Talk:Homosexual behavior in animals/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Requested move

This article should be renamed homosexual behavior in animals, which is protected from creation. The observed homosexual behaviors have no bearing on an animal's "sexuality". Ascribing a sexual preference or psychological profile (that is, a "foo-sexuality") to animals is an anthropomorphism. This is akin to calling a lion a murderer for killing the lion cubs of another male. Anyway, I tried to move it, failed horribly with a typo (bheavior), but homosexual behavior in animals is protected from creation, so I moved it to its current place. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 06:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Move - This is clear. What is being observed is homosexual behavior, and it should be described as such in the title. zadignose (talk) 08:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Move - I think the suggested name of Homosexual behavior in animals is much more accurate and appropriate for this article. As long as a redirect from Homosexuality in animals to the new name remains intact I have no objections to this move. —MearsMan talk 16:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment - I would also suggest that, should the article be moved, we should also create a redirect from Homosexual behaviour in animals for our British friends out there. :) —MearsMan talk 16:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
      Indeed. I was initially going to move it there, but I saw "behavior" was used on the first line of the article, so I decided to keep things consistent. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 23:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Opposed. Although what is documented is actual behaviors, in most cases, there is enough cases - like the famous chin-strap penguins in New York City - that suggest homosexual bonding is beyond mere rote behavior. I feel the article is fine where it's at and the article does a reasonably good job at explaining the issues. I welcome some insight from those who are more experts in the fields of research and education to clarify this. It seems more political to move this which is usually a terrible reason to make changes as such. Banjeboi 00:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
If it is political it is only so because the definition of "homosexuality" has become politicised. If homosexuality were merely synonymous with homosexual behaviour, of course, this proposal would not exist. I will not vote because I am too uninterested in the topic, but I think the proposed destination is more accurate. As to "beyond mere rote behavior", are you suggesting that non-mere-rote behaviour is not behaviour? (And I left a message on your talk page that I would have left here, but I did not want to create a new section while this move debate continues.) Srnec (talk) 03:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I'll quote Petter Bøckman from a previous discussion that I believe relates to this. "From a scientific POV we are reduced to observe behaviour and describe what we see (thus the term "exhibits homosexual behaviour"). If I were to go out on a limb and apply terms to their motivations, I would say that most of the animals described here could be classed as "bisexual", or perhaps better just "sexual", where sex and gender aren't as closely bound to each other as as commonly thought in our society. There are examples of animals that very clearly show a preference for their own gender sexually, some you'll see discussed in the section on examples." Research on animal sexuality is still very new so drawing conclusions that these observed behaviours having little or nothing to do with animal sexuality, IMHO, are simply wrong. Bagemihl's book is rather clear that animals do exhibit sexuality including courtship, affectionate, pair-bonding and parenting that go well beyond simply sex. The title as is is fine and the article, up until perhaps the last days has been pretty clear. I see no need or improvement to the average reader to move it. Banjeboi 23:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
It is just as ridiculous to conclude that observed behaviors are unrelated to sexual preference as it is to conclude that they are related to sexual preference. The point is that, regardless of the animals' true sexuality, we don't yet know, and should not make the assumption. Some animals may mostly prefer the opposite sex, and still engage in homosexual acts, and others may prefer the same sex. This is irrelevant, since they both exhibit homosexual behavior. The current title suggests they are all the latter case. The title should reflect what we definitively know—that males get off with other males, and females get off with other females. A good section of this article should then be dedicated to homosexual preference, and the research that has indicated "actual homosexuality" in animals (I use the term "actual homosexuality" for convenience). — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 04:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
This is a conversation and there is no need to refer to anyone's comments as "ridiculous". I feel the current title is fine and as there are more unknowns than known it doesn't serve our readers to definitely imply that what is reported in mass media is wrong as it's simply unknown. This also seems quite pointy and as stated above more politically motivated which this article has a history of. I feel it's fine where it is and the article is rather clear on the difference of terminology used in popular culture verses research environments. No need to move, might actually cause more problems. Banjeboi 11:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't think your comments are ridiculous, aside from that one conclusion. You are saying the description of homosexual behavior as "homosexual behavior" is an assumption that would do the readers an injustice, and that the suggested renaming is politically-motivated. Both of these are untrue. I cannot prove the latter, of course, and you can believe that if you want, but I think my argument for the first is convincing. Actually, it's not even an assumption: I describe homosexual behavior as homosexual behavior. Regardless of my motivations, we should keep the discussion to reasons to move or to keep, and not guess at each others' motivations.
We currently have an article on animal sexual behaviour, human sexual behavior, situational sexual behavior, etc.; why is this article exempt from being named similarly? Are we so certain of animal sexual preference that we can assume their homosexual behavior is entirely (or almost entirely) due to homosexuality? It is this assumption that does readers the injustice, by presenting all homosexual behavior as being homosexuality. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 14:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
The main reason is that this article is not simply about the behaviors but about how those behaviors are seen by us humans. We also can, and should, address the preference animals have for same-sex and bisexual expression. Bagemihl is quite clear that same-sex activities are not simply opportunistic, etc. Banjeboi 21:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Move. See comments above and below. It is clear what the least political title for this article is. Srnec (talk) 04:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Move I suppose, to minimize controversy. But mainly just curious - why does the nominator say the target page is protected from creation? It doesn't look that way to me.--Kotniski (talk) 19:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
  • When I attempted to move the page (after my failed move), I received a message along the lines of "Homosexual behavior in animals is protected from being created". I wouldn't have initiated this discussion if the move was successful, unless someone reverted my move. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Well I just created it (as a redirect to here), so it doesn't seem to be protected any more (nor are there any log entries for it). Maybe you weren't logged in or something?--Kotniski (talk) 07:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually the move is the controversy, it's been quite stable since 2004 with the only issue being should bisexuality also be in the title, which the content seems to now fully support. Nom just showed up a bit ago from what I've seen and the article has a long history of mitigating the content until sources were introduced for everything contested. I didn't think I'd have to type all this up but here goes ...
If other editors wish to write articles about specific behaviours no one is stopping them but this article is focussed on the implications and research of such and how that has impacted us human animals in understanding sexuality issues, specifically homosexuality which is the most politically charged, but also bisexuality. Banjeboi 02:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
An article focussed on the implications of homosexual behaviour in animals is best titled "Homosexual behaviour in animals". That said, most of this article, especially the long section entitled "Some selected species and groups", is really just a catalogue of described behaviour. How is the proposed move controversial? The only controversy is over whether the behaviour can be labelled "homosexuality" or "bisexuality". It could, of course, without controversy if those terms were regard as synonymous with "homosexual behaviour" and "bisexual behaviour", but your very arguments show that they are not commonly regarded as synonymous. Homo- and bisexuality have connotations about orientation and preference that go beyond mere behaviour: and your quote supports the contention that preference is inaccessible from the observance of behaviour. I said that it would be possible to have well-grounded conjectures regarding homosexuality, but conjectures always. That said, the current title would be justifiable completely if genetic studies had definitively shown that in some species at least there was a gene-based predisposition to certain types of homosexual behaviour. As far as I know, no such genetic studies have been done. Srnec (talk) 04:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Disagree completely. This isn't about that animals do certain behaviours as much as it is about why they do them. And that people attribute meaning to them and others counter its significance - Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity is a comprehensive book devoted to the subject. The article is NPOV and in the lede the article asserts that some disagree with the research presented. The examples provided illustrate the topic for those who wish to know more. Could it be expanded Sure. But how many animals do we need to list here? Higher up on this talk page someone asked for a section on penetrative sex. I'm not opposed to it but I also am unconvinced we need to go into such detail as what exactly animals do when they have sex with each other. Banjeboi 05:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Nobody is suggesting the article needs to change, only its title. All the meaning attributed to them can be contained in an article on them, i.e. the behaviours themselves. You say you "Disagree completely", but could you be more specific? Srnec (talk) 05:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Specifically the article, and the issue, is about sexuality and not behavior, few credible people dispute that the behaviours happen but there is dispute about why it happens. This article addresses ... homosexuality and bisexuality in animals, as well as touching upon some of the transgender issues. It isn't here to delve into specific behaviours, what they do and the mechanics of sex. Banjeboi 05:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Separate articles with different scope?

(undent)
Perhaps you and I have different opinions about what this article is supposed to be about. I see it as an article about homosexual behaviors that have been observed in animals, and how those behaviors manifest in animals of any sexual preference (the continuum between fully homosexual and fully heterosexual). Is your position, then, somewhere close to the following: This article is about same-sex preference that has been observed in animals, and it should describe homosexual behavior (among other things, such as treatment of homosexual animals by their social groups, etc.)?
The second definition, which I presumptuously attribute to you, would fit the current title. Homosexual behavior among "heterosexual" animals (which is different than bisexuality) would not be within the scope of the article. By my definition, homosexual behavior of any sort should be included. If my guess of your definition is fairly accurate, then there should be two separate articles—this one, dedicated to preference, and homosexual behavior in animals, dedicated to behavior (and obviously the two would be closely intertwined).
This article does have a definition of how the term "homosexuality" is used in the article, but why introduce an ambiguity (with the title) and then attempt to explain it (with the definition), when we could have separate articles, each named intuitively? But if you mostly disagree with my guess of your definition, then we should seek a third opinion before discussing further. So far we're the only ones involved. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 01:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
An article on homosexual behaviour in animals ought to cover scientific interpretations of such behaviour. It goes without saying that scientific arguments for homosexual orientation/preference in animals would be presented, as could any controversy revolving around these interpretations (if it is notable enough). That said, the article is most powerful as a tool for informing people when it speaks about the observed behaviour. Ultimately, that is all that can be observed anyways. We as people do not even observe homosexual orientation/preference in other humans, rather we take their word for it that they have such orientations/preferences. In the case of animals, this does not happen and therefore no conclusion regarding such things can ever be more than conjecture, even if well-grounded conjecture. One article can cover it all, but the best title for such an article, at least until the connotations of "homosexuality" involving orientiation and preference are lost, is Homosexual behaviour in animals. Srnec (talk) 04:27, 15 August 2008 (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.


Important Distinction

What I read here are accounts of homosexual BEHAVIOR among animals. What I wonder about is how many animals have been known to exhibit homosexual ORIENTATION? That is to say, aren't advocates of the "see, homosexuality is natural" position vulnerable to the objection that animals are merely "sticking it where it feels good" whether male or female. If the animals are being merely opportunistic about their exploits, that's not exclusively homosexual behavior. They're doing what feels good and sometimes they get it wrong (from the perspective of self-propagation). How many animals exhibit exclusively homosexual behavior and wont touch females when given the opportunity? Matt2h (talk) 04:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

What's "homosexual behavior"? There's bonding, hatching eggs together, kissing, all kinds of different activities that are not sex. Дҭї 14:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Exclusive homsexual behaviour is seen mostly in monogamous animals (quite a few birds), but also in some individuals of non-monogamous species. The problem (being treated in the chapter Applying the term "homosexual" to animals) is that the animal motivation can at best be guessed at. From a scientific POW we are reduced to observe behaviour and describe what we see (thus the term "exhibits homosexual behaviour"). If I where to go out on a limb and apply terms to their motivations, I would say that most of the animals described here could be classed as "bisexual", or perhaps better just "sexual", where sex and gender aren't as closely bound to each other as as commonly thought in our society. There are examples of animals that very clearly show a preference for their own gender sexually, some you'll see discussed in the section on examples.Petter Bøckman (talk) 04:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I thought dolphins were the only other animal which derived pleasure from sex. Dg7891 (talk) 23:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
That's a popular factoid that stems from research into the function of sex in dolphins (about 50 or so species btw), but enjoying sex seem to be a fairly widespread phenomenon in social mammals (and possibly a lot of other animals too).Petter Bøckman (talk) 19:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Gay v. homosexual

This article is titled "homosexuality in animals," but abruptly changes use to the word "gay" in the section about mallards. Those terms should be defined as synonymous or, if not intended to be, should be distinguished. 98.169.94.215 (talk) 02:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

"Gay" qualifies the animal, "homosexual" the behavior. This is how the words are usually used. Дҭї 03:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
In scientific studies the term "gay" is generally discouraged, as it has quite heavy cultural connotations. See Bagemihl for a fairly thorough discussion on the subject.Petter Bøckman (talk) 16:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
This article itself states that "gay" and "lesbian" are culturally human terms, and "homosexual" is preferred in the scientific community when referring to non-human animals. For consistency, "gay" and "lesbian" should be used in this article only when referring to humans, in my opinion. ThreeOfCups (talk) 00:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Hyena section

Does anyone have any idea why the hyena section is deleted every now and then?Petter Bøckman (talk) 14:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Because the research is, at best, divided. Sources used explain the historical misconceptions, which I think are useful to point out, as well as what some of the latest research has found. Banjeboi 14:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
So, citing bout sides get the section deleted? I fail to understand that stand.Petter Bøckman (talk) 19:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Sometimes people are bold and delete entire sections they don't agree with. Consensus builds articles partly in this way. They have been reverted each time so consensus has been to keep that content. Banjeboi 23:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Girrafe section

Resolved.

The girrafe part doesnt quite read properly i think their might be a bit mixed up —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.199.214 (talk) 19:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

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 move. PeterSymonds (talk) 00:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Unreferenced information

There seems to be quite a bit of unreferenced information in this article. The section on Bottlenosed dolphins has only one reference and this is followed by an unreferenced sentence. Does the ref apply to the whole section? If so it should be at the end. Many of the other sections seem to have an unreferenced sentence at the end e.g. Research on homosexual behavior in animals, Cross species sex, Amazon dolphins, Black swans, Lions, Sheep etc. Also, there are no references at all for Dragonflies, Drosophila and Lizards. Richerman (talk) 14:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. For example, the references for Bonobo apes being fully bisexual are a book (not particularly scientific) and the webpage of a zoo- which is an outdated link to nothing. Horus (talk) 02:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Giraffes

The section on giraffes doesn't really sit well where it is. In all the other sections on individual animals the text is about the animals' behaviour whereas this one is all about bias in the researcher's observations. Wouldn't this fit better in the section "Research on homosexual behavior in animals" as an example of the problems with the history of this research? Richerman (talk) 22:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Homosexual_behavior_in_animals/Archive_2&oldid=1136356158"