Human Rights Campaign

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Campaign 

 

Human Rights Campaign

Abbreviation	HRC
Formation	1980; 43 years ago
Founder	Steve Endean
Type	Nonprofit advocacy organization
Purpose	LGBTQ rights
Headquarters	Washington, D.C., United States
President	Kelley Robinson
Affiliations	Human Rights Campaign Foundation, Human Rights Campaign PAC
Revenue (2020)	$44.6 million
Expenses (2020)	$43.6 million
Website	www.hrc.org

The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) is an American LGBTQ advocacy group. It is the largest LGBTQ political lobbying organization within the United States. Based in Washington, D.C., the organization focuses on protecting and expanding rights for LGBTQ individuals, most notably advocating for same-sex marriage, anti-discrimination and hate crimes legislation, and HIV/AIDS advocacy. The organization has a number of legislative initiatives as well as supporting resources for LGBTQ individuals.

Structure

HRC is an umbrella group of two separate non-profit organizations and a political action committee: the HRC Foundation, a 501(c)(3) organization that focuses on research, advocacy and education; the Human Rights Campaign, a 501(c)(4) organization that focuses on promoting lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) rights through lobbying Congress and state and local officials for support of pro-LGBTQ bills, and mobilizing grassroots action amongst its members; and the HRC Political Action Committee, a super PAC which supports and opposes political candidates.

Leadership

Kelley Robinson was announced as the new president of the Human Rights Campaign on September 20, 2022. She succeeded Interim President Joni Madison on November 28, 2022, becoming the first Black queer woman to lead the organization.

The HRC's work is supported by three boards: the Board of Directors, which is the governing body for the organization; the HRC Foundation Board, which manages the foundation's finances and establishes official policies governing the foundation; and the Board of Governors, which manages the organization's local outreach nationwide.

History

Human Rights Campaign headquarters in Washington, D.C.

Steve Endean, who had worked with a previously established Gay Rights National Lobby from 1978, established the Human Rights Campaign Fund political action committee in 1980. The two groups eventually merged. In 1983, Vic Basile, at the time one of the leading LGBT rights activists in Washington, D.C., was elected as the first executive director. In October 1986, the HRC Foundation (HRCF) was formed as a non-profit organization.

In January 1989, Basile announced his departure, and HRC reorganized from serving mainly as a political action committee (PAC) to broadening its function to encompass lobbying, research, education, and media outreach. HRC decided on a new Statement of Purpose: "For the promotion of the social welfare of the gay and lesbian community by drafting, supporting and influencing legislation and policy at the federal, state and local level." Tim McFeeley, a Harvard Law School graduate, founder of the Boston Lesbian and Gay Political Alliance, and a co-chair of the New England HRC Committee, was elected the new executive director. Total membership was then approximately 25,000 members.

In 1992, HRC endorsed a presidential candidate for the first time, Bill Clinton. In March 1993, HRC began a new project, National Coming Out Day. From January 1995 until January 2004, Elizabeth Birch served as the executive director of the HRC. Under her leadership, the institution more than quadrupled its membership to 500,000 members.

In 1995, the organization dropped the word "Fund" from its name, becoming the Human Rights Campaign. That same year, it underwent a complete reorganization. The HRC Foundation added new programs such as the Workplace Project and the Family Project, while HRC itself broadly expanded its research, communications, and marketing/public relations functions. The organization also unveiled a new logo, a yellow equal sign inside of a blue square.

The Human Rights Campaign often has a large presence at LGBT-related events such as the Chicago Pride Parade as seen above.

As part of the activities surrounding the Millennium March on Washington, the HRC Foundation sponsored a fundraising concert at Washington, D.C.'s RFK Stadium on April 29, 2000. Billed as a concert to end hate crimes, "Equality Rocks" honored hate crime victims and their families, such as featured speakers Dennis and Judy Shepard, the parents of Matthew Shepard. The event included Melissa Etheridge, Garth Brooks, Pet Shop Boys, k.d. lang, Nathan Lane, Rufus Wainwright, Albita Rodríguez, and Chaka Khan.

Elizabeth Birch's successor, Cheryl Jacques, resigned in November 2004 after only 11 months as executive director. Jacques said she had resigned over "a difference in management philosophy".

In March 2005, HRC announced the appointment of Joe Solmonese as the president. He served in that position until stepping down in May 2012 to co-chair the Barack Obama presidential campaign.

HRC launched its Religion and Faith Program in 2005 to mobilize clergy to advocate for LGBT people, and helped form DC Clergy United for Marriage Equality, which was involved in the legalization of same-sex marriage in the District of Columbia. On March 10, 2010, the first legally recognized same-sex weddings in the District of Columbia were held at the headquarters of the Human Rights Campaign.

On August 9, 2007, HRC and Logo TV co-hosted a forum for 2008 Democratic presidential candidates dedicated specifically to LGBT issues.

In 2010, HRC lobbied for the repeal of the United States ban on HIV-positive people's entry into the country for travel or immigration.

In September 2011, it was announced that Joe Solmonese would step down as president of HRC following the end of his contract in 2012. Despite initial speculation that former Atlanta City Council president Cathy Woolard would be appointed, no replacement was announced until March 2, 2012, when American Foundation for Equal Rights co-founder Chad Griffin was announced as Solmonese's successor. Griffin took office on June 11, 2012.

In 2012, HRC said that it had raised and contributed $20 million to re-elect President Obama and to advance same-sex marriage. In addition to the Obama re-election campaign, HRC spent money on marriage-related ballot measures in Washington, Maine, Maryland and Minnesota, and the election of Democratic Senator Tammy Baldwin in Wisconsin.

In 2013, HRC conducted a postcard campaign in support of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA).

In 2019, HRC joined with 42 other religious and allied organizations in issuing a statement opposing Project Blitz, an effort by a coalition of Christian right organizations to influence state legislation.

In May 2020, HRC endorsed former Vice President Joe Biden in the 2020 United States presidential election.

Executive directors and President and CEOs

Beginning with the founder, the highest management position in the organization was Executive director. Beginning in 2004, the position was changed to President and CEO.

Years	Name
1980–1983	Steve Endean
1983–1989	Vic Basile
1989–1995	Tim McFeeley
1995–2004	Elizabeth Birch
2004–2004	Cheryl Jacques
2005–2012	Joe Solmonese
2012–2019	Chad Griffin
2019–2021	Alphonso David
2022–	Kelley Robinson

Funding

As of 2020, HRC's annual budget was $44.6 million, and annual expenses were $44.3 million.

Each year since 1997, HRC has hosted a national dinner that serves as the organization's single largest annual fundraiser. In 2009, President Barack Obama spoke at HRC's 13th Annual National Dinner. In his speech, President Obama reaffirmed his pledge to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), as well as his commitment to passing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. He gave the keynote speech in 2011 as well, reiterating his pledge to fight for DOMA repeal and for the passage of ENDA, and to combat bullying of LGBT youth. Other featured speakers at past dinners have included Bill Clinton, Maya Angelou, Kweisi Mfume, Joseph Lieberman, Hillary Clinton, Richard Gephardt, John Lewis, Rosie O'Donnell, Nancy Pelosi, Tim Gunn, Suze Orman, Sally Field, Cory Booker, Tammy Baldwin, and Betty DeGeneres.

HRC historical records

The historical records of the Human Rights Campaign are maintained in a collection at the Cornell University Library. Arriving at Cornell in 2004, the records include strategic planning documents, faxes, minutes, e-mails, press releases, posters, and campaign buttons. Taking up 84 cubic feet (2.4 m³), the archive is the second largest in the library's Division of Rare and Manuscript Collections, Human Sexuality Collection. In February 2007, the archive was opened to scholars at the library, and selected records were organized into an online exhibit called "25 Years of Political Influence: The Records of the Human Rights Campaign".

Programs and positions

According to the organization, the Human Rights Campaign "is organized for the charitable and educational purposes of promoting public education and welfare for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community."

The HRC Foundation provides resources on coming out, transgender issues, LGBT-related healthcare topics, and information about workplace issues faced by LGBT people, including the Corporate Equality Index.

HRC lobbies for the passage of anti-discrimination and hate crime laws. The organization supported the passage of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which expanded federal hate-crime law to allow the Justice Department to investigate and prosecute crimes motivated by a victim's actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.

The organization's work on health issues traditionally focused on responding to the HIV/AIDS epidemic. In recent years, HRC has addressed discrimination in health care settings for LGBT employees, patients and their families. Since 2007, the Human Rights Campaign Foundation has published the "Healthcare Equality Index", which rates hospitals on issues such as patient and employee non-discrimination policies, employee cultural competency training, and hospital visitation rights for LGBT patients' families.

Lobbyists from the Human Rights Campaign worked with the Obama administration to extend hospital visitation rights to same-sex partners. HRC lobbied extensively for the repeal of the Don't Ask Don't Tell (DADT) law, which barred gay and lesbian people from serving openly in the United States military.

The HRC filed a lawsuit in both state and federal courts contesting the "transgender sports ban" law in Florida in 2021, in an attempt to block the law from going into effect (called "nullification") on midnight July 1.

Logo

The official logo of the HRC, adopted in 1995, consists of a yellow equals sign imposed onto a blue background. The logo was created in 1995 by design firm Stone Yamashita. The previous logo used by the HRC (then known as the HRCF) featured a stylized flaming torch. HRC uses the term Equality Flag for flags bearing their logo.

Same-sex marriage logo

The HRC equal sign logo reworked in red and pink to show particular support for same-sex marriage.

HRC shared a red version of its logo – selected by marketing director Anastasia Khoo because the color is synonymous with love – on social network services on March 25, 2013, and asked its supporters to do the same to show support for same-sex marriage in light of two cases that were before the U.S. Supreme Court (United States v. Windsor and Hollingsworth v. Perry). The logo went viral, and Facebook saw a 120% increase in the number of profile photo changes on March 26. Celebrities such as George Takei, Beyonce, Sophia Bush, Padma Lakshmi, Martha Stewart, Macklemore, Ryan Lewis and Ellen DeGeneres shared the logo with their millions of followers on social network services and politicians like Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), and Kay Hagan (D-NC) did the same.

Brands and corporations showed their support for same-sex marriage with creative recreations of the red HRC logo. Supporters included Bud Light, Bonobos, Fab.com, Kenneth Cole, L'Occitane en Provence, Maybelline, Absolut, Marc Jacobs International, Smirnoff, Martha Stewart Weddings, and HBO's True Blood.

Major print and online news sources reported on the success of the viral campaign, including MSNBC, Time, Mashable, and The Wall Street Journal.

Criticism and controversies

Critics have taken HRC to task for its working environment. In the fall of 2014, HRC commissioned outside consultants to conduct a series of focus groups and surveys with the organization's staff. In the report, which was obtained by BuzzFeed, staff of the organization described the working environment at HRC as "judgmental", "exclusionary", "sexist", and "homogenous". The report stated that "Leadership culture is experienced as homogenous — gay, white, male." Acknowledging the report, HRC president Chad Griffin said: "Like many organizations and companies throughout our country, HRC has embarked on a thoughtful and comprehensive diversity and inclusion effort with the goals of better representing the communities we serve." In August 2015, Pride at Work, an LGBT affiliate of the AFL–CIO, approved a resolution that calls on member organizations to stop funding HRC until the group addresses what Pride at Work sees as problems with HRC's Corporate Equality Index.

HRC has been accused of overstating the number of its actual members in order to appear more influential in politics. Former HRC President Joe Solmonese responded, saying that "[m]embership is about more than contributions ... [i]t's about sending e-mails to elected officials, volunteering time or lobbying members of Congress" and more than half of its members made contributions during the previous two years. Earlier, HRC spokesperson Steven Fisher stated that its membership includes anyone who has donated at least $1.

HRC has also been criticized for exceedingly generous executive salaries.

Some transgender people have criticized the HRC for its stance on the 2007 version of ENDA, which at the time included sexual orientation as a protected category but not gender identity and expression. Once the legislation was submitted by Rep. Barney Frank, HRC officially neither opposed nor supported it. This followed a speech by former HRC President Joe Solmonese at the transgender Southern Comfort Conference the previous month, where he said that HRC "oppose[d] any legislation that is not absolutely inclusive". HRC later explained that it could not actively support a non-inclusive bill, but did not oppose it because the legislation would strategically advance long-term efforts to pass a trans-inclusive ENDA. However, in a letter to U.S. Representatives, HRC did express support for the bill, stating that while HRC is "greatly disappointed that the current version of ENDA is not fully-inclusive ... we appreciate the steadfast efforts of our ... allies ... even when they are forced ... to make progress that is measured by inches rather than yards."

Endorsements

HRC has been criticized both for favoring the Democratic Party and for endorsements of Republican candidates. Andrew Sullivan, a gay political columnist and blogger, has called HRC "a patronage wing of the Democratic party." However, HRC has also received backlash and criticism for several nominations of Republican candidates when their Democratic opponents scored higher on HRC's own index.

Endorsements of Republicans

HRC was criticized for its endorsement of New York Republican Al D'Amato in his 1998 campaign for re-election to the U.S. Senate. HRC defended the endorsement because of D'Amato's support for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) and the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". However, many liberal LGBT leaders objected to D'Amato's conservative stances, including his opposition to affirmative action and abortion, and thought that HRC should have taken those positions into account when deciding on the endorsement.

In 2014, long-time supporter of same-sex marriage Shenna Bellows was nominated for a U.S. Senate seat in Maine. HRC endorsed her opponent, incumbent Republican Senator Susan Collins, who had previously lacked a history of supporting same-sex marriage initiatives. However, Collins later clarified her view in support gay marriage.

On March 11, 2016, HRC voted to endorse Republican U.S. Senator Mark Kirk over his Democratic Party challenger Representative Tammy Duckworth in his re-election bid to the United States Senate. Though Kirk later announced his support for same-sex marriage, the endorsement was met with widespread surprise and criticism in news media and social media as HRC had given Kirk a score of 78 percent out of 100 percent on LGBT issues, while it had awarded Duckworth a score of 100 percent. David Nir at Daily Kos called the endorsement as "appalling as it is embarrassing" and "pathetic and stupid", while Slate observed that Democratic control of the Senate was effectively necessary for passing the Equality Act of 2015 and beneficial for many other LGBT equality issues, and thus it would be in line with the organization's stated goals for Duckworth to be elected rather than Kirk. Meanwhile, The New Republic stated that, in light of a recent internal report revealing HRC's "serious diversity problem", "Choosing the white male candidate in this race over the Asian-American female candidate—someone who happens to have a better voting record anyway—is probably the worst way of convincing your detractors that you are taking a core problem seriously." HRC president Chad Griffin defended the endorsement in a column published by the Independent Journal Review, describing the senator's work on behalf of LGBT equality issues, including co-sponsoring the Equality Act of 2015. Griffin stated: "The truth is we need more cross party cooperation on issues of equality, not less", adding "when members of Congress vote the right way and stand up for equality — regardless of party — we must stand with them. We simply cannot ask members of Congress to vote with us, and then turn around and try to kick them out of office."

On October 28, 2016, on the day following Mark Kirk's controversial debate comment on Tammy Duckworth's heritage, HRC explicitly stated their endorsement of Kirk "remains unchanged" while asking him to "rescind" his comment. Slate stated this proved HRC's "worst critics right" and that HRC "is simply irredeemable". On October 29, two days after the comment, HRC described Kirk's statement as "deeply offensive and racist," revoked its endorsement of Kirk, and instead endorsed Duckworth for the U.S. Senate.

Endorsements of Democrats

In the 2016 U.S. presidential election, Human Rights Campaign's 32-person Board of Directors voted to endorse Hillary Clinton for president. This resulted in considerable controversy, causing thousands of users on HRC's Facebook page to post comments critical of the decision. Many cited HRC's own "congressional scorecard" (which records a 100% rating for her rival for the Democratic nomination, Bernie Sanders, while Clinton herself only scores 89%) as inconsistent with their endorsement. Additional scrutiny was also placed upon the connections Clinton herself has to the organization when it was revealed that HRC's President, Chad Griffin, had previously been employed by Clinton's husband, former U.S. President Bill Clinton.

In the 2018 New York gubernatorial election, the Human Rights Campaign endorsed incumbent governor Andrew Cuomo. However, Cynthia Nixon, who is bisexual, announced that she was running on March 25, 2018. Despite this, HRC still supported Cuomo. In response, HRC received criticism for not supporting an LGBTQ+ candidate, and supporting her opponent instead. Jimmy Van Bramer, a gay New York City Council Member who endorsed Nixon, said, "The HRC endorsement hurts Cynthia Nixon's chances," and that "coming out against a viable progressive queer woman is the wrong thing to do."

Alphonso David and Governor Andrew Cuomo

A report released in August 2021 following an independent investigation led by New York Attorney General Letitia "Tish" James described then HRC president Alphonso David's efforts to cover up sexual harassment claims against Governor Andrew Cuomo (prior to joining HRC, David was chief counsel to Cuomo) and undermine the credibility of accusers. David allegedly released the full personnel file of accuser (and former Cuomo adviser) Lindsay Boylan to the governor's office. Her file was then leaked to the press. David also assisted in drafting an unpublished letter in support of Cuomo and questioning Boylan's motivations. On September 6, 2021, David was fired as president of HRC. In February 2022, David filed a lawsuit against the Human Rights Campaign, alleging discrimination. He argued that the organization underpaid him and eventually fired him because of his race, while also saying the organization has a "deserved reputation for unequal treatment of its non-white employees."

Awards

The Human Rights Campaign gives out a number of awards.

Visibility Award winners

• Dan Levy (2020)
• Liv Hewon (2020)
• Amandla Stenberg (2019, New York)
• Cynthia Nixon (2018)
• Evan Rachel Wood (2017)
• John Barrowman (2016)
• Colton Haynes (2016)
• Kesha (2016, Nashville)
• Clea Duvall (2015)
• Greg Rikaart (2014, National)
• Jonathan Del Arco (2013, National)
• Lana Wachowski (2012, San Francisco)
• Lee Daniels (2010, National)
• Johnny Weir (2010, Seattle)

Ally for Equality Award winners

• Christina Aguilera (2019)
• Nick Robinson (2018)
• Meryl Streep (2017)
• LeAnn Rimes (2017)
• Uzo Aduba (2017)
• Sherri Saum (2016)
• Brittany Snow (2015) for Love is Louder
• Natasha Lyonne (2015)
• Teri Polo (2015)
• Sara Ramirez (2015, Arizona)
• Jennifer Lopez (2014, National),
• Whoopi Goldberg (2013, National)
• Sally Field (2012, National), Jennifer Beals (2012, Chicago)
• Michael Bloomberg (2011, National)
• P!nk (2010)

Equality Award

• Seth Meyers (2017, National)
• NAACP and its president, Ben Jealous (2012, National)
• Suze Orman (2008, National)

HRC Award for Workplace Equality Innovation

• Monsanto (2017)
• Boston Consulting Group and Goldman Sachs (2011, National)
• Kimpton Hotels & Restaurants and Credit Suisse (2010)
• Kirkland & Ellis LLP and Boeing (2009, National)

Straight ally

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An ally is a person who is associated with another as a helper; a person or group that provides assistance and support in an ongoing effort, activity or struggle. In recent years, the term has been adopted specifically to a person supporting one or more marginalized groups. A straight ally or heterosexual ally (often simply called an ally) is a heterosexual and cisgender person who supports equal civil rights, gender equality, and LGBTQ+ social movements. Individuals may meet this designation through their actions without actively identifying as an ally.

In February 2012, American writer David M. Hall wrote an article for CNN, about the television show Glee, in which he expressed the following opinion:

The storyline on "Glee" captures something larger that we are seeing with a new generation of allies (allies are people who support LGBT rights but aren't LGBT themselves).

— David M. Hall, February 24, 2012

Straight ally flag

Organizations

Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays march at an Australian Pride parade in 2011.

Gay-Straight Alliance

Most LGBTQ+ organizations have straight or cisgender members involved, while others actively encourage straight and cisgender participation. A good example of the change straight allies can help achieve is the gay-straight alliance (GSA) which has been becoming more popular in schools all around the world. A gay–straight alliance (also known as a gender-sexuality alliance) is a student-run club that brings together LGBTQ+ and straight students to create a platform for activism to fight homophobia and transphobia. The goal of most gay-straight alliances is to make their school community safe, facilitate activism on campus, and create a welcoming environment for LGBTQ+ students.

History

The first gay-straight alliance was formed in November 1988 at Concord Academy in Concord, Massachusetts, when Kevin Jennings, a history teacher at the school who had just come out as gay, was approached by Meredith Sterling, a straight student at the school who was upset by the treatment of gay students and others. Jennings recruited some other teachers at the school, thus forming the first gay-straight alliance. (Springate, 2019). Jennings credits students for both the establishment of the club, as well as for setting the agenda of struggling against homophobia, and for changes to CA's nondiscrimination policy (Lane, 2018). Jennings would go on to co-found the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network (GLSEN) in Boston in 1990 (Koelz, 2018).

The GSA Network is an LGBT rights organization founded in 1998 by Carolyn Laub to empower youth activists to start GSA clubs in their respective schools to motivate and inspire fellow students to fight against homophobia and transphobia. Laub initially started working with this movement in 40 GSA clubs in the San Francisco Bay area during 1988–99 and then gradually expanded to other cities and states; by 2005, it began operating programs nationally.

Impact on Students

Most of what has been written, academically, about LGBTQ+ youth has focused on non-normative development or risk outcomes. This focus has overshadowed the ways in which young LGBTQ+ people and their allies are actively engaged in creating positive change for themselves and their peers; for many young people, this active engagement is achieved through involvement and leadership in high school Gay-Straight Alliances (Fields and Russell 2005). Adolescence is an important developmental period for individual engagement in community and social concerns; empowerment suggests that young people discover their capacity to become agents of change in issues and causes they care about. Sexuality activism has emerged as an important arena for youth activism (Fields and Russell 2005) and offers a unique context in which to study youth empowerment.

Those most impacted by gay-straight alliances are LGBTQ+ students; however, gay and straight members alike are benefitted from the sense of community and empowerment that gay-straight alliances provide. In 1994, Anderson categorized gay youth as an "at risk" population. He believes that school-based support groups can help to counter the negative statistics in the lives of gay youth (homelessness, high school dropouts, drug and alcohol abuse, victims of physical violence, and suicide). Participants in this study experienced some of the hopelessness and despair common to gay youth, but they also became empowered young people through their association with the GSA. Being a part of the GSA helped them to move beyond the depressing statistics and gain stronger identities. Their new identities were expressed in their educational lives as well as their personal and social lives. They became empowered by working toward a collective goal: challenging the system in which they previously believed they could not have an impact" (Lee, 2002).

Impact on Society

According to many studies, involvement in high school gay-straight alliances leads to more civically active young adults. "The current study demonstrated significant associations between GSA involvement level and forms of civic engagement, including efforts to counter discrimination and raise others' awareness of LGBTQ issues. Our findings highlight the promising role that GSAs could play in building civic engagement capacity among their members. Ultimately, as active and engaged citizens, LGBTQ youth and their allies could play a major role in challenging oppressive systems and promoting social justice for LGBTQ individuals in society" (Poteat, Calzo, & Yoshikawa, 2018).

PFLAG

Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG), an international nonprofit organization, works to support LGBTQ+ people and their loved ones. Stemming from parents' desire to be involved in their gay and lesbian children's struggle for equality, PFLAG has been a resource for countless families since 1973. Founded by Jeanne Manford, who is considered the mother of the ally movement, PFLAG unites LGBTQ+ people with parents, families, and allies to gain full civil and legal equality for people in the LGBTQ+ community. In 2007, the organization launched a new project, Straight for Equality to help more allies become engaged with the movement in the workplace, healthcare, and now in faith communities.

"Despite the exclusion of "bisexual" and "transgender" from the organization's name, PFLAG works for the rights of these sexual minorities as well, providing education on gender identification along with sexual orientation. PFLAG's policy statements on such issues as legislation, equality in the workplace, hate crimes, same-gender marriage, religious affiliation, and comprehensive sex education all reflect its deep commitment to ensuring the rights of all glbtq people" (Theophano, 2015).

GLAAD

GLAAD was established by a group of reporters after an article talked down on HIV/AIDS, being officially founded in 1985. GLAAD put pressure on media organizations to end what it saw as homophobic reporting. Over the years, GLAAD has expanded its resources to provide change for LGBTQ+ members and allies. "As a dynamic media force, GLAAD ensures fair, accurate, and inclusive representation that rewrites the script for LGBTQ acceptance. GLAAD tackles tough issues to shape the narrative and provoke dialogue that leads to cultural change. GLAAD protects all that has been accomplished and envisions a world with 100% LGBTQ acceptance. GLAAD works through entertainment, news, and digital media to share stories from the LGBTQ community that accelerate acceptance".

Historical background

The Stonewall Uprising

The Stonewall Uprising, or the Stonewall Riots of 1969 (in New York City), is known to be the starting point of the Gay Liberation Front. Protests, advocacy organizations, HIV/AIDS relief groups, etc. collectively have characterized the movement from the start. The Stonewall Uprising, a series of events between police and LGBTQ+ protesters that stretched over six days, became well known due to the media coverage and the subsequent annual Pride traditions. "Stonewall veterans have explicitly stated that they prefer the term Stonewall uprising or rebellion. The reference to these events as riots was initially used by police to justify their use of force. Early publications show that the LGBTQIA+ community largely did not use the term riot until years after the fact" (Library of Congress, 2022).

"The criminalization of homosexuality led many gay establishments to operate sans liquor license, providing an open door for raids and police brutality. Like many gay establishments at the time, the Stonewall Inn was owned by the mafia, and as long as they continued to make a profit, they cared very little what happened to their clientele. Because the owners were still making a profit, they simply adjusted to the raids, and were often tipped off about them ahead of time" (Library of Congress, 2022). The Stonewall Inn remains both as a gay bar and a statement against the violence that it has survived, and has even become a National Historic Landmark. The Stonewall Inn continues to make strides within the LGBTQ+ community with its nonprofit charity. "The Stonewall Inn Gives Back Initiative is ... dedicated to providing educational, strategic and financial assistance to grassroots organizations committed to advocacy for and crucial support to LGBTQ communities and individuals who suffer the indignities and fear arising from social intolerance here in the United States and around the world" (The Stonewall Inn, 2022).

Liberationists

In the 1970s, a divide emerged within the community over opposing beliefs on what liberation truly meant: the "liberationists" and the "homophiles".

Liberationists presented themselves as being considerably radical; their intent lay in going beyond acceptance and transforming traditional constructs of society (homophobia, sexism, militarism, etc.).

In contrast, homophiles aimed only for what was deemed realistic; instead of dismantling an oppressive system, they simply asked for tolerance. Their group maintained an apologist standpoint, where their end goal was living in peaceful coexistence with the oppressor. This assimilationist perspective held particular appeal with members of the community who were able to "blend in" with heterosexual society.

The existence of such a group left room for a movement that was more sensitive to the struggles, needs, and ultimate goals of more marginalized subcultures. The liberationists, who seemed to be drawing in members of such groups, filled this need.

The emergence of the Liberationists allowed for a wider spectrum of sexual-social behavior and identity to be represented without compromise, and with less risk of infighting. Members of the latter group would not feel forced to conform to the more socially conservatives mores of the former group, while they were able to separate themselves from elements of the gay subculture that they had found crass, excessive, decadent, or extreme.

Stages of allyship

Sociologist Keith Edwards identifies three stages to the process of becoming an ally in a social movement.

Stage One

The first stage of allyship is rooted in self-interest. These allies' goals focus entirely on those they love. When taking action as an ally, their impact is individualistic – they perceive the issues of their loved one to have stemmed from the influence of a certain group of people rather than believing the issues to be symptomatic of a greater, oppressive system. This exhibition of early allyship is not necessarily harmful, but since it does not address the larger problem, its effectiveness is limited. Self-interested behavior is most often associated with parents supporting their children. Although these parents are key supporters in the community, it is not always clear whether their help extends beyond their own family and friends.

Stage Two

The second stage in Edwards' model is that of the ally aspiring for altruism. This is a more developed stage than the former because the ally's motivations are directed toward combating the oppression of an entire group instead of just one individual. They are also more established in the sense that allies at this level begin to show awareness of their societal privilege, yet they tend to assume a savior role toward those they aim to help.

Stage Three

The third stage of allyship is the ally who fights for social justice. Above all else, the main driver of this stage is respect for those who are oppressed. In contrast to the prior two approaches, allies in the third stage are aware that the group they support is fully capable of advocating for themselves.

Being a Straight Ally

You can start being an ally by being understanding of how society views or treats people in the LGBTQ+ community by being open to educating yourself. Learn about LGBTQ+ history, their struggles, and the terminologies they use. "As a good straight ally, you allow the people close to you to be who they are and open up to you more by not making assumptions. You have to show action by calling out oppression and being consistent in your advocacy efforts for LGBTQ rights. Call out oppression and discrimination of LGBTQ people at work, home, school, or in other social situations. Attend protests and pride rallies. Educate your other straight friends. As an ally, you will need to challenge the assumptions, stereotypes, and biases you’ve had towards the LGBTQ community." (Queer in the World, 2021).

Challenges raised

Partnership

Partnership with straight allies has raised challenges as well as benefits for the LGBTQ+ community: there is a perception that such allies evince different levels of 'respect' for the community on whose behalf they advocate, sometimes being patronizing, unaware of their own privilege and power, and crowding out the members. Given that distinguishing between speaking on behalf of a group and speaking for a group is not simple, that line is often crossed without even noticing. This grey area can be referred to as 'positive respect'; a sort of force found in an ally's motives that inhibits the 'servile' (as a result of their internalized oppression) group's freedom to act.

Scrutiny

Another challenge is that straight allies can be easily discouraged, in the face of scrutiny of their motives and approaches. Newer straight allies can become overwhelmed by the complication of their position in the movement. Since newer allies derive their identity from their personal relations with queer-identifying people, this limits their allyship. Allies tend to respond very defensively to criticism from members of the queer community about their understanding of queer issues, which in turn feeds a concern that they are motivated by the praise they anticipate as their moral reward. Additionally, there is a coming out process for being a straight ally that is not explicitly present in other social movements (concerns about being seen as LGBTQ+); this can hinder the level of advocacy an ally does. In other words, allyship requires support that is accompanied by a distinct protocol many find challenging to achieve. Straight allies protesting at Seattle March for Marriage Equality Allies may receive criticism for a variety of reasons. For example, some believe that allies are unable to step outside their own heteronormative world to advocate. Allies are also criticized for using LGBT advocacy as a means to gain popularity and status.

Straight allies protesting at Seattle March for Marriage Equality

Role in policy change

Studies show that elite allies have a positive effect on the policy goals of a social movement, whatever those goals may be. While allies' main role is to provide wider support for the goals of a social movement, their secondary role of influencing policy is also valuable. The allies' role is to inform policymakers of the struggles endured by a community. Allyship of this kind is often effective, though self-interested; for example, high-ranking, conservative government officials Barry Goldwater and William Weld (former Republican governor of Massachusetts), were motivated by their relations with queer family and friends to provide uncharacteristic support for pro-gay policies.

Mate choice

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mate_choice

 

Mate choice is highly visible in lek mating. Here, black grouse males gather in a quagmire and the females then arrive and observe the male before choosing one.

Mate choice is one of the primary mechanisms under which evolution can occur. It is characterized by a "selective response by animals to particular stimuli" which can be observed as behavior. In other words, before an animal engages with a potential mate, they first evaluate various aspects of that mate which are indicative of quality—such as the resources or phenotypes they have—and evaluate whether or not those particular trait(s) are somehow beneficial to them. The evaluation will then incur a response of some sort.

These mechanisms are a part of evolutionary change because they operate in a way that causes the qualities that are desired in a mate to be more frequently passed on to each generation over time. For example, if female peacocks desire mates who have a colourful plumage, then this trait will increase in frequency over time as male peacocks with a colourful plumage will have more reproductive success. Further investigation of this concept, has found that it is in fact the specific trait of blue and green colour near the eyespot that seems to increase the females likelihood of mating with a specific peacock.

Mate choice is a major component of sexual selection, another being intrasexual selection. Ideas on sexual selection were first introduced in 1871, by Charles Darwin, then expanded on by Ronald Fisher in 1915. At present, there are five sub mechanisms that explain how mate choice has evolved over time. These are direct phenotypic benefits, sensory bias, the Fisherian runaway hypothesis, indicator traits and genetic compatibility.

In the majority of systems where mate choice exists, one sex tends to be competitive with their same-sex members and the other sex is choosy (meaning they are selective when it comes to picking individuals to mate with). There are direct and indirect benefits of being the selective individual. In most species, females are the choosy sex which discriminates among competitive males, but there are several examples of reversed roles (see below). It is preferable for an individual to choose a compatible mate of the same species, in order to maintain reproductive success. Other factors that can influence mate choice include pathogen stress and the major histocompatibility complex (MHC).

Origins and history

Ronald Fisher in 1913

 

The peacock tail in flight, the classic example of a Fisherian runaway

Charles Darwin first expressed his ideas on sexual selection and mate choice in his book The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex in 1871. He was perplexed by the elaborate ornamentation that males of some species have, because such features appeared to be detrimental to survival and to have negative consequences for reproductive success. Darwin proposed two explanations for the existence of such traits: these traits are useful in male-male combat or they are preferred by females. This article focuses on the latter. Darwin treated natural selection and sexual selection as two different topics, although in the 1930s biologists defined sexual selection as being a part of natural selection.

In 1915, Ronald Fisher wrote a paper on the evolution of female preference and secondary sexual characteristics. Fifteen years later, he expanded this theory in a book called The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. There he described a scenario, Fisherian runaway, where feedback between mate preference and a trait results in elaborate characters such as the long tail of the male peacock.

In 1948, using Drosophila as a model, Angus John Bateman presented experimental evidence that male reproductive success is limited by the number of mates obtained, while female reproductive success is limited by the number of pregnancies that she can have in her lifetime. Thus a female must be selective when choosing a mate because the quality of her offspring depends on it. Males must fight, in the form of intra-sexual competition, for the opportunity to mate because not all males will be chosen by females. This became known as Bateman's principle, and although this was a major finding that added to the work of Darwin and Fisher, it was overlooked until George C. Williams emphasised its importance in the 1960s and 1970s.

In 1972, soon after Williams' revival of the subject, Robert L. Trivers presented his parental investment theory. Trivers defined parental investment as any investment made by the parent that benefits his or her current offspring at the cost of investment in future offspring. These investments include the costs of producing gametes as well as any other care or efforts that parents provide after birth or hatching. Reformulating Bateman's ideas, Trivers argued that the sex which exhibits less parental investment (not necessarily the male) will have to compete for mating opportunities with the sex that invests more. The differences in levels of parental investment create the condition that favours mating biases.

Direct and indirect benefits

The act of being choosy was likely selected for as a way to assess whether or not a potential partner’s contribution(s) would be capable of producing and/or maintaining the viability of an offspring. Utilizing these behaviors usually results in two types of benefits to the individual who is being choosy:

• Direct benefits increase the fitness of the choosy sex through direct material advantages or resources. These benefits include but are not limited to increased territory quality, increased parental care, and protection from predators. There is much support for maintenance of mate choice by direct benefits and this approach offers the least controversial model to explain discriminate mating.
• Indirect benefits increase genetic fitness for the offspring, and thereby increase the parents' inclusive fitness. When it appears that the choosy sex does not receive direct benefits from his or her mate, indirect benefits may be the payoff for being selective. These indirect benefits may include high-quality genes for their offspring (known as adaptive indirect benefits) or genes that make their offspring more attractive (known as arbitrary indirect benefits).

Mechanisms

As of 2018 five proposed mechanisms address the evolution of mate choice:

• Direct phenotypic benefits
• Sensory bias
• Fisherian runaway
• Indicator traits
• Genetic compatibility

Direct and/or indirect benefits drive the mating biases described in each mechanism. It is possible that these mechanisms co-occur, although the relative roles of each have not been evaluated adequately.

Direct phenotypic benefits

A choosy mate tends to have preferences for certain types of traits—also known as phenotypes—which would benefit them to have in a potential partner. These traits must be reliable, and commutative of something that directly benefits the choosy partner in some way. Having a mating preference is advantageous in this situation because it directly affects reproductive fitness. Direct benefits are widespread and empirical studies provide evidence for this mechanism of evolution.

One example of a sexually selected trait with direct benefits is the bright plumage of the northern cardinal, a common backyard bird in the eastern United States. Male northern cardinals have conspicuous red feathers, while the females have a more cryptic coloration. In this example, the females are the choosy sex and will use male plumage brightness as a signal when picking a mate — research suggests that males with brighter plumage feed their young more frequently than males with duller plumage. This increased help in caring for the young lifts some of the burden from the mother so that she can raise more offspring than she could without help.

Though this particular mechanism operates on the premise that all phenotypes must communicate something that benefits the choosy mate directly, such selected phenotypes can also have additional indirect benefits for the mother by benefiting the offspring. For example, with the increased help in feeding their young seen in Northern Cardinals with more plumage-brightness, comes an increase in the overall amount of food that is likely to be given to the offspring - even if the mother has more children. Though females may choose this trait with the presumed directly advantageous aim of allowing them more time and energy to allocate to producing more offspring, it also benefits the offspring in that two parents provide food instead of one, thereby increasing the likelihood of the overall amount of food available to the offspring despite a possible increase in the amount of offspring siblings.

Sensory bias

See also: Sensory trap hypothesis

The sensory-bias hypothesis states that the preference for a trait evolves in a non-mating context and is then exploited by the less choosy sex in order to obtain more mating opportunities. The competitive sex evolves traits that exploit a pre-existing bias that the choosy sex already possesses. Following this hypothesis, increased selectivity for one of these specific traits can explain remarkable trait differences in closely related species because it produces a divergence in signaling systems which leads to reproductive isolation.

Sensory bias has been demonstrated in guppies, freshwater fish from Trinidad and Tobago. In this mating system, female guppies prefer to mate with males with more orange body-coloration. However, outside of a mating context, both sexes prefer animate orange objects, which suggests that preference originally evolved in another context, like foraging. Orange fruits are a rare treat that fall into streams where the guppies live. The ability to find these fruits quickly is an adaptive quality that has evolved outside of a mating context. Sometime after the affinity for orange objects arose, male guppies exploited this preference by incorporating large orange spots to attract females.

Another example of sensory exploitation is the case of the water mite Neumania papillator, an ambush predator which hunts copepods (small crustaceans) passing by in the water column. When hunting, N. papillator adopts a characteristic stance termed the "net stance": its holds its first four legs out into the water column, with its four hind legs resting on aquatic vegetation; this allows it to detect vibrational stimuli produced by swimming prey and to use this to orient towards and clutch at prey. During courtship, males actively search for females; if a male finds a female, he slowly circles around the female whilst trembling his first and second leg near her. Male leg-trembling causes females (who were in the "net stance") to orient towards and often to clutch the male. This does not damage the male or deter further courtship; the male then deposits spermatophores and begins to vigorously fan and jerk his fourth pair of legs over the spermatophore, generating a current of water that passes over the spermatophores and towards the female. Sperm-packet uptake by the female would sometimes follow. Heather Proctor hypothesised that the vibrations made by trembling male legs mimic the vibrations that females detect from swimming prey. This would trigger the female prey-detection responses, causing females to orient and then clutch at males, mediating courtship. If this was true and males were exploiting female predation responses, then hungry females should be more receptive to male trembling. Proctor found that unfed captive females did orient and clutch at males significantly more than fed captive females did, consistent with the sensory exploitation hypothesis.

Other examples of the sensory-bias mechanism include traits in auklets, wolf spiders, and manakins. Further experimental work is required to reach a fuller understanding of the prevalence and mechanisms of sensory bias.

Fisherian runaway and sexy-son hypothesis

Main articles: Fisherian runaway and Sexy son hypothesis

This creates a positive feedback loop in which a particular trait is desired by a female and present in a male, and that desire for and presence of that particular trait are then reflected in their offspring. If this mechanism is strong enough, it can lead to a type of self-reinforcing coevolution. If runaway selection is strong enough, it may incur significant costs, such as increased visibility to predators and energetic costs to maintain the trait's full expression. Hence peacocks' extravagant feathers, or any number of lek mating displays. This model does not predict a genetic benefit; rather, the reward is more mates.

In a study done on great reed warblers, models based on the polygyny threshold and sexy-son hypotheses predict that females should gain evolutionary advantage in either short-term or long-term in this mating system. Although the importance of female choice was demonstrated, the study did not support the hypotheses. Other studies, such as those conducted on long-tailed widowbirds, have demonstrated the existence of female choice. Here, females chose males with long tails, and even preferred those males with experimentally lengthened tails over shortened tails and those of naturally occurring length. Such a process shows how female choice could give rise to exaggerated sexual traits through Fisherian runaway selection.

Indicator traits

Indicator traits signal good overall quality of the individual. Traits perceived as attractive must reliably indicate broad genetic quality in order for selection to favor them and for preference to evolve. This is an example of indirect genetic benefits received by the choosy sex, because mating with such individuals will result in high-quality offspring. The indicator traits hypothesis is split into three highly related subtopics: the handicap theory of sexual selection, the good genes hypothesis, and the Hamilton–Zuk hypothesis.

People rate the importance of certain traits differently when referring to their own or to others' ideal long-term partners. Research suggests that women consider traits indicating genetic fitness as more important for their own partner, while prioritising traits that provide benefits to others for their sister's ideal partner.

Indicator traits are condition-dependent and have associated costs. Therefore, individuals which can handle these costs well (cf. "I can do X [here, survive] with one hand tied behind my back") should be desired by the choosy sex for their superior genetic quality. This is known as the handicap theory of sexual selection.

The good genes hypothesis states that the choosy sex will mate with individuals who possess traits that signify overall genetic quality. In doing so, they gain an evolutionary advantage for their offspring through indirect benefit.

The Hamilton–Zuk hypothesis posits that sexual ornaments are indicators of parasite- and disease-resistance. To test this hypothesis, red jungle-fowl males were infected with a parasitic roundworm and monitored for growth and developmental changes. Female preference was also evaluated. The researchers found that parasites affected the development and final appearance of ornamental traits and that females preferred males who were not infected. This supports the idea that parasites are an important factor in sexual selection and mate choice.

One of many examples of indicator traits is the condition-dependent patch of red feathers around the face and shoulders of the male house finch. This patch varies in brightness among individuals because the pigments that produce the red color (carotenoids) are limited in the environment. Thus, males who have a high-quality diet will have brighter red plumage. In a much-cited manipulation experiment, female house finches were shown to prefer males with brighter red patches. Also, males with naturally brighter patches proved better fathers and exhibited higher offspring-feeding rates than duller males.

Genetic compatibility

Genetic compatibility refers to how well the genes of two parents function together in their offspring. Choosing genetically compatible mates could result in optimally fit offspring and notably affect reproductive fitness. However, the genetic compatibility model is limited to specific traits due to complex genetic interactions (e.g. major histocompatibility complex in humans and mice). The choosy sex must know their own genotype as well as the genotypes of potential mates in order to select the appropriate partner. This makes testing components of genetic compatibility difficult and controversial.

Role of major histocompatibility complex

Main article: Major histocompatibility complex and sexual selection

A controversial but well-known experiment suggests that human females use body odor as an indicator of genetic compatibility. In this study, males were given a plain T-shirt to sleep in for two nights in order to provide a scent sample. College women were then asked to rate odors from several men, some with similar MHC (major histocompatibility complex) genes to their own and others with dissimilar genes. MHC genes code for receptors that identify foreign pathogens in the body so that the immune system may respond and destroy them. Since each different gene in the MHC codes for a different type of receptor, it is expected that females will benefit from mating with males who have more dissimilar MHC genes. This will ensure better resistance to parasites and disease in offspring. Researchers found that women tended to rate the odors higher if the male's genes were more dissimilar to their own. They concluded that the odors are influenced by the MHC and that they have consequences for mate choice in human populations today.

Similar to the humans of the odor-rating experiment, animals also choose mates based upon genetic compatibility as determined by evaluating the body odor of their potential mate(s). Some animals, such as mice, assess a mate's genetic compatibility based on their urine odor.

In an experiment studying three-spined sticklebacks, researchers found that females prefer to mate with males that share a greater diversity of major histocompatibility complex (MHC) and in addition possess a MHC haplotype specific to fighting the common parasite Gyrodactylus salaris. Mates that have MHC genes different from one another will be superior when reproducing with regard to parasite resistance, body condition and reproductive success and survival.

The genetic diversity of animals and life reproductive success (LRS) at the MHC level is optimal at intermediate levels rather than at its maximum, despite MHC being one of the most polymorphic genes. In a study, researchers discovered that mice heterozygous at all MHC loci were less resistant than mice homozygous at all loci to salmonella, so it appears disadvantageous to display many different MHC alleles due to the increased loss of T-cells, which aid an organism's immune system and trigger its appropriate response.

MHC diversity may also correlate with MHC gene expression. As long as a heritable component exists in expression patterns, natural selection is able to act upon the trait. Therefore, gene expression for MHC genes might contribute to the natural selection processes of certain species and be in fact evolutionarily relevant. For example, in another study of three-spined sticklebacks, exposure to parasite species increased MHC class IIB expression by over 25%, proving that parasitic infection increases gene expression.

MHC diversity in vertebrates may also be generated by the recombination of alleles on the MHC gene.

Sex role reversal in animals

In species where mating biases exist, females are typically the choosy sex because they provide a greater parental investment than males. However, there are some examples of sex role reversals where females must compete with each other for mating opportunities with males. Species that exhibit parental care after the birth of their offspring have the potential to overcome the sex differences in parental investment (the amount of energy that each parent contributes per offspring) and lead to a reversal in sex roles. The following are examples of male mate choice (sex role reversal) across several taxa.

• Fish: Male fish typically display high levels of parental care (see pipefish, scissortail sergeant, and seahorses). This is because females will deposit their eggs in a special brooding pouch that the male possesses. She doesn't participate in parental care after this event. The male then has the burden of raising the offspring on his own which requires energy and time. Thus, males in these species must choose among competitive females for mating opportunities. Surveys across multiple species of pipefish suggest that the sex differences in the level of parental care may not be the only reason for the reversal. Mating systems (e. i. monogamy and polygamy) might also heavily influence the appearance of male mate choice.
• Amphibian: Male poison-arrow frogs (Dendrobates auratus) take on a very active parenting role. Females are lured by the males to rearing sites where they deposit their eggs. The male fertilises these eggs and accepts the burden of defending and caring for the young until they are independent. Because the male contributes a higher level of parental investment, females must compete for opportunities to leave their eggs with the limited available males.
• Bird: Bird species are typically biparental in care, and may also be maternal like the Guianan cock-of-the-rocks. However the reverse may also hold true. Male wattled jacanas provide all parental care after the eggs have been laid by the females. This means that the males must incubate the eggs and defend the nest for an extended period of time. Since males invest much more time and energy into the offspring, females are very competitive for the right to lay their eggs in an established nest.
• Mammal: There are no confirmed cases of sex role reversed mammals but female spotted hyenas have peculiar anatomy and behaviour that has warranted much attention. Female spotted hyenas are much more aggressive than males due to their high levels of androgens during development. The increased male hormones during development contribute to an enlarged pseudopenis that is involved in mating and birth. Although the anatomical and behavioural roles differ from accepted norms, spotted hyenas are not sex role reversed because the females do not compete with each other for mates.

Speciation

For many years it has been suggested that sexual isolation caused by differences in mating behaviours is a precursor for reproductive isolation (lack of gene flow), and consequently speciation, in nature. Mate choice behaviours are thought to be important forces that can result in speciation events because the strength of selection for attractive traits is often very strong. Speciation by this method occurs when a preference for some sexual trait shifts and produces a pre-zygotic barrier (preventing fertilisation). These processes have been difficult to test until recently with advances in genetic modelling. Speciation by sexual selection is gaining popularity in the literature with increasing theoretical and empirical studies.

There is evidence of early speciation through mate preference in guppies. Guppies are located across several isolated streams in Trinidad and male colour patterns differ geographically. Female guppies have no coloration but their preference for these colour patterns also vary across locations. In a mate choice study, female guppies were shown to prefer males with colour patterns that are typical of their home stream. This preference could result in reproductive isolation if two populations came into contact again. There is a similar trend shown in two species of the wood white butterfly, L. reali and L. sinapis. Female L. sinapis controls mate choice by engaging only in conspecific mating, while males attempt to mate with either species. This female mate choice has encouraged speciation of the two wood whites.

The black-throated blue warbler, a North American bird, is another example. Asymmetric recognition of local and non-local songs has been found between two populations of black-throated blue warblers in the United States, one in the northern United States (New Hampshire) and the other in the southern United States (North Carolina). Males in the northern population respond strongly to the local male songs but relatively weakly to the non-local songs of southern males. In contrast, southern males respond equally to both local and non-local songs. The fact that northern males exhibit differential recognition indicates that northern females tend not to mate with "heterospecific" males from the south; thus it is not necessary for the northern males to respond strongly to the song from a southern challenger. A barrier to gene flow exists from South to North as a result of the female choice, which can eventually lead to speciation.

Mate choice in humans

Main article: Mate choice in humans

In humans, males and females differ in their strategies to acquire mates. Females exhibit more mate choice selectivity than males. According to Bateman's principle, human females display less variance in their Lifespan Reproductive Success, due to their high obligatory parental investment. Human female sexual selection is indicated by sexually dimorphism, especially in traits that serve little other evolutionary purpose, such as the presence in men of beards, overall lower voice pitch, and average greater height. Women have reported a preference for men with beards and lower voices. The traits most salient to female human mate choice are parental investment, resource provision and the provision of good genes to offspring. Women as well as men may seek short-term mating partners. This could gain them resources; provide genetic benefit, as through the sexy son hypothesis; facilitate a desired break-up; and allow them to assess a mate's suitability as a long-term partner.  Women prefer long-term partners over short-term mates, as they have a larger investment in a child through pregnancy and lactation. Factors in female mate choice include the woman's own perceived attractiveness, the woman's personal resources, mate copying and parasite stress. Romantic love is the mechanism through which long-term mate choice occurs in human females.

In humans, the female is obliged to endure a nine-month pregnancy and childbirth. Females thus provide a greater biologically obligatory parental investment to offspring than males. This provides males with a greater window of opportunity to mate and reproduce than females, hence females are usually more choosy, but males still make mate choices. When finding a short-term mate, males highly value women with sexual experience and physical attractiveness. Men seeking short-term sexual relationships are likely to avoid women who are interested in commitment or require investment. For a long-term relationship, males may look for commitment, facial symmetry, femininity, physical beauty, waist–hip ratio, large breasts, and youth. Due to the higher obligatory biological investment, women are choosier in short-term mating, as the perceived paternal investment is low to non existent, whereas men and women are equally choosy when deciding for long-term mates, as men and women then have an equal parental investment, as men then invest heavily in the offspring by resource provisioning. 

The parasite-stress theory suggests that parasites or diseases stress an organism, making them look less sexually attractive. Choosing a mate for attractiveness could thus help to find a healthy mate resistant to parasites.

Scarification could be viewed by prospective mates as evidence that a person has overcome parasites and is thus more attractive. Masculinity, especially in the face, could equally indicate robust parasite-free health. Polygamy is predicted by pathogen stress in the tropics.

Human leukocyte antigen (HLA) proteins are essential for immune system functioning and are highly variable, assumed to be a result of frequency-dependent parasite-driven selection and mate choice. There is some evidence that women detect and select HLA type by odour, though this is disputed. Human facial preferences correlate with both MHC-similarity and MHC-heterozygosity.

Mate choice for cognitive traits

In the late 19th century, Charles Darwin proposed that cognition, or "intelligence," was the product of two combined evolutionary forces: natural selection and sexual selection. Research on human mate choice showed that intelligence is sexually selected for, and is highly esteemed by both sexes. Some evolutionary psychologists have suggested that humans evolved large brains because the cognitive abilities associated with this size increase were successful in attracting mates, consequently increasing reproductive success: brains are metabolically costly to produce and are an honest signal of mate quality. Cognition may be functioning to attract mates in other taxa. If the possession of higher cognitive skills enhances a male's ability to gather resources, then females may benefit directly from choosing more intelligent males, through courtship feeding or allofeeding. Assuming cognitive skills are heritable to some degree, females may also benefit indirectly through their offspring. Additionally, cognitive ability has been shown to vary significantly, both within and between species, and could be under sexual selection as a result. Recently, researchers have started to ask to what extent individuals assess the cognitive abilities of the opposite sex when choosing a mate. In fruit flies, the absence of sexual selection was accompanied by a decline in male cognitive performance.

In non-human vertebrates

Female preference for males with enhanced cognitive ability "may be reflected in successful males' courtship displays, foraging performance, courtship feeding or diet-dependent morphological traits." However, few are the studies that assess whether females can discriminate between males through direct observation of cognitively demanding tasks. Instead, researchers generally investigate female choice by reason of morphological traits correlated with cognitive ability.

A male satin bowerbird guards its bower from rival males in the hopes of attracting females with its decorations

Birds

• Budgerigars: in this parrot species, direct observation of problem-solving skills was shown to increase male attractiveness. In a two-step experiment testing for female preference, initially less-preferred male budgerigars became preferred after females observed them solve extractive foraging problems while initially preferred males failed to problem-solve. This shift in preference suggests that females discriminate between males through direct observation of cognitively-demanding tasks.
• Zebra finches: researchers conducted a problem-solving experiment similar to the one described above. However, male problem-solving performance was not found to influence female mating preferences. Instead, females had a significant preference for males with better foraging efficiency. There is no evidence that females indirectly assess male cognitive ability through morphological traits. By selecting for males with a higher foraging efficiency, females obtained direct food benefits.
• Satin Bowerbirds: bowerbirds are famous because of their complex male courtship, in which they utilize decorations of certain colours. This suggests that male bowerbirds with enhanced cognitive abilities should have a selective advantage during male courtship. In a study testing problem-solving skills, male satin bowerbirds' general cognitive performance was found to correlate to mating success, rendering them more sexually attractive. However, a more recent study evaluated bowerbirds on six cognitive tasks, and found very little intercorrelation between them. In a more recent study, bowerbird performance in six cognitive tasks was positively correlated with mating success, but no general cognitive ability was found as intercorrelations between performances on each task were weak. Instead, mating success could be independently predicted via the male's performance on most tasks; this demonstrates the complexity of the link between cognitive ability and sexual selection.
• Red Crossbills: an experimental study showed that female red crossbills prefer males with higher foraging efficiency. After observing two males simultaneously extracting seeds from cones, females spent more time in proximity of the faster foragers. Although females could benefit both directly and indirectly through their preference for faster foragers, the potential link between foraging efficiency and cognitive abilities was not investigated.
• Mountain chickadees: in this monogamous bird species, spatial cognition is important as mountain chickadees rely on the retrieval of previously stored food caches to nourish themselves during the winter. Spatial memory has been shown to correlate with reproductive success in mountain chickadees. When females mate with males possessing enhanced spatial cognition, they laid larger clutches and fledged larger broods when compared to females mating with males possessing worse spatial cognition. Therefore, when mating with high quality males with enhanced spatial skills, females may attempt to gain indirect, genetic benefits by increasing their reproductive investment.

The Trinidadian guppy (Poecilia reticulata), male (above), and female (below).

Other

• Guppies: when assessing male cognitive ability via maze experiments, females preferred males that learnt two mazes at a faster rate. However, females did not directly observe males during their learning tasks. Although females could be discriminating between males by assessing orange saturation - a morphological trait weakly correlated to learning rate - females did not find males with brighter orange spots more attractive. Instead, females may use an unknown visual trait to discriminate between males and their cognitive abilities.
• Meadow Voles: in this species of rodents, female preference for male spatial ability was investigated. Male spatial ability was measured using a series of water maze tests, before females were given a choice between two males. Although females did not directly observe males complete spatial-ability tasks, they preferred males with enhanced spatial skills. This preference could explain why meadow vole brain regions associated with spatial ability are sexually dimorphic: spatial ability could serve as an honest signal of male quality due to the metabolic costs associated with brain development.

Criticisms

Although there is some evidence that females assess male cognitive ability when choosing a mate, the effect that cognitive ability has on survival and mating preference remain unclear. Many questions need to be answered to be able to better appreciate the implications that cognitive traits may have in mate choice. Some discrepancies also need to be resolved. For example, in 1996, Catchpole suggested that in songbirds, females preferred males with larger song repertoires. Learned song repertoire was correlated with the size of the High Vocal Center (HVC) in the brain; females may then use song repertoire as an indicator of general cognitive ability. However, a more recent study found learned song repertoire to be an unreliable signal of cognitive ability. Rather than a general cognitive ability, male songbirds were found to have specific cognitive abilities that did not positively associate.

As of 2011, more research was needed on what extent cognitive abilities determine foraging success or courtship displays, what extent behavioural courtship displays rely on learning through practice and experience, what extent cognitive abilities affect survival and mating success, and what indicator traits could be used as a signal of cognitive ability. Researchers have started to explore links between cognition and personality; some personality traits such as boldness or neophobia may be used as indicators of cognitive ability, although more evidence is required to characterize personality-cognition relationships. As of 2011, empirical evidence for the benefits, both direct and indirect, of choosing mates with enhanced cognition is weak. One possible research direction would be on the indirect benefits of mating with males with enhanced spatial cognition in mountain chickadees. Additional focus in research is needed on developmental and environmental effects on cognitive ability, as such factors have been shown to influence song learning and could therefore influence other cognitive traits.