Queering Conservation: Challenging Heteronormativity in Environmental Practices
Western science has long been criticized for its rigid categorization and reductionist approach, which often comes with implicit heterosexist assumptions. The problematic binaries it creates, such as human/nature, natural/unnatural, rational/emotional, mind/body, male/female, and wilderness/civilization, oversimplify the complexities of the world and assign greater value to one side of the spectrum.
Culture
This mode of thinking has historically been used to denigrate expressions of human diversity as ‘against Nature’ or ‘unnatural,’ thereby legitimizing the oppression of sexual and gender diversity. This not only fails to reflect the true nature of things but also forms the shaky foundation upon which conservation practices are built.
Heteronormativity, the assumption that everyone is ‘naturally’ heterosexual, perpetuates the idea that homosexuality or bisexuality is unnatural and abnormal. It also reinforces a gender binary and patriarchal undertones in sexual/romantic relations, creating a hierarchical, othering, and prejudiced system, often unconsciously.
Heteronormativity manifests in conservation through the erasure of homosexuality in the non-human world by focusing solely on heterosexual breeding pairs. The internal culture of many conservation organizations mirrors the dominant heteronormative culture, with leadership and decisions predominantly made by white, cisgendered, heterosexual men.
Decentre
The valuable contributions that the queer community could offer in addressing the biodiversity crisis often go unrecognized or are merely tokenistic gestures of solidarity. Conservation, guided by human-chosen values, tends to prioritize human needs and desires, whether economic, ecological, aesthetic, or related to Nature-connectedness for human wellbeing.
A queer ecological approach would decenter humans, reassess power dynamics between humans and other beings, and acknowledge and support same-sex relations and gender diversity within human and non-human communities. It would embrace fluidity, change, and complexity, empowering queer perspectives, valuing non-rational faculties in operations and organizations.
Forces
Recent research suggests that the same psychological mechanisms underlying racism, sexism, and prejudice also contribute to speciesism. Individuals with stronger prejudices show greater indifference to the biodiversity crisis, support nature exploitation, and resist climate action. Thus, the nature crisis is fundamentally a crisis of oppression, requiring an explicitly anti-oppressive approach.
A queer approach intersects with decolonial, anti-racist, anti-capitalist, feminist, and class equity perspectives, acknowledging their interconnectedness and advocating for solidarity with marginalized communities reimagining human-nature relationships.
Fluid
Recognizing that the nature crisis stems from maintaining domination by privileged individuals, conservation must act in solidarity with marginalized communities. By uniting and acting together, we can liberate the wondrous world of ‘biological exuberance,’ embracing a kaleidoscopic worldview where gender is fluid, sexualities are multiple, and categories of male and female are transmutable.
About the Author
Kara Moses is a queer freelance educator, conservation forester, and facilitator of radical nature connection. She is involved in an action research project exploring queering conservation in collaboration with the Common Cause Foundation. Learn more at www.RewildEverything.org. This article was originally published in Resurgence & Ecologist magazine.
