pattrice jones talks with Christopher Sebastian about queering animal liberation, toxic masculinity, and so much more.

♪ (music) ♪ (rooster crowing)

(pattrice jones) Welcome to In Context, coming to you from VINE Sanctuary,

an LGBTQ-led farmed animal refuge in Vermont.

We bring you conversations with authors and organizers,

exploring the connections between animal advocacy, race,

gender, and social justice

to help put today's big questions in context.

(music ends)

Hi, welcome to In Context.

I'm pattrice jones, zooming to you from VINE Sanctuary,

an LGBTQ-led farmed animal sanctuary in Springfield, Vermont.

And I'm here with the always fabulous

writer, thinker and activist, Christopher Sebastian,

and nobody knows what we're going to say today,

least of all us.

Before we jump in to our conversation,

I'm thinking about an animal at the sanctuary called Sharkey

who was a rooster rescued from cockfighting several years ago,

and who I think you met Christopher,

when you visited the sanctuary.

Like many survivors of that form of animal abuse,

Sharkey didn't want to be involved in any kind of drama.

And he made it really clear

that he didn't want to go to sleep in the coupes every night.

He liked to spend time by himself far from the barn.

So we made him his own little apartment, right by the airstream trailer,

where I was living,

and he had his own little house, Sharkey's place.

He was a proud homeowner.

And then Rocky started coming around courting Sharkey

and trying to get Sharkey's romantic attention.

Sharkey was not actually interested in Rocky,

but he responded in exactly the way that you would want people to respond

to polite but unwanted overtures, which is he was like,

"I'm not feeling it but let's be friends."

So he and Rocky were friends,

some ducks and geese were friends.

And then came a time when a duckling was abandoned by her mother,

and Sharkey invited her to move into his house with her aunt.

And so, for quite a few months,

there was this little house

in which a rooster rescued from cockfighting,

an abandoned duckling and her aunt all lived together,

with Sharkey and the duck co-parenting the duckling.

Several months after that, the ducks moved over to another coop

and Sharkey stayed where he was for a while

and then he was like, "You know what? I think I want to follow them."

So then he moved to where they were, when he got to meet hens

and was pretty excited about that.

And I am--

I think he came to my mind because we're supposed to talk

about queering animal liberation today.

And while I'm not entirely sure of Sharkey's sexual orientation,

his approach to relationships was definitely queer.

He was ready to have his queer family.

And his queer circle of friends

and be fabulously himself.

Despite the fact that he started off life

in a form of animal abuse

that was designed to force him

to enact toxic masculinity.

And he just was not interested in toxic masculinity.

Which brings me to our guest, Christopher Sebastian.

Sebastian, I'm always so excited to see you.

Welcome to the show.

Thank you so much for having me here.

And you are someone who absolutely has rejected toxic masculinity,

and I've heard you talk about that

in many facets

as a black gay man who is devoted

to the self-determination and freedom of animals.

So I want to invite you to share any of your thoughts about that

before we delve into some of the other things

that we might want to talk about today.

Oh, man. Toxic masculinity is one of those things

that does come up for me over and over again.

Simply because like, when you look at me by sheer presentation,

I'm not like an overtly masculine man.

Like, you know, all of the traditional markers of,

you know, of masculinity.

And it's always been like that for me.

So it's always been a struggle as someone who kind of sits

like a little femme of center,

like, you know, with this world

that really upholds and uplifts toxic masculinity.

Because like, you know,

I don't fit into any of those boxes

and it's really difficult for me to navigate the world--

Or let me rephrase that.

It had been difficult for me to navigate the world,

like, as my authentic self

until I made a conscious decision that I belong here

and inviting other people to make that decision for themselves

as well in my life.

So, yeah, that had been really hard for me

and I won't lie that it's still hard at times right now,

like it does have its challenges,

It's always challenging to live as your authentic self every day,

but I have a lot of support that I'm deeply, deeply grateful for

and I want to make space for other people to do the same

as often as I can and wherever I can.

Do you see toxic masculinity

as harming animals as well as humans?

Absolutely, undoubtedly.

Like, you know, I never ever, ever get tired of talking about--

One of my points of entry into the world of animal activism

being through the work of Carol Adams,

and I think her book is like over 25 years old now,

The Sexual Politics of Meat, and when I read that

a lot of light bulbs went off for me,

and really started me down a path of interrogating for myself.

What an animal-friendly world would look like

if we didn't like exploit other animals

and treat them as if they're objects

that are here for our use and for our enjoyment?

And, so, yeah, that's--

That the toxic masculinity clearly has had an impact

on our animal friends and family members.

Even in the story that you were just telling about Sharkey,

who I am not at all upset got on the property ladder before I did,

with his lovely home.

But like, you know, the fact that toxic masculinity

has defined what relationships,

what family relationships are supposed to look like,

and the exclusion of other animals

from what a "real family" is.

Like, you know, family is defined as a man, a woman, 2.4 children

or whatever the decimal percentages of how many children is ideal.

And for so many people,

queer people, straight people, you know what, our families are chosen,

our families look significantly different.

And I resent any ideology that tells me

that my family is incomplete

or my family is a counterfeit

or that my family is not valid because it doesn't fit the model

that this patriarchal system that we live in is,

the way that that's set up.

And so like, you know,

I do fight against that and I challenge anyone

to tell me that my non-human family members

are not my family members,

to discount that, to discount the grief that we experience

when they pass on from this world.

Like, you know, to discount the celebrations that we have,

the real and meaningful relationships that we have with one another.

And that's just one of the many ways

that toxic masculinity intrudes on our personal lives

and on a subconscious level,

because most of the time we're not even thinking about it.

And then I hear a story like Sharkey's,

where he has adopted his entire large family.

Of multiple species no less,

and that's beautiful to me.

It was among the most beautiful family groupings

I've ever had the pleasure of--

I guess I was part of his extended family, so participating in.

But I'm thinking about, as you say that,

I'm thinking about how sometimes

even animal advocates don't quite understand,

when we say we're interested in queering animal liberation,

what we mean by queering.

Because sometimes people think, well, that's only about like, including LGBTQ+

people or thinking, specifically,

about the intersections

between homophobia and transphobia and speciesism.

All of which are included in what I think about of as queering animal liberation,

but I think of this word "queering" as larger than that

and also thinking about queering what it means to be human,

queering what we mean by a family.

And so, so many people regardless of their sexual orientation, as you say,

have a much queerer conception of family

than the heteronormative norm.

And so, I was so happy that you brought that up.

In the queering animal liberation workshops that we've done it, VINE,

for more than 20 years now,

very frequently, straight male participants

will talk about being called homophobic slurs

because they refuse to eat meat,

or refuse to go hunting

or refuse to participate in some other form of animal abuse

that's coded as traditionally masculine.

And one of those is trapping

and that reminds me of a story that I've heard you tell

about a trapper in California.

Can you share this with with our viewers?

Yeah, absolutely. This is actually a really great story.

I read about it in the LA Times,

although I'm sure that it was in multiple newspapers.

And I'm paraphrasing the quote here, but the premise of the history

is that fewer people are wearing fur

for various reasons,

for ethical reasons, for environmental reasons

and whatever have you, and the trappers were complaining.

But basically, there was a quote from one trapper

who went by the name of Nick Catrina, I believe his name was,

and the quote that they had chosen in this particular article

was that animal rights groups are led by--

they are terrorist organizations led by lesbians

who are going to ban trapping

and in their march toward communism are also going to ban fur.

What you're saying is that he's saying that animal rights organizations

are a) terrorist organizations; b) led by lesbians;

and our form of terrorism is to ban trapping.

And we're coming for hunting too, as part of our communist agenda.

Right, as part of our communist agenda.

You know, I mean, some of this is true.

Absolutely, absolutely.

This is like, we don't make a secret out of it.

(laughter)

I personally have a t-shirt and wouldn't it be great if like

animal rights organizations were led by lesbians?

Like, I feel like we would be a lot more productive.

On a personal level,

I think that like, we would be way better organized.

But yeah, I absolutely love this quote.

But I feel like in saying this,

this is an example of someone saying the quiet part out loud,

like, because coded within this, as you were saying

is like, you know, is what we really feel

about, not just queer people,

but in particular targeting lesbians as the leaders of this organization--

of these organizations really reveals the inherent fear

that these people have of deposing toxic masculinity,

of patriarchal values

and really isolating them and exposing them for what they are.

And marrying this to communism as well,

is just like, you know, it's another dog whistle

If you have, that these people engage in.

And so I'm really grateful for people

like Mr. Catrina, who actually say these things

very, very publicly

and kind of revealing what the thought process is

and allowing us to have some sort of insight

into the unconscious messaging

that's actually going out there

to people that they consider to be part of their in-group

and who they consider to be part of their out-groups.

When you were talking I was remembering this experience that I had

in the summer of 2020

or it might have been the spring of 2021.

So VINE Sanctuary,

we helped to organize a weekly Black Lives Matter vigil,

in our small and almost all-white town of Springfield, Vermont.

And so we were out there every Friday afternoon

and in the good weather often had really interesting conversations

with people in which I learned a lot of things

about how people think.

But I'm thinking in particular of this one episode

where the vigil had ended and Anna Boarini and I

Iwere carrying the signs back to our cars,

and this man who had driven past honking his horn angrily

and then parked in the parking lot

came charging up to us,

accusing us of various things,

communism was definitely in there,

destroying the family was definitely in there.

But there came a point when

I in a very mild-mannered tone, he was very aggressive,

and if we weren't in quite such a public place in the daylight,

it would have been a bit scary, his body posture,

and at some point I, in a pretty mild-mannered tone,

acknowledge that I was in fact a lesbian

who did in fact

support socialism

and did in fact think that the family needed to be

reconfigured.

Alright, you're the worst kind of person.

Wait, wait, wait, he literally jumped backwards in fear.

(laughter)

I'm so sorry. (continues laughing)

Jumped! This guy who had been like charging at us

with his big-ass truck that probably had a gun in it

and he was all belted up

and he had been charging at us on,

and then backing off, but then charging again,

sort of like a rooster in a cockfighting match.

And then when I was just like, well, you know, yeah,

we kind of do need to reconfigure-- Yes, I am a lesbian and we do need

to reconfigure the family. Boom!

This isn't hard by the way. I actually want these things, yes.

(giggles)

Imagine like this is--

what's really also really funny about the story is that

this is an example of how just absolute honesty,

blindingly bright honesty,

it absolutely just puts the fear of God in people.

You literally frightened this man

by confessing to the agenda that he already knew that you had.

And it was-- yes.

And it was it was funny in the moment.

But it also really got me thinking

about the degree to which fear is driving,

you know, some of this aggressive backlash.

I mean it was so instinctive the way that he literally,

it was like a cartoon, the way that he jumped backwards in fear,

and then it became just so clear to see

that just like roosters in cockfighting,

who's aggressive behavior by the way is entirely due to terror,

and having been socialized

to the point where they don't know what to do with that terror except attack.

I can't quite clarify but he reminded me of,

you know, a rooster who had been traumatized into cockfighting.

Absolutely.

And of course he would remind you of that

because at the end of the day,

one of the things that we forget,

is that we as humans are not special.

Like the idea of us being exceptional

to all of the other species on this planet is an absurdity.

It's not based on any type of scientific fact or reality.

And we are just animals with our own instinctive responses,

and that fear response is one of the things

that is not entirely universal,

but like the way that you've described it,

it's something that we do observe

in many different types of persons, irrespective of their species.

And it is so funny that this is a fear response.

Like you literally confirmed his worst fears.

But more importantly,

what exactly it is he's afraid of.

Larger families that are much more meaningful, that are chosen,

like a world in which we take care of one another,

Right, healthcare for everybody. So scary.

How?

And again, it's revealing.

I guess and so I don't want to laugh at it too much

even though, you know, given the degree to which he aggressed me,

then I feel like it's fair to laugh at him,

but still

it just-- and what you just said reminds me that

we humans we're not the supreme beings who we think we are,

a huge piece of the human supremacy ideology,

is this idea that we're the rational animal

and that the things we think up in our heads

are what drive our behaviors,

when, in fact, it's an intermingling of emotion and reason,

and if anything emotion is a stronger driver of behavior,

than reason.

But I notice among many activists, not just in animal advocacy,

but particularly in animal advocacy,

activists crafting their strategies as though humans were

rational animals.

Oh, yeah.

(laughter)

That's one of the things that I end up speaking about

so frequently these days,

especially looking at the way that animal activism

is done across social media.

One of the things that we have most rewarded,

I would say, on social media

is this style of activism

that overvalues logic, the "logic bros" if you will,

as they're called on the internet,

and we're going to reason

our way to liberation

by having these conversations with people

and once people have perceived all of the things that I've had to say

and they have internalized all of the knowledge

that I as the speaker have conferred upon them,

then they'll go vegan,

they'll become activists,

they will advocate for animals.

They'll do all of the things, all of the things.

When in reality, that is just a reproduction--

a) it's a reproduction of the missionary style activism

that we see in Evangelical Christianity,

which is largely a white construction,

a patriarchal construction,

and I know Breeze Harper has talked about that.

And secondly, it is actually not that effective.

It doesn't work that way.

By sheer numbers, even if we had converted,

every single person that we spoke to and I do hate the word conversion,

we would still not outnumber,

the number of people that are born into a world

that is violently bigoted towards other animals,

every single minute.

And it actually doesn't work that way.

Like, the inertia of what is familiar to us

always drags-- I shouldn't say always, but oftentimes drags us back

into that violent animal bigotry

and it is that "reasoning",

when in fact most, I would say,

most types of domination are driven by power,

they're driven by emotion.

We are not rational beings that we proclaim to be.

And that is the unfortunate reality.

For me, another piece of queering animal liberation

is approaching the emotion side.

Of course, we want to say logical things when that's appropriate,

especially if you're talking to someone

who seems like they're going to be motivated

to bring themselves into some sort of logical consistency.

But I feel

that it's probably going to be more effective

to inspire people to reach for what they want.

And everybody wants.

Relationships,

good relationships,

regardless of sexuality, we want queer relationships.

We want relationships that are beyond

the binaries that have been imposed on us.

We want to be part of the rich world of interrelationships

or at least our bodies want that.

And through our socialization into toxic masculinity,

into animal abuse and into the gender binary,

and so many other problematic constructions,

we end up reaching for pleasure

in ways that aren't particularly pleasurable.

By trying to dominate and control other people or buying stuff.

And it seems to me that

our deep relationships

with other animals, including but not limited to other humans,

are much more richly rewarding.

And so, for me, I feel like queering animal liberation

has got to be at least a part about

pulling people toward that,

activating that wish for relationship

rather than logical argumentation.

Do you think so?

100% yes.

I would absolutely say that like, you know, conversations--

How do I put this? This is something that has really troubled me

on a number of levels for a long time.

When we talk about

what is effective activism or what is effective advocacy?

So many times we are talking about being reasonable

and trying to stay away from an emotional place.

And that on a personal level, that has been really hard for me.

If I could be frank,

one of the things that troubles me as a queer person,

as a black person,

is the number of queer people and black people

and queer black people,

who have specifically

given guidance to myself and to others

that we should focus a lot of our work

on things that are more concrete, if you will.

I.E. focusing our advocacy on health,

focusing our advocacy on environmental issues.

And that's been a harm for me.

That's been a harm for me because I have internalized that advice

and I tried to follow that advice and largely, it has been an ineffective,

not only because it's been inauthentic for me,

But I don't see that as being a liberatory work

because ultimately, what people have sought to do

and I say "people", hashtag not all,

but what a lot of people have sought to do

is try to make their work,

make their advocacy for the other person that they're advocating to.

I want to put something in it for you. There's something in this for you.

Like, you know, if you do this thing,

if you do X, Y will happen.

If you go vegan, for example,

we'll save water, the climate will be cleaner,

you'll have a better place to live.

Not necessarily demonstrated to be true.

If you do this, then you'll have a better health outcome.

And that's not necessarily proven to be true.

And in many cases it's an incredibly ableist framing

of our work.

For me,

what has felt most honest, what has felt most compelling

and what I have had greatest success with is talking to people

honestly about our shared liberation

and the need for our shared liberation.

And so much of this I've learned from you, watching your talks,

the commonality of oppression

that you have described.

Is just a way of observing

the need for integrating animal liberation into our queer work and vice versa.

It's been-- That has been revolutionary for me

because you're talking about not what's in it for you.

But what's in it for us together.

That is so empowering to me.

That is so queer to me.

Because it's these ideas that we need to talk about things

that are very concrete and that have some measurable reward

for you as an individual.

That to me feels incredibly toxic, incredibly--

that feels to me like something that comes from

this patriarchal, very dominant framing

because, what is it about?

Like, someone else's liberation project?

Why do I need to benefit from that?

Solidarity is not about that, not for me anyway,

so I mean, I'm very grateful

for that understanding that I got from you

and from others that have been doing exactly that work.

It has really-- it has very much cleared me up,

it has freed me in many ways.

Well, that's so good to hear

because I like the idea of you free

and feeling free.

My feeling is a little mixed.

I feel like, I feel like...

I feel like it's okay, for me.

I'm just saying, for me, I feel like it's okay,

specially if I'm talking to someone who's got struggles,

to let them know

the ways that eating more fruits and vegetables could be good

and they probably already know that,

so it's more a matter of working to create access to that.

And I feel like it's okay to talk about climate.

And to talk about all these things, as long as it's within this

liberatory framework that you talk about.

So I don't have quite the negative reaction you have

to maybe leading with something that you know is on someone's mind,

whether that'd be pollution of the environment,

or their personal health,

as long as that's within a framework of what's good for us.

Not just what's good for you.

As you put it, I love the way you put that:

not what's in it for you,

but what's in it for us together and creating that feeling of us.

Yeah. No, and that's profoundly true. That is profoundly true.

I think that like we're--

There are a couple of things that operate

in my mind when I'm going through this process,

number one, when I-- I never--

Oh boy. This is the part where I start getting into trouble, right?

I rarely am doing "animal advocacy", if you will,

to marginalize people

who are living hand-to-mouth, if you will,

who are in dire circumstances.

The work that I do, within those communities is for them.

I don't-- I'm not going leafleting

in the hood, if you will.

And so for me, this isn't something that actually comes up in my work.

Although I know that it does for others.

And the other thing

is that, you know, what you had said about access is so important,

because if I am having conversations

with people who don't have the level of privilege that I've got,

like my conversation is about how can I make your life easier?

While also making sure

that we are minimizing your participation in this exploitative system.

And this is why I so strongly support your work.

The work of food empowerment project.

The work of food justice organizations

that are actively creating that access.

Because food Justice is an adjacent issue that we absolutely need to address

but I'm never going to people

and making animal advocacy

the framework that I'm hanging their food justice around, if you will,

but I am integrating that liberation

into the work that I'm doing in those communities.

And I just want to say one more thing about climate.

I was actually working on a piece that I was writing

just last week and I came across the statistic

that was talking about us collectively staying within our climate goals

of staying under 1.5 points,

1.5 degrees Celsius

in order to avoid the worst effects of climate change in the future

which were rapidly running out of time to do.

And one of statistics that I came across

was the fact that 50% of people

right now, including people in the USA,

which we consider a "first world nation", if you will,

which all of that is problematic language unto itself,

but 50% of people in Western countries

are already living within their climate budget

for those projections.

It's the top 10%.

And so the utility of going to people and telling them,

"You got to stop eating animals, man."

When their lifestyle, which includes their diet,

which includes the textiles that they buy,

which includes all of the other ways that we exploit animals,

already is within our climate budget.

And so it feels in some ways fundamentally dishonest,

it feels like, you're giving credence to the people that are saying--

What do you look like going to poor people and telling them what they need to do,

when it's like, the top percentage of people that are actually causing

climate change

and I stopped, and I looked at that statistic

and I'm like, they're kind of right.

And so for me,

having that conversation about climate,

again, an adjacent interrelated issue,

these things are all woven together, aren't they?

But it would feel, for me,

fundamentally dishonest to say,

"Well, you - person who is part of that 50%,

there was already living in your climate budget

and was already dealing with a mountain of other problems -

you have to..." It's very condescending, isn't?

"...you have to stop eating animals because of the climate.

No, you have to stop eating animals because that's a terrible thing to do

and I don't want to insult you by thinking

that you can't actually think of the ethical implications of that.

Because you can and you already do.

And like, we have the social science that backs that up.

Poor people have a lot more empathy than rich people

and that's one of the things that really--

that operates in my mind

when I'm thinking about these things.

It's not an entirely negative reaction.

And I don't make other people wrong for doing it,

but it's not the way that I want to approach my work.

And so that's more the point that I wanted to make,

and I'm so sorry, please, go.

Don't be sorry.

For me... hmm.

I feel like climate

is

the biggest emergency

for non-human animals worldwide

and I mean, of course I'm interested

in encouraging anybody

to reduce or eliminate their animal product consumption

for any reason, including climate.

I want people to stop eating animals,

and it's more important to me that they do so

than what is in their head about why they are doing so,

but what I really want is to bring,

and then we're back to the queering animal liberation

and running out of time as well,

is to bring people into

more of a feeling of connectedness

to "the environment", which feels like something outside of you

as opposed to something inside of you every time you breathe in.

Oxygen that was made by trees and algae and without which you could not live.

I'm interested in everybody

feeling part of

the climate that is changing and experiencing in our own bodies,

which I think we already are.

Like I think some of these exaggerated fears that people have

is that people already know, their bodies know the climate is changing.

Yeah.

So...

I don't know how if I'm saying this right, but sort of just bringing people

back into a feeling of connectedness

to "the environment" and feeling part of it.

So that climate change becomes an emergency for us too

and we start to act appropriately

and...

and have the energy to do it,

because we do feel supported by the trees.

This is real.

That's like, you know,

that to me is a different conversation

and it's a necessary conversation.

What I want to avoid is

giving people bad information

or giving people the opportunity to reject our messaging

because we have come in bad faith, if you will,

making promises

that are not necessarily backed up by the information,

the fact that we have in front of us,.

That, that you described,

is a different, much more radical conversation to have

and making people feel connected to the world that we're living in,

in a way that doesn't compartmentalize, like, this is where I live.

and then the climate, or the environment, is something that's far away.

That doesn't affect me or that I'm not a part of,

and that is real and a necessary thing to do.

And it is empowering to give people that agency

or to provide people with the tools because it sounds like, again,

very condescending to think that we're bequeathing agency to people,

but give people the tools, the understanding

that they do already have that agency

and that we outnumber the people that are wrecking the world

by and large.

And we have to do that because like I said, we're running out of time.

Metaphorically and physically.

And literally, we are running out of time.

But but speaking of radical conversations, every conversation I ever have with you

is a radical conversation

and I'm so grateful that you joined me for a conversation today.

I've completely forgotten, as usual,

to help people understand who you might be,

you work with so many different organizations,

I know you wanted me to give a shout out to Encompass,

which you're on the advisory panel of

and the Peace Advocacy Network,

you're on the board of that organization.

And if people want to know more about you, they can Google you

and find lectures galore on topics Galore.

And so, I want to encourage everybody to do that.

I've been speaking with Christopher Sebastian.

And if you Google Christopher Sebastian, you will find some things.

I'm pattrice jones, this has been In Context.

If you want to know about upcoming episodes

or watch recordings of past episodes

you can visit the VINE Sanctuary website at vinesanctuary.org

and look for the In Context page.

I want to thank our guest, Christopher Sebastian.

I want to thank our producer, Sarahjane Blum.

And I want to thank you for tuning in

and for all of the amazingly queer activism

you're going to do after listening to this conversation.

Thank you!