Although animals have been observed to have same-sex coupling, they mix it up with males and females. In the animal kingdom the only species that have been observed to have exclusively homosexual sex are humans and domesticated sheep. One would think that a sexual organism never having heterosexual sex would be a huge evolutionary fitness disadvantage, and such a trait would be extremely uncommon. There are some caveats, for example: Sharks are able to reproduce asexually, and frogs can “switch” genders AFTER reproduction, during adverse conditions. But lifelong homosexuality has not been observed in species other than humans and domesticated sheep, which suggests that relaxed evolutionary pressures may be a necessary component.
From Wikipedia
Simon LeVay introduced caveat that "[a]lthough homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity."[8] One species in which exclusive homosexual orientation occurs, however, is that of domesticated sheep (Ovis aries).[9][10] "About 10% of rams (males), refuse to mate with ewes (females) but do readily mate with other rams."[10]
Genes do not "care" for individual organisms. If they did we would be immortal. Jared Diamond argued that the presence of homosexual uncles/aunts is the same kind of an advantage as the presence of no-longer-breeding grandparents.
> such a trait would be extremely uncommon.
Homosexuality is pretty rare, isn't it?
The theories about alpha and beta wolves turned out to be wrong btw. The wolves that were observed in captivity were simply closely related families.
https://amp.businessinsider.com/no-such-thing-alpha-male-201...
Also, if homosexuality is a strategy for childcare, why do homosexual relatives contribute so little to their nieces and nephews? And if it is a successful strategy, why does it occur at such a low prevalence?
I’m sure animals do it based on behavior as well. If a peer is acting sick (even if not), I’m sure their behavior changes.
Sorry about the blogspam link. I have seen more reputable articles about chimpanzees with alopecia, but my search skills are failing me now. The gist always seems to be that hairless chimpanzees (there have been several in zoos) aren't treated differently by others.