Fox News reports on the splitting of famous gay penguins Silo and Roy at New York’s Central Park Zoo. Apparently, Silo left Roy for Scrappy, an exotic SeaWorld girl who’s never had chicks. Fox references an article [not free] from the New York Post.
What does it mean for the greater cause of gay rights that animals can apparently become ex-gay? Absolutely nothing. This is one case, which certainly hasn’t been studied long-term. But let’s see if the ex-gay echo chambers pick it up that way.
Update: Warren Throckmorton obviously wants to bite, but tries to hide it.
Actually, I thought Doc Throc was pretty decent in his article. Obviously he disagrees with me about sexual orientation and whether it truly is changeable. But the point of his article was to advise the anti-gay crowd from reading too much into Silo and Ray’s parting of the ways.
And in that he’s correct.
Perhaps we too should have been less eager to read something into their mating to begin with.
The only lesson I see in the Silo and Ray story is that when homophobes claim that homosexuality does not occur in nature, it was an example to refute that point. It is not, nor ever was, an example of anything else.
One phrase regarding the whole penguin bizness: “Universal Bisexuality.”
I’m not sure you can claim that penguins are universally bisexual.
Bonobos, on the other hand….
I still wonder, so what?
I really don’t give a tinker’s damn what an instructor at a small religious college has to say about much of anything.
I would challenge him to give me a reason to give a “tinker’s damn” but when I’ve made similar challenges on other web sites none of them ever have.
It’s clear: he has a gig that earns him some money.
The gay community latched onto these penguins and made them into their animal poster children, which of course means that they had to be true 100% homo penguins in their eyes. Now they’re bemoaning that Roy has gone straight.
No one ever wondered or even thought that maybe he was somewhere along the continum of bisexuality. Because bisexuals are the dregs of the gay community.
Such black and white thinking Sarah.I know that The Gay Community(R) did take a vote on this and by a 99.2% margin decide that Roy and Silo were “the gayest penguins ever”, but I’m not sure we’ve ever voted on making bisexuals “the dregs of the gay community”. But you sound like an expert, so perhaps I missed that vote.The point is that homosexuality occurs through nature — therefore it’s a little hard to argue that it is caused by sin or not praying hard enough or bad parenting. Rather it points back to not-yet-understood biological causes.Also, the two male peguins successfully raised a child together. They were also together for 6 years, which is very good going as far as penguin relationships go.And it’s Silo who’s jumped the fence, not Roy.
>>I know that The Gay Community(R) did take a vote on this and by a 99.2% margin decide that Roy and Silo were “the gayest penguins ever”, but I’m not sure we’ve ever voted on making bisexuals “the dregs of the gay community”. But you sound like an expert, so perhaps I missed that vote.
Nah, it’s still the trannies, hands down. Whenever we’re around lesbians reach for their Germaine Greer and Janice Raymond, and gay guys suddenly wax endlessly on how “straight acting” they are and how much they know they’re male.
All defensiveness aside, we don’t even completely understand human sexuality yet, let alone penguin sexuality. All we know is that behavior which occurs in nature cannot by definition be considered “unnatural.”
And that bis and trannies experience prejudice from both the gay and str8 communities but that’s no reason to assume any particular gay person is bi- or transphobic or to compete for the coveted “Most Put Upon” title or to get overly defensive when someone points out that the prejudice still exists or wonder how weird it is that McDonald’s had to change their “milkshakes” to “shakes” cause what the heck is in those things, anyway?
I was going to type an XGW post, but I’ve already done it over at Throckmorton’s blog.I’m sure I don’t need to add /sarc, but there was a serious core to the post:what can you tell about sexuality from one bird in a zoo?why do people who plainly have little/no connection to the “gay community” feel inclined to describe what “we” all think?why do so many confidently use unattributed quotes from anonymous/unidentified people?—grantdale said…
Oh well, I guess Silo can now make a cringe inducing appearance on Howard Stern (what the heck was Cohen thinking???)It’s a little difficult to comment on the activities of all those unidentified Gay Activists(c) in your op-ed, but I understand Roy and Silo had miserable childhoods and never “gender identified in a proper way”. That was told to me as scientific fact by an unidentified reorientation therapist, by the way.They have been attempting to get Roy to take up an interest in football to fix that gender identity problem, but so far he’s still just flapping around in a very gay way.If he doesn’t stop this ho-mo-SEX-yoo-alty soon they’re going to ship him off to an unlicensed, illegal ex-gay residential unit for 2 months (one where both A&F underwear and/or fish are banned, if you get my drift…).And an unidentified NARTH person has told me that the chick raised by Roy and Silo is “undoubtably going to turn out to be a lesbian”. I wasn’t at all surprised to find out that Tango knows nothing about hair and makeup, or needlework, or cooking or any other the other womanly virtues she missed being raised in a deprived one-sex household.Anyway…One thing is curious — your op-ed basically claims we cannot deduce human sexuality from animals but you also confidently claim that those two penguins prove that “sexuality in animals is flexible, context driven and influenced by factors we do not fully understand.”Surely it’s one or the other? And that seems a “big call” based on the antics of one bird.As to why conservative Christians are holding up Emperor penguins as paragons of sexual virtue — apart from them doing what you said we should not, they quite obviously know nothing about the real sex lives of the little guys. A new mate every year, 10% of chicks raised by fathers who genetically aren’t the father…Hmm, which came first… depraved Hollywood or that plainly of-the-devil South Pole?
Boo — not sure if you noticed you said this…
Ok, I’ll admit to doing it. More than once. But only during summer. bahahaha.
“>>I know that The Gay Community(R) did take a vote on this and by a 99.2% margin decide that Roy and Silo were “the gayest penguins ever”, but I’m not sure we’ve ever voted on making bisexuals “the dregs of the gay community”. But you sound like an expert, so perhaps I missed that vote.
Nah, it’s still the trannies, hands down.”
You’re both wrong. It’s the gay Republicans.
I guess I most feel bad for the Republican bisexual trannies.
McDonalds do (now) use milk in their shakes. Or rather, milk-derived ingredients.Contents: for the U.S. and for Australia.The ones (mainly ice-creams) you’ve got to watch out for are those containing “non-Dairy Animal Solids”. Basically, LARD that has been whipped and frozen together with water, sugar and flavourings. Yeah, bleah!
Timothy said >”You’re both wrong. It’s the gay Republicans.”OK, you have both my and Boo’s sympathy. /wink.
I’d nominate that person. Or the Loch Ness monster.
Let see…
I actually do know:
a black bald Republican
a black former-Jewish Republican (actually I have a date with him tonight – he’s also smart, funny, and beautiful)
a tranny (self identifying as female) in a wheelchair
What can I say – I live in LA.
Bisexuality only occurs in humans. Why? Because it is based on identity. Penguins and dogs and other animals can’t express an identity, so bisexuality does not exist, at least in how humans express themselves. However, even though homosexuality and heterosexuality are identities in the human world, in the animal world, they can only be expressed by behavior.
Does homosexuality exist in animals? Yes. Is it natural? Yes. Did I have an exclusively lesbian dog? Yes.
For once, Thockmorton was fairer towards gays than XGW’s own article.
As he points out, animals are not one thing or another.
The penguin did not become “ex-gay” and I am disappointed that Andrew chose to use the language of anti-gay activists. Ex-gay does not mean going from a member of the same sex to a member of the opposite sex. Ex-gay means saying that you have been freed of homosexuality. Obviously the penguin did not say that, since he can’t talk.
We’ll always have Wendell and Cass!!!!
For once, I have to agree that Andrew Sullivan’s choice of language was poor. I understand he was trying to make a humorous point, but James is right.
Penguins don’t have the concept of homosexuality, they have instincts, urges, desires (though that is very anthropomorphic language). Silo found something else that he ‘liked’–for whatever reason.
Now, if he starts drinking too much, cheating on his new penguin gal, going to penguin drag clubs on the sly, or in other ways acting out harmfully towards himself and others… then maybe, we should start to worry about him.
Bisexuality only occurs in humans. Why? Because it is based on identity. Penguins and dogs and other animals can’t express an identity, so bisexuality does not exist, at least in how humans express themselves. However, even though homosexuality and heterosexuality are identities in the human world, in the animal world, they can only be expressed by behavior.
Does homosexuality exist in animals? Yes. Is it natural? Yes. Did I have an exclusively lesbian dog? Yes.
This makes my head ache.
You say that bisexuality is based on identity–what that means, I’m not entirely sure (all I can guess is that you’re saying that it’s an assumed feature). Since I really don’t know what you mean, let’s just imagine you’re right for now. From this you conclude that animals, having no identity (another contention I have trouble understanding), cannot be bisexual. Fair enough.
You go on to admit that homosexuality and heterosexuality are also identities. So one would assume you would argue that since animals don’t have identities, they also cannot be homosexual nor heterosexual. Except then you claim that these “identities” do exist in animals, because in their case it’s behavioral–even though, for some reason you never care to explain, this is not the case for bisexuality.
So, which is it? Can animals be declared “homosexual”, “heterosexual”, or “bisexual” based on their sexual activity or can’t they?
What I said is that humans have identities, animals do not. The terms heterosexuality and homosexuality refer to both identity and behavior. We can identify homosexuality through animal behavior but not in their thought or perception of attraction. Bisexuality is based on who one is attracted to (same with assexuality). If penguins could talk, they could express identity. Instead, they can’t. We can’t perceive their thoughts–so we can only talk about homosexual or heterosexual behaviors.
To put it in simple terms, humans can communicate who they want to f**k. That is identity.
Animals can only f**k. That is behavior.
If you reread my original passage, I say clearly that animals do not have identities. In fact, there is a fallacy called the anthropomorphic fallacy. You cannot place human emotions or identities on animals–it is problematic. You can however talk about behavior observed only.
Ex-gay penguin? Um, did he need religious indoctrination or Throckmorton like indoctrination in order to “change”?
As I’ve noted here before, I’ve known people who have changed from gay to straight, from straight to gay, and from straight to gay to straight to gay again,and they didn’t need religious or Throckmorton-like indoctrination to do so. So what’s the big deal with Silo?
Silo didn’t see his dad’s penis often enough to contrast and compare, and Roy felt his flippers made him an inadequate ball thrower.
Not only do we still have Wendell and Cass (and at least one lesbian penguin couple at the NY Aquarium, if the Aquarium spokesman who appeared on “The Daily Show” a few months ago can be believed – IIRC, “the Daily Show”‘s correspondent referred to the penguin house as a “birdhouse of buggery” after finding out there were three homosexual couples at the zoo), we also have the lesbian swans of Boston, so the famous “gay” couples in the bird kingdom are still pretty plentiful.
Realistically, we can’t say anything about animals “identities” as gay or bi, because animals don’t think that conceptually. However, we also know a lot more about animal sexuality than the few famous examples of “gay” animals tells us. Works like “Biological Exuberance” have detailed the findings of homosexual and bisexual behavior in the wild over the decades, and we don’t need one penguin to prove that homosexuality and bisexuality, at least in behavior, are naturally occurring.
Incidentally, Robert Knight has his own take on how this “proves” sexual orientation can change (hello, Roy doesn’t count here? He hasn’t gone straight.) on WorldNutDaily today.
Yes, yes, now will you answer my question?
Why can heterosexuality and homosexuality in animals be inferred through their behavior, but not bisexuality?
Concerned Woman, Robert Knight, has weighed in on this little news bit.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46456
You can just feel the glee oozing off the screen. But, then again, he’s predictable. This time he went so far as to say:
“For years, we’ve been hearing that the presence of “gay” penguins is proof that there’s nothing normal about males and females mating, and that Roy and Silo’s parenting skills are sublime.”
My memory must be shot because I don’t recall anyone ever saying that “there’s nothing normal about males and females mating”.
Ah, Robert, there you go again, lying through your teeth. Most of us think that’s perfectly normal (if a little icky) for the hets to mate male and female.
I guess the Concerned Women for America are more concerned with attacking gay folk at any opportunity (contrived or not) and not at all concerned that what they say is actually true.
Not too surprising, though, since they don’t seem to be women either.
How in the world is this a knock to Roy and Silo’s “parenting skills”?! Apparently Tango is going on Oprah to talk about having “gender confusion” and being molested.
People.
People!
They’re penguins!
Let’s move on.
>>Not only do we still have Wendell and Cass (and at least one lesbian penguin couple at the NY Aquarium, if the Aquarium spokesman who appeared on “The Daily Show” a few months ago can be believed – IIRC, “the Daily Show”‘s correspondent referred to the penguin house as a “birdhouse of buggery” after finding out there were three homosexual couples at the zoo), we also have the lesbian swans of Boston, so the famous “gay” couples in the bird kingdom are still pretty plentiful.
Skemono, this is easy, the terms homosexual and heterosexual refer to both behavior and identity. If a male has sex with a male, that is homosexual behavior (and in fact, traditional Christianity does not see homosexuality as identity, only as behavior). If a male has sex with a female, it is heterosexual behavior. You apply it to animals and that is how you describe behavior. You can’t describe bisexuality in the animal world–you only discuss sexuality in terms of behavior that is happening at time of observation(since you can’t get in an animals head).
In the human world, for scientific studies, the terms heterosexual and homosexual are used for behavior. The term gay is more of an indentity term–it is how the person perceives him or herself. Same with bisexuality as identity. The dictionary states bisexuality is “having a sexual orientation to persons of either sex.” Animals don’t have orientations–humans do. This is not a difficult concept.
There appears to be some mystical quality of bisexuality which you have grasped but I have not which prevents it from being treated the same way as other sexual identities.
If an animal only has sex with members of the opposite sex, you will label it homosexual.
If an animal only has sex with members of the same sex, you will label it heterosexual.
And yet if an animal has sex with members of either sex, you will not say that it is bisexual because bisexuality is an “identity”. Why this is not so for homosexuality and heterosexuality you once again fail to adequately explain.
And you appear to be edging away from your previous labelling of homosexuality and heterosexuality as identities. Now they are only behaviors? Since you are making use of dictionary definitions, allow me to do the same:
“heterosexuality – Sexual orientation to persons of the opposite sex.”
“homosexuality – Sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.”
These are both ‘identities’, as much as bisexuality is. So why are they treated differently from bisexuality? The question is not complicated.
Skemono, all I am trying to point out (and this is how it is defined in academia) is that homosexuality and heterosexuality are defined by both behavior and identity (the standard methods include determining behavior, attraction, and dreamlife). Bisexuality is only identity (for example, a person can be bisexual and never have a samesex experience. How do we know they are bisexual? Because they tell us they are?). If a man sleeps with a man, that is homosexual behavior. If a man sleeps with a female, that is heterosexual behavior. That is easy to define, but I cannot say that a man sleeping with a man is bisexual behavior (how do I know from observation?). For someone to be bisexual, they have to identify as bisexual. For example, let’s say a man sleeps with primarily men but occasionally he sleeps with a female. I can say he has homosexual and heterosexual behaviors. However, if he sees himself and says he is homosexual because of those encounters, he has a homosexual identity. He could say that the encounters are bisexual, and we accept that as identity also. But based on behaviors only, you cannot say that there is bisexual behavior. How would that be determined?
Animals can’t talk or communicate with humans, so we can only go by behaviors. I get the feeling you think somehow I am saying something about bisexuality being lesser or something. I am not–I am just pointing out that an animal can’t be bisexual unless there is a way to figure out how the animal sees itself.
The definition of homosexuality and heterosexuality include orientation yes, but this is also part of the definition:
Homosexuality:
Sexual activity with another of the same sex.
Heterosexuality: Sexual activity with a member of the opposite sex.
Skemono, if you could show me how animals can be known to be bisexual, I will easily change this view, but this is the standard way scientific studies use language for sexual behaviors. They might be wrong, but you need to convince me that bisexuality can be determined by behavior only.
How about a hot penguin 3-way with 2 penguin dudes and one chick?
Um, wait, chick means something different with penguins, doesn’t it?
Damn penguin pedos.
Aaron, I’d think we’d all appreciate a reference from academia. You’ve claimed it twice.I’ve seen otherwise, and your focus on splitting behaviour from attraction from self-described labels from identity smacks of that religious viewpoint rather than academia. Academia does recognise bisexuality as an integrated sexuality for some people (and, I guess, penguins…)I’m not sexually “behaving” in any particular way at the moment, but I am dead certain I’m not open to suddenly being homosexual vs. heterosexual (noun, adjective or verb). And that’s not because I ticked “gay” on the “self identity” box. That label came well after the realisation.
Grantdale, you just proved everything I was saying. You said for humans it is beyond behavior–exactly, 100% what I am saying. It is realization that is reality.
You also state exactly that academia perceives bisexuality in people–that is what I said. But can Penguins make that realization you mentioned? Maybe, but as humans, we can’t determine that without asking them. I personally have had sex with men and women–am I bisexual? No, why not? Because I am able to discuss attraction, feelings, etc. Animals can’t. I am able to identify myself as gay.
I am not sure why understanding that animals can’t communicate their views on sexuality to be so hard. Also, traditional religious views see sexuality as behavior only in humans. Science and academia see sexuality in terms of orientation. I am saying humans are able to qualify their sexuality–animals aren’t. Let’s see a row of hands of people who have had their dogs, cats, frogs tell them that they were gay, bisexual, or straight. Animals can’t talk, so?
As far as academic credentials, you can look up my name, Aaron Race, on Google because there is a lot of info about my academic credentials. I have never seen a legit study ever discuss bisexuality in animals–only homosexuality or heterosexuality. I could be wrong, but I have never seen it. I have taught in the sciences writing papers, and one of the things we discuss is the use of terminology. Homosexual and heterosexual are approved terms generally for study. They are based in observation and behavior. Now, psychology may use different terms than biology, but psychology is based on the human brain primarily. Probably the best book on the use of terminology is Writing in the Sciences: Exploring Conventions of Scientific Discourse. I don’t remember the author at this time.
This whole discussion hinges on two questions:
1.)Is bisexuality a behavior?
2.)Can animals communicate their thoughts and selfperceptions to humans?
If you say no to question 1, then you are stuck with the answer to 2, and we already know that answer (again, it goes back to the fallacy I mentioned before).
Blacks and their sexual mores were reduced to the
same as chimpanzees and burr headed gorillas.
Gays and lesbians being identified along with animals is just par for the course in reductive language and perceptions of ordinary human beings that the greater population doesn’t want to see as equals, but as ‘uncivilized’ and incapable of any more discipline in their sexual lives than animals.
It’s the dehumanizing principle.
And it’s scary, mean and very not funny or even cute.
Gay human beings have to worry about their heterosexual counterparts.
Gay penquins don’t have those problems.
After all, the other penquins don’t shun the gays ones, purge them from the group…or beat them beyond recognition.
Thank you Regan, you are saying exactly what I am. Human identity and animal behavior are two different things and are not comparable.
I agree that a single act may be homosexual or heterosexual. But if we are to apply these labels to the animals and not any individual action, we’d have to look at their actions over time. You claim to have had an exclusively lesbian dog–by which I take it to mean that you had a female dog that only had sex with other females. You would not have made this assertion based on a single event.
Similarly if you were to say that an animal were exclusively heterosexual, you’d likely mean that it always only had sex with animals of the opposite sex.
So I do see room to apply the label bisexual to animals if we take into account their sexual history, instead of any single act. Animals that regularly have sex with animals of either gender could easily be taken to be ‘bisexual’.
By the way, your question of “Can animals communicate their thoughts and selfperceptions to humans?” I do not immediately agree that the answer must be ‘no’. In the realm of sexuality at least, I should think we can take into account who an animals courts, rejects, and becomes aroused by to get a hint of their orientation.
The lesbian dog thing was a joke, but I did have a poodle who refused to mate with the males. She would, however, mount female dogs as if she was a male. The poodle would attack any male that came near her. I believe that “lesbian” is an orientation, identity term, so it can’t really apply to animals–I was just being ironic. The only thing I know is that the dog engaged in homosexual behavior, but I don’t know if the dog was actually homosexual.
I understand what you mean about animals have sex with both genders over a lifetime and applying the term bisexual (BTW, in most science circles, the term bisexual is applied to animals that have sex and reproduce with both genders, so there is a difference with the human vs. animal terminology). But let me give you some examples where bisexual is problematic in general.
If a male is straight, attracted to women only, but is put in prison and has situational homosexuality. He gets out of prison and goes back to straight sex. Is he bisexual? No, why? Because he identifies with being straight.
A man admits to being sexually attracted to men and women but only has sex with women. Is he bisexual? Yes, because he admits to that orientation.
As I stated, I have had sex with women, I could continue to have sex with women. I actually find women quite attractive and always have. I have probably seen more vaginas and breasts than any gay man in history, but I am a clear 6 on the Kinsey Scale. I am only sexual attracted to men, and I identify as gay. Am I bisexual? No.
So, how do we apply these concepts to animals if they require some explanation by the person who engages in them? I can think of many more instances myself where the term bisexual is more identity than orientation.
This is actually really important on this forum because it is all about identity and orientaiton in the human world: gay, exgay, straight, lesbian, bear, assexual, polysexual, transgendered, transexual, top, bottom. I can’t easily apply these concepts to animals.
You bring up an interesting point about courtship, rejection, arousal, but those are very controversial concepts in the sciences. Many feel that it is impossible to take the human view of courtship and apply it to animals. My mother-in-law thinks that if you blink at cats and they blink back at you, that is language to suggest reassurance. However, the cat may be blinking because the cat was blinking.
Aaron, you will have to help me out.Other than someone of that name working within departments of English I’m struggling to find an academic person with the qualifications you are suggesting. A few LDS mentions too, but google runs out at this point. Perhaps they are different people.Given this, I’m not about to debate semantics. I’ve got enough lesbians around me to do that with 🙂 I’m not even sure what you’re attempting to tell us, overall — we all know people lie, hide, embelish and fabricate their sexual history; and some are honest. Other than healthy scepticism, I’m still trying to see what point of yours I proved or what “rule” about sexuality you’re trying to establish.And to be honest, you are very confusing when you say you are (sexually?) attracted to women, but are “only sexually attracted to men” and a K6. Huh?