-sex partners. In perhaps the most extreme example of this viewpoint, one scientist actually treated the homosexual couples in his captive population of Orange-fronted and Aztec Parakeets as stand-ins for heterosexual pairs. Because of the rather embarrassing fact that there were more same-sex than opposite-sex pairs in his flock, he used several homosexual couples as male-female surrogates in his experiments on “heterosexual” pair-bonding behavior. For this to work, however, “it was necessary … to assume that in homosexual pairs one bird assumes the role of the male, the other of the female, and that behavioral events between such birds are those typical of heterosexually paired birds.” This assumption entirely disregarded the fact that female pairs in this species differ in important respects from heterosexual pairs (for example by exhibiting mutual, as opposed to one-way, courtship feeding) and probably also hindered the discovery of other such differences.⁶

The idea that homosexual relations in animals are necessarily gendered along heterosexual lines has its origins in Freud’s (and others’) view of (human) homosexuality as sexual inversion, the adoption by one partner in a same-sex interaction of the behaviors or roles “typical” of the opposite sex.⁷ In fact, some zoologists have used the very terms sexual inversion and inverse (or even reverse) sexuality to describe homosexual activity in animals. Desmond Morris developed this idea further with respect to animals in a series of papers in the 1950s, in which he introduced the terms pseudo-male and pseudo-female to describe animals who exhibit behavior patterns more commonly seen in the opposite sex; these terms are still used to this day in scientific publications that describe same-sex activity.⁸ Also still employed is the analytical framework represented by such terms, which argues that the occurrence of homosexuality in a species can be directly attributed to, and characterized by, opposite-sex or “gender-atypical” behavior. The argument goes something like this: certain animals in a population are prone to “pseudo-female” or “pseudo-male” behavior; that is, imitation of behavioral patterns found in the opposite sex. This mimicking of heterosexuality automatically triggers “homosexual” behavior in individuals who are essentially “deceived” into thinking they are dealing with a member of the opposite sex, hence they respond with sexual or courtship behaviors.

Often, an attempt is also made to correlate sexual “role inversion” with other behavioral or physical traits that are supposedly characteristic of the opposite sex (or of certain gender roles), such as higher levels of aggression in female Takhi and Mallard Ducks that mount other females. One scientist, in describing a male Snow Goose that supposedly adopted the “male role” in a homosexual pairing, even goes so far as to comment on the bird’s “much enlarged penis” in addition to his greater aggressiveness. As we shall see later in this chapter, this is reminiscent of descriptions of human “inversion” from the early sexological literature, which often focused on the appearance of a person’s genitals as somehow indicative of the “abnormality” or pathology of their homosexuality.⁹

Reciprocal Homosexuality and Heterosexual “Inverts”

In spite of apparently unabated popularity in scientific circles, a “pseudoheterosexuality” interpretation imposes a restrictive and often erroneous framework on animal homosexuality, and there are numerous arguments against it.¹⁰ To begin with, in an overwhelming number of cases homosexual behavior cannot possibly be construed as mimicking heterosexuality. In a number of species, unique sexual or courtship behaviors occur between animals of the same sex that are not found in heterosexual interactions. For example, homosexual but not heterosexual interactions in Bonobos, Gibbons, Stumptail Macaques, Crested Black Macaques, West Indian Manatees, and Gray Whales often involve mutual genital rubbing or manual and oral stimulation of the genitals.¹¹ The actions of both partners are often identical or reciprocal, and therefore neither animal can be construed as adopting a stereotypically “male” or “female” role.¹² In species such as Bottlenose Dolphins, Cheetahs, and Grizzly Bears (among others), same-sex pair-bonding occurs to the exclusion of opposite-sex pairing; thus, the “roles” of individuals in homosexual pairs cannot be modeled after male-female (heterosexual) “roles” because there simply are no such models in these species.

Even for animals where identical or similar behaviors occur in both homosexual and heterosexual interactions, the same-sex activities often do not fall neatly into the gendered patterns expected under a “pseudoheterosexual” interpretation. For example, homosexual mounting is often reciprocal, which means that the animals take turns in the mounter/mountee positions, with neither preferring exclusively “male” or “female” roles. Various forms of reciprocal mounting have been documented in at least 30 species (and probably occur in many more): simultaneous reciprocity, in which the partners exchange roles during the same mounting bout (as in Pukeko or Black-rumped Flamebacks); and sequential reciprocity, in which partners trade roles at different points in time—the latter can involve frequent alternation over an extended period as in Japanese Macaques, or perhaps a onetime switch as has been reported for some Bottlenose Dolphins. Moreover, in many species heterosexual mounting can be “reversed” or “inverted,” in that the female mounts her male partner. Thus, the “mounter” and “mountee” positions cannot be absolutely equated with fixed “male” and “female” roles even in opposite-sex interactions. Most “pseudoheterosexual” interpretations of homosexuality, therefore, involve stereotyped views not only of same-sex activity but also of male-female relations.¹³

Reciprocal, mutual, or non-“inverted” homosexual activities also characterize many other behavior categories besides mounting and sexual activity. In Laughing Gulls and Antbirds, for example, courtship feeding occurs in both heterosexual and homosexual contexts; between two males, however, this activity has a number of distinctive features owing to the fact that neither male is playing a “female” role. Males often engage in reciprocal courtship feeding by passing the food gift back and forth between them, and either partner may initiate the exchange (in heterosexual courtship feeding, typically the male initiates the activity and the female does not reciprocate). In a number of other bird species, including Greylag Geese, Mallard Ducks, Greenshanks, and Humboldt Penguins, both males in homosexual pairs exhibit typically male sexual, courtship, and pair-bonding behaviors, i.e., neither partner adopts a “feminine” role.¹⁴ Likewise, both females in homosexual pairs of Snow Geese, Mute Swans, Lovebirds, Red-backed Shrikes, and Blue Tits incubate eggs—an activity typical only for females in heterosexual pairs of these species—while both males in Emu and Greater Rhea same-sex associations incubate the eggs and raise the chicks (an activity performed only by males in heterosexual associations).

Male West Indian Manatees employ a wide variety of positions and forms of genital stimulation during their homosexual encounters, including manual, oral, and mutual genital contact. These are not characteristic of heterosexual interactions in this species and are a good example of homosexual behavior not being modeled on stereotypical “male” and “female” roles.

In “pseudoheterosexual” explanations of homosexuality, it is usually assumed that a same-sex interaction is initiated by the animal who is adopting behavior patterns of the opposite sex. That is, a sexual or courtship episode between males is triggered by one male performing typically female “invitations” to the other male, while an analogous interaction between females is initiated by one female making typically “male” advances toward the other. While the initiation of homosexual activities sometimes does follow this pattern, exactly the opposite is seen in as many—if not more—cases. Sexual activity between females is often initiated by the mountee making typically female solicitations or overtures toward another female—this is true for species as diverse as Lions, Squirrel Monkeys, Rhesus Macaques, Hanuman Langurs, and Sage Grouse. Conversely, it is also common for sexual interactions between males to be initiated by the mounter making a typically “male” approach to another male. Even in courtship activities, the “roles” of the participating animals often do not fall into the patterns predicted by a “pseudoheterosexual” interpretation. In Ostriches, for example, homosexual courtships are not prompted by “female” behavior on the part of a male, but rather are initiated by one male approaching another using behaviors unique to same-sex interactions. Similarly, male Musk Ducks perform their courtship displays without being “triggered” by female behaviors on the part of either males or females; rather, Ducks of both sexes are attracted to males who are already displaying

A Greylag gander pair performing a synchronized duet of “rolling” calls. In this and other species, both males in a homosexual pair perform mutual or typically “male” activities rather than one bird adopting a “male” role and the other a “female” role.

Often only one animal in a same-sex interaction is classified by scientists as truly “homosexual”—the one engaging in the putative “gender-atypical” behaviors. Thus, a male animal that solicits and is mounted by another male is considered to be the “true” homosexual, while the male who mounts him is a “normal” heterosexual male who is reacting to “opposite-sex” mimicry. This kind of logic frequently leads to absurd and contradictory classifications of animals. We’ve already discussed cases of reciprocal mounting, where the exchange of “roles” between animals necessitates a corresponding switch in which one is considered to be engaging in “homosexual” behavior for the moment. Sometimes an animal is actually both mounter and mountee simultaneously: in Wolves, Laughing Gulls, Little Blue Herons, Sage Grouse, and other species, an animal mounting another individual (of the same or opposite sex) is sometimes itself mounted by an animal of the same sex. Thus, an individual can exhibit gender “typical” and “atypical” mounting behavior at the same time and can perform concurrent “homosexual” and “heterosexual” acts with same-sex partners. In other cases, these behaviors occur in the same individual but separated in time, and in ways that do not conform to a “pseudoheterosexual” interpretation. Typically, the “true” homosexual animal is thought to be limited to opposite-sex behavior patterns and hence incapable of actual heterosexual relations (e.g., a male playing the “female role” with a male partner is considered incapable of playing the “male role” with a female partner). However, bisexual animals who successfully mate and breed with opposite-sex partners often perform the “gender-atypical” role during their homosexual interactions, while strictly heterosexual animals may perform the “gender-atypical” role during their heterosexual interactions—showing that there is no necessary connection between homosexual and heterosexual “roles.”¹⁵

In Red Deer, for example, one study revealed almost all possible combinations. Some Red Deer females who do not participate at all in homosexual activity play the “male” role in reverse heterosexual mounts, while others who are not involved in heterosexual activity play the “female” role in homosexual interactions (or assume both “roles” equally). One female who exhibited the most heterosexual behavior was only the “mounter” during homosexual interactions (i.e., she did not play the “female” role in that context), while the female who showed the most activity in the “male” role during homosexual interactions only played the “female” role in heterosexual interactions.¹⁶ Moreover, as neuroscientist William Byne has pointed out, a “pseudoheterosexual” interpretation taken to its logical conclusion would have to regard each of the animals performing a reverse heterosexual mount as “homosexual,” since each is exhibiting the mounting behavior of the opposite sex (male being mounted, female doing the mounting). We are left with the nonsensical result that same-sex mounting is a “heterosexual” act for some of its participants (those in the “gender-typical” role) while opposite-sex mounting can sometimes be a “homosexual” act for its participants (those in the “gender-atypical” role).¹⁷