Checking through his comment history reveals a large amount, he has posted everywhere negatively.

No doubt. I just like to see maturity in general in response to hatred, and it's so hard to do I must admit. (actually, I may have just moments earlier failed to do exactly what I'm praising you for... lol. So easy to fall into that).

Zoos can be and are bestialists at times, and we have stats on it, which you know, of course. It'd be foolish to bar them on that basis but that's not the idea. A big part of this sub is the idea that agency in nonhumans is critical, which the stats also support.. I'll concede that I didn't clarify the difference between the two perfectly, but... they made this account specifically for trolling, and no amount of persuasion and fine-tuned verbiage will make him rethink things, we can both agree on that. I didn't do this to make him rethink things, or even to accomplish anything in particular. I did it because I felt like it, and that's all the reason I need to do something that's ostensibly good, either way.

So, his picture of "zoophilia" may not be as wrong as you all like it to be. I still want to know why there is such a disproportional overrepresentation of homo- and bisexuals in "zoophilia" and nobody has provided an answer to this yet.

Could be the herd instinct bias at work. Most people would trend to the assumption that they are heterosexual in spite of being bisexual, because that's the norm and people are still not very inclined to deviate. That's one of the issues with surveys, you get numbers, but they may not be accurate numbers, since you're dealing with something that is going to be interpreted subjectively, and with the herd bias at play. People might be afraid to put it on paper at all, too. Hell, I know for a fact that I'm bisexual, AT LEAST, but you can be damn certain that I'm putting down heterosexual on a normal survey. With the surveys that zoos get... They're already admitting to having a taste for forbidden fruit, so to speak, so there's no reason for them to try convincing themselves or others that they're free of a lesser evil, for lack of a better word. If we assume for a moment that people taking zoo surveys are more inclined to falsely identify as a 'deviant' sexuality, and that general surveys are more inclined to falsely identify heterosexuality, we've got a much greater margin for similarity. It's still outside any reasonable margin of error, but I think the difference isn't as great as we think.

Another potential explanation would be a behavioral prezygotic reproductive barrier being 'broken', or weakened and expanding the margins of attractiveness to those individuals... but it doesn't work perfectly since it would seem that a good number of species can be nudged toward attraction to members of other species as well, with varying degrees of success, granted, but it can be done.

I think, too, that we have to consider, again, that our numbers are skewed. Probably way, way worse than we think. How many people simply keep it a secret and avoid communities like these? And, what if those people are disproportionately heterosexual? I mean, it would make sense that they'd avoid it, then. They've got the 'ideal orientation' and, you know, they can go about their lives, assuming they find humans attractive sexually and/or romantically, and pretend that those other attractions aren't there at all. So... yeah, if you're already heterosexual the path of least resistance is to just live out a normal life, ain't it?

I think that women are generally less inclined to openly participate in communities that have a sexual component, and less inclined in general to participate in online communities, I feel, due to the 'proper woman" culture still being a thing.

So... our numbers are probably pretty shitty, all in all. I don't think they're entirely inaccurate as they relate to opinions and sentiments, but... well, you know.

The vast majority of bestialists/"zoophiles" are homo- or bisexual.

[Citation needed]

I do know for a fact that even amonst that group, being a "bottom" is far more common. But I won't bandie that about as fact without any evidence like you do.