Talk:Homosexual behavior in animals

Template:Find sources notice

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.