This is the seventh post in the Succession III: Queering the Environment series, edited by Jessica DeWitt, Estraven Lupino-Smith, and Addie Hopes. For this series, contributors were invited to explore ideas of queer rebellion as interruption and resistance.

---

In 2021, scientists discovered the first evidence of microplastics in human placenta. These tiny fragments of plastic, each ranging from 5 to 10 μm in size, were likely either inhaled or ingested by the birthing parent and made their way into the placenta via the respiratory or gastrointestinal tract.¹ While researchers can’t be entirely sure exactly what brightly coloured plastics these microplastics originated from, they can trace the plastic fragments to pigments commonly found in household paints, adhesives, cosmetics, and personal care products such as lotions, soaps, and toothpastes. This is certainly not the first instance of microplastics from everyday consumer goods entering the bodies of both humans and non-humans alike. Given the ubiquity of microplastic pollution in aquatic² and terrestrial³ environments, plastics have been found in the cells of everything from mammals⁴ to marine life⁵ and soil dwelling organisms⁶, ushering in a new era of plasticised bodies.

Besides the reflection plastic pollution prompts on consumer capitalism and anthropocentrism, what interests me about this example is the role microplastics may play in queering these new generations of plastic-bodies. As queer ecology commentators like Heather Davis⁷ and Max Liborion⁸ note, microplastics frequently absorb endocrine-disrupting chemicals, causing reproductive anomalies such as early on-set puberty, infertility, miscarriages, and the feminisation of XY foetuses. This plastic-induced remoulding of flesh incites unruly bodily becomings that can queer the sexuality and gender of affected individuals by altering patterns of sexual emergence, neurological development, and prompting ambiguous, fluid states of being⁹. While this is not to say that all queerness is solely caused by microplastics, it does suggest plastics are themselves inherently queer through their ability to disrupt the traditional binaries of as male/female, natural/unnatural, and human/non-human. And with plastic production expected to double in the next 20 years¹⁰, it is likely these effects will be amplified, leading to an increasingly queer future.

In this queer future, it becomes imperative to ask how the connection between plastic toxicity and the queering of bodies can avoid becoming a pretext for oppression within the cis-hetero-patriarchy amidst the recent surge of conservative backlash against queer rights¹¹. Fears of frogs and other queer animals being turned gay and trans by hormones in the water, promoted by alt-right figures such as American radio host Alex Jones, have entered the mainstream, reflecting what Nicole Seymour¹² argues is a concerted attempt to marginalise the queer by framing it as “unnatural.” These alt-right arguments generally sidestep the real damage that microplastics do to bodies — such as immune problems and metabolic disorders⁹ —for the sake of creating a cultural panic focused on microplastic impacts on gender normativity and heterosexuality.  In an  effort to counteract this cultural panic, I argue microplastics and their endocrine-disrupting effects can incite resistance against the traditional norms and values of heterosexuality and cis-genderism by operating as what Deleuze¹³ terms a ‘rebel element’ to promote positive queer futurisms.

For Deleuze, a rebel element can be thought of as an intrinsic member of a body which influences the organisation, functioning, and identity of its parts, while simultaneously challenging the usual boundaries of said body and the expectations for its composition. The rebel element is therefore a ‘rebellious becoming’ that constantly moves in two directions at once, incessantly unmaking and remaking bodies all while refusing to conform to a fixed identity or a single set of norms. Such rebellion ignites affective bodies with ambiguity and flux, fostering a queer politics of rebel becomings that resists cis and hetero normative conceptions of the body.

So, where does the rebellious actions of microplastics leave the anti-LGBTQIA2S+ cultural panic that marginalises the queer through an association to the unnatural when it turns out, bodies are not just composed of natural elements after all?

It may be strange to consider microplastics as integral to the body. Yet, as a rebel element, the unavoidability of microplastics and their ability to bioaccumulate in bodily tissues¹⁴ presupposes the existence of plastic-bodies with plasticised endocrine relations and diversifying identities. And just as this plastic-body is being constructed, microplastic infiltration induces a rebellious bodily unravelling by blurring the boundaries between the body and its environment. This permeability, and its consequent bodily unmaking, is described by Stacy Alaimo¹⁵ as the transcorporeal interconnectedness between human and more-than-human worlds, where bodies have become biologically inseparable from large concentrations of artificial, synthetic, and often toxic substances.

So, where does the rebellious actions of microplastics leave the anti-LGBTQIA2S+ cultural panic that marginalises the queer through an association to the unnatural¹⁶ when it turns out, bodies are not just composed of natural elements after all? As the indeterminacy of plastic-bodies and the haziness of their boundaries suggests the nature of nature is itself quite unnatural, the socio-historical construction of heterosexuality as natural¹⁷ rests on rather shaky ground. Further, since the naturalisation of the heterosexual order relies on the stabilisation of binary gender identities¹⁸, the unruly blurring of gender serves as a major disruption to the traditional norms and values of heterosexuality and cis-genderism.

Creating alternative family structures that harness the bond between the queer and the microbial therefore holds much potential embed transformative environmental practices and support diverse bodily expressions into the queer temporalities of futures yet to come.

As a multifaceted framework, queer politics as rebel becomings not only provokes resistance to queer marginalisation but also functions as what Ah-King and Hayward¹⁹ term ‘an engine of difference’ to foster the variability necessary to promote positive queer futurisms. Variation — in life choices, relationships, identities and biological processes — interrupts the normative temporalities of cis-genderism and heterosexuality that promote a linear and teleological trajectory from birth to marriage, reproduction, and death. For example, varying rates of (in)fertility disrupts conventional expectations of family formation and parenthood, leading to increased ability to imagine new, alternative family structures. For Jack Halberstam, this interruption of the cis-hetero normative life course facilitates the emergence of queer temporalities that prioritise expanding the potentialities of the present moment to imagine and enact alternative futures with transgressive possibilities.²⁰

One method of expanding these queer potentialities is to forge what Donna Haraway calls ‘cross-species kinships’ with microbial communities.²¹ These microbes are essential for maintaining Earth’s ecological balance and supporting planetary health and stability, as they positively influence non-linear, incremental changes to planetary systems over vast timescales. Specifically, developing productive relationships and learning from the microbial life that scientists²² have discovered inhabiting the surface of microplastics holds significant potential to create a queer ethos of positive bodily and environmental transformation in the midst of plastic toxicity. This is because, as experts in adaptation, these new plastic-eating microbes — collectively termed the ‘plastisphere’²³— have evolved to thrive in the context of environmental toxicity and detoxify anthropogenic pollutants by recycling the carbon found in microplastics into other useful substances. Creating alternative family structures that harness the bond between the queer and the microbial therefore holds much potential embed transformative environmental practices and support diverse bodily expressions into the queer temporalities of futures yet to come.

To conclude, actively collaborating with these plastisphere microbes in a trans-species kinship opens up a new playbook of self and world-transforming activities. A small act of queer rebellion now — such as creating alternative cross-species family structures — can be amplified over non-linear, long-term trajectories to promote diverse bodily becomings and positive environmental relationships. By adopting microbial-inspired geological time as a queer temporality, queer plastic-bodies can harness their rapid adaptations to changing environmental conditions as a form of resistance against cis-hetero regulation of bodies. This creates a foundation for alternative ways of living and being to flourish. Therefore, by engaging in a queer politics of rebel becomings that disrupt normative temporalities and embrace the generative potential of difference, we can imagine alternative spatiotemporal trajectories that enhance queer productivity and promote positive queer futurisms.

Featured image: Microplastic poses a growing concern in oceans and other aquatic habitat. Image by 5Gyres, courtesy of Oregon State University, 2015.

---

Notes

1. Ragusa, Antonio, Alessandro Svelato, Criselda Santacroce, Piera Catalano, Valentina Notarstefano, Oliana Carnevali, Fabrizio Papa, et al. “Plasticenta: First Evidence of Microplastics in Human Placenta.” Environment International 146 (January 1, 2021): 106274.

2. Shahul Hamid, Fauziah, Mehran Sanam Bhatti, Norkhairiyah Anuar, Norkhairah Anuar, Priya Mohan, and Agamuthu Periathamby. “Worldwide Distribution and Abundance of Microplastic: How Dire Is the Situation?” Waste Management & Research 36, no. 10 (October 1, 2018): 873–97.

3. Souza Machado, Anderson Abel de, Werner Kloas, Christiane Zarfl, Stefan Hempel, and Matthias C. Rillig. “Microplastics as an Emerging Threat to Terrestrial Ecosystems.” Global Change Biology 24, no. 4 (2018): 1405–16.

4. Yong, Cheryl Qian Ying, Suresh Valiyaveettil, and Bor Luen Tang. “Toxicity of Microplastics and Nanoplastics in Mammalian Systems.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, no. 05 (2020): 1509.

5. Sá, Luís Carlos de, Miguel Oliveira, Francisca Ribeiro, Thiago Lopes Rocha, and Martyn Norman Futter. “Studies of the Effects of Microplastics on Aquatic Organisms: What Do We Know and Where Should We Focus Our Efforts in the Future?” Science of The Total Environment 645 (December 15, 2018): 1029–39.

6. Wang, Quanlong, Catharine A. Adams, Fayuan Wang, Yuhuan Sun, and Shuwu Zhang. “Interactions between Microplastics and Soil Fauna: A Critical Review.” Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology 52, no. 18 (September 17, 2022): 3211–43.

7. Davis, Heather. “Toxic Progeny: The Plastisphere and Other Queer Futures.” PhiloSOPHIA 5, no. 2 (2015): 231–50.

8. Liboiron, Max. “Redefining Pollution and Action: The Matter of Plastics.” Journal of Material Culture 21, no. 1 (March 1, 2016): 87–110.

9. Ah-King, Malin, and Eva Hayward. “Toxic Sexes: Perverting Pollution and Queering Hormone Disruption.” O-Zone: A Journal of Object-Orientated Studies, no. 1: Object/Ecology (2013).

10. Nielsen, Tobias D., Jacob Hasselbalch, Karl Holmberg, and Johannes Stripple. “Politics and the Plastic Crisis: A Review throughout the Plastic Life Cycle.” WIREs Energy and Environment 9, no. 1 (2020): e360, p.2.

11. Boast, Hannah. “Theorizing the Gay Frog.” Environmental Humanities 14, no. 3 (November 1, 2022): 661–79.

12. Seymour, Nicole. Strange Natures: Futurity, Empathy, and the Queer Ecological Imagination. University of Illinois Press, 2013, p. 3.

13. Deleuze, Gilles. The Logic of Sense. Columbia University Press, 1990, p. 75.

14. Deng, Yongfeng, Yan Zhang, Bernardo Lemos, and Hongqiang Ren. “Tissue Accumulation of Microplastics in Mice and Biomarker Responses Suggest Widespread Health Risks of Exposure.” Scientific Reports 7, no. 1 (April 24, 2017): 46687.

15. Alaimo, Stacy. Bodily Natures: Science, Environment, and the Material Self. Indiana University Press, 2010, p. 48.

16. Seymour, Nicole. Strange Natures: Futurity, Empathy, and the Queer Ecological Imagination. University of Illinois Press, 2013, p. 3.

17. Mortimer-Sandilands, Catriona. “Unnatural Passions?: Notes toward a Queer Ecology.” InVisible Culture – A Journal for Visual Culture 8 (October 20, 2005).

18. Barad, Karen. “TransMaterialities.” GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 21, no. 2–3 (June 1, 2015): 387–422.

19. Ah-King, Malin, and Eva Hayward. “Toxic Sexes: Perverting Pollution and Queering Hormone Disruption.” O-Zone: A Journal of Object-Orientated Studies, no. 1: Object/Ecology (2013), p. 8.

20. Halberstam, J. Jack, and Judith Halberstam. In a Queer Time and Place: Transgender Bodies, Subcultural Lives. NYU Press, 2005, p. 2.

21. Haraway, Donna J. Staying with the Trouble: Making Kin in the Chthulucene. Duke University Press, 2016, p. 106.

22. Zettler, Erik R., Tracy J. Mincer, and Linda A. Amaral-Zettler. “Life in the ‘Plastisphere’: Microbial Communities on Plastic Marine Debris.” Environmental Science & Technology 47, no. 13 (July 2, 2013): 7137–46.

23. ibid, p. 7137.