QUEER

FEMINIST
CLIMATE GREEN
ACTIVISM ANTI-CAPITALIST
FRONT
Thanks for reading our zine on queer and feminist climate
activism! We hope you learn something new, get different
perspectives on what you already knew, or find other
value in the articles and artworks that are included.
This zine is made up of submissions we received from
members of Edinburgh GAF and other people who had
something to contribute to this topic. Many thanks to
everyone who contributed! 

We do want to make it clear that our zine does not

contain everything that we would want to say about the
relationship between queerness, feminism and ecology/
climate activism, nor on climate activism
itself. Specifically, we know that more could have been
written about queerness and trans-ness, especially
because trans rights are so much under attack at the
moment. Most of our members are queer and/or trans, so
queerness is something that informs our worldview, even
if it is not the main topic of the contributions to our
zine. We want any readers to know that we oppose
transphobia and are aware of and constantly learning
about intersections of gender and sexuality with class,
race, disability, and other factors of oppression. 

The articles in this zine consider: categorisation and

homogeneity as efforts to control; struggle as one
of many fronts; how patriarchy is related to power over
nature and people at large; and how to be a better
climate movement. The zine also contains artworks about
strong women, tree planting, capitalism co-opting our
struggles, capitalist and anarchist structures, how
‘green capitalism’ is not good, and why anti-capitalism
is (obviously) for the better, as well as the wonderful
drawings on the front and back cover. 

TL;DR: our zine recognises feminism and queer

perspectives as necessary to climate activism and anti-
capitalism. Although we couldn’t include everything
about these topics, we hope this zine is still useful for
you and that you find a way to join in our struggles
wherever you are. 

- In solidarity, Edinburgh GAF and our comrades

who contributed to this zine

Contact us at
https://www.facebook.com/EdinburghGAF
https://twitter.com/Edinburgh_GAF
[email protected]
 Text
TREE-PLANTING INSTRUCTIONS FROM
BORDER FOREST TRUST

Tex
(LOCATION SUGGESTION NOT FROM
BORDER
t FOREST TRUST)

theradicalforest.wordpress.com
 QUEER BUTTERFLIES: RELEASING GYNANDROMORPHIC RESISTANCE
by Francis and the Birds

CW: extensive discussions of queerphobia and mentions of non-consensual surgery, imprisonment,

homelessness and poverty

Sometimes when a butterfly emerges, it disentangles asymmetrical mosaic wings of “male” and
“female” colourings from its chrysalis. More rarely, the butterflies are split down the middle by
“sex”, with each wing a different colour and size. Biologists label certain colours “male” and
others “female,” aligned with the binary of “sexuallyi dimorphism” said to be characteristic of
the rest of the species, despite the existence of these “exceptional” individuals which are said to
be both.

Gynandromorphs have a gender presentation that defies the binary norm,

but this is unintentional, genetic and based on “sex” (butterfly gender per
say is beyond the scope of this text), so they are not “gender
nonconforming” in human terms. I would say they are queer in their own
specific sense, in that they play a role in queering hegemonic
understandings of sex and gender. Following Judith Butler and Michel
Foucault, I see queerness as something between what I am/have the potential to
be and what I do/have the potential to do. For Butler (1999), people assert their
gender through expressive acts and doing makes it so. Foucault (1976) shows
how categories of people like “homosexuals” have been historically constructed by
the state, where before homosexuality was treated as something people did, not
something they were. I will explore how gynandromorph butterflies and human queerness
resist state categorisations, whether it is attempting to encompass and control, or exclude and
erase, biodiversity and queerness . Currently, queer exclusion proliferates in parliamentary
politics. I say “trans exclusionists” rather than “trans exclusionary radical feminists” or
“TERFs” because they are not feminists if they do not stand for all women.

Trans exclusionists say they are “defending biological sex”, by

which they likely mean a simplified version of human sexual
dimorphism. In popular biology, “sexual dimorphism” is framed as
an all-encompassing norm for species which tend to have
“secondary sex characteristics” aligned with taxonomic definitions of
“male” and “female”. Evolutionary biologist and gender researcher
Malin Ah-King (2009) describes how any sexual variation like
gynandromorphism is treated as an abnormality, the exception that proves
the rule (225). Biologists seek to explain why variations like this happen,
when arguably the question should be why not? when most characteristics of
most species tend to vary without getting stuck on either side of fly paper
(228). Gynandromorphs challenge the taxonomy of sex because they reveal
sex characteristics to be tendencies that do not necessarily apply. This, in turn,
makes obvious the process of taxonomy as a simplified model of the world which,
like all models, is both wrong (although sometimes useful) (Shoesmith et al, 1987) and
constructed by people embedded in hierarchies and serving particular (cis-heteronormative)
interests (Ah-King, 2009, 229). Unfortunately people can (deliberately or otherwise) mistake
models for reality - either treating them as accurate descriptions of the world as it is, or models
for the world as it should be and therefore seek to erase exceptions. This false reading of the
model of binary sex manifests in non-consensual surgery performed on intersex children,
because humans, like butterflies, are classed as “sexually dimorphic”.
The trans-exclusionist obsession with chromosomes is another misreading of the “sexual
dimorphism” model, ironically reflecting their surface-level understanding of biology - the
science they repeatedly venerate in their slogans. Trans exclusionists seek to erase more
complex accounts of sex and gender for simple, essentialising definitions: 2 sexes = XX and
XY = 2 genders. Inconveniently for these transphobes, chromosome combinations vary
considerably among humans and other species and do not match neatly with who is assigned
male or female at birth (Purves et al, 2001). Gynandromorph insects themselves are thought to
come about if an egg with two nuclei (one with ani Z chromosome, one with W) is fertilised
twice, so receives two Zs, making one ZW (“female”) and one ZZ (“male”) in the same
individual (Jahner et al, 2015). The existence of variation in “sex characteristics” in all species
contradicts transphobes' effort to frame more complex understandings of
sex and gender as recent, unnatural products of western liberalism, or for
trans exclusionists, patriarchal constructs of “transgender ideology”.
Gynandromorphs demonstrate that qualities classed “male” or “female”
are not mutually exclusive, and therefore disprove the essentialists’
classifications of sex and by consequence, of gender.

Popular articles about gynandromorphs tend to focus on their rarity, citing studies
like Scriber & Evans’ (1988) which involved breeding thousands of butterflies to
find a few gynandromorphic individuals and judge how frequently they occur. I
am reminded of red herrings within the toxic Gender Recognition Act discourse
(where trans people are repeatedly forced to defend their existence). For example, the proposal
to include a non-binary gender category in the 2021 census in Scotland. Although I would
appreciate not having to misgender myself endlessly in bureaucracy, debating this is a
distraction from the fundamental changes needed to remove barriers for trans healthcare and
address disproportional homelessness and poverty. It is also an attempt to statistise queerness,
to make it “legible” to state models and therefore to control queer people. As James C. Scott
(1999) writes, states ‘arrange the population in ways that simplified the classic state functions
of taxation, conscription, and prevention of rebellion’ (2) like butterflies pinned to a board so
they can be properly photographed and dissected. If you know how many non-binary people
there are, you can determine if the proposed non-binary prison (CAPE, 2018) will be a
profitable addition to the prison industrial complex.

Scott’s analysis of how states force populations into homogenous

categories is reflected in other practices of neoliberal capitalism like the
creation of plantations, monocultural forests and factory farms which can
be managed centrally. States and capitalists strip away biodiversity in order
to account for or exploit a single resource, creating what Anna Tsing (Tsing
et al., 2019) calls “modular simplifications”. Manual labour is delegated into
single repetitive tasks oriented towards preventing biological or social diversity.
Modular simplifications abound in today’s homogenous, hierarchical social
institutions, where people are alienated from others considered different from
themselves and regrouped based on imposed categories. For example, historically,
state lines have been drawn by imperial powers based on simplified models of
population demographics and people are displaced to fit the model. Similarly, corporations
employ workers based on “specialisms”, preventing interdisciplinary solidarity or a varied
work-life, alienating their workforce by design (Suchman, 2002). This practice extends to
universities and means that biologists are excluded from philosophy or politics and queer
theorists are excluded from ecology, contributing to a binary opposition of value-orientated,
subjective humanities vs value-neutral, objective science. Hence the situation where
conservation, intending to restore biodiversity and therefore resist modular simplification, is
framed as a value-free hard science, to be managed by experts (see Fairhead & Leach (1995)
for example). Decisions are decided from a distance that should be made by the local
community they impact, because they are based on social values, rather than ecological
expertise. Vital decisions like: What model should the “restoration” of an ecosystem be based
on? What point in the history of an ecosystem should be replicated? Which endangered species
should we aim to save?

Tsing’s consolation for state and capitalist control is “radical hope”, which comes from tiny,
vibrant, vulnerable pockets of diversity and inter and intra-species solidarity, like mushrooms
sprouting after the atom bomb and nourishing new trees (2015). One example might be
butterfly “introductionists” - lone hobbyist humans who illegally breed, release, and have
successfully revived endangered species, defying the hierarchical conservation establishment. I
am not advocating for private individuals to introduce species without accountability, like this,
but I see potential in introductionism for radical ecological practices that are embedded in
social life and community accountability, rather than outsourced to external decision-makers.

Our understanding of ecology, then, could be modelled on queerness. Queerness is a source of

radical hope because it is inherently complex, irreducible to modular components or categories.
Queerness needs interconnection and community to flourish, and queer communities transgress
imposed national, racial and ethnic borders. Queerness is in eternal conflict with the
homogenous mainstream which seeks to exclude or co-opt it. Queerness is chaotic for state
bureaucracy and with this unpredictability comes both precarity and freedom. Being queer is
often a precarious existence, a brief flash of potential alternative norms, before the safety net is
ripped away by a queerphobic family, employer or landlord. Like gynandromorphism,
queerness will continue to occur so long as the species survives, no matter the bleak
homogeneity of its collapsed ecosystem, to resist until the end.
Bibliography:
Ah-King, M. 2009. Queer Nature, towards a non-normative perspective on biological diversity. In: J. Bromseth, L. Folkmarson Käll and
K. Mattsson (eds.) Body Claims. Crossroads of Knowledge, Department of Gender Research, Uppsala University.
Butler, J., (1999). Gender trouble. New York: Routledge.
CAPE. (2018). Non-Binary Prison, Scotland. [online] Community Action on Prison Expansion. Available at: <https://cape-
campaign.org/non-binary-prison-scotland/> [Accessed 4 February 2021].
Fairhead, J., Leach, M., (1995). Reading Forest History Backwards: The Interaction of Policy and Local Land Use in
Guinea's Forest-Savanna Mosaic, 1893-1993 Environment and History, 1(1), pp. 55-91, White Horse Press
Foucault, M. (1976-2018). Histoire de la sexualité. Paris: Éditions Gallimard.
Jahner, J., Lucas, L., Wilson, J., Forister, M. (2015). Morphological Outcomes of Gynandromorphism
in Lycaeides Butterflies (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae). Journal of Insect Science. 15(38): DOI:
10.1093/jisesa/iev020.
Purves, D; Augustine, GJ; Fitzpatrick, D. (2001). "What is Sex?". Neuroscience (2). Sinauer
Associates.
Scott, J.C. (1999). Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human
Condition Have Failed, Yale University Press, New Haven. Available from: ProQuest Ebook
Central. [4 February 2021].
Scriber, M., Evans. M. H. (1988). Bilateral gynandromorphs, sexual and/or color mosaics in
the tiger swallowtail butterfly, Papilio glaucus (Lepidoptera: Papilionidae). J. Res. Lepid.
26: 39–57.
Shoesmith, E. et al. (1987). “Empirical Model-Building and Response
Surfaces.” The Statistician 37: 82-82.
Suchman, L. (2002). Located accountabilities in technology production,
Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 14 (2) Available at: http://
aisel.aisnet.org/sjis/vol14/iss2/7 .
Tsing Lowenhaupt, A., Mathews, A.S., Bubandt, N. (2019). Patchy
Anthropocene: Landscape Structure, Multispecies History, and the
Retooling of Anthropology. Current Anthropology 60, 186197.
Tsing, Anna Lowenhaupt (2015). The Mushroom at the End of the World:
On the Possibility of Life in Capitalist Ruins. Princeton University Press.
dirt mud marie
 As I look back on this year, I remember seeing young women picking up discarded
wood scraps and building them into a vegetable bed and a bookshelf for their new
student accommodation. My mother regularly creates an unapologetic amount of
racket, as she gleefully uses the electric saw to turn overgrown trees into wood for
the log fire, whilst a friend rescues unwanted furniture and beautifully restores it
for a second life. I am currently being guided into the field of Horticulture by an
intelligent group of silver haired women, who tear through weeds as well rooted
and high (yes that is a metaphor for the patriarchy) as their woollen hats.
Currently, over 70% of the Horticultural workforce is men (and I thank them for
their service). However, I’ve seen the flawless capabilities of women who step up
and teach themselves the skills for self-sufficiency. This is the affirmative action of
people who didn’t wait to be invited. Self-sufficiency and sustainability require all
hands on deck, and the defunctive patriarchal suggestion of women remaining left
out just doesn’t fit in to this. So, this is a call to arms for anyone who loves figuring
something out for themselves. I can’t say for certain, but I have a strong feeling
that Venus probably wielded an axe and spent most of her time covered in mud
after a day of universal gardening… I wonder if she was ever mansplained to by
Mars. “Oh well actually the trick to being the goddess of fertility is ACTUALLY..”

Sarah Armstrong

Fitzblocksberg Illustrations
@stitching_4_change
theradicalforest.wordpress.com
Edinburgh Green Anti-Capitalist Front Welfare Policy

1. Our Principles

At GAF we are as open and inclusive as we can be while keeping

each other safe and being a meaningful force against
capitalism. This means that, in order to participate in our
meetings and events you must abide by the guidelines we have
democratically agreed on.

We also abide by the Autonomous Centre for Edinburgh safer

spaces policy: http://autonomous.org.uk/safer-spaces-policy/

Privilege: Be aware of privilege, including less visible

hierarchies. Consider how your words, opinions and feelings
are influenced and who they might exclude or harm. Avoid
making assumptions about other people, in regards to but not
limited to, gender, pronouns, sexuality, religion, disability,
ethnic identity, health, class, life experiences or access to
resources.

Consent: Check with people before you touch them or discuss

sensitive topics. Don’t assume your physical and emotional
boundaries are the same as other people’s.

Labour: We agree to contribute labour wherever we can and be

proactive to avoid unequal distribution of labour, particularly
frequently overlooked forms of labour, such as emotional
support or care work. We recognise that everyone has different
capacities and other commitments. Labour related to making
an accessible space should be a collective effort.

Anti-oppression: We do not tolerate oppressive ideology,

including but not limited to: fascism, ableism, racism,
misogyny, transphobia, homophobia, anti-
semitism, xenophobia, apologist attitudes towards oppression,
and affiliation with bigoted groups.

We do not accept theories of “reverse racism”, “misandry”,

trans-exclusionary ideology, and other forms of oppressive
behaviour masked as anti-oppression.

Please refer to the ACE safer spaces policy for more detail.
Accessibility: We agree to make our spaces and activities
accessible and responsive to people’s needs. We agree to meet
only in accessible spaces, ensure physical visibility to allow lip-
reading, provide workshop materials in both text and audible
form. We agree to refrain from using unnecessary complicated
language and explain any terms we do use. We also recognize
that language subtleties are not universally understood and we
will take that into account when communicating. If anyone has
any additional accessibility requests, please let us know.

Accountability: we agree to listen in good faith if someone

challenges us on our behaviour (even if we don’t agree), and
take it as an opportunity to learn. We will assume someone is
participating in good faith in the first instance where possible.
Don’t expect people to be unemotional in any context, especially
when talking about oppression.

If members have reason to suspect a new member is violating

our principles, or of being likely to, based on evidence such as
current group membership or views, they can question them or
keep them at arm’s reach. If you have views that the group
believes are oppressive, be prepared to be questioned.

Security: We take the security of those in Edinburgh GAF

seriously, so please be mindful of sharing personal or specific
Information about each other online or with those not within
the group. Members of GAF wish to remain anonymous for our
own safety and because it allows us to be as disruptive as
possible. We do not talk to the police or work with the state or
private companies.

If a member repeatedly shares information that threatens the

security of GAF members they could be expelled.

2. Resolving Conflict

Welfare Officers

For each event we organise we will assign and identify a

welfare officer who you can contact if you have any concerns.
Their role is to listen to your concern, communicate it to the
wider group if you wish, and maintain your anonymity if you
ask.

If the group grows and there is consensus in favour, we will

assign welfare officers for weekly planning meetings. To
prevent this task from falling disproportionately on certain
individuals, we commit to rotate this position equitably. For
now, we have agreed to express concerns to someone we trust
within the group and they can act as an advocate on our behalf
if we wish.

We are currently developing processes of conflict resolution

(such as an exchange system of advocacy) and will update our
welfare policy when they are ready.

If you or someone else has been harmed:

We will:
Take your issue seriously.
Ensure there is someone who can act as an advocate for
you.
Suspend the person you believe is responsible for causing
harm from all meetings until the complaint is resolved,
should you think it is necessary.

You can:
Nominate a third party advocate (a welfare officer or
someone you trust) to hear and represent you. You can do
this by call, in person, or in writing. You can ask them to
maintain your anonymity when communicating with the
group, and you can waive your anonymity at any point.
You can also choose someone else to confide in at any
point.
Raise your issue directly in a general meeting,
representing yourself.
Submit a written statement to a general meeting if you do
not wish to speak.
Request the suspension from all meetings of the person
who harmed you at any point.
Request escalation of the process to the exchange system
of advocacy, once it’s in place.
Step away from the process or the group at any point.