Peacock's releasing a new propaganda series- Queer Planet

More pseudoscience for those who don't understand science but want to push an agenda.

Edit 5.27.2024: The initial post didn’t have a link to the mentioned SYFY article. A hyperlink is now included below. Apologies for not recognizing the link was missing.

---

I was watching a livestream yesterday when the group of streamers decided to play a promo for one of Peacock’s new series:

No, this isn’t a joke. This appears to be an entire series based around the idea that animals, plants, and fungi¹ all exhibit some form of “queerness”, and in doing so casts doubt on the binary nature that us bigoted humans use. At least, that’s what the series seems to be attempting to do.

Syfy reports the following regarding this new series and all the so-called “queer” animals out there in the world, which includes comments from actor Andrew Rannells and his perspective:

Narrated by Tony Award-nominated actor Andrew Rannells (The Book of Mormon, Trolls Band Together), the first-of-its-kind nature series hailing from executive producer Martha Holmes (One Life) is set to explore "the rich diversity of animal sexuality — from flamboyant flamingos to pansexual primates, sex-changing clownfish to multi-gendered mushrooms and everything in between," reads the official synopsis. "This documentary looks at extraordinary creatures, witnesses amazing behaviors, and introduces the scientists questioning the traditional concept of what’s natural when it comes to sex and gender."

"We’ve all heard of gay penguins, but this film really opened my eyes to the full spectrum of LGBTQ+ behaviors across the natural world," Rannells said in a statement. "And what could be more natural than being who you are? I’m excited to be part of Queer Planet, especially during Pride Month, and on Peacock, surely the most colorful and glamorous of all the streaming services."

This seems to follow along with a series of many attacks that attempt to remove the idea- as Bret and Heather put in their podcast- that sex is binary and gender is bimodal. That everything exists on a spectrum and there’s more to sexuality and gender identity than we make it out to be- and apparently the way to figure that out is to look at animals and plants.

There’s been a lot of issues with this new circumvention of science as it doesn’t appear to be based in actual science, and instead is based on activism masquerading as this newly formed idea of how biology operates. It’s “science” for the activist, not science for the sake of science.

It’s likely why such a series would be constructed in the first place. It serves as a form of media that people can turn to in order to justify their ideology. Activists and ideologues can just soy point² to this series and say that there’s clear evidence that queerness is rampant and commonplace on this planet.

See! There’s a series so it must be true!

But what I find so strange about this presentation, and something that one can see from the passage itself, is the fact that so much anthropomorphizing is occurring.

Anthropomorphizing isn’t an issue alone. For instance, I’ve been getting into bird-watching and when you looking up some descriptions for bird calls and behaviors ornithologists can’t seem to help but anthropomorphize, such as this description of what a rose-breasted grosbeak sounds like:

A good way to find Rose-breasted Grosbeaks is to listen for them. The song sounds like an American Robin in an unusually good mood—a long sing-songing string of sweet whistles.

What does it mean to be a robin “in an unusually good mood”? Do robins then have bad moods, or what moods do robins usually exhibit?

In such cases anthropomorphizing is innocent and can be a whimsical method of getting a point across. But it’s not intended to be literal, and it’s not intended to convey anything more than to serves as a means for understanding things in human terms.

The problem arises when this anthropomorphizing is done as a means to project human behaviors and ideas onto things. This is made even worse if such anthropomorphizing is done with the intent to push some narrative or idea.

To that, I am reminded of an animal biology course I took in college which involved discussing animal reproduction/sexual behaviors to a large degree. This included the concept of “rape” within the animal kingdom, except for the sake of this class we didn’t call it rape but rather “forced copulation”.

The intention being that the act of rape comes with its own human perspective- we as humans understand the concept of rape through the lens of social dynamics, behaviors, and intentions that all underpin the actual act of rape. However, the same can’t be said when we look at behaviors in animals. That is, biologists have to be very careful in viewing otherwise perceived aggressive or unwanted sexual behaviors between animals through the lens of “rape” because that is how we as humans have constructed the concept of rape, and one that may not project well onto animals since we can’t understand the intentions or the dynamics that may underpin the act that otherwise looks like rape to us.

Restraint and precaution needs to be taken so that we don’t project our own human perspective onto traits seen in animals.

But that obviously isn’t what is happening here, and the promo and the passage above are clear indications of massive projections.

I mean, what exactly is a “flamboyant flamingo”? Just because flamingoes are pink doesn’t mean that they’re flamboyant- that’s a man-made association. And in reality wouldn’t such an idea itself be parochial in nature since it’s ascribing human ideas onto animals? It’s extremely ironic that people find it necessary to project human concepts onto animals in order to try to make a point. I don’t think flamingoes care one way or another or may have any concept of “flamboyancy”, and in fact more pink appears to be a way for male flamingoes to signal fitness to female flamingoes³, the irony being that the more pink the more likely one is to find an opposite-sex mate.

I’m not well-versed in the world of animal biology, but I wouldn’t be surprised if this series will just latch onto anything that can then be used to push a narrative through misinterpretations, diversions, and many methods of pseudoscience.

Again, rather ironic that the way to suggest that “queerness is the norm” is to project queerness onto nature and then to use that as self-evident fact.

All this appears to be is agenda-driven ridiculousness that feeds the people who believe in “science” but get their science from social media or mainstream news. It’s for people who don’t want to do their own research but want talking points to validate and affirm their position. It’s a means to propagandize people into believing that there is legitimate science that substantiates these claims when there really is nothing.

It’s bad enough that this promo is intended to evoke sexual hedonism through its imagery, strangely ending with a comment that people need to have more sex overall. Sure, maybe there is something to be said about the fact that many younger adults are not engaging in sex and this having serious social ramifications⁴, but what exactly does that have to do with “queerness”?

Isn’t it a bit offensive when people who seem to represent marginalized groups also push such lewd imagery that would not reflect well on these individuals?

And before anyone gets into thinking that there has to be clear science since it’s including actual biologists/scientists I did a little digging into some of the people who are said to be part of this series (some of who can be seen in the video).⁵

Note that the the main guy who appears in the video, possibly Bradley Trevor Greive, isn’t a scientist by trade but a nature photographer and writer. Not to downplay his work since he appears to have sold millions with his books, but I do wonder why someone such as him would be included in this series.

To several of the others the reason should be rather obvious, and unfortunately I doubt that their inclusion is intended to focus on science but to be agenda pushers.

For instance:

• Martin Stevander (Ornithologist)- an article from a website called 500 Queer Scientists presents the following:

He/Him

I am gay and I am a evolutionary biologist with a flair for ecology and anything involving birds. //

I did my PhD on speciation in birds at Lund University, and in my postdoc project at University of Oregon I focus on the funky snouts of pipefishes, seahorses, and seadragons. I use genetic and genomic tools to understand the underpinnings of variation in phenotypic traits, and ultimately how those provide targets for selection, leading to Earth’s incredible biodiversity. Being open since my late teens—and fancying holding my partner’s hand—meant regularly enduring harassment even in progressive Sweden. In other parts of the world, homosexuals may face anything from social stigma to the death penalty, which directly impacts where I feel comfortable going for fieldwork or conferences. I have generally met positive attitudes in academia, but it long seemed as though no other queer biologists existed. Twitter helped me discover that isn’t true, and I realized how isolated I had actually felt. I strive to actively support diversity in STEM, and being out and proud is one of many ways.

• Christine E. Wilkinson (Biologist)- In a piece titled The coyote in the mirror: Embracing intersectionality to improve human-wildlife interactions⁶ written by Wilkinson she mentions the following:

Through all of this, I have recognized my own positionality—not just as a researcher or a holder or non-holder of knowledge, but as a Black, biracial, queer, and gender-queer kaleidoscopic being who can deeply relate to the wildlife that I study. Across my research career, I have studied the adaptations, behaviors, and ecology of animals that are widely misunderstood and often vilified. From herring gulls (Larus argentatus) to olive baboons (Papio anubis) to spotted hyenas (Crocuta crocuta) to coyotes (Canis latrans), my research species have reflected my own intersectionality, the blurring of boundaries, and the resulting experiences of struggling to navigate interactions with people. Spotted hyenas, for example, are well known for their ambiguous genitalia, and the inability of people to ascribe hyenas to one sex or the other has played a major role in fueling generations of fear and vilification of the species and its persecution across its range. Coyotes, meanwhile, have a story that mirrors that of my Black slave ancestors and my own: they were historically ubiquitously persecuted, are in many places still considered shoot-on-sight “vermin,” yet have managed to persist, recover, and thrive nonetheless. Like me, all these species fail to fit into many of Western science’s rigid boxes and are thus misunderstood, yet have developed adaptations, strategies, and resilience to navigate their worlds. We are cut from the same cloth.

• Ross Brooks (Science Historian)- Brooks research topic is listed as the following on Oxford Brookes Unversity’s website:

My thesis examines changing concepts and practices relating to sex variations—intersexualities, transformations of sex, and non-heteronormative sexual desires and behaviours—derived from the biological sciences and their impact in Britain through the Edwardian and interwar eras. Using a variety of published and archival sources the thesis makes three main contributions to scholarship. Firstly, it identifies tensions between narratives of naturalisation and narratives of eugenic and medical manipulation that emerged as British biologists reconceptualised sex variations, and sex differences and sexualities more generally, following major discoveries in genetics and endocrinology around 1900, especially X and Y chromosomes and ‘sex’ hormones. Even as biologists produced a new biology of sex within a profoundly patriarchal and queerphobic cultural environment, sex variations were pivotal to their endeavours, posing a plethora of challenges to long-standing cultural, theological, and legal proscriptions that construed such variations as unnatural and/or immoral. Secondly, the thesis contributes to a vibrant scholarship on science popularisation by examining how leading biologists, F. A. E. Crew and Julian Huxley chief among them, exploited semi-popular and popular platforms, including Britain’s newspapers, to relate their sexological studies of sex variations to their social and eugenic agendas. By way of better understanding this dynamic use of non-specialist scientific platforms, the thesis presents a new, adaptationist model of science popularisation. Thirdly, the thesis explores the relationship between the private lives of scientists and the production of their science. In this regard it pays particularly close attention to Julian Huxley, arguing that his ‘unresolved conflicts about sex’ (his term) are reflected in his sexological studies, especially his inability to unify his field studies of avian courtship with laboratory-based studies of sex. By expanding scholarship on the rapid development and impact of biological models of sex differences and sexualities through the Edwardian and interwar eras, the thesis reaches towards a queerer science historiography.

2021 marks the 150th anniversary of Charles Darwin’s major sexological work, The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex (1871). The occasion presents an opportune moment for historians to reassess the ways in which modern understandings of sex differences and sexualities have both shaped, and been shaped by, the biological sciences. My thesis therefore makes a timely contribution to diverse historiographical fields – history of science and medicine, queer history, gender history, and modern British studies – and helps to provide greater historical context for today’s socio-political debates pertaining to designer babies, sexed brains, ‘gay gene’s, marriage equality, and same-sex parenting.

As we can see there’s a clear bias going on with the people who have been chosen to be part of this series. Many of these people have a reason to push this “queer planet” agenda, with Ross possibly being the most egregious example as it aligns with his entire research topic.

It all seems to be a gross bastardization of what science is.

And just to be clear I likely deviate from some of my readers. I personally don’t care if someone is gay or trans so long as they don’t push that lifestyle onto others. Be who you are without forcing other people to affirm your life.

And this is all the more reason why I find series such as this one so worthy of lambasting. Is this really meant to make people more tolerant of the LGBT community? Because all this promo does is serve to make these people seem sex-crazed and unscientific.

---

If you enjoyed this post and other works please consider supporting me through a paid Substack subscription or through my Ko-fi. Any bit helps, and it encourages independent creators and journalists such as myself to provide work outside of the mainstream narrative.

Click on the image above or visit the website at https://ko-fi.com/moderndiscontent

1. yes, apparently fungi are not safe from this monstrosity either

2. Apologies for the extremely crude soyjack face meme. I don’t know photoshopping so cut me some slack!

3. Amat, J.A., Rendón, M.A., Garrido-Fernández, J. et al. Greater flamingos Phoenicopterus roseus use uropygial secretions as make-up. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 65, 665–673 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-010-1068-z

4. There’s an argument to be made that the social climate has dissuaded many teenagers and young adults from engaging in sex, with there being a real concern that pornography and quick dopamine hits from online serving as bigger incentive drivers than trying to seek out meaningful, long-lasting relationships. This is compounded by the fact that the #MeToo movement and other conflicts have damaged relationships and leading young men and women to opt out of dating entirely due to the liability that may come with a relationship.

5. Keep in mind that some of the people listed may not be the actual people included in the series. Some of the scientists listed can be corroborated since they can be seen in the promo. Overall just be aware that some inaccuracies may be possible.

6. Wilkinson C. E. (2023). The coyote in the mirror: Embracing intersectionality to improve human-wildlife interactions. Cell, 186(4), 680–682. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2023.01.029