Bruce Bagemihl - Biological Exuberance

Drunken moths, hibernating birds, giant geckos, croaking worms, white Buffalo, self-medicating Bears, left-handedness, menstrual attraction, sex change, gender mixing, homosexuality… often the most “preposterous” aboriginal beliefs about animals turn out to have a basis in reality. One could hardly imagine more fantastical creatures than mother Bears with penises or cassowaries of both sexes with vaginal phalluses—yet these “myths” are biological facts. Thus, while many indigenous ideas about animal homosexuality and transgender have yet to be confirmed, scientific “proof” may well be forthcoming—even for the most unlikely sounding of mythological scenarios.

Indigenous “myths,” sacred stories, and folk knowledge about animals (including information relating to homosexuality and gender mixing) are part of an oral tradition that is thousands of years old. The Nuu-chah-nulth culture of Vancouver Island, for example, stretches back uninterrupted to at least 3,000 B.C. according to archaeological dating methods, and is by no means a unique example. 77Contemporary native storytellers are, in a sense, the repositories of a scientific tradition whose continuity can be measured in millennia. It must be remembered that the “accuracy” of indigenous views about animals is being assessed against a Western science that has only recently begun to systematically investigate animal homosexuality/transgender (and that has generally been reluctant even to recognize these phenomena). New cases are being discovered all the time, often in species previously claimed never to exhibit homosexual behavior in the wild. Consequently, animal homosexuality reported in the scientific literature does not represent the sum total of homosexual wildlife in the world—only those cases that scientists happen to have noticed. Undoubtedly many examples have been missed or ignored, especially when the investigator harbors a strong personal distaste for the subject matter or is not prepared to observe same-sex behavior (as discussed in chapter 3).

So rather than simply checking the “correctness” of indigenous beliefs against what Western science has uncovered or currently “knows,” perhaps we should also be using the “discoveries” of indigenous science as signposts for where zoology might direct its attentions on this subject. Traditional tribal knowledge about animal homosexuality/transgender can in fact serve as a model for more orthodox scientific investigation of the subject—for example, by leading the way toward study of these phenomena in new species. With thousands of animals remaining to be described in detail by zoologists—and new species being discovered each year—it is a daunting task to know where to begin and which species to focus on when studying homosexuality/transgender in the natural world. If coyotes and mountain lions, for example, or New Guinean birds of paradise, marsupials, and echidnas are consistently singled out by native cultures as being relevant in this area, Western science could do worse than swallow its pride and take these “myths” seriously. In determining once and for all whether these are merely superstitions, it may well discover (once again) that an unexpected kernel of truth in some of these beliefs merits further scientific inquiry.

Both indigenous and Western scientific paradigms have their own particular strengths and weaknesses; by forging a partnership between them, we can achieve a level of knowledge that exceeds the sum of the two. Although the two perspectives would appear to have much to benefit from such an interaction, they have rarely met within the scientific or academic establishment. 78An intimation of the sort of collaborative effort that is possible is provided by two examples involving indigenous peoples in both North America and New Guinea. The Kalam and other tribes of New Guinea recognize several species of poisonous birds in their environment. One of these is the hooded pitohui, a species they refer to as a “rubbish bird” because it causes burning and numbness of the lips when eaten, and possibly even paralysis and death. Chemical defense through the use of naturally produced toxins in the skin (such as those found in the poisonous frogs of South America) was previously thought not to occur in birds. In 1990, however, scientists confirmed that these birds are indeed poisonous by isolating the chemical compound, homo-batrachotoxin, responsible for their toxicity. Their investigations would not have been possible without the help of the aboriginal hunters who shared their traditional knowledge of these species and helped the ornithologists locate specimens of the birds over several field studies. This discovery, in turn, spurred a renewed interest on the part of biologists in the long-neglected topic of avian chemical defense, and subsequent research has revealed a surprisingly large number and variety of poisonous bird species throughout the world. 79

More than 15 years earlier, Robert Stephenson, a biologist with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, and Robert Ahgook, a Nunamiut Inuit (Eskimo) hunter, coauthored a scientific report on Wolf ecology and behavior. They pointed out that the indigenous view of Wolves involves a highly developed conception of the creature’s behavioral flexibility and individuality, a perspective that zoologists are just beginning to countenance: “As a result of the vast array of behavioral events they have witnessed, the Nunamiut interpret wolf behavior in a broader, yet more intricate theoretical framework than that heretofore used by modern science; their in-depth knowledge gained from patient, on-the-ground observation has taught them that the adaptability and elasticity inherent in wolf behavior rivals that in human behavior.” 80These cross-cultural collaborators suggest that Western scientists should adopt this sort of intellectual framework as a matter of course—a suggestion that rings especially true where animal homosexuality and transgender are concerned, since these phenomena epitomize the behavioral “elasticity” inherent in the natural world.

Important as these findings are, indigenous perspectives on animal (and human) homosexuality/transgender have a significance for Western science that extends far beyond the details of specific behaviors in particular animals. It is striking that in so many cultures that recognize some kind of alternate gender/sexuality system in animals, human homosexuality/transgender are also routinely recognized and even honored. Perhaps, then, what is most valuable about indigenous views of animal homosexuality/transgender is not so much the “accuracy” of beliefs about this species or that, but the overall worldview imparted by these cultures: a view of both animals and people in which sexuality and gender are each realms of multiple possibilities.

In fact, ideas about human and animal homosexuality tend to be mutually reinforcing. When people consider homosexuality/transgender to be an accepted part of human reality, they are not surprised to find gender and sexual variability in animals as well. Similarly, a culture living in intimate association with the natural world will undoubtedly encounter animal homosexuality/transgender on a routine basis; these observations in turn contribute to the culture’s view of such things as an integral part of human life. On the other hand, people accustomed to seeing homosexuality/transgender as an aberration will balk at encountering the phenomena in animals. And when a culture no longer lives in close association with wilderness, it will have less opportunity to encounter natural examples of variation in gender and sexual expression.

Consider two contrasting viewpoints on animal homosexuality that epitomize this difference. A man representing the Euro-American cultural tradition of the late twentieth century states that it is impossible for him to even imagine a “queer grizzly bear… or a lesbian owl or salmon.” 81In contrast, a contemporary Native American storyteller of the Wintu nation describes coyote as having a homoerotic relationship with another male, guided by the spirits of “grizzly, salmon, and eagle.” 82In a remarkable coincidence, each individual has independently singled out virtually identical animals as somehow emblematic, but with radically different interpretations (neither was aware of the other’s words). From the Anglo perspective, homosexuality is an insult to the animals’ supposed “purity” or “virility”—sentiments that are echoed, less overtly, throughout the scientific discourse on the subject—while from the native perspective, such homosexuality is an affirmation of nature’s plurality, strength, and wholeness.