Archive | Bisexual

Screening + Vigil for Remembrance of Transgender Day

Posted on 20 November 2008 by pagarmerah

Dear all,

A bunch of us will be organizing a screening/vigil in conjunction with the Remembrance of Transgender Day.

Following are the details:

Date : 22nd Nov 2008, Saturday
Time : 8.00 pm
Venue : Bau Bau Cafe, Mezzanine Floor, Annexe Central Market

Movie :
A Jihad for Love (81 mins)
A documentary on gay, lesbian, and transgender Muslims across the Muslim and Western worlds.

back up
TransAmerica (103 mins)
A pre-operative male-to-female transsexual takes an unexpected journey when she learns that she fathered a son, now a teenage runaway hustling on the streets of New York.

Why are we celebrating the Remembrance of Transgender Day?

To memorialize those who were killed due to anti-transgender hatred or prejudice. Although not every person represented during the Day of Remembrance self-identified as transgender, each was a victim of violence based on bias against transgender people. It raises public awareness of hate crimes against transgender people, an action that current media doesn’t perform. Day of Remembrance publicly mourns and honors the lives of transgender people who might otherwise be forgotten. Through the vigil, we express love and respect in the face of national indifference and hatred.

On average two transgender people are murdered each month, according to global figures. This year alone 26 transgender people were killed. Out of the 26 recorded murders this year all were brutally violent, apart from one person who died by drowning – a pattern which has repeated over the past ten years and 245 murders. In the Middle East and some parts of Asia and India murders are still rife and often they’re committed by law officials so the deaths are not recorded.

And also to put an end to all sorts of discrimination/hatred/violence against people due to their sexual orientation or identity.

If you have any questions or queries, please do not hesitate to email me. (I do entertain hate mails as well.)

p/s: please bring your own candles.

We are a collective with no name so please bear with us.

Thank you to Bau Bau Cafe for the venue and Amnesty International for the projector. I think this is also supported by Tilted World and Cinta itu Buta.

Comments (1)

Nationwide Protest against Prop 8: Boston

Posted on 16 November 2008 by nakedwriter

“We didn’t vote on your marriage.”

Nakedwriter covers the Protest Against Prop 8 from downtown Boston.

Under the dreary skies of a downpour, I trudged along the sidewalks to the meeting place. No one seemed to be around. I wondered if the weather had dampened our spirits. “Even God doesn’t like us,” remarked one of my co-protesters.

And then, almost without warning, a group of semi-soaked individuals, umbrella and poster clad, came marching upon us. “Gay, straight, white, black. Marriage is a civil right!” they chanted. I was engulfed by the crowd, pulled along, and marched closely, chanting:

Gay. Straight. Black. White. Marriage is a civil right!

Supporters we passed cheered and clapped, while drivers honked their support. We made our way, half wet, to the plaza in front of the Boston City Hall. It was quite empty, quite quiet.

It took another half an hour before the crowd swelled. All sorts of people, families, couples, individuals, college students, teachers, mothers, legislators, musicians, artists, bikers, were present with their chants and boards.

“Prop 8 = Hate”

“California. WTF??”

“Liberty and Justice for All.”

“All Families are Equal.”

Speeches soon began. They crowds chanted for equality. Boo-ed at DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act). Chanted for change. Boo-ed at the people who mislabel us. Chanted for hope.

A journalist asked us, why were we internationals, unconcerned with the legalities of a foreign America, bothered about showing up. “America is seen as a pioneer. Change is followed elsewhere in USA’s footsteps…” pause “when it pertains the rights of LGBTQ,” someone said. “Because we’re fighting for an international cause: the right to love.”

“Because at home, women are told they can’t dress too manly,” I added.

Comments (4)

OPED: Fatwa against tomboys: action and reaction

Posted on 12 November 2008 by nakedwriter

I recently wrote this somewhere else (http://thenakedwriter.blogspot.com/). Also included are comments which I thought were pertinent to the issue.

____________________

Fatwa against Tomboys: Action and Reaction

A few weeks ago, the National Fatwa Council of Malaysia released a religious decree against women dressing like men, whatever those two identities - women and men - mean. A group of women from various NGOs decided to take to the streets to protest against this fatwa.

Rightly so. Before we can even disagree with the fatwa on trying to control the way women dress, the decree begs the question: what is it to dress like a man? To wear pants? Baggy t-shirts? Shirts without a female cut?

How much man-ness in clothing do we need to have to be considered tom-boys?

Under the syariah law of Malaysia, it is a crime to cross-dress from any one gender to another. Again, how much dressing is cross-dressing? Cosmetics on men? Flat shoes on women?

Unfortunately, the protests against this fatwa (accessed here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufgJWGmax-A - check out the comments below the video) uses alienating and dissenting language. The tone is condescending: “Short hair, who cares. Stupid fatwa everywhere.”

There are many problems with this chant: 1. it assumes that the fatwa is stupid. I agree that the fatwa is naive and archaic, but not stupid. Even if it is, calling it only 2. alienates the people we want to convince otherwise.

The main audience of the fatwa isn’t the people who are tomboys or who disagree with the fatwa. It is for those who came up with the fatwa, who support the fatwa, and who think women should not be dressing up as men. What a protest must do for its target audience, then, is engage these parties into seeing the issue with more open-mindedness, to arouse dialogue, and to initiate understanding. Engagement, not alienation.

Calling the fatwa stupid only alienates the parties who disagree with us and turns them away from any further discussion and contemplation. It confirms their suspicion of us as a group of people partaking in the many vices gender-variant members of the community are always accused of.

Short hair, who cares. Rights restricted everywhere?

Or as a friend tells me of a chant she once heard in Illinois: 2, 4, 6, 8 - How d’you know your daughter’s straight?

Why assume?

The Fatwa Council may have reasons behind their decisions - rather than to resist conviction, can we perhaps convince them otherwise?

COMMENTS:

1. I agree that the “Stupid fatwa everywhere” argument is overly simplistic, but it is often the case in political movements that you have to scream to be heard. While these protests probably are, as you rightly pointed out, not the most effective way to enact change, we cannot dismiss their value completely; after all, does it not bring awareness to the issue? Does it not inspire others, who may disagree with their tactics but still care about the same issues, to try to address the problem their own way?

This goes back to the issue of whether it is better to work from the inside or the outside. (Yay Wgs!) Working WITH the council probably will have more direct institutional influence, but if you are not in a position conducive to being listened to, then taking to the streets is not a bad way to start the conversation.

2. You are right when you say that the Fatwa Council have their reasons behind the Fatwa.Fatwas are not simply made,however,it involves deep discussions and debates among Muslim Scholars based on the Quran,the Prophet’s sayings,and also the context of our society.The fact that the fatwa might seem shallow to certain parties is due to the fact that the reasons are not communicated to the public.

My number 2 point is that these fatwas are laws that only govern muslims and are not imposed on those outside the religion.As much as a citizen of a country is required to abide the laws within his/her country,one who declares himself/herself a muslim is also required to abide the laws of Islam.I must also clarify that the fatwa of cross dressing is also imposed on muslim men.

3. Firstly, I want to address point no. 2. The issue of debate and protest over the fatwa isn’t about non-muslims fearing that we can’t do what we want to do. It’s the issue of protecting certain sectors of society who are unfairly repressed without being understood enough. Just as much as you claim that there are reasons behind the fatwa, there are also reasons behind people’s decision to dress up in certain ways. Why should one truth be greater than the other?

A rereading of the Quran and the Sunnah, as is done by Asma Barlas and Kecia Ali, shows us that the interpretation of Islam today, and the decisions made based on them, is constricted to very few people, from very limited backgrounds. Women, for one, are usually excluded although this did not use to be the case. (cf Aisyah, Fatimah, Hafsa).

I question the defense of certain fatwas on the basis that they are decided upon by highly religious and scholarly men, and then not explaining why the decision has been made that way. What happened to Ijtihad and Ijma? Why are fatwas being decreed without any evidence of critical reasoning and consensus?

Comments (0)

Protest Against Fatwa On Tomboyism

Posted on 07 November 2008 by Gabrielle Chong Yong Wei

At about 12.00pm to 2.00pm today, activists from KataGender and Food Not Bombs Kuala Lumpur as well as Tilted World contributers (not me - I had an exam :-P) marched from Ampang Park LRT station to KLCC to protest against the fatwa on tomboyism.

From Malaysiakini:

About a dozen protesters marched through Kuala Lumpur denouncing the recent ‘discriminatory’

MCPX

fatwa(religious decree) against tomboys. 

 Those involved were from two groups Katagender (which promotes gender sensitivity) and Food-not-Bombs, and included several men.

Armed with a large banner which read Lawan semua fatwa menindas perempuan (Oppose all fatwa which oppresses women)”, the protestors marched from the Ampang Park LRT station to the vicinity of KLCC.

Other small posters read ‘Tomboy is not a crime’ and ‘Stop controlling clothing and thoughts of the rakyat’.

As the protesters marched, they chanted slogans such as “Stop oppression against women” and “Short hair, who cares?” which drew the attention of curious lunch-time onlookers.

The group gathered briefly near the Jalan Ampang entrance to KLCC to chant slogans and distribute leaflets but dispersed after security personnel told them to leave.

One leaflet, citing information available on the Internet, explained the difference between gender identity and sexual orientation.

Another was an open letter to the National Fatwa Council. Among other aspects, it decribed the fatwa as discriminatory. The letter will be posted as an online petition, to gather public support.

 Dressing and sexual orientation 

On Oct 23, the council had ruled that Islam is against tomboys - specifically females displaying masculinity. It claimed that tomboys are inclined to behave like men and indulge in homosexuality.

Spokesperson for the protesters Lee Wei San said that the council’s decision was ill-conceived.

“What we are saying is that gender expression, identity and orientation are different things altogether,” said Lee.

She said that women should have the right over how they want to express themselves or dress.

“Why is the woman’s body always the battlefield of society’s morality?”

Another member of the group, who requested anonymity, said when contacted: “We got together because we feel strongly about the issue, even though the majority of us are not tomboys.”

Sign the peitition ‘Open Letter To The National Fatwa Council and Malaysianshere.

Comments (17)

In Response to Paul O’s “Building Bricks”

Posted on 14 October 2008 by Gabrielle Chong Yong Wei

Comparing the success rates of heterosexual relationship with homosexual ones is like comparing the commercial successes of football with that of jeet kun do.

Almost all heterosexual relationships, especially heterosexual families, are buttressed by the bastions of peer and family support, fiercely guarded by the institutions of law (in most countries) and (conservative) religion, and reaffirmed by the current (but changing) moral-cultural zeitgeist, which in turn fortifies the aforementioned factors that perpetuate the heterosexual relationship as the archetype romantic/sexual relationship. The same cannot be said of homosexual relationships.

All relationships are not without challenges, but homosexual couples often have to make do without the social-cultural bulwarks which uphold heterosexual relationships through thick and thin. Thus, it isn’t a surprise that homosexual couples are more susceptible to crumbling in times of adversity compared to their heterosexual counterparts.

Those “homophobic naysayers” are not unlike the fatalistic schoolteachers who take a dim view of the potential of some of their pupils. Not only are they harden in their belief that their subjects will not succeed, they also drum their message into their subjects that their subjects WILL fail. Of course, some of their more vulnerable subjects eventually take heed of the message. In the end, these “homophobic naysayers” become self-fulfilling prophets. They sow the seeds they want to see (or think will see), and when the plants grow eventually, they point towards the plants and justify their belief in the inevitability of the plants.

Having said that, there are many successful homosexual relationships out there, which thrive despite the negativity that surrounds them. All committed, lasting relationships, heterosexual or otherwise, are internally founded upon and fortified by love, which is more powerful than any external legal-political/socio-cultural obstacle in the world.

Comments (1)

Building Bricks

Posted on 13 October 2008 by Paul

Homophobic naysayers claim that gay relationships can’t stand the test of time. Certainly one of the numerous brickbats used to assail the already shaky institution of gay marriage.

As much as I’d love to rail against such a unfair accusation, it’s getting pretty hard to deny the evidence. In the space of at least six months, I’ve seen quite a number of supposedly sturdy relationships crumble and fall under the veriest whiff of a storm. As a statistic in comparison with our breeder brothers, it’s starting to look really bad.

Drunk
Time to raze the building!
So why do we fail?

Maybe it’s the fact that most of us can be pretty sophomoric in our search for love. Let’s face it, when it comes to relationships, we’re still kids. Our straight brethren might have worked through their rampant teenage hormones with furtive high school gropes way before their early twenties but for some of us gay men - in our thirties even - we’re just beginning to troll the bars in search of that elusive thing called love. Men just out of the proverbial closet with the dating mores of a horny impatient post-adolescent at a dating buffet.

Is it any wonder that we find ourselves splitting up and getting back together as often as the fickle schoolgirls in Gossip Girl do? With quite as little permanence?

Just like those teenagers we abandon our relationships far too easily - giving up on the entire structure at the first sign of adversity. Thinking back, I must have done pretty much the same as well. We expect that solid stone castle to appear magically at the snap of our fingers without even putting in a single hard day’s work building the proper foundation. Then just one stone out of place, a squeaky door, a broken window - and we’re rushing in with sticks of dynamite to demolish the place.

But just like any brick-and-mortar building, a relationship needs daily upkeep, the occasional renovation and lots of TLC to keep from crumbling to dust.

Comments (0)

Bisexual Species: Unorthodox Sex in the Animal Kingdom

Posted on 11 July 2008 by Alex

Reposted from Scientific American (source).

Homosexual behavior is common in nature, and it plays an important role in survival

By Emily V. Driscoll

Two penguins native to Antarctica met one spring day in 1998 in a tank at the Central Park Zoo in midtown Manhattan. They perched atop stones and took turns diving in and out of the clear water below. They entwined necks, called to each other and mated. They then built a nest together to prepare for an egg. But no egg was forthcoming: Roy and Silo were both male.

Robert Gramzay, a keeper at the zoo, watched the chinstrap penguin pair roll a rock into their nest and sit on it, according to newspaper reports. Gramzay found an egg from another pair of penguins that was having difficulty hatching it and slipped it into Roy and Silo’s nest. Roy and Silo took turns warming the egg with their blubbery underbellies until, after 34 days, a female chick pecked her way into the world. Roy and Silo kept the gray, fuzzy chick warm and regurgitated food into her tiny black beak.

Like most animal species, penguins tend to pair with the opposite sex, for the obvious reason. But researchers are finding that same-sex couplings are surprisingly widespread in the animal kingdom. Roy and Silo belong to one of as many as 1,500 species of wild and captive animals that have been observed engaging in homosexual activity. Researchers have seen such same-sex goings-on in both male and female, old and young, and social and solitary creatures and on branches of the evolutionary tree ranging from insects to mammals.

Unlike most humans, however, individual animals generally cannot be classified as gay or straight: an animal that engages in a same-sex flirtation or partnership does not necessarily shun heterosexual encounters. Rather many species seem to have ingrained homosexual tendencies that are a regular part of their society. That is, there are probably no strictly gay critters, just bisexual ones. “Animals don’t do sexual identity. They just do sex,” says sociologist Eric Anderson of the University of Bath in England.

Nevertheless, the study of homosexual activity in diverse species may elucidate the evolutionary origins of such behavior. Researchers are now revealing, for example, that animals may engage in same-sex couplings to diffuse social tensions, to better protect their young or to maintain fecundity when opposite-sex partners are unavailable—or simply because it is fun. These observations suggest to some that bisexuality is a natural state among animals, perhaps Homo sapiens included, despite the sexual-orientation boundaries most people take for granted. “[In humans] the categories of gay and straight are socially constructed,” Anderson says.

What is more, homosexuality among some species, including penguins, appears to be far more common in captivity than in the wild. Captivity, scientists say, may bring out gay behaviors in part because of a scarcity of opposite-sex mates. In addition, an enclosed environment boosts an animal’s stress levels, leading to a greater urge to relieve the stress. Some of the same influences may encourage what some researchers call “situational homosexuality” in humans in same-sex settings such as prisons or sports teams.

Making Peace
Modern studies of animal homosexuality date to the late 19th century with observations on insects and small animals. In 1896, for example, French entomologist Henri Gadeau de Kerville of the Society of Friends of Natural Sciences and the Museum of Rouen published a drawing of two male scarab beetles copulating. Then, during the first half of the 1900s, various investigators described homosexual behavior in baboons, garter snakes and gentoo penguins, among other species. Back then, scientists generally considered homosexual acts among animals to be abnormal. In some cases, they “treated” the animals by, say, castrating them or giving them lobotomies.

At least one early report, however, was more than descriptive, yielding insight into the possible origins of the behavior. In a 1914 lab experiment Gilbert Van Tassel Hamilton, a psychopathologist practicing in Montecito, Calif., reported that same-sex behavior in 20 Japanese macaques and two baboons occurred largely as a way of making peace with would-be foes. In the Journal of Animal Behavior Hamilton observed that females offered sex to the more dominant macaques of the same sex: “homosexual behavior is of relatively frequent occurrence in the female when she is threatened by another female, but it is rarely manifested in response to sexual hunger.” And in males, he penned, “homosexual alliances between mature and immature males may possess a defensive value for immature males, since they insure the assistance of an adult defender in the event of an attack.”

More recently, some researchers studying bonobos (close relatives of the chimpanzee) have come to similar conclusions. Bonobos are highly promiscuous, and about half their sexual activity involves same-sex partners. Female bonobos rub one another’s genitals so often that some scientists have suggested that their genitalia evolved to facilitate this activity. The female bonobo’s clitoris is  “frontally placed, perhaps because selection favored a position maximizing stimulation during the genital-genital rubbing common among females,” wrote behavioral ecologist Marlene Zuk of the University of California, Riverside, in her 2002 book Sexual Selections: What We Can and Can’t Learn about Sex from Animals. Male bonobos have been observed to mount, fondle and even perform oral sex on one another.

Such behavior seems to ease social tensions. In Bonobo: The Forgotten Ape (University of California Press, 1997), Emory University primatologist Frans B. M. de Waal and his co-author photographer Frans Lanting wrote that “when one female has hit a juvenile and the juvenile’s mother has come to its defense, the problem may be resolved by intense GG-rubbing between the two adults.” De Waal has observed hundreds of such incidents, suggesting that these homosexual acts may be a general peacekeeping strategy. “The more homosexuality, the more peaceful the species,” asserts Petter Böckman, an academic adviser at the University of Oslo’s Museum of Natural History in Norway. “Bonobos are peaceful.”

In fact, such acts are so essential to bonobo socialization that they constitute a rite of passage for young females into adulthood. Bonobos live together in groups of about 60 in a matriarchal system. Females leave the group during adolescence and gain admission to another bonobo clan through grooming and sexual encounters with other females. These behaviors promote bonding and give the new recruits benefits such as protection and access to food.

Defended Nest
In some birds, same-sex unions, particularly between males, might have evolved as a parenting strategy to increase the survival of their young. “In black swans, if two males find each other and make a nest, they’ll be very successful at nest making because they are bigger and stronger than a male and female,” Böckman says. In such cases, he says, “having a same-sex partner will actually pay off as a sensible life strategy.”

In other instances, homosexual bonding between female parents can boost the survival of offspring when male-female pairings are not possible. In birds called oystercatchers, intense competition for male mates would leave some females single were it not for polygamous trios. In a study published in 1998 in Nature, zoologist Dik Heg and geneticist Rob van Treuren, both then at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands, observed that roughly 2 percent of oystercatcher breeding groups consist of two females and a male. In some of these families, Heg and van Treuren found, the females tend separate nests and fight over the male, but in others, all three birds watch over a single nest. In the latter case, the females bond by mounting each other as well as the male. The cooperative triangles produce more offspring than the competitive ones, because such nests are better tended and protected from predators.

Such arrangements point to the evolutionary fitness of stable social relationships, whatever their type. Biologist Joan E. Roughgarden of Stanford University believes that evolutionary biologists tend to adhere too strongly to Darwin’s theory of sexual selection and have thus largely overlooked the importance of bonding and friendship to animal societies and the survival of their young.“ [Darwin] equated reproduction with finding a mate rather than paying attention to how the offspring are naturally reared,” Roughgarden says.

Protection of progeny, social bonding and conflict avoidance may not be the only reasons animals naturally come to same-sex relationships. Many animals do it simply “because they want to,” Böckman says. “People view animals as robots who behave as their genes say, but animals have feelings, and they react to those feelings.” He adds that “as long as they feel the urge [for sex], they’ll go for it.”

A recent finding indicates that homosexual behavior may be so common because it is rooted in an animal’s brain wiring—at least in the case of fruit flies. In a study appearing earlier this year in Nature Neuroscience, neuroscientist David E. Featherstone of the University of Illinois at Chicago and his colleagues found that they could switch on homosexual leanings in fruit flies by manipulating a gene for a protein they call “genderblind,” which regulates communication between neurons that secrete and respond to the neurotransmitter glutamate.

Males that carried the mutant genderblind gene—which depressed levels of the protein by about two thirds—were uncharacteristically attracted to the chemical cues exuded by other males. As a result, these mutant males courted and attempted to copulate with other males. The finding suggests that wild fruit flies may be prewired for both heterosexual and homosexual behavior, the authors write, but that the genderblind protein suppresses the glutamate-based circuits that promote homosexual behavior. Such brain architecture may enable same-sex behavior to surface easily, supporting the notion that it might confer an evolutionary advantage in some circumstances.

The Captivity Effect
In some less social species, homosexual behavior is almost unheard of in wild animals but may surface in captivity. Wild koalas, which are mostly solitary, seem to be strictly heterosexual. But in a 2007 study veterinary scientist Clive J. C. Phillips of the University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia, and his colleagues observed 43 instances of homosexual activity among female koalas living in a same-sex enclosure at the Lone Pine Koala Sanctuary. The captive females shrieked male mating calls and mated with one another, sometimes participating in multiple encounters of up to five koalas. “The behavior in captivity was certainly enhanced in terms of homosexual activity,” Phillips says.

He believes that the females acted this way in part because of stress. Animals often experience stress in enclosed habitats and may engage in homosexual behavior to relieve that tension. A lack of male partners probably also played a role, Phillips suggests. When female koalas are in heat, their ovaries release the sex hormone estrogen, which triggers mating behavior—whether or not males are present. This hardwired urge to copulate, even if expressed with a female partner, might be adaptive. “The homosexual behavior preserves sexual function,” Phillips says, enabling an animal to maintain its reproductive fitness and interest in sexual activity. In males, this benefit is even more obvious: homosexual behavior stimulates the continued production of seminal fluid.

A lack of opposite-sex partners is also thought to help explain the prevalence of homosexuality among penguins in zoos. In addition to several gay penguin couplings in the U.S., 20 same-sex penguin partnerships were formed in 2004 in zoos in Japan. Such behavior “is very rare in penguins’ natural habitats,” says animal ecologist Keisuke Ueda of Rikkyo University in Tokyo. Thus, Ueda speculates that the behavior—which included both male pairings and female couplings—arose as a result of the skewed sex ratios at zoos.

Researchers have found still other reasons for homosexual behavior in domesticated cattle—which is such a common occurrence that farmers and animal breeders have developed terms for it. “Bulling” refers to male pairs mounting, and “going boaring” is its female counterpart. For cows, the behavior is not just a stress reliever. It is a way to signal sexual receptivity. The females mount one another to signal their readiness to mate to the bulls—which, in captivity, may cause a breeder to know when to bring in a suitable opposite-sex partner.

Homosexual mounting is much rarer among cattle in the wild, Phillips asserts, based on his research on gaurs in Malaysia, a wild counterpart to domesticated cattle. “Cattle evolved in the forest, so a visual signal was not going to be useful for them,” he says.

Stress and the greater availability of same-sex partners may similarly contribute to the practice of homosexual acts among self-described heterosexual humans in environments such as the military, jails and sports teams. In a study published this year in the journal Sex Roles, Anderson found that 40 percent of 49 heterosexual former high school football players attending various U.S. universities had had at least one homosexual encounter. These ranged from kissing to oral sex to threesomes that included a woman. In team sports, homosexuality is “no big deal and it increases cohesion among members of that team,” Anderson claims. “It feels good, and [the athletes] bond.”

In stressful same-sex environments such as prisons or a war zone, heterosexuals may engage in homosexual behavior in part to relieve tension. “Homosexuality appears mostly in social species,” Böckman says. “It makes flock life easier, and jail flock life is very difficult.”

Altered Spaces
In recent decades zoo officials have tried to minimize the stresses of captivity by making their enclosures more like animals’ natural habitats. In the 1950s zoo animals lived behind bars in barren enclosures. But since the late 1970s zoo homes have become more hospitable, including more open space, along with plants and murals representative of an animal’s natural habitat. The Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) regulates everything from cage dimensions to animal bedding. The AZA also outlines enrichment activities for captive creatures: for instance, two golden brown Amur leopards at the Staten Island Zoo regularly play with a papier-mâché zebra, an animal they have never seen in the flesh.

Researchers hope such improvements might affect animal behavior, making it more like what occurs in the wild. One possible sign of more hospitable conditions might be a rate of homosexuality more in line with that of wild members of the same species. Some people, however, contest the notion that zookeepers should prevent or discourage homosexual behavior among the animals they care for.

And whereas captivity may engender what appears to be an unnaturally high level of homosexual activity in some animal species, human same-sex environments might bring out normal tendencies that other settings tend to suppress. That is, some experts argue that humans, like some other animals, are naturally bisexual. “We should be calling humans bisexual because this idea of exclusive homosexuality is not accurate of people,” Roughgarden says. “Homosexuality is mixed in with heterosexuality across cultures and history.”

Even Silo the penguin, who had been coupled with Roy for six years, displayed this malleability of sexual orientation. One spring day in 2004 a female chinstrap penguin named Scrappy—a transplant from SeaWorld in San Diego—caught his eye, and he abruptly left Roy for her. Meanwhile Roy and Silo’s “daughter,” Tango, carried on in the tradition of her fathers. Her chosen mate: a female named Tazuni.

This story was originally printed with the title, “Bisexual Species”.

Comments (4)