Emerging queer epistemologies in studies

of gay-student discourses

Cynthia D. Nelson
The University of Sydney

Education is arguably one of the most significant, urgent, and rapidly chang-
ing arenas for research on language and sexual identity, but there has been little
synthesis to date of the knowledge and theories of knowledge that are emerging
through this work. Here I survey a relatively small but important segment of this
disparate literature: studies that investigate classroom talk about and by students
who either self-identify as gay, lesbian or queer, or who are positioned as such
by others. By bringing together such studies from applied linguistics as well as
education and literacy/composition, I seek to consolidate and to cultivate critical
explorations of sexual identity, language and learning as interlinked domains. To
this end, I identify some defining features of the queer epistemologies that are
emerging in the empirical, lingua-centric literature on gay-student discourses,
and I suggest future directions for this sort of work.

Keywords: gay students, lesbian students, queer students, queer linguistics,

queer epistemology, language education, language learning, sexual identities,
queer education, multicultural education

1. Introduction

Over the past few decades, as sexuality has increasingly come to be seen not as
a private matter to be relegated to the bedroom but as a public matter involving
aesthetics, discourses, politics, cultural capital, civil rights, [and] cultural power
(Britzman 1997:192), a fairly substantial body of research has been developed on
sociosexual matters within education contexts, across a wide range of disciplines
as well as sectors (from early childhood to university and beyond). Increasingly,
this research has been informed by queer theory at least nominally if not sub-
stantially; in Western-dominant circles if not more broadly (see Hall 2009); and
across education in the humanities and social sciences if not in the hard sciences

Journal of Language and Sexuality 1:1 (2012), 79105. doi 10.1075/jls.1.1.05nel

issn 22113770 / e-issn 22113789 John Benjamins Publishing Company
80 Cynthia D. Nelson

(see Toynton 2010). Within this (largely) queer education research, a growing
number of studies could be called lingua-centric that is, the classroom subject
matter involves literacy or second/foreign languages, the teacher/student cohorts
are multilingual, and/or the analysis focuses on specific language acts or broad
societal discourses.
Putting queer thinking into practice within language-oriented learning con-
texts seems to result in particular ways of configuring knowledge that is the
central idea driving this survey, which connects studies that have not previously
been grouped together as a body of work. There are a few reasons for making this
survey transdisciplinary.
While queer linguistics1 has paid some attention to education as a site of in-
quiry, there is clearly scope for much more. Those studies that have examined
language and sexual identity in education settings include Camerons (1997) land-
mark study of gendering talk between a group of straight male university students
(see also Kieslings 1998 study of heterosexual hegemony in university fraterni-
ties); Leaps (1997) study of Gay English in campus graffiti; Rasmussens (2004)
study of sexual-identity signifiers in high schools; and Sauntsons (2007) analysis
of online lesbian narratives, which identified education as a significant life-site
for young lesbians2 (see also Chapter3 of Morrish & Sauntson 2007). (See also
Harrisons [2011] narrative study of how gay, lesbian and bisexual Japanese people
experience English language and culture.) While it is not unusual for queer lin-
guistic studies to feature gay-identified people who happen to be students, there
is rarely any detailed analysis of their interactions in class, at school or on campus
(see, e.g., Abe 2010:148; Provencher 2007:100101).
Within applied linguistics (especially second and foreign language educa-
tion) we have seen studies of queer pedagogies, curricula and classroom talk (de
Vincenti, Giovanangeli & Ward 2007; Jones 2010; Nelson 1999, 2009; Mchain
2006), heteronormativity in student discourses and education settings (Dalley
& Campbell 2006; Chapter4 of Nelson 2009; Nguyen & Kellogg 2005), and lan-
guage learners (and teachers) sexual identity negotiations (Ellwood 2006; Kappra
& Vandrick 2006; King 2008; Liddicoat 2009; Moita-Lopes 2006a, 2006b; Nelson
2004, 2009, 2010a, 2010b).3 However, there has been too little dialogue between
queer linguistics and applied linguistics, with the former tending to focus more on
language use (even when set in education contexts) and the latter more on teach-
ing and learning (even when language is the curricular focus).
Where relevant, this survey also incorporates selected studies from education
(including Rthing 2008; Talburt 1999; Youdell 2004) and composition/rhetoric
(Alexander & Wallace 2009; Blackburn 2002/2003, 2004; Malinowitz 1995).
It can be challenging for queer research to make a significant, sustained im-
pact on broader fields of study see, for example, Alexander and Wallace (2009)
 Emerging queer epistemologies in studies of gay-student discourses 81

on the minimal impact that queer composition research has had on composition
research generally, and Renn (2010) on the lack of theoretical depth in much
LGBTQ research in higher education. Working across disciplinary lines may help
to strengthen this work and expand its impact.4
While in previous work I have examined language teaching and learning
through a queer theory lens (queer inquiry, Nelson 2006; Nelson 1999, 2009),
here I seek to identify some key features of the queer epistemologies (Binnie 1997;
Watney 2004) that are taking shape across lingua-centric education research. To
put this another way, now that educations language fields are undertaking and
engaging with sexual identity research, and, at least to some extent, with queer
thinking, it is timely to map out the queer knowledge and knowledge frameworks
that are emerging through this work. I narrow my focus to a fairly small subset of
these studies those on gay-student discourses.
By this I mean studies that focus on classroom talk by or about students who
either self-identify as gay or are positioned as gay by others (though there is con-
siderably more research on speaking of gay students than on speaking as a gay
student). I am guided here by questions from Talburt (1999:537): How is a lesbian
student constituted as an object of concern? How does she respond to the dis-
courses in which she finds herself, and how [do] those discourses create her voice
and experience?
My joint focus on queer epistemologies and gay-student discourses may seem
an odd choice, since queer thinking shifts the focus from affirming minority
sexual identities to interrogating the normalising/de-normalising processes sur-
rounding all sexual identifications (see Nelson 1999). My chosen focus on gay
students may signal, for some readers, what Bhaskaran (2004:21) sardonically
calls a futile and retro identity politics. Even so, I find that the gay-student focus
usefully highlights the ways in which broad-scale sexual-identity discourses are
changing, and at times clashing (see, e.g., Ghaziani 2011). Importantly, this focus
also keeps the discussion centred on student voices, which, despite the widespread
rhetoric on student-centred teaching, are not as central to education research as
one might expect.
As to the vexed issue of terminology, I have, with considerable equivocation,
elected to use the term gay, with scare quotes, as a placeholder meant to signal a
range of non-heterosexual identifications. The main reason for this choice is em-
pirical: in the majority of the studies about students who identify (or who are
identified) as other than heterosexual, gay is a more prevalent descriptor than,
say, queer, lesbian, or transgender. I use gay for another reason too to hint at
the subtle tensions that are often (but not always) evident between academic ways
of conceptualising identity, and students ways of describing themselves and oth-
ers; thus I am referring to the knowledge frameworks as queer but the students
82 Cynthia D. Nelson

as gay (for fuller discussions see Nelson 1999, 2009, and many other references
in this survey).
I use the terms discourse and language broadly as well, in part because the
studies I survey reflect different uses of these terms, and in part because finer-
tuned definitions do not seem crucial to my case here (for detailed discussions
see Pennycook 1994 on discourse and Makoni & Pennycook 2007 on language).
Some of the research studies I cite (from across applied linguistics) are framed
in pragmatic traditions and involve close readings of (in this case, spoken) texts
using techniques such as interactional positioning analysis, while others (pri-
marily those from education fields inflected by queer/cultural studies) employ
Foucauldian notions of discourse as a system structuring knowledge, power, so-
ciety, thought; there is also the odd study from adult literacy/composition, which
emphasises social empowerment via literary expression. With the term episte-
mology I am loosely guided by Harding (1987:3), who defines it as a theory of
knowledge, in contrast to a research methodology.

2. Studies of gay-student discourses

Necessarily selective, this survey reflects my own long-standing interest in

transcript-based research that aids in untangling the queer complexities and im-
plications of everyday classroom moments. In this section, transcript excerpts
from selected studies are used to showcase key issues in the gay-student-discourse
literature. The subsequent section draws out core imperatives of an emergent
queer epistemology, highlights significant gaps in existing knowledge, and offers
ideas for future inquiry.

2.1 Challenging heteronormative framings

Liddicoats (2009) study of students challenges to heteronormative framings

within foreign language classes at an Australian university includes the following
scenario from a Spanish class. (The transcript below5 is shown only in the authors
English translation, with the Spanish gender markings indicated.)
Girlfriend
Teacher: Whats your girlfriend like?
Sam (male): My uhm [pause] boyfriend is tall (m.) and slim (m.). []
Teacher: [to Sam] Your girlfriend is tall (f.) and slim (f.).
Sam: Uh uhm girlfriend?
Teacher: Yes your girlfriend is
 Emerging queer epistemologies in studies of gay-student discourses 83

Sam: Oh no its boyfriend. My boyfriend is tall (m.) and slim

(m.).
[pause] And he has a beard.
Teacher: [long pause] Lynn. Whats your boyfriend like?
Lynn (female): My boyfriend is handsome (m.) and tall (m.).
Teacher: Very good. (Liddicoat 2009:193)

From the teachers perspective, the author notes, the problem here is one of lan-
guage, while from the students perspective it is one of identity. When the teacher
asked Sam what his girlfriend was like, he was faced with a choice: avoid answer-
ing the question, choose to pass (lie) by constructing a fictional heterosexual iden-
tity, or resist the preallocated heterosexual identity that the question implied
(Liddicoat 2009:199; see also de Vincenti, Giovanangeli & Ward 2007). When Sam
chose the latter and spoke of his boyfriend, the teacher responded as if he had
made a grammatical error, which meant that Sam again had to choose whether
to acquiesce to the teachers insistent heteronormative framing, or continue to re-
sist it. When Sam persisted, adding the clarifying detail of the beard, the teacher
simply paused, and then moved on to the next student continuing the same
heteronormative framing by asking a woman about her boyfriend.
The heterosexual answer from Lynn was rewarded, while the homosexual an-
swer from Sam was initially corrected as an instance of linguistic failure, and then
granted no comment at all. Thus, the unthinking replication of heteronormative
discourses (Liddicoat 2009:201) means that the interactional burden of establish-
ing a nonheterosexual identity gets placed on the student (Liddicoat 2009:200).
Also, the message conveyed to all students is that a gay identity is considered mar-
ginalised or somehow deviant. When education is conceptualised as a desexu-
alised space, the author notes, sexual identity and sexual norms are considered
irrelevant to the core business at hand. One could argue that asking male students
about their presumed girlfriends, and female student about boyfriends, makes this
more of a heterosexualised space than a desexualised space, but then heterosexu-
ality (unlike homosexuality) is not routinely associated with sexual identity.
I would like to use the tensions evident in this classroom exchange to exempli-
fy two broad shifts in research on sexual identities in education over the past few
decades. The view that education is a non-sexual space in which sexual identity
matters are, at best, irrelevant, has been challenged by the view that education is
actually a highly heterosexualised space in which nonheterosexual identities have
historically been under-acknowledged and often unwelcome, to the detriment of
learners of any sexual identity. In other words, there has been a shift from the de-
gaying of education to its re-gaying, which involves acknowledging sexual diver-
sity and challenging overt and covert patterns of exclusion.
84 Cynthia D. Nelson

In Liddicoats classroom transcript above, Sams interjection about his boy-

friend created an opportunity for him to speak from the vantage point of his own
life experience, but it did not transform the heteronormative framing of the teach-
ers question, which continued unchanged. Similarly, what has happened over the
past decade or so is that the re-gaying of education has made it possible (in some
contexts) to acknowledge gay, lesbian and bisexual identities, but has not man-
aged to fundamentally decentre heterosexuality as normal. In fact, it has seemed
at times to exacerbate the problem. Research that seeks to challenge the hetero-
sexual matrix which works to normalise heterosexuality and only heterosexual-
ity can end up reinforcing it instead (see Atkinson & DePalma 2009, drawing
on Butler 1990). A concern about homophobia can translate pedagogically into
a focus on those who suffer from having homophobic feelings, not those who
suffer as a result of being hated or feared (Nelson 2009:73). Even the practice of
naming sexual identities can be considered regulatory and normative: Solidifying
fluid sexualities into fixed sexual identities that can then be taxonomised may have
more to do with social control than empowerment (Nelson 1999:376). Conse-
quently, the perceived limitations of gay-inclusive politics and pedagogies have led
to another quite profound shift in research in this area namely, from re-gaying
education to queering education, or from pedagogies of inclusion to pedagogies
of inquiry (Nelson 1999:373).
[T]he pedagogical project of queer studies, as Hall (2007:186) explains it, is
a continuous and insistent interrogation of notions of the normal. The queer turn
in education research represents a significant conceptual shift. Whereas previous
work (informed by lesbian and gay studies/identity politics) prioritised coming
out, identifying and challenging homophobia, creating inclusive curricula, and
so on more recent work (informed by queer and poststructuralist theories)
takes a closer look at such things as: (inter)subjectivity; performativity; agency;
the intersectionality of identity practices; the unpacking of heterosexuality; dis-
courses of desire, pleasure and shame; the fluidity of sexualities; (hetero)normalis-
ing discourses and practices; homosociality; and so on.6 This means, for example,
that some curricula developed to counter homophobia are now being critiqued
as heteronormative (see, e.g., McInnes & Davies 2008; Rthing 2008), and that
the earlier emphasis on providing safe spaces for sexual minority youth has been
critiqued as a victimising move that configures these youth as wounded subjects
lacking agency (Rasmussen, Rofes & Talburt 2004; Youdell 2004), a point that will
be discussed below.
 Emerging queer epistemologies in studies of gay-student discourses 85

2.2 Regulated identities, regulating discourses

As part of a larger ethnographic study of the discursive construction of social (in-

cluding sexual) identities, Moita-Lopes (2006b) analysed gay-themed discussions
between 1214 year olds in a fifth-grade literacy class in Brazil. From a data set
that included 84 audio-recorded classroom hours, the author found that in off-
task classroom discourse, and in focus groups, the students (especially the boys)
were constantly talking about homosexuality.
For example, in the following classroom interaction (translated by the author
from Portuguese) two boys were discussing another boy, who was sitting nearby.
Little fruit
Pedro: Look at Mrio. He is reading Capricho [a magazine marketed to
girls].
Joo: Thats what a little fruit would do. Doesnt he know better?
Pedro: [whispering] Mrio, Mrio.
Joo: He is gay. Look at his mouth! [still talking to Pedro] Mrio, youre
gay, arent you? (Moita-Lopes 2006b:37)

In a focus-group interaction, several students co-constructed a dialogue in which

they described a 12-year old classmate (who was not present) as someone who
wiggles his ass, uses a funny voice, and was a gossip and a raving queen
(Moita-Lopes 2006b:40).
Through an interactional positionings analysis (Moita-Lopes 2006b:36),
the author argues that in these scenarios gays are used [by boys] as alterities
against whom hegemonic masculinity is constructed; in other words, calling oth-
ers gay is a way for boys to construct themselves as straight. The author is con-
cerned about the potentially destructive effects of these homophobic discourses
on those students accused of being gay, and also about the learning limitations
for all students since, in the official classroom discourse, this subject matter was
actively discouraged (Moita-Lopes 2006b:40). For example, during a lesson on
respecting difference, when another student brought up homosexuality as a type
of prejudice, the teacher reprimanded him for being disrespectful (Moita-Lopes
2006b:38). The author notes that in silencing gay subject matter, the teacher may
have been trying to avoid a scenario in which the students would tauntingly accuse
a classmate of being gay.
Gay-as-insult discourses are a strongly recurring theme in the literature. A
study of the peer talk of 1215 year olds in England found that heterosexual regu-
lation was so common (especially from boys) as to appear routine: Accusations
of homosexuality were used to police any actions or viewpoints that were consid-
ered by the group to deviate from the heterosexual norm (Chambers, Tincknell &
86 Cynthia D. Nelson

van Loon 2004:404). For the boys Gay sexuality was so deeply taboo it had to be
rejected loudly and often (Chambers et al. 2004:411), and boys routinely called
girls lezzies as part of the policing of girls into normative heterosexuality
(Chambers et al. 2004:407).
This sort of policing often takes place through purportedly playful banter.
Kappra and Vandrick (2006) interviewed queer ESL students (adults) in San
Francisco about their classroom experiences; below I quote Marcelo, a 33-year-old
gay man from Argentina, discussing his classmates:
[T]hey were very homophobic. I arrived and they were joking about gay people.
They said that this city is full of gays, especially the boys, as usual. They were do-
ing the feminine manners and I have a boyfriend, during the class, and I was very
angry The teacher did not say anything. She smiled. Its my first week in
the States I was very nervous So I said no, I will not say anything. (Kappra
& Vandrick 2006:144)

The joking banter proved difficult for Marcelo to counter, especially since the
teacher seemed to condone it. This adds another dimension to our discussion here
gay-student silences (or silencings), which can be understood as elements or
strategies of discourse (Foucault 1990:27).7
Peer discourses of heteronormativity were also found to be pervasive in a
Canadian study of a Francophone high school, despite the concerted efforts of a
group of girls who deliberately performed (fictional) lesbian personas (Dalley &
Campbell 2006). See also Camerons (1997:53, 54, 56) aforementioned study of
straight male university students socialising: they performed heterosexual mascu-
linity in part by gossiping about male acquaintances they categorised as gay (you
know that really gay guy in our class who sits in front of us? He wore shorts
again , hes the antithesis of man, and hes so gay hes got this like really high
voice and wire rim glasses).
For more studies on regulatory and silencing discourses see Courtney (2007)
on responses to a gay student coming out in her English language class in the US;
Chapter2 of Nelson (2009), on language teachers reported experiences of having
openly lesbian, transgender and gay students in their (international) classes; and
Russell (2010) on Canadian gay and lesbian teachers responses to gay, lesbian and
bisexual students. On how learning materials position students as straight, see a
study of a biology textbook (Bazzul & Sykes 2011); see also a discussion by Izumo,
Tsuzura, Hara and Ochiya (2007:219) critiquing the elicitation of Japanese school-
childrens attitudes about gays and lesbians via a questionnaire that included items
like they make me sick.
At the same time, new regulatory discourses are emerging in which it is not
gayness but closeted gayness that is considered socially unacceptable. Newmans
 Emerging queer epistemologies in studies of gay-student discourses 87

(2009) ethnographic study of Jamaican-American and Latino Hip Hop youth in

New York reports that within a school environment that was generally accepting
of gay students and teachers, one boy verbally harassed a schoolmate who was
widely perceived to be gay not because the schoolmate was gay but because he
was not openly gay:
When I asked Kareem why this boy was harassed but not his openly gay class-
mates, he reported that there was no point in accusing someone of being gay if
they would just admit it. In other words, the boys perceived fakeness and fear
opened him to attack, not his sexual orientation. (Newman 2009:207)

As Decena (2008:339) puts it: Today, one comes out not to be radical or change
the world but to be a normal gay subject (a view he critiques, using the notion of
a tacit subject). See also Eckert and McConnell-Ginet (1995) on the rise of open-
ly gay and lesbian students in US high schools; as well as studies in Rasmussen,
Rofes & Talburt (2004).
There has also been increasing interest in examining the constructedness of
heterosexuality. For instance, Moita-Lopes (2006b) shows how a fifth-grade white
boy in Brazil discursively (and derogatorily) positioned a classmate as gay (much
like in the Little Fruit example we saw above), while Moita-Lopes (2006a:305)
uses the same transcript data to show how, in that interaction that same boy was
positioning himself as straight (by defining what gays are like).

2.3 Legitimated identity options

In an ethnographic study of masculinity and sexuality in British and Australian

high schools, Youdell (2004) examines two different interactions between the same
group of 14 and 15 year old boys in a Year 9 computer studies class (in Australia).
Both interactions, which I show below, centre on the peer discourses surrounding
the one student, Ian. (In the article all the interactants quoted below are identified
as white except for Ohan, whose ethnicity the author does not know).
No place at the table
Ohan occupies space in a way that ensures that Ian cannot sit next to him
Miss Collins: Ian, are you all right there? (Ian, sitting just behind Ohan
and Josh, nods hesitantly.) Bring your chair in next to Josh.
Mark: Yeah, sit next to your boyfriend! (Several boys snigger.)
Miss Collins: (firmly) Enough!
Josh moves his chair [to make space for Ian]. Ohan pauses before casually
pushing his chair to the side [to make a little space for Ian]. Ian pulls his
chair in towards the table. Ians cheeks colour as he sits and looks down at his
hands. Miss Collins continues with the lesson. (Youdell 2004:484)
88 Cynthia D. Nelson

By the end of this scene, the author says, Ian has no place at the table and no
place in discourse (Youdell 2004:486, citing Butler 1997). According to the au-
thor, Ohans physical exclusion of Ian from the group and Ians silent acquies-
cence are not a one-off incident but part of an ongoing series of citational chains
through which hetero-masculinities are valorised (Youdell 2004:485). Drawing
on Butlers work, the author argues that such instances are injurious performa-
tives, or acts that constitute denigrated, wounded identities through momentary
and apparently insignificant discursive practices within the classroom . In this
case, Ian is constituted as a wounded homosexual, which is an intelligible, if
subjugated, subject (Youdell 2004:484).
The second interaction occurred one week after the first, in the same class-
room.
Priscilla
Ohan is seated between Ian and Josh, who are close friends. Ian and Josh
discuss a rumour that Miss Collins is dating Mr Aspen, another teacher in
the school. Ohan listens without contributing and two other boys come over
to listen.
Ian: (animated and laughing) Call her Mrs Aspen, next time you speak
to her, call her Mrs Aspen!
Josh: (laughing) Ah, youre such a drama queen!
Ian laughs. Ohan appears to ignore this exchange. The other two boys look on
smiling.
Josh: Priscilla!
Ian: (replying to Josh, laughing) Baby kitten soft dick!
Ohan: (pushing his chair back abruptly and standing up) Argh! Theres
something wrong with this person!
Ohan walks away. Ian continues to laugh. Josh exhales and shakes his head.
The two observing boys grin as they continue to watch and listen. Ohan returns
to his seat at the table. (Youdell 2004:487)

The author observes that in these two interactions, the same boy, Ian, is inscribed
by his peers in very different ways: first, as a denigrated homosexual, then as
having a legitimate pop-gay identity. In the second scene, Ian is called a Drama
Queen and Priscilla not terms like fag or poof . The film Priscilla Queen of
the Desert references a globalised and commercialised (and therefore legitimate)
gay culture and identity. Thus, in the second scene, Ian is inscribed within two
discursive frames simultaneously: a hetero-normative discourse and a popular
gay discourse, which means that Joshs naming of Ian has the potential to both
injure and legitimate (italics added). It is this very simultaneity, the author argues,
that makes it possible for Ian and Josh to talk as they do in the classroom context
 Emerging queer epistemologies in studies of gay-student discourses 89

without sanction or censure indeed, with much obvious pleasure (Youdell

2004:488).
With the queering of education, one major shift in more recent literature has
been to challenge studies in which gay students (and other gay people) are con-
structed only as insulted or as victims. As Blackburn (2004:177178) puts it:
By looking beyond the homophobia that queer youth experience in their lives and
looking instead at the ways these youth subvert these experiences into experiences
of pleasure, I complicate the vulnerable positionality of these youth as victims
with their powerful positionality as agents. This is not to say that they are either
victims or agents; rather, they are both simultaneously. (italics added)

In line with this shift, we are also seeing more self-reflective accounts from teachers
about their efforts to disentangle their teaching from a gay-victimising discourse
(see King 2008; McInnes & Davies 2008; Rasmussen, Rofes & Talburt 2004; Vetter
2010; see also Ellwood 2006; Mchain 2006). For example, in developing a unit
on queer youth within a course on LGBT issues in K-12 schools, Rofes (2004:51
52) observed that his teaching materials were overwhelmingly narrative[s] of vic-
timology, covering topics such as suicide, HIV risk, and substance abuse among
queer youth. This Martyr-Target-Victim syndrome led one student to complain:
Where is the joy?!! Dont these people ever have fun? (Rofes 2004:47). When
he elicited new topics from his students, they suggested things like: falling in
love, the ones who are happy, healthy gay teens, people with supportive par-
ents, and normal queer youth (Rofes 2004:52). In short, studies are increasingly
showing how gay identity is being characterised not (only) as an injurious perfor-
mative but as a legitimate option.8

2.4 Competing discourses

My multi-site study of sexual identities in language education involved an interna-

tional cohort of over 100 research participants and over 150 hours of audio-taped
data; here I show part of one class discussion at a U.S. university, which I discuss
from the participants perspectives (see Chapter7 of Nelson 2009). During a les-
son on community, Ginas Academic English class, which comprised immigrants,
refugees and international students, was discussing commonalities they had iden-
tified between them (in small groups), such as wear earrings (152).
Earrings
Gina: What is that all about? Liking pink or wearing earrings or. Why do
we do things like that?t?
Ping [female]: I think its lifestyle. (Ping laughs)
Gina: Lifestyle? Why- Why so, Ping?
90 Cynthia D. Nelson

Ping: Um. You know, wear earrings just for woman. But for man,
lifestyle.
Gina: Aaah! (laughter) (Gina smiles) Is THAT what you think?
(much laughter)
(Many students talking at once)
Gina: (writes lifestyle on the board) So- So what is that telling us,
this kind of comment? From Ping?
Lucy: Not only girls, not only women wear earrings. Even male
does the same thing.
Gina: OK but see for Ping, an earring on a man means something
else.
Lucy: Uh-huh.
Gina: Right? (laughter)
Student: Right. []
Rita: (as if to challenge) So that means if you dont wear earrings
were a tomboy? Is that it? (laughter)
(Peter soon changes the subject.)
(Nelson 2009:153)

My analysis of this class interaction drew on participant individual interviews,

in which I used the playback technique of stimulated recall playing back the
audio-tape, showing the transcript, and asking what they were thinking or feeling
at the time. It became clear that different participants brought different concerns
and interpretations to the earrings discussion.
The teacher, Gina, thought that when Ping said But for man, lifestyle she was
about to insinuate that another student, Ben, was gay. (Apparently, Ping was look-
ing at Ben as she spoke, and Ben was wearing an ear stud.) Seeing the potential for
really nasty stuff to come up, Gina decided to pursue the topic instead of closing
it off. Gina intended to challenge Ping by sending the message that, as she put it
in our interview, You cant just make these kinds of comments Youre making
assumptions about somebodys sexual orientation because of the way they look
(Nelson 2009:154). Ginas subtle moves to challenge Pings assertion that earrings
on men signal a lifestyle included the following: framing Pings comment as a
viewpoint (Is that what you think), repeatedly positioning Ping (and thus her
viewpoint) as separate from the rest of the group (so what is that telling us; from
Ping, but see for Ping), and subtly casting doubt on Pings view by categorising it
within a larger (unnamed) discourse (this kind of comment).
However, Ping saw her role in the discussion very differently than Gina saw it.
Once Ping had spotted Bens earring, she took up the role of a cultural informant,
trying to teach her peers (with different background) that in the local context,
earrings on a man were a gay signifier: Its a sign. Sign means its, uh, two men
 Emerging queer epistemologies in studies of gay-student discourses 91

love together [] So I tried to explain for people (Nelson 2009:156). Mean-

while, another student, Lucy, showed no awareness that the class discussion had
even had a gay subtext, which is perhaps not surprising since the word gay was
never uttered (only suggestive phrases like Lifestyle and means something
else). Lucy had understood the discussion of men wearing earrings to be about
cultural identity, not sexual identity. As Lucy (who was from Vietnam) explained
it to me, both Ping and Ben were of Chinese heritage (Ping was from China, Ben
from Singapore), and in Chinese tradition parents have their sons ears pierced
so that he will grow up to be a good man and learn how to respect people
(Nelson 2009:155).
Other students had picked up on the gay subtext, which had generated some
consternation. Rita (from El Salvador) had, with her tomboy comment, chal-
lenged the association Ping was making between jewellery, gender and sexual
identity. In speaking up like this in class, Rita voiced a concern about how her
own sexual identity might be seen by her classmates: [T]hey might think that I
am lesbian If I think about that I wouldnt speak, because I would be afraid
(Nelson 2009:166).9 Peter (from Laos) explained that on hearing Ritas tomboy
comment, the gay subject, it just popped on my head. But I didnt wanna say it
[because] it might offend someone. Or it might hurt their feeling cause I might
not use the correct word (Nelson 2009:155). In fact, Peter was so concerned that
if he spoke up he might offend or hurt any gay or lesbian students in the room that
he cut in and abruptly changed the subject of the discussion.
Thus, in this classroom interaction the issue was not simply whether a gay
student identity was denigrated or legitimated (or both); something more complex
was going on here. A number of competing discourses were in circulation. The
undesirability of outing others as gay in the public zone of a classroom (Gina
from France) was set against the desirability of demystifying local gay-signifiers in
a classroom context (Ping). Speaking about gay people was constituted as a matter
of concern, but for contradictory reasons because it would make others suspect
that one was gay oneself (Rita) and/or that one was insensitive to gays (Peter).
And all of these discourses contrasted with what was, for some, the intercultural
unintelligibility of covertly gay discourse (Lucy).10
In the literature, competing discourses have also arisen with regard to concep-
tualising student cohorts as multisexual. In a Canadian study of 32 English lan-
guage teachers perspectives on sexual diversity in curricula, Dumas (2010:614)
reports that nearly 72% of the survey respondents did not know whether they
had ever had a lesbian or gay student in their classes, and some did not want to
know: Its nobodys business. For other teachers, though, conceptualising the
student cohort as multisexual is valuable pedagogically. As one teacher in Nelson
(2009:38) put it, When I had a gay student in my [English as a Foreign Language]
92 Cynthia D. Nelson

class I really looked at the book differently. And I really thought about what I was
saying very differently.
It is worth noting here that including gay curricula does not necessarily pro-
vide gay students with a place in discourse. In an observational study of tenth-
grade sex education lessons in Norway, Rthing (2008:254) found that references
to gay people and gay topics were part of the curriculum. However, the main cur-
ricular message was: it is important that we tolerate the homosexuals (Rthing
2008:260). Heterosexuality was consistently configured as the naturalised and
taken for granted point of reference (Rthing 2008:261). Thus, an emphasis on
promoting homotolerance can end up reproducing heteronormativity and
fail to acknowledge the existence of gay students (Rthing 2008:253; see also
Nelson 2009, 2010b).

2.5 Saying and not saying

The identity negotiations of a gay-identified language learner were the focus of a

recent case study of mine, which examined self-reports of class interactions that
were significant to Pablo, a 25-year-old man from Mexico who was living in the
United States (Nelson 2010b). Below is an extract from Pablos account of one such
interaction, which took place in the colleges computer lab and which involved a
classmate also from Mexico.
Pink
Playing with the computer I found how to change the colours in the screen
And [Ral] told me Why are you doing that?! I found valentines colour and
I changed it and everything was pink in my computer. (P laughs) And I wasnt em-
barrassed. And I changed it because I knew somebody was going to tell me some-
thing. Well [Ral] told me right away Why did you change to pink colour?!
And I tell him Because I like it! Because I like it. And, so what? (P laughs) And
he told me Oh no! He was like This is unbelievable for you, Pablo from you!
[I]n all the countries like where people speak Spanish, if a man likes pink colour
thats very interesting. Because it means for the people that hes gay Or if some
man is wearing a pink shirt, they say Hes gay I knew he was going to tell me
something, thats why I changed the colour I started to speak English to him
after he told me. To make [the teacher] hear us He was tellin me in Spanish
If I was looking for some answer now I have it. And I say I shouldnt have told
this guy that. That I like to work with pink colour in my computer. You know? But
I should tell this [other] guy and he will say Ooooh! I have some pink markers,
you can use them all. You know what I mean? (Nelson 2010b:453)

With regard to his gay identity, Pablo was masterful at simultaneously saying and
not saying (Nelson 2010b:454). In this interaction, he managed to convey to his
 Emerging queer epistemologies in studies of gay-student discourses 93

classmate that he was gay, but without any sort of verbal declaration. Subtly signal-
ling a gay identity in class helped Pablo to find out, as he put it, who to be open
with (Nelson 2010b:453). Pablos code-switching from Spanish to English (when
Ral reacted with dismay to Pablos implicit coming out) may have been due in
part to Pablos belief that the teacher was a lesbian, so would serve as a protective
presence or resource if Ral became threatening. The switch to English, I noted,
may also have served as a subtle reminder to Ral that though they were both
from Mexico, they were now on new turf, and the rules of the game had changed
(Nelson 2010b:454). In fact, Pablo was highly invested in learning English pre-
cisely because he considered it a gay lingua franca that facilitates entry into a
global gay community (Nelson 2010b:448).
The above account and others from Pablo show how he risked rapport through
discreet self-disclosure, coding his communications with wit and humour.11 Yet
despite Pablos highly nuanced identity savvy, he struggled to establish communi-
cative legitimacy in the classroom, being restricted by heteronormative discourses
and larger social structures that made it difficult, if not impossible, for him to
voice his thoughts or experiences when these were highly relevant to the discus-
sion topic at hand for example, during another class discussion in which he was
asked whether he wanted to get married.
Kings (2008) study of gay Korean men found that they were more comfort-
able learning English with gay interlocutors than with straight ones, so they pre-
ferred informal learning to formal education. Experiences of alienation are also
reported in Dalley and Campbells (2006) study, which includes gay high school
students (one Canadian-born, one a Somali refugee); in Jewells (1998) study of
a Thai transgender students perspective on gender and family representations in
her Australian ESL textbook; and in Gutierrezs (2004) study of the difficult school
experiences of black and Latino male-to-female transgender students (including
some second-language students) in the U.S. The cumulative message of studies
like these is that, over and over again, learning opportunities are being restricted
for students who self-identify as other than heterosexual despite their resource-
fulness and agency as individuals, and despite the social-equity rhetoric of their
educational institutions.
Despite extensive searching, I have found remarkably few lingua-centric stud-
ies of students identifying as lesbian (or bisexual).12 Blackburns (2002/2003)
study of young people disrupting heteronormativity via literacy recounts the lit-
eracy performances of Justine, a 16-year-old self-identified African-American
lesbian writer, at an urban centre in the United States that was run by, and for,
lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and questioning youths (most of whom were
African-American and male). Justine read aloud a poem she wrote about an in-
cident in public in which a stranger (with a venomous voice) called her a dyke
94 Cynthia D. Nelson

(Blackburn 2002/2003:316). In her poem, Justine contrasted the mans use of

the word dyke as an insult with her own use of the term to signify beauty and
strength. Blackburn argues that by writing her poem, Justine was able to author
herself into the world not just as a victim of homophobia [but] as someone who
will eventually retaliate against, and thus have power over, those who marginal-
ized her (Blackburn 2002/2003:317). Moreover, in performing her poem for her
peers, who responded with affirming comments, laughter and applause, [Justine]
authored herself into the world as a lesbian [working] against hegemonic het-
erosexism and homophobia with the support of her community rather than alone
(Blackburn 2002/2003:317).
Given Blackburns emphasis on empowerment through literacy performance
and audience witness, it seems ironic that some words from Justines poem were
substituted with bracketed text, as shown in these excerpts (the forward slashes in-
dicate line breaks in the poem): Dyke? What does that mean?/Am I sex-crazed,
dirty, man-/hating, bra-burner; with more hair/on my face than my [explicit and
derogatory reference to female genitalia]? and Ill thank him some/day when Im
[explicit reference to a sexual practice] his girlfriend (Blackburn 2002/2003:316
317; italics added). The author explains that these substitutions were required by
the editor of the Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, which is itself an in-
teresting commentary: What teenagers say to each other cannot be revealed to
teachers and scholars in the field of literacy?

3. Emerging queer epistemologies

Seen individually, these various queer-inflected studies may look partial, as

Berlant and Warner (1995:347) put it in their discussion of queer-driven projects,
but seen collectively they are part of a broader and longer term set of transfor-
mations. Building on these studies and their findings, I now sketch out several
defining imperatives of queer epistemologies, which can be understood as ways
of knowing, or guiding principles, that can usefully underpin research (and class-
room inquiry) on matters of language and sexual identity. (Please note: Queer
pedagogies per se are not my main focus here; for that, see Nelson 2009, on a dis-
course inquiry approach; see also Mchain 2006, Winans 2006 and many other
works cited in this survey). Under each imperative, I map out some significant
shortcomings in existing knowledge.
In so doing, I hope to encourage those readers with an interest in language and
sexuality to consider how these issues are playing out for students; to urge those
working in (language) education to take into account the sociosexual dimensions
 Emerging queer epistemologies in studies of gay-student discourses 95

of communication and of learning; and to prompt those who care about sexuality
issues in education to consider how these are languaged.

3.1 Thinking queerly

The first imperative drawn from the literature is to think queerly about education.
As we have seen, this means taking into account how gay name-calling and other
common day-to-day discursive interactions are used to police speech and behav-
iour toward the production of heterosexuality and gender normativity. It means
understanding how the pre-allocation and rewarding of straight student identi-
ties can place an unnecessary communicative burden on gay students. Thinking
queerly also means explicitly examining the ambiguities, innuendo and indirect-
ness that are often associated with gay and other non-hetero identities and that
can generate mixed understandings and misunderstandings, perhaps especially
(though certainly not exclusively) among multilingual interlocutors.
As we have also seen, thinking queerly means investigating the nuanced com-
plex performatives that occur in ordinary classroom moments; and it means pro-
ductively complicating the question of what exactly constitutes homophobia or
heteronormativity in classroom interactions (on this point, see Rasmussen 2004,
who argues that gay name-calling is not always derogatory). It means taking
into account how transglobal gay discourses yield new subject positions that can
counter wounded identities; how gay-victim discourses are being countered by
normal-queer-youth discourses; and how these different discourses circulate in
tandem in classroom interactions. It means understanding how students deploy
coded signs in negotiating their interactions and identities; and how acts of writ-
ing and being witnessed can transform gay students experiences of harassment
and hate speech.
Thinking queerly means considering the creative array of sexual/gender iden-
tifications beyond gay/straight, and beyond gay-male which still remain
vastly underrepresented in the lingua-centric education literature. On that last
point, one of the strengths of queer linguistics is its exploration of talk and texts
pertaining to a great variety of sexual/gendered identifications. Research partici-
pants in Livia and Halls (1997) edited volume Queerly phrased, for example, in-
clude a bisexual deaf man; Texan bar queens; female-to-gay male transsexuals; a
married Muslim Nigerian man who sells sex to men; and many others. Yet across
the (language) education literature even in studies of adults, not kids this
empirical richness becomes severely reduced.
As I have put it elsewhere:
96 Cynthia D. Nelson

[W]here are the lesbian, transgender, queer, gay and bisexual learners (and, for
that matter, teachers)? Why are they so often missing from the pages of our re-
search publications? [But] it is not just queer people who are missing it
is also people with queer neighbors, mothers-in-law, bosses, and host-brothers.
Perhaps the most significant question is: What effects are these acts of erasure and
exclusion having on the teaching and learning of language? (Nelson 2009:218)

Those of us who read, review, teach and/or produce lingua-centric research must in-
sist upon a richer field of representation when it comes to students sexual identities.

3.2 Thinking linguistically, multi-modally and educationally

The second imperative is to refine and apply critical literacy and other linguistic
tools for analysing the ways in which sociosexual discourses are operating in and
on ones life and surroundings. This involves taking into account not just the ver-
bal/textual but also the visual, the spatial, and the physical (as we saw in Youdell
2004). It means exploiting the creative power of literary and other arts-based forms
in naming and shaping ones own discursive contributions. It means studying not
just the said but the unsaid, the unsayable.
Rthings (2008:262) study of sexual education in Norwegian secondary
schools found that homosexuality was not talked about as something the students
should know anything about, but as something they could be for or against.
Something similar is evident in many of the studies I have surveyed, where the fo-
cus is on attitudes rather than expertise, on gauging levels of homo-tolerance, not
levels of learning.13 Also, too few studies of gay students (often fraught) identity
negotiations consider the consequences of these negotiations for learning.
One important study that does investigate language and sexual identity in rela-
tion to learning, and which is particularly instructive here, is Malinowitzs (1995)
investigation of a gay-themed composition class at a US college and of the writ-
ing practices of some gay-identified students in the class. Lesbian and gay people,
Malinowitz (1995) argues, have a kind of rhetorical self-consciousness which, if
creatively utilized, could be a huge asset in their attempts to position themselves
within the locus of audience and meaning that is at the center of the writing art.
However, what often happens is their rhetorical prowess has actually been put to
the purpose of sabotaging their writing (Malinowitz 1995:257).
Some examples: One student wrote about being gay, but felt the need to justify
and explain it, which kept him tied to fairly basic forms of discourse and curtailed
deeper exploration; another would get on a soapbox in order to set the record
straight for ignorant homophobes, which involves writing about what she already
knew rather than taking risks (Malinowitz 1995:202); another had written a few
times about being black and gay, but never got much critical feedback from his
 Emerging queer epistemologies in studies of gay-student discourses 97

teachers, which cut off the possibility of serious revision; and yet another avoid-
ed any queer content in her writing, which the student described as comparable to
ignor[ing] the right half of my body (Malinowitz 1995:257).
Hence, students, teachers and researchers alike need to be equipped with
some analytic tools such as Bucholtz & Halls tactics of intersubjectiv-
ity (2004:498), Moita-Lopess (2006b:36) interactional positionings analysis,
Winanss (2006:114) discursive affiliations analysis, or any of a number of other
approaches in order to critically examine language, sexual and other identities,
and systems of difference.

3.3 Thinking transdisciplinarily and transnationally

Another imperative of queer epistemologies, thinking transdisciplinarily, means

engaging with thinkers from across a flourishing range of intellectual traditions
and modes of knowing, and taking seriously the diverse perspectives on offer. I
would especially like to see more education-related work from queer linguistics,
as well as more queer/language/education investigations that ignore or subvert
unhelpful disciplinary boundaries. Thinking transdisciplinarily means asking, as
Toynton (2010:593) does, how those in the sciences respond to the social-science
dominated gay/queer movement or discourse; and how fields of research that
rarely engage with queer thinking might prove fertile ground for new insights and
collaborations? For example, there is quite a lot of work coming out now from
the health fields about the need for better sexual diversity education in profes-
sional practice arenas (for nurses, doctors, and so on), but little, if any, of this work
is grounded in either linguistic or educational understandings, so this seems to
be another socially significant yet largely untapped arena (see, e.g., Tinmouth &
Hamwi 1994 on the challenges encountered by gay and lesbian medical students).
Now that there is, finally, a body of research on gay-student discourses, we can
begin to ask how this work is being used and critiqued within language-oriented
teacher education and professional development programs. (Similar investiga-
tions are quite common in K-12 teacher education, but remain rare in language-
oriented fields and in higher education.) And last but certainly not least, how is
queer linguistics itself being taught? In discussing language and sexuality research,
what speaking positions are made available for students? Accounts or investiga-
tions of the teaching practices in this field might usefully inform efforts in other
disciplines to unpack language and sexual identity in their own (inevitably multi-
sexual) classes.
Lastly, queer epistemologies also involve thinking transculturally and trans-
nationally. This means examining how new, intelligible gay/queer subject posi-
tions are proliferating through transglobal pop-culture references, as we saw with
98 Cynthia D. Nelson

the Priscilla example (Youdell 2004). It means unpacking the intersectionality

and intersubjectivity of identities. See, for example, work on the interface between
sexual and national identities, such as Provenchers (2007:19) study of sexual
citizenship in France (where non-normative and subversive subjectivities nei-
ther correspond to the identity-based models nor draw heavily on a hetero/homo
divide) and Rthings (2008) study of sexual education and Norwegianness. It
also means looking beyond Western-dominant notions of sexuality and open-
ing up the global gay ecumene to multiple and disparate subjectivities such as
lesbi and tomboi, as Blackwood (2008:483) notes in her research on Indonesia.
Thinking transnationally means critically analysing the discourses through which
foreignness and otherness are constructed; as well as engaging with research that
involves participants in and from geo-regions that tend to be underrepresented in
(English-language versions of) gay/queer education literature, but that are burst-
ing with important explorations.14

4. Conclusion

Speaking of gay students, speaking with gay students, speaking as a gay student
these were the foci of the various studies drawn together here for the first time.
By juxtaposing work from applied linguistics, education and literacy/composition,
and from a variety of educational subjects, settings and levels, I hope to spark
multi-perspective thinking on these matters via what Klein (2004:522) calls
cross-sectoral transdisciplinarity. Synthesising ideas from some recent research,
I have proposed that queer epistemologies involve thinking queerly, linguistically,
multi-modally, educationally, transdisciplinarily and transnationally and I have
suggested some promising lines of inquiry for future work.
Two key points deriving from this literature survey are not yet widely recog-
nised in either mainstream linguistics or mainstream education. First, the (often
subtle) communicative processes whereby sexual identifications (and disidenti-
fications) are enacted, contested and negotiated within classroom interactions
ought not be dismissed as trivial matters pertaining to sexual minorities but
seen as everyday dynamics that fundamentally shape learning experiences and
outcomes.15 Second, in order to acknowledge and transform those dynamics that
(however inadvertently) are impeding learning, some critical analytic tools are
needed by students, teachers and researchers alike. To this end, more research
on the intricacies and implications of sexual identifications inside (and outside)
the classroom would enrich the various subfields of linguistics and its cognate
fields by helping to foster socio-sexual literacies, or ways of understanding and
reconfiguring the socio-sexual dimensions of ones everyday interactions.
 Emerging queer epistemologies in studies of gay-student discourses 99

These are not esoteric academic matters. As I write this, online media are re-
porting that in the Czech Republic, a director at the Education Ministry has con-
demned Prague Pride, the citys inaugural gay and lesbian festival, and the nations
president has voiced his objection to promoting homosexuality; the Ministry of
Education in Taiwan plans to include homosexual issues in school curricula but
objections are being raised by teachers, parent groups and politicians; and in the
United States, a Massachusetts study has found that about one in four of the les-
bian and gay teenagers in that state are homeless (most without any parent or
guardian in their lives), which makes just getting an education a struggle. Mean-
while, it has come to light that several prominent publishers of young adult fiction
have demanded that their authors turn all gay characters into straight ones all
of this at a time when the suicides of North American gay youth are receiving un-
precedented media attention, as are campaigns in many geo-regions for same-sex
marriage.16
Given the profound effects on human lives of these clashing discourses, this is
surely the time for creative thinking and greater collaboration between the fields
of linguistics, queer studies, and education.

Notes

1. On queer linguistics see Koch (2008); Livia & Hall (1997); and Motschenbacher (2010).

2. Sauntson (2005) found that for lesbians, primary and secondary schools are reportedly far
more hostile spaces than universities.

3. See also Takahashi (in press) on the eroticisation of language education via English for Re-
lationship Purposes, which positions womens romantic and sexual relationships with foreign
men as the key to learning English.

4. Bucholtz and Hall (2008:408) make a similar point about sociocultural linguistics: engag[ing]
in dialogue across the borders of its constituent subfields, they say, has resulted in critical en-
gagements and creative adaptations that are moving the field in productive new directions.

5. Throughout this article, for the sake of clarity and succinctness I have simplified the format-
ting and reduced the amount of information provided in the quoted transcripts: for example,
omitting notes on pause length, rising intonation, or the speakers age, and occasionally chang-
ing the casing or spelling.

6. See Cameron (2005) on similar shifts in language and sexuality research.

7. On the long-term effects of anti-gay bullying on educational attainment levels, see Henrickson
(2007).
100 Cynthia D. Nelson

8. A related point is that, for some, the current era is considered to have become post-gay
which does not necessarily mean post-discriminatory, but rather that gay politics tends to
assert sameness with straights rather than difference (Ghaziani 2011).

9. A female student at a Canadian university put forward a similar view: I didnt ask many
questions [of the gay guest speakers] because I had an irrational feeling that if I did people in the
class might wonder if I was gay. That sounds crazy, but I feel that this might be the reason why
others didnt speak (Eyre 1993:280).

10. Some additional interview data not included in my book: Ironically, the person least con-
sternated by the earrings discussion was Ben, who described himself to me as the only guy
wearing earrings in the class. While Ben was aware of a possible gay connotation (I think if
you wear it on the right youre gay If you wear it on the left its youre considered ok, he
laughed) he was completely unconcerned about his classmates comments: Its not like Im
gonna rob a bank or something like that, cause I dont hurt anybody.

11. Decena (2008:34), in a study of Dominican immigrant gay and bisexual men in New York,
observes that What is tacit is neither secret nor silent. Bucholtz and Hall (2004:496) make a
similar point: The use of indirect strategies to determine anothers sexual identity constructs all
participants as knowing how to produce and interpret these tropes.

12. See Vetters (2010) study of the language-arts projects of an African-American lesbian
teenager, and several lesbian language-learner narratives (Nelson 2010a). See also Chapter5
of Blaise (2005), about a six-year-old Anglo-American kindergartener who frequently defied
gender norms in her classroom interactions.

13. Having said that, there are moves to incorporate gay/queer content-knowledge into foreign
language education (see Jones 2010) and language teacher education (see Ojeda 2006). Student
interest seems to be driving these developments, as evident in this response of a German lan-
guage learner (in Germany) who was asked to nominate his preferred class discussion topics:
I come from a country where it is socially unpleasant (and sometimes dangerous) for gays and
lesbians to be open about their homosexuality As a gay man, I am interested in knowing
about the history of the Homosexual Movement in Germany and what Germans say and
how they talk about homosexuality, bisexuality, transsexuality, same-sex marriage (Decke-
Cornill & Kleiner 2007:188).

14. See, for example, Epprecht and Egyas (2011) study of teaching about sexualities in Nigeria;
Glasss (2008) thesis on third-gender EFL teachers in Thailand; and Yuchen, Yang and Changs
(2004) reflective account of gay and lesbian education in a Taiwanese high school.

15. As Berlant and Warner (1995:349) put it: Queer commentary shows that much of what
passes for general culture is riddled with heteronormativity. Conversely, many of the issues of
queerness have more general relevance than one is normally encouraged to think.

16. These news items were accessed via various Google news websites in mid 2011.
 Emerging queer epistemologies in studies of gay-student discourses 101

References

Abe, Hideko. 2010. Queer Japanese: Gender and Sexual Identities through Linguistic Practices.
New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Alexander, Jonathan & Wallace, David. 2009. The queer turn in composition studies: Review-
ing and assessing an emerging scholarship. College Composition and Communication 61(1):
300320.
Atkinson, Elizabeth & DePalma, Rene. 2009. Un-believing the matrix: Queering consensual
heteronormativity. Gender and Education 21(1): 1729.
Bazzul, Jesse & Sykes, Heather. 2011. The secret identity of a biology textbook: Straight and
naturally sexed. Cultural Studies of Science Education 6: 265286.
Berlant, Lauren & Warner, Michael. 1995. What does queer theory teach us about X? PMLA
[Publications of the Modern Language Association of America] 110: 343349.
Bhaskaran, Suparna. 2004. Made in India: Decolonizations, Queer Sexualities, Trans/National
Projects. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Binnie, Jon. 1997. Coming out of geography: Towards a queer epistemology? Environment and
Planning D: Society and Space 15(2): 223237.
Blackburn, Mollie V. 2002/2003. Disrupting the (hetero)normative: Exploring literacy perfor-
mances and identity work with queer youth. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy 48(4):
312324.
Blackburn, Mollie V. 2004. Agency in borderland discourses: Engaging in Gaybonics for plea-
sure, subversion, and retaliation. In Youth and Sexualities: Pleasure, Subversion, and In-
subordination In and Out of Schools, Mary Louise Rasmussen, Eric Rofes & Susan Talburt
(eds), 177199. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Blackwood, Evelyn. 2008. Transnational discourses and circuits of queer knowledge in Indone-
sia. GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 14(4): 481507.
Blaise, Mindy. 2005. Playing it Straight: Uncovering Gender Discourses in the Early Childhood
Classroom. New York: Routledge.
Britzman, Deborah P. 1997. What is this thing called love? New discourses for understand-
ing gay and lesbian youth. In Radical In<ter>ventions: Identity, Politics and Difference/s in
Educational Praxis, Suzanne de Castell & Mary Bryson (eds), 183207. Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press.
Bucholtz, Mary & Hall, Kira. 2004. Theorizing identity in language and sexuality research. Lan-
guage in Society 33: 469515.
Bucholtz, Mary & Hall, Kira. 2008. All of the above: New coalitions in sociocultural linguistics.
Journal of Sociolinguistics 12(4): 401431.
Butler, Judith. 1990. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York:
Routledge.
Butler, Judith. 1997. Excitable Speech: A Politics of the Performative. London: Routledge.
Cameron, Deborah. 1997. Performing gender identity: Young mens talk and the construction
of heterosexual masculinity. In Language and Masculinity, Sally Johnson & Ulrike Hanna
Meinhof (eds), 4764. Oxford: Blackwell.
Cameron, Deborah. 2005. Language, gender, and sexuality: Current issues and new directions.
Applied Linguistics 26(4): 482502.
Chambers, Deborah, Tincknell, Estella & van Loon, Joost. 2004. Peer regulation of teenage sex-
ual identities. Gender and Education 16(3): 397415.
102 Cynthia D. Nelson

Courtney, Monica. 2007. The ins and outs of teaching: Social identity in an ESL classroom. In
Transit 2(1) <http://www.lagcc.cuny.edu./CTL/journal/v2n1/pdf/Courney.pdf> (August
23, 2011).
Dalley, Phyllis & Campbell, Mark David. 2006. Constructing and contesting discourses of het-
eronormativity: An ethnographic study of youth in a Francophone high school in Canada.
Journal of Language, Identity, and Education 5(1): 1129.
Decena, Carlos Ulises. 2008. Tacit subjects. GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 14: 23.
Decke-Cornill, Helene & Kleiner, Bettina. 2007. Ich bin nicht nach Deutschland gekommen,
um ber meine Lebensart zu schweigen: Biografische Aspekte des Sprachenlernens. In
Sprachen lernen und lehren. Die Perspektive der Bildungsgangforschung. Studien zur Bil-
dungsgangforschung, Helene Decke-Cornill, Adelheid Hu & Meinert A. Meyer (eds), 173
195. Opladen: Barbara Budrich.
de Vincenti, Gloria, Giovanangeli, Angela & Ward, Rowena. 2007. The queer stopover: How
queer travels in the language classroom. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching
4: 5872.
Dumas, Jacqueline. 2010. Sexual identity and the LINC classroom. The Canadian Modern Lan-
guage Review/La Revue Canadienne des Langues Vivantes 66(4): 607627.
Eckert, Penelope & McConnell-Ginet, Sally. 1995. Constructing meaning, constructing selves.
In Gender Articulated: Language and the Socially Constructed Self, Kira Hall & Mary
Bucholtz (eds), 469508. New York: Routledge.
Ellwood, Constance. 2006. On coming out and coming undone: Sexualities and reflexivities
in language education research. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education 5(1): 6784.
Epprecht, Marc & Egya, Sule E. 2011. Teaching about homosexualities to Nigerian university
students: A report from the field. Gender and Education 23(4): 367383.
Eyre, Linda. 1993. Compulsory heterosexuality in a university classroom. Canadian Journal of
Education 18(3): 273284.
Foucault, Michel. 1990. The History of Sexuality, Volume 1. New York: Random House.
Ghaziani, Amin. 2011. Post-gay collective identity construction. Social Problems 58(1): 99125.
Glass, Kanokon. 2008. Third-Gender EFL Teachers in Thailand: Issues and Attitudes. PhD dis-
sertation, Purdue University.
Gutierrez, Nova. 2004. Resisting fragmentation, living whole: Four female transgender students
of color speak about school. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services 16(3/4): 6979.
Hall, Donald E. 2007. Cluelessness and the queer classroom. Pedagogy 7(2): 182191.
Hall, Donald E. 2009. Can we teach a transnational queer studies? Pedagogy 10(1): 6978.
Harding, Sandra. 1987. Introduction: Is there a feminist method? In Feminism and methodology,
Sandra Harding (ed), 114. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Harrison, Marlen Elliot. 2011. Discovering Voices, Discovering Selves: Auto-Ethnographic Ex-
aminations of the Relationships between Japanese Queer Sexualities and English as Lan-
guage and Culture. PhD dissertation, Indiana University of Pennsylvania.
Henrickson, Mark. 2007. You have to be strong to be gay: Bullying and educational attainment
in LGB New Zealanders. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services 19(3/4): 6785.
Izumo, Marou, Tsuzura, Yoshiko, Hara, Minako & Ochiya, Kumiko. 2007. Japans lesbian move-
ment: Looking back on where we came from. In Queer Voices from Japan: First-Person Nar-
ratives from Japans Sexual Minorities, Mark J. McLelland, Katsuhiko Suganuma & James
Welker (eds), 195224. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
Jewell, J.B.W. 1998. A transgendered ESL learner in relation to her class textbooks, heterosexist
hegemony and change. Melbourne Papers in Applied Linguistics 10: 121.
 Emerging queer epistemologies in studies of gay-student discourses 103

Jones, James W. 2010. From the margin to the center: Integrating GLBT topics in upper-
level German courses. Journal for Best Practices in Higher Education German Studies.
<http://www.neues-curriculum.org/jones2010.pdf> (April 15, 2011).
Kappra, Rick & Vandrick, Stephanie. 2006. Silenced voices speak: Queer ESL students recount
their experiences. The CATESOL Journal 18(1): 138150.
Kiesling, Scott. 1998. Variation and mens identity in a fraternity. Journal of Sociolinguistics 2:
69100.
King, Brian W. 2008. Being gay guy, that is the advantage: Queer Korean language learning and
identity construction. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education 7: 230252.
Klein, Julie Thompson. 2004. Prospects for transdisciplinarity. Futures 36: 515526.
Koch, Michaela. 2008. Language and Gender Research from a Queer Linguistic Perspective: A
Critical Evaluation. Saarbrcken: VDM Verlag Dr. Mller.
Leap, William L. 1997. Performative effect in three gay English texts. In Queerly Phrased: Lan-
guage, Gender, and Sexuality, Anna Livia & Kira Hall (eds), 310325. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Liddicoat, Anthony J. 2009. Sexual identity as linguistic failure: Trajectories of interaction in the
heteronormative language classroom. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education 8(2):
191202.
Livia, Anna & Hall, Kira (eds). 1997. Queerly Phrased: Language, Gender, and Sexuality. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Makoni, Sinfree & Pennycook, Alastair. 2007. Disinventing and Reconstituting Languages. Clev-
edon: Multilingual Matters.
Malinowitz, Harriet. 1995. Textual Orientations: Lesbian and Gay Students and the Making of
Discourse Communities. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
McInnes, David & Davies, Cristyn. 2008. Articulating sissy boy queerness within and against
discourses of tolerance and pride. In Queer Youth Cultures, Susan Driver (ed), 105121.
Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Moita-Lopes, Luiz Paulo. 2006a. On being white, heterosexual and male in a Brazilian school:
Multiple positionings in oral narratives. In Discourse and Identity, Anna de Fina, Deborah
Schiffrin & Michael Bamberg (eds), 288313. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Moita-Lopes, Luiz Paulo. 2006b. Queering literacy teaching: Analyzing gay-themed discourse in
a fifth-grade class in Brazil. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education 5(1): 3150.
Morrish, Liz & Sauntson, Helen. 2007. New Perspectives on Language and Sexual Identity. Bas-
ingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Motschenbacher, Heiko. 2010. Language, Gender and Sexual Identity: Poststructuralist Perspec-
tives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Nelson, Cynthia. 1999. Sexual identities in ESL: Queer theory and classroom inquiry. TESOL
Quarterly 33(3): 371391.
Nelson, Cynthia D. 2004. A queer chaos of meanings: Coming out conundrums in globalised
classrooms. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Issues in Education 2(1): 2746.
Nelson, Cynthia D. 2006. Queer inquiry in language education. Journal of Language, Identity,
and Education 5(1): 19.
Nelson, Cynthia D. 2009. Sexual Identities in English Language Education: Classroom Conversa-
tions. New York: Routledge.
Nelson, Cynthia D. 2010a. Vanishing acts. In Language and Culture: Reflective Narratives and
the Emergence of Identity, David Nunan & Julie Choi (eds), 170176. New York: Routledge.
104 Cynthia D. Nelson

Nelson, Cynthia D. 2010b. A gay immigrant students perspective: Unspeakable acts in the lan-
guage class. TESOL Quarterly 44(3): 441464.
Newman, Michael. 2009. Thats all concept; its nothing real: Reality and lyrical meaning in rap.
In Global Linguistic Flows: Hip Hop Cultures, Youth Identities, and the Politics of Language,
H. Samy Alim, Awad Ibrahim & Alastair Pennycook (eds), 195212. New York: Routledge.
Nguyen, Hanh Thi & Kellogg, Guy. 2005. Emergent identities in on-line discussions for sec-
ond language learning. The Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue Canadienne des
Langues Vivantes 62(1): 111136.
Ojeda, Juan Ramn Guigarro. 2006. Enseanzas de la teora Queer para la didctica de la lengua
y la literatura extranjeras. Porta Linguarum 6: 5366.
Mchain, Robert. 2006. Discussing gender and sexuality in a context-appropriate way: Queer
narratives in an EFL college classroom in Japan. Journal of Language, Identity, and Educa-
tion 5(1): 5166.
Pennycook, Alastair. 1994. Incommensurable discourses? Applied Linguistics 15(2): 115138.
Provencher, Denis M. 2007. Queer French: Globalization, Language, and Sexual Citizenship in
France. Hampshire: Ashgate.
Rasmussen, Mary Louise. 2004. Thats so gay!: A study of deployment of signifiers of sexual
and gender identity in secondary school settings in Australia and the United States. Social
Semiotics 14(3): 289308.
Rasmussen, Mary Louise, Rofes, Eric & Talburt, Susan (eds). 2004. Youth and Sexualities: Plea-
sure, Subversion, and Insubordination In and Out of Schools. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Renn, Kristen A. 2010. LGBT and queer research in higher education: The state and status of the
field. Educational Researcher 39(2): 132141.
Rofes, Eric. 2004. Martyr-Target-Victim: Interrogating narratives of persecution and suffering
among queer youth. In Youth and Sexualities: Pleasure, Subversion, and Insubordination In
and Out of Schools, Mary Louise Rasmussen, Eric Rofes & Susan Talburt (eds), 4162. New
York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Rthing, se. 2008. Homotolerance and heteronormativity in Norwegian classrooms. Gender
and Education 20(3): 253266.
Russell, Vanessa Tamara. 2010. Queer teachers ethical dilemmas regarding queer youth. Teach-
ing Education 21(2): 143156.
Sauntson, Helen. 2007. Education, culture and the construction of sexual identity: An ap-
praisal analysis of lesbian coming out narratives. In Language, Sexualities and Desires:
Cross-Cultural Perspectives, Helen Sauntson & Sakis Kyratzis (eds), 140164. Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Takahashi, Kimie (in press). Language Desire: Gender, Sexuality and Second Language Learning.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Talburt, Susan. 1999. Open secrets and problems of queer ethnography: Readings from a reli-
gious studies classroom. Qualitative Studies in Education 12(5): 525539.
Tinmouth, Jill & Hamwi, Gerald. 1994. The experience of gay and lesbian students in medical
school. The Journal of the American Medical Association 271(9): 716719.
Toynton, Robert. 2010. The de-representation of science and queer science students in higher
education within the queer/gay discourse. Teaching in Higher Education 12(56): 593605.
Vetter, Amy M. 2010. Cause Im a G: Identity work of a lesbian teen in language arts. Journal
of Adolescent and Adult Literacy 54(2): 98108.
Watney, Simon. 2000. Imagine Hope: AIDS and Gay Identity. London: Routledge.
 Emerging queer epistemologies in studies of gay-student discourses 105

Winans, Amy E. 2006. Queering pedagogy in the English classroom: Engaging with the places
where thinking stops. Pedagogy: Critical Approaches to Teaching Literature, Language, Com-
position, and Culture 6(1): 103122.
Youdell, Deborah. 2004. Wounds and reinscriptions: Schools, sexualities and performative sub-
jects. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 25(4): 477493.
Yuchen, Lin, Yang, Chialing & Chang, Mingmin. 2004. The (de/re)construction of and resistance
to the stigmatization of sexualities: Introducing gay and lesbian education in a Taiwanese
high school classroom. Paper presented at the 28th International Federation of University
Women conference, Perth, Australia, Aug 7, 2004.

Authors address
Cynthia D. Nelson
The University of Sydney
Institute for Teaching and Learning
Rm 390 Carslaw Building (F07)
NSW 2006 Australia
cynthia.nelson@sydney.edu.au