Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity

(or to pregnant females carrying male fetuses). A fetal hormonal “explanation” is irrelevant, as well, for huge segments of homosexual activity, such as same-sex behaviors in animals that do not get pregnant (males of virtually all species and females of egg-laying species, for example).

In addition to being empirically unfounded, physiological explanations are also suspect on conceptual grounds. Almost without exception, hormonal or other pathological accounts of homosexuality focus on the animal exhibiting “gender-atypical” behavior, e.g., the male being mounted or the female doing the mounting. The partners of these individuals are usually considered to be physically “normal” animals whose behavior warrants no further consideration. Yet in many cases the “gender-conforming” partners are equally active participants in homosexual activity, sometimes even initiating same--sex interactions. As we saw in the discussion of “pseudoheterosexual” explanations, this categorization of animals into gender-conforming versus nonconforming, or “truly homosexual” versus “not-quite-homosexual” individuals, is in most cases arbitrary. It reflects not so much any inherent qualities or meaningful behavioral attributes in the animals themselves, but rather the observer’s biases or conceptual categories.¹¹⁶

The pathologizing of “gender-atypical” behavior is taken to its extreme in the discussion of transgendered animals. Early descriptions of intersexual animals of ten labeled them “monstrosities.”¹¹⁷ More recently, hermaphroditism, chromosomal and other forms of gender mixing, and physical and behavioral transvestism are invariably considered diseased states, birth defects, physiological abnormalities, or otherwise dysfunctional. Yet researchers have usually been as unsuccessful in determining the physical “causes” for transgender as they have for homosexuality. For example, in discussing what they call “effeminate” behavior in Bighorn rams (males who exhibit some of the behavioral and social characteristics of females), scientists have tried to appeal to hormonal factors. Yet they were forced to conclude that this is an unsatisfactory explanation, since such males are physically “normal” and differ from other rams only in their behavior. The entire discourse surrounding transgender in White-tailed Deer centers on describing this as a “pathological condition” and attempting to find its physiological source. Velvet-horns (gender-mixing male deer) in Texas were subjected to a comprehensive battery of tests, including sampling and dissection of their sex organs to look for infection or “anomalies,” blood tests for possible microorganisms or contaminants, dietary profiles, hormone injections, and chromosomal studies, none of which turned up any “cause.” Investigators finally concluded that this “condition” must be due to a naturally occurring toxin in the soil where the animals live, yet admitted that no specific substance that might have this effect could be pinpointed or isolated in the animals’ environment. Similarly, a gender-mixing Savanna (Chacma) Baboon in South Africa was shot and dissected to “study” its reproductive organs. Another was captured and given hormone “treatments” to see if it would behave like a “normal” female (defined, in this case, as participation in heterosexual intercourse with a male). Investigators stated that this individual could have been a “successful female in the wild” if only it had “normal functioning ovaries.”¹¹⁸

These cases highlight one of the primary reasons that transgendered animals are usually considered abnormal: they often cannot (or do not) reproduce. Yet this is a limited and erroneous definition of “normalcy” that overlooks crucial facts about the lives of transgendered (and nontransgendered) animals. For one thing, transgendered animals arise “spontaneously” and repeatedly in natural populations, and they do survive successfully in the wild. Gender-mixing Baboons similar to the one given hormonal treatments have been observed in the same area of South Africa as far back as the early 1900s and are probably a regularly occurring feature of this and other populations. Moreover, such individuals are fully integrated members of their troops and may even assume high- ranking or “leadership” positions. The truth is, the gender-mixing individual described above (and others like it) was able to survive and even prosper without “normal functioning ovaries.” Similarly, velvet- horns have been reported in a wide range of geographic areas and at least as far back as 1910–20, again indicating a long-standing, regular feature of natural Deer populations.¹¹⁹ Although such individuals are sometimes “ostracized” by other Deer, they have developed their own forms of social organization, living in distinct “communities” with unique behavior patterns.

Conversely, many nontransgendered animals fail to participate in reproduction and may in fact never successfully procreate during their entire lives (numerous examples will be discussed in the next chapter). If failure to reproduce were sufficient grounds to exclude an individual from “normalcy,” the majority of animals in some populations and species would not make the roster. In contrast, many transgendered animals do reproduce, such as intersexual Bears and gender-mixing female White-tailed Deer, and may in fact be more heterosexually successful than nontransgendered animals (as in transvestite Northern Elephant Seals, Red Deer, Black-headed Gulls, and Common Garter Snakes¹²⁰). The final irony is that nonbreeding animals (including transgendered individuals) are also sometimes more healthy than breeders, precisely because they do not reproduce. Velvet-horn White-tailed Deer, for instance, are generally in much better physical condition than breeding males because they do not undergo the extreme physical rigors of the rutting season, which often cause severe weight loss and may even stunt growth in young bucks. Likewise, the mortality rate of breeding Bighorn rams is nearly six times higher than that of nonbreeding males. Clearly, then, participation in reproduction can be a liability rather than an asset to an individual’s survival and success.

The vehement pathologizing of transgender encapsulates the entire discussion surrounding the “cause” of alternate sexual and gender expression in animals. Phenomena such as homosexuality or gender mixing are never seen as neutral or expected variations along a sexual and gender continuum (or continua), but rather as abnormal or exceptional conditions that require explanation. At the root of this perception is the idea that homosexuality and transgender are dysfunctional behaviors or conditions because they do not lead to reproduction. In the next chapter, we’ll explore in greater detail the role of procreation in the animal kingdom and its complex interrelationships with homosexuality, bisexuality, transgender, and heterosexuality. Some of our most fundamental assumptions regarding the significance of reproduction must be revised as we come to understand the often surprising ways that animals structure their breeding and nonbreeding lives.

Chapter 5

Not for Breeding Only: Reproduction on the Periphery of Life

Heterosexual animals that never reproduce, homosexual animals that regularly procreate—breeding and sexual orientation often combine in unexpected and paradoxical ways. In an attempt to understand the origin and function of homosexuality, many scientists have suggested that same-sex activity might actually contribute in some way to reproduction or the perpetuation of the species. In this way, they have tried to carve out a “place” for homosexuality in the scheme of things—but a place on the sidelines, with breeding and heterosexuality decidedly in the center. What many people fail to realize is that reproduction itself often occupies a peripheral position in animal life—either being a “marginal” activity among apparently heterosexual animals, or else a common activity among seemingly “marginal” animals such as those involved in homosexuality. In this chapter we’ll explore some of the various attempts to find a “useful” place for homosexuality in the larger patterns of life and consider why these attempts have often been as misguided as efforts to deny such a “purpose” for homosexuality in the first place.

The Evolutionary “Value” of Homosexuality

In 1959 noted evolutionary biologist George Evelyn Hutchinson published a proposal that was radical for its time (and even now remains controversial): he advanced the first theory of the evolutionary value of homosexuality.¹ Hutchinson argued that since homosexuality appears to be a biological constant, appearing in generation after generation (in both humans and animals) at a rate that far exceeds that of biological “mistakes,” it must perform some useful function rather than be an aberrant behavior, and moreover, it must have a genetic basis.² Nearly 20 years later, in 1975, renowned biologist Edward O. Wilson published his seminal work Sociobiology, in which he took up the same theme: homosexuality must be beneficial to a species if it keeps reappearing. Since then, many other “positive” explanations have been proposed for animal homosexuality: some provocative, some absurd, but all revolving around the idea that breeding, heterosexuality, or the overall reproductive profile of an individual or species may be enhanced by homosexuality.³