Bruce Bagemihl - Biological Exuberance

Striking parallels also exist with regard to the gender transposition, androgyny, and homosexuality that the Sambia and Bimin-Kuskusmin associate with some birds. Female Raggiana’s Birds of Paradise, for example, have been observed performing courtship displays to one another. This behavior combines not only same-sex interaction but a gender-role “reversal,” since typically only males display in this species. Ornithologists have also determined that males of the king bird of paradise do indeed associate in pairs—recall that among the Ai’i people, some birds of paradise are symbolically related to male couples. 55As for the cassowary, its polyandrous social system—in which one female mates with several males, who are then left to incubate the eggs and raise the young on their own—shows some correspondence to the notions of “female potency,” male motherhood, and gender reversal attributed to this bird by a number of native New Guinean peoples. 56

Scientists have also discovered some unusual details about the cassowary’s genital anatomy that bear an uncanny resemblance to indigenous ideas about the “androgyny” of these creatures, especially the Bimin-Kuskusmin belief about the bird’s “penis-clitoris.” Unlike most other birds, the cassowary male actually does possess a penis; however, this organ does not transport semen internally as it does in mammals. The cassowary’s phallus is described by scientists as being “invaginated,” that is, it has a tubular cavity that opens at the tip of the penis but is not connected internally to the male reproductive organs. This vagina-like cavity is in fact used to retract the phallus by turning it “inside out,” causing the nonerect penis to resemble the finger of a glove that has been pushed inward. Consequently, although the male cassowary inserts his erect penis into the female during mating, he ejaculates semen through his cloaca, an orifice at the base of the penis that also doubles as the bird’s “anus” and urinary organ. Females also mate, lay eggs, defecate, and urinate all through the same orifice, the cloaca (as in all other female birds)—but the cloaca is exceptionally large in this species, being capable of passing eggs weighing up to one and a half pounds. Most amazingly, all female cassowaries also possess a phallus, which is essentially identical to the male’s in structure but smaller. The “female phallus” is also sometimes referred to as a clitoris, but it would be equally valid to speak of a “male clitoris” in this species (as noted in chapter 5), since the male cassowary’s “penis” is not in fact an ejaculatory organ. 57Thus, the cassowary’s genital anatomy exhibits a bewildering juxtaposition of “masculine” and “feminine” traits: both males and females possess a penis/clitoris (a phallic organ that nevertheless is “vaginal” in form and nonejaculatory in function), and both sexes also possess another genital orifice that doubles as an anus. Indigenous beliefs about masculinized female cassowaries, the bird’s penis-clitoris, anal birth, and women with phalluses being transformed into cassowaries are not nearly as outlandish as they sound.

Another interesting parallel between homosexuality/transgender in animals and indigenous views of these phenomena in people concerns the notion of “hy-permasculinity.” Contrary to the stereotypical Euro-American view of male homosexuality, in some Native American cultures two-spirit people who are biologically male may manifest (or are considered to manifest) a sort of “excess” or intensification of masculinity (at the same time as they embody a combination of both male and female traits). Among the Coahuiltec, Crow, Keres, and Zuni peoples, for example, male two-spirits are sometimes actually physically larger, taller, and/or stronger than non-two-spirit men, and greater strength has also been attributed to two-spirits among the Luiseño, Hidatsa, and O’odham (Papago). Some male two-spirits are distinguished warriors in their tribes, are notably aggressive, or otherwise fight alongside non-two-spirit males, for example among the Osage, Illinois, Miami, and Hidatsa. The Tsistsistas (Cheyenne) people include male two-spirits in war parties, in part because they are thought to possess a “stored-up virility” that will insure the success of the endeavor, while Lakota and Ojibway male warriors sometimes have sex with male two-spirits in order to partake of the latter’s courage, ferocity, and fighting skills. And as already mentioned, in a number of Melanesian cultures (as well as other cultures around the world), homosexuality is thought to have a strengthening or “masculinizing” effect on men and in some cases to express qualities of male potency and even exaggerated virility. Among animals, there are a number of intriguing concordances with this rather unexpected association between male homosexuality/transgender and “extra” masculinity. As discussed in preceding chapters, gander pairs among Greylag Geese and Black Swans are distinguished by their superior strength, courage, aggression, and (in some cases) more intense bonding, while male pairs in a number of other species can be offensively (rather than just defensively) aggressive. In addition, transgendered or homosexual individuals in American Bison, Savanna (Chacma) Baboons, and Hooded Warblers sometimes exceed other males in overall size, weight, or other physical dimensions. Such individuals may also achieve a high-ranking social status (e.g., Greylag Geese, Savanna Baboons), which echoes the honored status of two-spirits in many Native American cultures. Furthermore, transgendered males in several species are often more “virile” or heterosexually active than nontransgendered males (e.g., Northern Elephant Seals, Red Deer, Black-headed Gulls, and Common Garter Snakes). And in Bighorn Sheep, homosexual mounting is more characteristic of “masculine” rams than of “effeminate” rams (i.e., behaviorally transvestite males, who act like females). 58

Are these various connections between indigenous beliefs and scientific facts merely fortuitous, or do they represent accurate observation of animals on the part of aboriginal cultures? In other words, how likely is it that indigenous peoples could have been aware of the often esoteric details of animal behavior and biology that “corroborate” their beliefs? Although much indigenous thinking about animals is encoded in mythological terms (as we have seen), it is often grounded in a sophisticated framework of direct observation and study of the environment (sometimes known as ethno-science). This is true not only in the area of zoology, but in fields as diverse as botany, geology, geography, oceanography, meteorology, astronomy, and so on. In fact, aboriginal knowledge about the organization of the natural world often mirrors the findings of more “objective” scientific inquiry, sometimes down to the most minute detail. Many tribal cultures, for example, have developed comprehensive classification schemata for plant and animal species that rival the system of scientific nomenclature used by biologists today. The Arfak mountain people of New Guinea identify and name 136 distinct bird species in their environment—almost exactly the number recognized by Western science for the same area. 59Indigenous knowledge of animal behavior and other aspects of zoology is often remarkably accurate, and in many cases the behavioral, anatomical, or physiological phenomena involved have only been “discovered” or verified by Western science in the last decade or two. As one biologist remarks, “The sum total of the [indigenous] community’s empirically based knowledge is awesome in breadth and detail, and often stands in marked contrast to the attenuated data available from scientific studies of these same populations.” 60

The Inuit and Aleutian Islanders, for instance, have an extraordinarily profound understanding of Walrus behavior and social organization, including knowledge of a number of more unusual habits and aspects of the animals’ social life that have been verified by zoologists only relatively recently. The use of pharyngeal (throat) pouches in producing metallic sounds, adoption of orphaned pups, all-male summer herds, and mass mortality during huge stampedes were all “unexpected” or “controversial” phenomena when first discovered by Western observers, yet they had been known to indigenous peoples long before their existence was documented by biologists. 61Western scientists initially considered solitary male Musk-oxen to be older individuals who were “superfluous” to the population; Inuit people, in contrast, believe that these old males are not a surplus component of the population at all. Based on direct observation of Musk-oxen as well as their traditional beliefs about the animals, the Inuit maintain that such animals are a vital element of Musk-ox social structure, serving as a focal point for regathering of the population after the rut as well as functioning as “elders” for the herd. Scientists now know that such males are not in fact superfluous, but serve an important role in the population structure of the species. 62Moreover, biologists studying other animals have even gone so far as to ascribe “elder”-like roles to postreproductive individuals, suggesting that in short-finned pilot whales, for example, “their principal biological contribution might be to learn, remember, and transmit what pilot whales need to know.” 63Similarly, traditional Cree knowledge about beaver social organization and population regulation rivals the most sophisticated wildlife-management programs developed by Western science—ones that utilize computer modeling, satellite mapping, and complex statistical analysis. 64