Abstract

Is there such thing as animal homosexuality? I begin this paper with a brief discussion of two case studies of homosexual behaviour in nonhuman animals, notably cockchafers and king penguins, in order to reveal the persistent attempts of some animal scientists to explain away animal homosexuality. I then go on to identify and analyse two philosophical concerns underlying these attempts: the problem of other minds and the problem of anthropomorphism. Critics of animal homosexuality seem to assume a) that there is no way of knowing whether nonhuman animals have minds; b) that even if they would in fact have minds, they still would not be capable of having the mental states that we usually associate with human homosexuality; and c) that even if they were capable of such states, there would still be the issue that same-sex sexual mental states and behaviours are often mistakenly identified as sexual states and behaviours. By providing arguments against each of these assumptions, I support the claim that some animals exhibit homosexuality, that there are homosexual mental states in at least some nonhuman animals, and that these states may help to explain homosexual behaviours.

Highlights

  • When it comes to humans, ‘homosexuality’ refers to a variety of characteristics, ranging from sexual behaviours, desires, preferences, and orientations, to sexual identities (Stein 1999)

  • One aim of this paper is to reveal two philosophical issues underlying this scientific discord

  • Is it justified to ascribe homosexual behaviours or mental states to nonhuman animals? The Melolontha story and many contemporary case studies on animal homosexuality illustrate how difficult it is for animal scientists to even entertain the possibility that animal behaviour would be guided by mental states like sexual desires or preferences

Read more

Summary

Introduction

When it comes to humans, ‘homosexuality’ refers to a variety of characteristics, ranging from sexual behaviours, desires, preferences, and orientations, to sexual identities (Stein 1999). I defend a) the use of the expression ‘animal homosexuality’, as well as its many derivatives, in the animal sciences; b) positing the existence of homosexual mental states in at least some nonhuman animals; and c) considering such states in explaining observed homosexual behaviours Why is it important to defend these three claims? Male-female interactions in Savanna Baboons, for example, are likened to ‘May-December romances,’ ‘flirting,’ and other human courtship rituals in a ‘singles bar’” (Bagemihl 1999, 97–8) Based on such observations, I expect mentalistic explanations of heterosexual behaviours in animals to be less problematic than similar explanations of homosexual behaviours

Explaining Away Animal Homosexuality
Minding Animals
Humanising Animals
Desexualising Animals
Conclusion
Findings
Literature cited
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call