The Practice of Queering Environmental Education

• In Event: Roundtable Session 2
  In Roundtable Session: Expanding on Queer Research and Practice in Environmental Education

Abstract

Nature is rife with biological imperative and plant and animal behavior driven by reproductive stress is a common and important narrative in environmental education. That said, it behooves educators to consider the implications of describing gametes, sperm, and ovaries lieu of “boy parts” and “girl parts” or drones and workers instead of “boy bees” and “girl bees.” The consistent (hyper-)sexualization and heteronormative gendering of plants and animals blurs the important distinction between the politics of human sex and the mechanics of “baby-making,” instilling anthropomorphic body politics into everything from seating arrangements to cellular processes.
Outdoor education and environmental education can trace their intertwined histories to specific worldviews preferential to white, hetero-normative (if not outright masculine) males (Dignan, 2002). Even today the fields are heavily influenced by assumptions of heteronormativity and gendered behavior. For example, in residential learning centers, students’ sleeping areas are separated by gender as a matter of organizational policy. These protocols are driven by risk-management discourses of student safety, which in turn are further reinforced buy industry auditors and insurance underwriters. Given this kind of pressure, it would be unsustainable for a program director to consider mixed-gender sleeping arrangements, regardless of considerations such as student identity.
Environmental Education is still haunted by an acknowledged lack of diversity and educators are rising to the challenge. However, a common discursive counter to calls for diversity is the assertion that environmental science is neutral or objective in regards to gender and sexual expression (Mortimer-Sandilands & Erickson, 2010). Insisting on this position is tantamount to claiming that there is no bee problem because there are no bees to be seen—it ignores the greater conditions that generate the issue in the first place, and the consequences of those contexts.
This paper critiques environmental education practices and research that continue to ignore the presence of non-cisgendered participants and students of varying sexual orientations, while insisting on maintaining a status quo that continues to oppress and harm people. Practitioners need to move beyond tolerating and accepting gay students. Stepping forward to address homophobic comments and gender discrimination is a start, but in the case of allies, precluding the need for people of varying backgrounds to voice their concerns is some of the most important work. In the end, student safety lies in examining the gendered and hetero-normative assumptions that underlie everyday practice and procedure in education.

Author

• Megan C. McGinty, University of Washington - Seattle