Journal of Language, Identity & Education

ISSN: 1534-8458 (Print) 1532-7701 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hlie20

Queering Practice: LGBTQ+ Diversity and Inclusion

in English Language Teaching

Joshua M. Paiz

To cite this article: Joshua M. Paiz (2019) Queering Practice: LGBTQ+ Diversity and Inclusion
in English Language Teaching, Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 18:4, 266-275, DOI:
10.1080/15348458.2019.1629933

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2019.1629933

Published online: 24 Jun 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1402

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 22 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hlie20
JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE, IDENTITY & EDUCATION
2019, VOL. 18, NO. 4, 266–275
https://doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2019.1629933

FORUM

Queering Practice: LGBTQ+ Diversity and Inclusion in English

Language Teaching
Joshua M. Paiz
The George Washington University

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Before the social turn in applied linguistics, English language teaching (ELT) ELT; LGBT; queer; teacher
was a presumably monosexual world. One where all its participants were preparation
presumed to be straight until, and even if, proven otherwise. The social turn
brought with it a small but growing body of queer applied linguistics
literature that has led to the troubling of the notion that sexual identity
has no bearing on ELT. Previous examinations have investigated what is
risked in classes that reify heteronormative worldviews. There is still con-
siderable work to be done, especially regarding the field’s understanding of
transgender issues and how to prepare teachers to create inclusive educa-
tional spaces. This forum article critically reflects and comments on these
developments. It then extends them by highlighting the continued need to
advocate for LGBTQ+-inclusive approaches to ELT. It advocates for an
increased focus on teacher preparation and curricular materials as central
avenues to queer ELT. It concludes by highlighting the various areas of
development needed to carry out this work more fully.

We have come to accept, in the field of English language teaching (ELT), that we must become a critically
aware field, that we must question the discipline’s received knowledge, and, that this increasingly means
that we must engage with issues of race, ethnicity, class, and sexuality (Pennycook, 2001). This critical
turn came alongside of the social turn in applied linguistics (Block, 2003), which led to the theoretical
construct of identity receiving increased scholarly attention. Inquiry examining issues ranging from
language learners’ identity acquisition to the role of identity in SLA processes have become increasingly
common, providing space for a journal such as this one to come into being (Ricento & Wiley, 2002).
Concomitantly, there has been a growing body of identity research that falls under the banner of queer,
or lavender, applied linguistics. This queer theory informed research has examined phenomenon ranging
from normative classroom practices and textbooks (see Liddicoat, 2009; Paiz, 2015) to how some view
English language learning (ELL) as a liberatory act–allowing individuals access to the necessary identity
and sociocultural resources to enter in to and to thrive in a broader LGBTQ+ community (Kachru, 1991;
Peirce, 1989). Granted, the degree to which ELT as a liberatory practice is successful may be debatable
(Jones, 2013; Pennycook, 2001). Despite recent advances in queering the field of English language
teaching (ELT), where we can view queering as the act engaging our students in critical pedagogies
that cast all identities and their discoursal maintenance into question (Nelson, 2006, 2007), there is still
considerable work to be done in order to address how we prepare ELT practitioners to engage with
LGBTQ+ issues in the classroom (see Pawelczyk, Pakuła, & Sunderland, 2014; Świerszcz, 2012). More
specifically, this includes highlighting how LGBTQ+ issues remain important ones that must be engaged
with in the critically-aware and ethically-planned classroom, and how the work of queering ELT is not
incumbent only upon out LGBTQ+-identified practitioners to carry out (MacDonald, El-Metoui, &
Baynham, 2014; Rodriguez, 2007).

CONTACT Joshua M. Paiz [email protected] The George Washington University, 801 22nd Street NW, Phillips Hall Rm.
611, Washington, DC 20052.
© 2019 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
 JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE, IDENTITY & EDUCATION 267

In this forum article, I will discuss the continued need to purposefully queer English language
teaching. Before I go any farther, I must operationalize the term queering, despite potential pushback
from mainstream queer theorists who argue that “queer” is one which ought not to be pinned down
through defining it (see Jagose, 1996; Sullivan, 2003). However, to carry out serious intellectual labor
requires us to define our terms in ways that are meaningful and potentially portable from one
professional endeavor to the next.
Therefore, queering can be defined as creating spaces where dialogue and critical discussion
around all identities, sexual or otherwise, and their sociocultural relevance can be carried out in
a manner that is respectful of all identities and subjectivities (Nelson, 2006, 2007; Paiz, 2015, 2017).
This requires critical engagement with matters related to human sexuality; critical in the sense that it
encourages skepticism towards received knowledge and the status quo, a sort of “restive problema-
tizing” as identified by Pennycook (2001, p. 16). The above definition of queering is predicated on
the assumption that sexual identities are vital components of human social identity and that they go
beyond sexual attraction and action to influence other facets of one’s lived experiences. Related to
ELT, this assumption means that one must also accept that sexual identities may become salient in
the classroom and influence language learning and acquisition processes. The remainder of this
paper will critically examine the work that has been done to queer ELT thus far; it will then move on
to discuss two significant areas that still need additional scholarly attention–curricular materials and
teacher training; finally, it will examine remaining gaps in our disciplinary knowledge (e.g., trans-
gender issues and language learning).

Why we’re still strongly advocating for queering language education

Considerable work still needs to be done regarding the queering of ELT, despite significant profes-
sional interest, as highlighted in a number of books, book chapters, journal articles, and special issues
of journals being published. The continued need to queer ELT exists because this work is of critical
importance to ensure that LGBTQ+ identities and lives are not rendered invisible and silent.
Vandrick (1997) outlined the potential damage of silencing queer voices by discussing the role(s)
of hidden identities in ELL/T. For Vandrick, an individual may choose to hide a given facet of their
social identity out of fear of repercussions or reprisals. Fearing ostracization by peers or teachers,
a student may seek to mask their socioeconomic identity as a member of an upper-class family in
a predominately middle, or working class school. Likewise, fearing bullying, beatings, or being outted
to parents, a student may choose to hide their LGBTQ+ identity. I maintain that because the field of
ELT has not adequately addressed how we prepare educators to queer their practice–to create spaces
where all identities are problematized relative to dominant social discourses–we continue to face
a situation of invisibility for LGBTQ+ individuals in many settings (see also Paiz, 2017). This
situation helps reify dominant, heteronormative discourses. Ones where students, not seeing viable
or preferred identity positions being made available to them, feel shut out of the educational space.
And, there are real consequences for LGBTQ+ learners. For example, by allowing heteronormative, if
not downright homophobic, views to go unchallenged we leave the door open to damaging and
dangerous behaviors such as bullying, substance abuse, and more. These environment and beha-
vioral factors can then feed into youth suicide and homelessness; bear in mind that suicide is
the second leading cause of death among LGBTQ+ youth (CDC, 2017), and almost 40% of homeless
youth in the United States are LGBTQ+-identified (Durso & Gates, 2012).
Continuing from Vandrick (1997), Nelson (1999, 2007) called for the fields of TESOL and applied
linguistics to begin addressing LGBTQ+ issues through the creation of so-called “gay-friendly”
pedagogies. Nelson advocated for these gay-friendly, or queer informed, pedagogies by arguing
that critical intersections exist between queer theory and TESOL theory and practice – chief
among these are the views that: (a) all identities are policed by dominant social discourses through
a variety of means, chief among them being language; and, (b) that a critical awareness of the need to
trouble all identities, not just LGBTQ+ identities, is necessary for language learning and teaching to
268 PAIZ

serve an affirmatory function that may also allow students to advocate for themselves and others by
resisting the positionings of dominant discourses (Nelson, 2006; Pierce, 1989). A possible outcome of
this pedagogical approach is that students would become equipped with the communicative compe-
tence needed to carry the following functions: being able to perform one’s own sexual identity in
linguistically appropriate ways in their L2; helping students to communicate with LGBTQ+ indivi-
duals in their daily lives in a way that is understanding and respectful; finally, gay-friendly
pedagogies are meant to help students to parse the LGBTQ+ identities that they might encounter
in popular media and their daily lives.
Why does any of this matter? In no small part because there is much at stake in heteronormative
classrooms–even ones that are unintentionally so. Students occasionally feel the need to mask their
sexual identity in our classes or our institutions, either fearing retribution and reprisals or merely not
seeing a viable platform from which to engage with their LGBTQ+ identity. The decision to self-
disclose or to perform a given sexual identity is always up to the individual. It is not the teacher’s
place to out students to others in the name of embracing an inclusive approach to LGBTQ+ topics.
Likewise, the LGBTQ+ teacher should not feel compelled to come out of the closet to provide a more
inclusive classroom space if they are not ready. This is, in part, because it is not just up to LGBTQ+
educators to queer the classroom–it’s incumbent upon everyone, regardless of sexual orientation–to
educate themselves on how to build critically engaged and inclusive language learning spaces.

A curated view of queered ELT

The research so far highlights the fact that students, even young learners, are ready to engage with
LGBTQ+ issues and content in the language classroom because it is part of the lived experiences,
either through identifying as LGBTQ+ themselves, by having LGBTQ+ family members or friends,
or through encountering queer-identified individuals in popular media (see Fine & McClelland,
2006; Grunseit, Kippax, Aggleton, Baldo, & Slutkin, 1997; Merse, 2014). Moita-Lopes (2006),
examined a group of Brazilian middle school students and found that these students had a desire
to engage with LGBTQ+ issues in the English language classroom, but that teachers often shut down
these conversations. This unwillingness to create a safe place for these discussions to take place can
have potentially damaging results. This approach only added to the normative discourse that views
LGBTQ+ identities as taboo or “other.” Since students felt that they could not have these conversa-
tions in the classroom, they took place in hallways, locker-rooms, and playgrounds–places where
there was the distinct lack of an adult presence to help guide the conversation in respectful and
validating ways. Because of the lack of a moderating influence, the conversations were often stained
with homophobic language and attitudes.
Moita-Lopes (2006) makes obvious two reasons for working to queer our practice and to train
future ELT professionals to create inclusive and critical educational spaces. First, there is the fact that
students of varying ages have shown a willingness and an eagerness to engage with LGBTQ+ topics,
in part because of the role LGBTQ+ individuals play in their immediate personal lives. Second,
failure to engage students in a critical examination of the discursive construction of sexual identities
may reify heteronormative worldviews that can be damaging to young learners by opening up the
door to bullying and marginalization. He also highlighted a possible pedagogical intervention to help
address this issue through the deployment of a form of critical discourse analysis to help students
better understand the socially constructed and contested nature of sexuality and sexual identity.
Merse (2014) extended on this pedagogical strategy by further advocating for the inclusion of
explicitly queer texts like Parnell and Richardson’s (2005) And Tango Makes Three, an illustrated
children’s book that focuses on a same-sex penguin couple that is given an egg to hatch and care for.
Moore (2013, 2016) highlighted the intersections between LGBTQ+ identity and the motivation
to, and investment in, learning English as an additional language for some members of the LGBTQ+
community. For example, he discussed how for some gay, Japanese men a desire to perform a gay
identity and to find a welcoming community, even a digital one, was a significant motivator to learn
 JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE, IDENTITY & EDUCATION 269

and acquire English. This was because, as he put it, there was a sense of conflict between the men’s
sexual identity and the options available to them in their L1 (Japanese) and in the sociocultural
context in which they found themselves embedded (Moore, 2013, p. 138–139). In a later study,
Moore (2016) highlighted the dangers of not critically reflecting on practice in a way that acknowl-
edges the conflicted nature of the classroom for LGBTQ+ individuals. He discussed how a queer
inquiry approach could help teachers to become more aware of how even seemingly safe inter-
personal questions like those about the weekend or out-of-class activities may create stresses for
LGBTQ+ language learners who must then decide how to respond. That is, do they answer honestly,
or do they seek to protect their sexual identities? Furthermore, Moore (2016) highlighted how
a queer-informed approach to the English language classroom might allow educators to more
adequately speak to issues of sociolinguistic competence by preparing students to engage with either
their own, or others’, LGBTQ+ identities in a manner that is both linguistically and culturally
appropriate. One possible issue with a queered approach to language teaching, however, is its
potential to be essentializing in how it portrays LGBTQ+ lives and identities (Curran, 2006;
Merse, 2015). However, as Moore (2016) pointed out, this does not mean that we do not engage
with the issue, instead it requires us to be reflexive in how we choose to present and incorporate
LGBTQ+ material into our queered classroom spaces. One way to address this is to try to integrate
content that speaks to LGBTQ+ lives in the local context, as Ó’Móchaim (2006) showed through the
use of a localized lived narratives assignment that included some LGBTQ+ identified individuals that
students may interview.
Moita-Lopes (2006), Moore (2013, 2016), and Ó’Móchaim (2006) all engaged, and encouraged
their students to engage, with a variety of LGBTQ+ identity positions. However, in each of these
reports, there was little mention of transgender issues or identities. This highlights a fact that will be
made even more salient throughout this section. Namely, the continued non-engagement with trans
issues in the field of ELT, which continues to silence and marginalize individuals that are typically
stigmatized by both wider society and by sub-sets of the remainder of the LGBTQ+ community
(National Institutes of Health, 2011). Full engagement with transgender issues and creating trans-
inclusive classroom spaces remains a massive area of opportunity for ELT in general, and for queer-
informed approaches to the field more specifically.
Textbooks are another avenue for heteronormative discourses to enter the classroom (see Gray,
2013; Motschenbacher, 2010; Paiz, 2015). This is because mainstream curricular materials, mass
produced by commercial publishers, often reify heteronormative discourses that can establish the
available range of identity options for students and may silence alternative voices (Paiz, 2015, 2017).
Textbooks may seem to be a minor concern. Because, as some may argue, one can always use
textbooks as a starting point on which we expand through in-class discussion and activities.
However, these curricular materials are a rather salient source of vetted identity options for language
learning students. That is, textbooks are seen by students and teachers alike to reinforce certain
norms of the target culture. Shardakova and Pavlenko (2004), for instance, highlighted the normal-
izing function of Russian as a foreign language textbooks by examining the characters that populated
the textbooks various dialogues and activities. Their findings showed that in the selected textbooks
the dominant character type was youthful, fashionable, white, and presumably middle-class–as they
were studying abroad in Russia. This suggests to the students using these textbooks, that if they did
not fit the presented identity options, then they may encounter issues in their attempts to either
acquire the language or to be a successful second language user in the target context. This difficulty
could arise because alternative identities that are seen as valid or valued in the target context may
position the learner as an illegitimate user of the L2.
Turning to ESL reading textbooks, Paiz (2015) reported that there is a persistent trend in
mainstream ESL curricular materials to reinforce heteronormative worldviews. In a survey of 45
ESL reading textbooks, he found that the sample was predominantly heteronormative and that this
trend remained stable over time. In many cases, the material attempted to avoid topics that could
introduce queer issues to the classroom (e.g., family, dating, romance, etc.). Avoidance may, on the
270 PAIZ

surface, appear to be an unproblematic, neutral strategy. However, avoidance of the material is still
the indicative of an ideological stance (Vandrick, 2001), and in this case, it is a heteronormative via
the maintenance of a monosexual worldview, even if only tacitly done (e.g., Liddicoat, 2009; Nelson,
2006). While their work has been important should be pointed out that both Shardakova and
Pavlenko (2004) and Paiz (2015) both failed to engage with the non-presence of transgender
identities and bodies explicitly, thereby helping to perpetuate the invisibility of transgender issues
in the fields of applied linguistics and ELT (see also Motschenbacher, 2010).
The problem of curricular materials is particularly relevant to any discussion of queering ELT
because textbooks have also been shown to provide novice teachers with needed support and
structure in planning their lessons, executing classroom sessions, and providing models of poten-
tially effective content presentation and delivery (Alverman, 1987; Ball & Feiman-Menser, 1988).
Because of their various foundational uses, the ideological stance taken in commercially available
textbooks can have a substantial impact on early-service language teacher professional development.
This position can end up replicated in their lesson plans even after they begin to rely less on
commercial texts for teaching (Grossman & Thompson, 2008; Paiz, 2017). This means the erasure of
LGBTQ+ identities and the potential silencing of LGBTQ+ student voices may persist even in the
classrooms of mid- and advanced career teachers because of the scaffolding role of textbooks earlier
in their careers. This is not to suggest that teachers do not have some agency over the situation; they
most certainly do. However, we cannot deny the role that unchallenged curricular materials can have
in perpetuating normative discourses. I will now turn my attention to some of the significant issues
that have not been adequately addressed in the professional ELT literature. Briefly, they are a lack of
proper preparation of ELT professionals to queer their practice critically; the systemic ignorance of
transgender issues; and, ignoring the intersectionalities between LGBTQ+ issues in ELT and other
critical domains (e.g., race, ethnicity gender, socioeconomic standing, etc. (Pennycook, 2001)).

Issues with current efforts: Or, what remains to be queered

Presently, there has not been adequate attempts to challenge heteronormative discourses in teacher
preparation (see, Pinar, 2007; Rodriguez, 2007), a problem that is also persistent in U.S.-based
graduate programs in fields related to ELT (Paiz, 2017). This can lead to the troubling situation
where queering the classroom often means watching and discussing episodes of Will & Grace, Ellen,
and Modern Family, or where casual statements that the classroom is a nominal safe place are seen as
adequate (see Allen, 2015). This practice is problematic as it can end up reinforcing heteronormative
discourses by an over-reliance on tired tropes and worn-out stereotypes that fit into dominant,
hetero-centric narratives. Moreover, it may end up subverting the classroom’s ability to serve as an
emancipatory space for queer language learners (Moore, 2016), which may have profound impacts
on students’ motivation and investment.
Therefore, queering ESL/EFL teaching must begin with teacher preparation. It must not solely be
left to graduate students to queer their teacher training. Guiding graduate students through both
modeling queer pedagogies and curating a critical list of readings on LGBTQ+ issues in ELT is vital
to preparing future practitioners and researchers to queer their practice. This is because graduate
students are often in the process of (re)negotiating identities that may be marginalized by classroom
and institutional discourses (Martiz & Prinsloo, 2015). That is, they may be attempting to make
sense of the intersections between their burgeoning professional identities and other identity
positions, such as their ethnic, sexual, or socioeconomic identities, some of which may have been
marginalized by the institutions of prestige in their ecosocial settings. To begin queering the
language classroom involves first providing additional space in foundational courses for readings
from the sub-field of queer TESOL/applied linguistics. Graduate educators can then guide students
as they critically engage with this research on theoretical, methodological, and ethical grounds. Both
parties can then work to reveal and to challenge heteronormative versions of the field’s history. This
practice can be guided by Pennycook’s (2001) view of critical applied linguistics, an aspect of which
 JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE, IDENTITY & EDUCATION 271

is to approach all received wisdom in the field with a healthy dose of skepticism, which can allow us
to both raise awareness of the ways that dominant social discourses constrain the range of valued
identity options (e.g., white, middle class, able-bodied, fit, heterosexual, youthful, etc.).
Additionally, graduate educators can model how to queer the English language classroom by
modeling queer pedagogies and by taking a critical stance towards standard pedagogical interven-
tions. For example, the teacher trainer can challenge the discourse of the “safe place” to highlight the
tensions, conflicts, and power structures that are inherent in the process of queering the classroom
(Allen, 2015, p. 767). Finally, teacher trainers can prepare future ELT practitioners to trouble
dominant disciplinary and societal discourses through a pedagogy of inquiry and disruption
(Allen, 2015; Nelson, 2006, 2007). This pedagogical model can then be used in language classrooms
to deconstruct heteronormative assumptions and to challenge all sexualities by guiding students to
an understanding of all identities as highly negotiated, (re)constructed, and contested. For example,
teacher trainers can model critical exercises that compare how mainstream and queer media cover
stories about transgender individuals, highlighting how these stories make linguistic and rhetorical
choices that reinforce and extend dominant discourses to further the political or cultural goals that
are in line with the media outlet’s base (politically left, right, center, etc.).
Curricular materials must also be queered, and pre- and early-service language teachers must be
adequately prepared to carry out this critical work with little support from central administration in their
schools. Some may argue that this is a minor issue because the well-trained and well-prepared teacher can
readily do this on their own. However, this is not the case because commercially available texts often
serve as an important scaffold for pre- and early-service teachers (Alverman, 1987; Grossman &
Thompson, 2008). Moreover, teachers may be limited in where and how they may deviate from the
assigned textbook because of limits placed on them by administrators or school boards.
One way to queer materials is to incorporate locally constructed, authentic materials that represent
a variety of LGBTQ+ identities. Queering teaching materials needs to be carried out in ways that are
sensitive to the needs and linguistic capabilities of the students in the course being taught. For example,
lower-proficiency students may benefit from utilizing authentic, local materials (e.g., campus news clips,
community organization websites, etc.) that have been scaffolded by the instructor through in-class
activities. This scaffolding may take the form of careful revisions of the materials to make them more
linguistically appropriate, or in ways that encourage deeper critical thinking about the resource. Also,
there may be the need for the teacher to drive more of the in-class discussion, at least at first. Merse (2014,
2015) provides examples of how this might be done with level-appropriate extensive readings that come
from a growing body of queer children’s and young adult literature.
In advanced classrooms, or in topic-driven courses, the push to queer the language classroom may be
shifted gradually from teachers to students. Ó’Móchaim (2006), for example, used a project in which
students were required to collect life-narratives from the local community. This led to an increased need to
scaffold this material in such a way that queer voices are represented. For Ó’Móchaim, this involved
preselecting/vetting potential community participants. This undoubtedly leads to increased workloads for
the course instructor, but life-narrative assignments are potent tools for queering the language classroom.
Focusing on how to approach LGBTQ+ issues, Merse (2015) advocated for challenging the treatment of
these issues in the language classroom as being somehow “exotic or special” (p. 18). Instead, he encouraged
ELT practitioners to find ways to integrate LGBTQ+ issues throughout their curriculum, considering, for
example, how LGBTQ+ content might interface with existing curricular moments that focus on topics like
cultural diversity and metropolitanism, famous people, workplace life, and globalization (Merse, 2015,
p. 18–19). Moreover, Ó’Móchaim’s (2006) and Merse’s (2015) approach may also allow students and
teacher to address how different identities intersect and how we make sense of these intersections. For
example, in collecting local narratives, students may encounter an informant who is from a marginalized
racial or ethnic group and that identifies as bisexual. This may lead to discussions of these two identities
may reinforce the sense of isolation the person feels–being potentially stigmatized by their local community
and the LGBTQ+ community because of their race and bisexuality (see Balsam & Mohr, 2007; Goode-
Cross & Tager, 2011).
272 PAIZ

Additionally, much LGBTQ+ work in the field has failed to engage with bisexual and transgender
issues fully. In some cases, this has led to research articles that instead choose frame the conversation
as focusing on LGBQ issues (see Rhodes & Coda, 2017) in higher education or language learning.
While this approach is far more transparent, it leads to the literal erasure of transgender lives from
the disciplinary discourse and understanding. Now, other work, including some of my own, has
claimed to be working with LGBTQ+ topics, but still stays predominately focused on lesbian and or
gay issues. The potential need for the field to engage with bisexual and transgender lives was recently
discussed by Rowlett and King (2016), who identified it as a critical gap in the disciplinary knowl-
edge. That is, we just do not know enough about how intersections between bisexual or transgender
identity and educational and institutional discourses may influence language learning and acquisi-
tion processes. This creates a continued invisibility of bisexual and transgender lives in our instruc-
tional spaces. It also means that practitioners may have difficulty in finding ways to create
welcoming and inclusive spaces for these students.
Nguyen and Yang (2015) is one of the few pieces to engage with transgender identities in any
sustained, meaningful way. They also provide a good model for future studies and disciplinary
thinking on the topic transgender issues in ELT. They followed an English language learner that
identified as a transgender woman. In their study they discussed how their participant relied on
communicative and strategic competencies in English to enact a sustained identity as a woman
through a process of identity thickening or using language and classroom discourses to take on
a persistent identity position across time (Nguyen & Yang, 2015, p. 228). Particularly germane to the
discussion here is that their participant reported that learning English was critical to her transition-
ing because it provided her with the semiotic resources needed to engage with a broader LGBTQ+
community (p. 223–224).
Finally, there is considerable room for the field to engage with how concepts like queering, queer
inquiry, and queer inclusive pedagogy travel outside of nations where this scholarship is traditionally
seen as having emerged (e.g., Australia, Canada, New Zealand, The United Kingdom, The United
States, etc.).1 That is, while there is, in my opinion, great promise behind a queer-informed approach
to ELT, we need to acknowledge that there exists regional, national, and institutional contexts that
may be resistant to, or outright militant towards, queer-informed, LGBTQ+ inclusive pedagogies.
For example, Pawelczyk et al. (2014) discussed the potential dangers of allowing frigid national
environments from playing an overly deterministic role in the language classroom. Speaking of the
Polish context, they called out how the ideologically conservative and heteronormative political
climate had direct impacts on possible funding for LGBTQ+ research, the availability of inclusive
learning materials, and the potential willingness of educators to seek out professional development
opportunities that may help them prepare to queer their practice. Pawelczyk et al. (2014) pointed out
that even if the Polish political climate is currently cold towards the inclusion of LGBTQ+ content in
the classroom, queering educational practice is still important because failing to do so may continue
to “legitimize … discriminatory discourses [that] may start circulating in-and outside of the class-
room” (p. 59). Simply put, even in frigid environments, we must seek out ways to challenge
discourses that marginalize student populations. Ó’Móchaim (2006), with his discussion of a local
literacies and histories project, provides a possible model for queering practice in unwelcoming
environments. His community research project, which happened to include LGBTQ+ identified
community partners, allowed students to engage with LGBTQ+ topics and discourses even in the
institutional context of a conservative, religious university.

Closing thoughts: Queering ELT and speaking to diversity, equity, and inclusion
The conversation on LGBTQ+ inclusive approaches to English language teaching, despite consider-
able development since the early aught’s, is still in need of continued engagement and active
expansion. Not only in the ways mentioned above, but also in areas of teacher training, program
administration, and in how queering ELT can allow its practitioners to contribute back to their
 JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE, IDENTITY & EDUCATION 273

institutions. So, I will not, here, be offering a conclusion. Instead, I will briefly discuss how queering
ELT might allow its practitioners to contribute to diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives that are
taking place at their institutions.
Throughout the 2010’s, American higher education has grown increasingly aware of the need for
a centralized response to issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion on their campuses. This fact has
since led to an almost explosive growth in offices dedicated to this matter and the hiring of
administrative staff (e.g., Chief Diversity Officers) to oversee the work of these offices (see
Petriwskyj, 2010). Diversity, equity, and inclusion–often shortened to DEI–may variably refer to
approaches to education that view all students as having the right to access institution of higher
education and to partake of education experiences (Petriwskyj, 2010, p. 195); or, to creating inclusive
environments that allow higher education institutions to acknowledge the crucial role that integrat-
ing diverse perspectives and worldviews can have on preparing students for modern job markets
while also allowing universities discharge social responsibility in an increasingly globalized context
(Allen, 2015; David, 2007). A critical aspect of DEI initiatives is to ensure not only presence, but also
the opportunity for diverse populations–based on gender, race, religion, sexuality, etc.–to contribute
to life and knowledge construction at the university.

Note
1. For a non-western view on queer theory, see Liu (2015).

ORCID
Joshua M. Paiz http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9322-5246

References
Allen, L. (2015). Queer pedagogy and the limits of thought: Teaching sexualities at university. Higher Education
Research & Development, 34, 763–775. doi:10.1080/07294360.2015.1051004
Alverman, D. (1987). The role of textbooks in teachers’ interactive decision making. Reading Research and Instruction,
26, 115–127. doi:10.1080/19388078709557902
Ball, D. L., & Feiman-Menser, S. (1988). Using textbooks and teachers’ guides: A dilemma for beginning teachers and
teacher educators. Curriculum Inquiry, 18, 401–423. doi:10.1080/03626784.1988.11076050
Balsam, K., & Mohr, J. J. (2007). Adaptation to sexual orientation stigma: A comparison of bisexual and lesbian/gay
adults. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54, 306–319. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.54.3.306
Block, D. (2003). The social turn in second language acquisition. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2017, June). LGBT youth. Retrieved from: https://www.cdc.gov/
lgbthealth/youth.htm
Curran, G. (2006). Responding to students’ normative questions about gays: Putting queer theory into practice in an
Australian ESL classroom [The Forum]. Journal of Language, Identity, & Education, 5, 85–96. doi:10.1207/
s15327701jlie0501_6
David, M. (2007). Equity and diversity: Towards a sociology of higher education for the twenty-first century? British
Journal of Sociology of Education, 28, 675–690. doi:10.1080/01425690701505664
Durso, L. E., & Gates, G. J. (2012). Serving our youth: Findings from a national survey of service providers working with
lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless. Los Angles, CA: The
Williams Institute with True Colors Fund and The Palette Fund.
Fine, M., & McClelland, S. (2006). Sexuality education and desire: Still missing after all these years. Harvard
Educational Review, 76, 297–338. doi:10.17763/haer.76.3.w5042g23122n6703
Goode-Cross, D. T., & Tager, D. (2011). Negotiating multiple identities: How African-American gay and bisexual men
persist at a predominantly white institution. Journal of Homosexuality, 58, 1235–1254. doi:10.1080/
00918369.2011.605736
Gray, J. (Ed.). (2013). Critical perspectives on language teaching materials. London, UK: Palgrave MacMillan.
Grossman, P., & Thompson, C. (2008). Learning from curriculum materials: Scaffolds for new teachers? Teaching and
Teacher Education, 24, 2014–2026. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2008.05.002
274 PAIZ

Grunseit, A., Kippax, S., Aggleton, P., Baldo, M., & Slutkin, G. (1997). Sexuality education and young people’s sexual
behavior. Journal of Adolescent Research, 12, 421–453. doi:10.1177/0743554897124002
Jagose, A. (1996). Queer theory. New York, NY: New York University Press.
Jones, R. H. (2013). Verbal hygiene in the Hong Kong gay community. World Englishes, 32, 75–92. doi:10.1111/
weng.12005
Kachru, B. (1991). Liberation linguistics and the Quirk concern. In M. L. Tickoo (Ed.), Languages & standards: Issues,
attitudes, and case studies (pp. 206–226). Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Center.
Liddicoat, A. J. (2009). Sexual identity as linguistic failure: Trajectories of interaction in the heteronormative language
classroom. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 8, 191–202. doi:10.1080/15348450902848825
Liu, P. (2015). Queer Marxism in two Chinas. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
MacDonald, S., El-Metoui, L., & Baynham, M. (2014). Exploring LGBT lives and issues in adult ESOL. London, UK:
British Council – ESOL Nexus.
Martiz, J., & Prinsloo, P. (2015). “Queering” and querying academic identities in postgraduate education. Higher
Education Research & Development, 34, 695–708. doi:10.1080/07294360.2015.1051007
Merse, T. (2014, 21 June). Promoting sexual literacy through queer pedagogy in EFL and ESOL classrooms: Materials
and methods. Queering ESOL: Towards a cultural politics of LGBT issues in the ESOL classroom [Seminar 3: Voices
from the Classroom – LGBT Teachers and Learners]. London, King’s College.
Merse, T. (2015). Queer-informed approaches and sexual literacy in ELT: Theoretical foundations and teaching
principles. Language Issues, 26(1), 13–20.
Moita-Lopes, L. P. (2006). Queering literacy teaching: Analyzing gay-themed discourse in a fifth-grade class in Brazil.
Journal of Language, Identity, & Education, 5, 31–50. doi:10.1207/s15327701jlie0501_3
Moore, A. R. (2013). The ideal sexual self: The motivational investments of Japanese gay male learners of English. In
P. Benson & L. Cooker (Eds.), The applied linguistic individual: Sociocultural approaches to identity, agency and
autonomy (pp. 135–151). Bristol, CT: Equinox Publishing.
Moore, A. R. (2016). Inclusion and exclusion: A case study of an English class for LGBT learners. TESOL Quarterly, 50,
86–108. doi:10.1002/tesq.208
Motschenbacher, H. (2010). Language, gender, and sexual identity: Poststructuralist perspectives. Amsterdam, the
Netherlands: John Benjamins.
National Institutes of Health. (2011). The health of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people: Building a foundation
for better understanding (Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Lesbian, Gay, bisexual, and transgender health
issues and research opportunities). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Nelson, C. D. (1993). Heterosexism in ESL: Examining our attitudes. TESOL Quarterly, 27, 143–150. doi:10.2307/
2586966
Nelson, C. D. (1999). Sexual identities in ESL: Queer theory and classroom inquiry. TESOL Quarterly, 33, 371–391.
doi:10.2307/3587670
Nelson, C. D. (2006). Queer inquiry in language education. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 5, 1–9.
doi:10.1207/s15327701jlie0501_1
Nelson, C. D. (2007). Queer thinking about language teaching: An overview of published work. In H. Decke-Cornill &
L. Volkmann (Eds.), Gender studies and foreign language teaching (pp. 63–76). Tübingen, Germany: Guter Narr.
Nguyen, H., & Yang, L. (2015). A queer learner’s identity positioning in second language classroom discourse.
Classroom Discourse, 6, 221–241. doi:10.1080/19463014.1093952
Ó’Móchaim, R. (2006). Discussing gender and sexuality in a context-appropriate way: Queer narratives in an EFL
college classroom in Japan. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 5, 51–66. doi:10.1207/s15327701jlie0501_4
Paiz, J. M. (2015). Over the monochrome rainbow: Heteronormativity in ESL reading texts and textbooks. Journal of
Language and Sexuality, 4(1), 77–101. doi:10.1075/jls.4.1.03pai
Paiz, J. M. (2017). Queering ESL teaching: Pedagogical and materials creation issues. TESOL Journal, 9(2), 348–367.
doi:10.1002/tesj.329
Parnell, P., & Richardson, J. (2005). And Tango makes three. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster Children’s Publishing.
Pawelczyk, J., Pakuła, Ł., & Sunderland, J. (2014). Issues of power in relation to gender and sexuality in the EFL
classroom—An overview. Journal of Gender and Power, 1(1), 49–66.
Peirce, B. N. (1989). Toward a pedagogy of possibility in the teaching of English internationally. TESOL Quarterly, 23,
401–420. doi:10.2307/3586918
Pennycook, A. (2001). Critical applied linguistics: A critical introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum and
Associates.
Petriwskyj, A. (2010). Diversity and inclusion in the early years. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 14,
195–212. doi:10.1080/13603110802504515
Pinar, W. F. (2007). Introduction: A queer conversation, toward sustainability. In N. M. Rodriguez & W. F. Pinar
(Eds.), Queering straight teachers: Discourse and identity in education (pp. 1–13). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Rhodes, C. M., & Coda, J. (2017). It’s not in the curriculum: Adult English language teachers and LGBQ topics. Adult
Learning, 28, 99–106. doi:10.1177/1045159517712483
 JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE, IDENTITY & EDUCATION 275

Ricento, T., & Wiley, T. G. (2002). Editors’ introduction: Language, identity, and education and the challenges of
monoculturalism and globalization. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 1, 1–5. doi:10.1207/
s15327701jlie0101_1
Rodriguez, N. M. (2007). Preface: Just queer it. In N. M. Rodriguez & W. F. Pinar (Eds.), Queering straight teachers:
Discourse and identity in education (pp. vii–xiv). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Rowlett, B., & King, B. W. (2016). Language education, gender, and sexuality. In T. McCarty & S. May (Eds.),
Encyclopedia of language and education: Language policy and political issues in education (pp. 1–13). New York, NY:
Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-02320-5_7
Shardakova, M., & Pavlenko, A. (2004). Identity options in Russian textbooks. Journal of Language, Identity, &
Education, 3, 25–46. doi:10.1207/s15327701jlie0301_2
Sullivan, N. (2003). A critical introduction to queer theory. New York: New York University Press.
Świerszcz, J. (Ed.). (2012). Lesson of equality. Attitudes and needs of school staff and youth towards homophobia at
school. Warsaw, Poland: Campaign Against Homophobia.
Vandrick, S. (1997). The role of hidden identities in the postsecondary ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 153–157.
doi:10.2307/3587980
Vandrick, S. (2001). Teaching sexual identity issues in the ESL classroom. Paper presented at the TESOL International
Convention, St. Louis, MO.