The primary reason I linked to the Roughgarden interview was for her assertion that:

The issue is whether scientists are really telling the truth, or whether they are playing to the market, which is what they are doing in the case of homosexuality. I know for a fact that some biologists are embarrassed if their animals turn out to be gay.

fair statement particularly given your comment that “[s]exual selection as explicated by Darwin also concerned how the traits found in the males affected male-male interactions” and “It’s funny how Roughgarden positions herself as breaking new ground in discussing diversity of sexual habits. It becomes especially funny when one peruses both Origin of Species and Descent of Man and finds the many discussions of hermaphroditism, gender change, and parthenogenesis contained therein.”
Taking Roughgarden’s interview and your comments, what I find important in the Roughgarden interview is the lack of attention given to “hermaphroditism, gender change, and parthenogenesis contained therein” and “male-male interactions”. It’s as if those aspects of Darwin’s writing have simply been swept under the rug in favor of sexual selection and survival of the fittest theories.

So, I cannot say that I disagree with any of your observations. Whether Roughgarden is breaking new ground or not, I cannot say. You are more qualified than I. However, to the extent that she is reinvigorating forgotten Darwin observations, I think it is important.

Thanks for the comment.