Queer botany

[Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g]

I know this was touched on a few months ago in relation to an exhibition at Kew, and I didn't understand it then either. Recently we went to the National Trust Tudor property Sutton House in Homerton (well worth a visit, btw). The adjacent tiny parcel of land was donated to the NT on condition that this former scrapyard was turned into a garden, which was done a couple of years ago. Very nice it looks too. However, it is apparently an example of queer botany. Why? Can anyone explain this to me in extremely simple terms? Does it simply mean that some of the people involved in designing and planting it identify as queer and a few of the plants have assocation with gay icons? It surely isn't implying anything about sexual reproduction, is it?

https://www.queerbotany.com/projects/platinum-garden

There's a funding application or quango survey that has a tick box which they have to be seen to fulfill. It's performative box ticking.

I was enjoying Zoë Schlanger's The Light Eaters exploring new ways to think about plants and what consciousness really is until she embarrassingly started rhapsodizing about the way some plants reproduce making them "queer." They're not doing it to impress nose-ring-wearing hipsters in Bushwick, that's just how they reproduce.

Erm its a whatever moment for me bunch of nut jobs.

I know this is an old thread, but it's really not accurate to say 'no one cared' about Vita's homosexuality, for one. You only need to read her diary section of Portrait of a Marriage to see the prejudice she faced from people aware of her lesbian relationships. People being willing to turn a blind eye as long as it was a 'don't ask, don't tell' situation isn't the same as not caring.