I was accused of perpetuating “gendered and potentially racialised oppression”

I asked four people for their thoughts. Three women, one man. Three from the Global South, one from the North. None agreed with the accusations.

PHOTO Caption: Green Finance Observatory.

I didn’t really want to write this post, but I take the accusations against me seriously and I think it’s important to respond. This post is intended to address the accusations against me and is not any way intended as an attack on the person who made the accusations.

On 23 October 2024, REDD-Monitor published an article about biodiversity offsets and credits, based on a report by the Global Forest Coalition. The report, written by Souparna Lahiri and Valentina Figuera Martínez, is critical of biodiversity offsetting and credits, and highlights the myth of “no net loss”:

A couple of days later, I posted a link to the article on LinkedIn.

Someone called Rose S. replied, arguing that biodiversity offsets and biodiversity credits were two different things.

She wrote that,

“Biodiversity credits aim to direct resources towards tangible conservation actions — such as habitat restoration or species protection — that yield measurable ecological benefits. This model is intended to create genuine, lasting improvements to biodiversity — not balancing out losses elsewhere.”

In response, I referred to a discussion I’d had with her on exactly the same topic following a link to another post I’d made on LinkedIn a few weeks earlier. Back then, I’d written that my concern is that biodiversity credits will inevitably be used by corporations looking to offset their destruction.

That discussion was related to an article on REDD-Monitor about COP16 and the dangers of biodiversity credits:

The discussion continued. It was obvious that we have different opinions on biodiversity credits. I linked to a report by Friends of the Earth International, titled, “The biodiversity market mirage”.

Then Rose S. wrote that,

You attempt to assert authority in a way that is condescending. When challenged, you dismiss any counterpoint outright rather than engaging with it, indicating a certain defensiveness about being called out. Your responses reflect a pattern often seen in professional spaces. This thread is about more than biodiversity offsets. It is about bias and the ways in which climate activists perpetuate gendered and potentially racialised oppression, however subtle.

Obviously, I take this sort of accusation very seriously. I asked her to explain how anything I had written perpetuates “gendered and racialised oppression”.

Rose S. replied,

“You just don’t get. You need to do the work. It's not for me to hold your hand and guide you through your own misogyny and bias. Suggestion: Find someone who is not you. Show them the thread. Ask them for their thoughts.”

I did. In fact, I asked four people for their thoughts: three women, one man, three from the Global South, one from the North. None of them thought that what I had written in any way perpetuates “gendered and racialised oppression”.

I don’t want to drag anyone into a discussion with Rose S. so the responses are anonymous. One of the people I asked has also replied to Rose S. on LinkedIn. (Rose S. is currently having problems with her LinkedIn account, and is unable to respond to conversations on LinkedIn.)

Here are the four responses I received, in full:

I truly cannot see how she comes from A to Z. I mean of course you are biased. I am too. We have a clear position on the market and we call this out loudly. And she is too.

I could agree (seeing it from her perspective) with her that “You often present personal beliefs as if they were established facts, issuing opinions as though they were pronouncements.” As I can imagine that “facts” could potentially have two sides (or beliefs) in such conflicted issues. We say one thing and they say the opposite. We both believe these are facts. But I guess that is what these platforms are for. And BTW you always present fact-checked references, research from other groups – very often from groups in the South, connect research or media with other links that are relevant to the struggle. So, actually no, I don’t agree with her.

And now, I fully disagree with all the rest.

I don’t think you needed to engage any further in the discussion of credits vs. offsets. And I think that she was way out of line in calling you doing any gendered or racialized oppression. Seriously! I don’t want to speak to her experience or personal path, but this seems like someone unable to deal with men having opposing views to hers (which might have a sincere and valid reason for this to be the case) but she needs to get on content and not on personal accounts, and the content of the thread in my view has nothing wrong.

I would say that those claiming/promoting that these mechanisms could be used in any good way (either as credits or contributions or whatever else) are indeed pushing for deepening the colonial roots of this system, which by definition and design, deepens patriarchy, racial and class oppression.

Feeling extremely sorry for this kind of exchange, almost like a lunatic fringe element. The accusation of Rose S. can be valid for any section of the people, but why you? I don’t understand this explosion actually. However, you are correct, biodiversity offset is the mechanism and credits are the result. One cannot live without the other. We are being told otherwise.

Thank you for sharing your concern. I am really sorry that you had to deal with online haters. As a feminist and gender and forest expert, I disagree that your comments and the REDD-Monitor article on the GFC report is perpetuating “gendered and potentially racialised oppression.” The comments seem to be driven by a personal issue, online hate speech, rather than a conceptual disagreement. There is no argument on how the comments or the report, which was developed following a robust gender-inclusive methodology, is gender biased. Actually, it is quite the opposite, as it is stated in your article. Feminist emancipation demands to confront colonial and patriarchal threats in several forms, and many of them are disguised in baseless argumentations and discussions. If we want to fight the many forms of oppression, we must engage in political participation, critical thinking and debate to move forward with dismantling power asymmetries, not in hate speech or personally-motivated arguments.

I’m impressed you actually followed her suggestion to get another opinion on the exchange. Personally I have no idea what she means: your tone was thoughtful and hers was aggressive, and the whole “do the work yourself” is, I find, always a quote levelled by people who don’t know the theory they’re attempting to shut down conversation with.

We all get it wrong from time to time but in this instance I think you did nothing wrong. She disagreed with you and didn’t like when you didn’t immediately acquiesce to her opinion.