Meet the queer gorilla
The Natural History Museum – the one in South Kensington, next to the V&A – has lost its mind.
The opening shot was June 1.
https://twitter.com/NHM_London/status/1134746531955916800
A rebellious member of the public asked what they were talking about.
'Queer' is used to refer to every aspect of LGBT+, and is predominantly used by the LGBTQ community to stake a contrast from the mainstream or heteronormative. We believe it best fits the scope of our discussion as one celebrating the full diversity of sexuality, sex & gender.
— Natural History Museum (@NHM_London) June 17, 2019
So “we” have suddenly stopped being the Natural History Museum and become a branch of Pink News instead?
https://twitter.com/NHM_London/status/1134766763852357633
Gorillas don’t know from “queer.”
The Red Beryl sums it up.
Our intention is not to validate anyone's existence, but to highlight the diversity of the natural world that has often been over looked. Queer is a term that encompasses the full diversity of sexuality & gender, and we believe it's one that best fits the scope of our discussion.
— Natural History Museum (@NHM_London) June 17, 2019
Bollocks. “Queer” is a political term, and it’s increasingly seen as one that’s antagonistic to women.
The museum shop has fabulous natural history postcards though.
And a great rock collection.
Since when was animals grooming each other ‘queer’ behaviour? It’s an act of social bonding and pest control, helping the development and reinforcement of friendships and alliances whilst helping keep each others’ fur clear of parasites and dirt.
This is anthropomorphism writ large, and it needs to stop, if only because it’s beginning to make Jordan Peterson’s lobster ravings sound quite tame by comparison.
WHAT ABOUT THE TRANS LOBSTERS
It is amazing how appealing sociobiology is until people really start to think it through.
The postcard shows two squabbling rainbow lorikeets, natives of the coastal forests of Eastern Australia, and commonly kept world-wide as aviary birds for their plumage. (No doubt well-meaning) people have released some of these birds into the wild in Western Australia, to which vast desert regions have long formed a barrier isolating it biologically from the east, where they are now out-competing the some less aggressive native bird species, and driving them towards extinction in the wild.
A photo of two colourful birds squabbling has profound symbolism and implications. Colourful birds can squabble: over resources, sexual partners, territory etc. As can the less colourful.
http://www.birdlife.org.au/projects/operation-rainbow-roost
If queerness is the act of going against societal norms, or the state of finding societal expectations to be at odds with yourself… calling these animals queer for their various behaviours assumes that they have something that can be called a societal norms in the same way that humans do. What the fuck is a natural museum doing assuming such a thing??
Holms, and the other thing is, even if there are societal norms (and there are certain sorts of group behaviors animals operate within; I don’t think I would call them societal norms), the behaviors they are citing are totally within those group behaviors.
Maybe the Natural History Museum has handed control of the Twitter account to the work experience kid? It’s the only thing I can come up with to explain this blocks.