TRANSforming language use in science education through trans and queer studies

Recent advancements in research and policy have created promising opportunities for science educators and researchers dedicated to equity and social justice for marginalized learnersi (e.g., National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2022). Despite these strides, the issue of epistemic injustice (Kean, 2021), where certain voices are prioritized over others, persists (Bang et al., 2017; Lee & Stephens, 2020; Tolbert et al., 2024). In science education, valued ways of being, knowing, and communicating are often tied to White, able-bodied, cisgender, and English-speaking norms, which marginalizes certain bodies, identities, and languages (Bourdieu, 1991; Flores & Rosa, 2015; Rende Mendoza & Johnson, 2024; Roberts & Sarangi, 1995). Deficit-oriented ideologies continue to undermine the competencies of marginalized bodies and languages (Harper & Kayumova, 2023), necessitating a critical examination of normative, White-listening learners in science educational spaces (Butler, 2004; Flores & Rosa, 2015; Slaton et al., 2019). By adopting asset-based pedagogies (Lee & Stephens, 2020), science educators can highlight the strengths of marginalized learners, transforming science education into a more humane space. To foster justice-oriented science praxis (Morales-Doyle, 2024), we must reconceptualize language use in science education. Language often acts as a gatekeeper to scientific knowledge (Lee et al., 2023), student investment (Schreuder, 2021), and sense of belonging (Tripp & Waight, 2024). Embracing critical trans studies and queer theory (trans–queer) in science education enables educators and learners to challenge traditional binaries and hierarchies embedded in language, recognizing the assets inherent in linguistic diversity. This commentary explores how trans–queer studies localize critical praxis and inform inclusive language practices in science education, aiming to create safe spaces, agency, and resistance among marginalized bodies, identities, and languages. We call on the science education community to reflect on how to shift from perpetuating the norms of the powerful to empowering marginalized identities, transforming educational spaces into environments that prioritize what can be, rather than what is. To better understand how trans–queer studies influence language use in science education, it is essential to first unpack their core principles. Critical trans studies focus on three fundamental principles: the multifaceted nature of gender, intersectionality, and the importance of epistemic justice and trans epistemologies (Kean, 2021). First, gender is not a singular experience and operates on personal, institutional, and cultural levels. Second, trans studies interrogates the intersectionality of oppression, understanding that genderism interacts with other forms of discrimination, including language bias (Sandil et al., 2015). Third, critical trans studies emphasize the need to center the counter-narratives and experiential knowledge of trans individuals in learning spaces, challenging epistemic injustices of trans erasure and unintelligibility (Kean, 2021; Martino & Cumming-Potvin, 2018). Relatedly, Keenan (2017) proposed four critical trans pedagogies: teaching with honesty, resisting essentialism, unscripting gender, and resisting rigid identities. By prioritizing these principles and pedagogies, trans studies seek to challenge traditional narratives and promote a more inclusive and equitable understanding of gender. Within science education, there is growing scholarship on extending critical trans and queer theory frameworks into science education (Marosi et al., 2024; Rende Mendoza & Johnson, 2024; Wright & Delgado, 2023). Rende Mendoza and Johnson (2024) conducted a phenomenological study of 10 transgender science teachers, leading to the development of a TRANS framework for gender-inclusive pedagogy. This framework ecompasses three domains: interrogating and accessing power; resisting essentialism; and embracing experiential knowledge and personal epistemologies. The authors emphasize the importance of teaching students about the historical misuse of science as a tool of oppression, celebrating LGBTQ+ figures in science, and utilizing language that avoids unnecessary gendering. By including students as co-creators in the learning process, this framework not only enriches science education but also provides a conceptual basis for examining language use in science. Additionally, queer theory challenges normative structures in education, urging educators to resist the "institutionalized regulatory processes of naming, categorizing, normalizing, and explaining" characteristic of STEM education that is used to "define and undermine what's normal and natural, and what's not" (Fifield & Letts, 2019, p. 4). By dismantling these binaries, queer theory fosters new "imaginative possibilities" (Gunckel, 2009, p. 63) for understanding identities and promotes a more inclusive approach to language and discourse within science education. Within science and language education, language use has been examined through translanguaging (e.g., Suárez, 2020; Wei, 2018), language acquisition (e.g., Lippi-Green, 2012), content-language integrated learning (e.g., Tagnin & Ní Ríordáin, 2021), sheltered language instruction (e.g., Buxton & Caswell, 2020), ecological approaches (e.g., van Lier, 2004), multiliteracies (e.g., Lew, 2024), and transepistemic language instruction (e.g., Meighan, 2023). These theories and frameworks highlight various approaches to language learning and use in educational contexts, emphasizing the importance of integrating linguistic resources, social interaction, meaningful communication, and transcultural knowledge to enhance language use in various learning spaces. For instance, translanguaging has been framed as a "decolonizing project" rather than simply the use of multilingual learners' first language for instructional purposes (Wei & García, 2022, p. 314). This framing reveals how multilingual individuals navigate a world enriched by diverse ways of being, knowing, doing, and languaging. Similarly, a transepistemic approach to language teaching and learning advocates for respectful and nonhierarchical meaning making while engaging with languages, individuals, cultures, and physical spaces (Meighan, 2023). While these approaches to language use have raised critical language awareness and pride in multiple ways of doing language, they have remained at the level of instrumentalizing language (e.g., a unitary repertoire of languages vs. socially-constructed languages, language as a bounded, autonomous system, a discipline-bounded meaning-making resource, an idea display tool, a bridge to connect binary worlds: everyday vs. academic) to address and work against inequalities in education (e.g., Bezemer & Kress, 2008; Bunch, 2014; Gutiérrez & Jurow, 2016; Pierson & Grapin, 2021; Turner & Lin, 2020). Through trans–queer studies, we propose that the science education community should promote imaginative and hopeful possibilities for knowers, languagers, and genderers. This approach acknowledges that doing language is dynamic, fluid, nonnormative, and complex. In examining trans–queer studies and language use, we identified three key themes that could inform language use in science education: intersectionality and the social construction of being, knowing and communicating, challenging normative structures and binaries, and promoting lived experiences and epistemic justice. These themes provide a foundation for rethinking language use in science education. In this section, we comment how these principles can be applied to dismantle othering and promote thriving in science learning and teaching spaces. My version of feminist, queer, trans-affirmative politics is not about policing. I don't think we should become the police. I'm afraid of the police. But I think a lot of people feel that the world is out of control, and one place where they can exercise some control is language. And it seems like moral discourse comes in then: Call me this. Use this term. We agree to use this language. What I like most about what young people are doing — and it's not just the young, but everybody's young now, according to me — is the experimentation. I love the experimentation. Like, let's come up with new language. Let's play. Let's see what language makes us feel better about our lives. But I think we need to have a little more compassion for the adjustment process. (Bennett, 2024, para. 15). Butler's quote above aligns with the principles of trans–queer studies discussed earlier. Within the context of intersectionality and the social construction of being, knowing, and communicating, the quote acknowledges the role of language in shaping identity, which is central to the concept of intersectionality and the social construction of bodies and identities. Butler notes, "one place where they can exercise some control is language," indicating that language is a tool through which people define and assert their identities (Bennett, 2024, para. 15). Indeed, emerging research highlights how LGBTQ youth use language to create safe spaces, enact agency, and practice resistance (Schreuder, 2021). She acknowledges that in a world perceived as increasingly out of control, people often turn to language as a means of exerting some level of control. This is evident in the insistence on specific terms or labels as a way to assert identity and demand respect. The idea of "experimentation" with language and "let's come up with new language" reflects the understanding that bodies and identities are not fixed but constructed and reconstructed through language (Bennett, 2024, para. 15). What does intersectionality and the social construction of being, knowing, and communicating tell us about language use in science education? In one of her recent analyses of student work for another project, Ayça observed a beautiful moment of intersectionality and social construction of being, knowing, and communicating in science learning. A fifth-grade student, who had recently immigrated from Nigeria and spoke multiple languages, decided to explain the concept of physical and chemical changes using a spice mix from their kitchen. Holding up the bottle of spices to the Zoom screen, they began their explanation. The classroom teacher, seeing the bottle, assumed it was a store-bought mix and asked, "Does it have a label on it?" The student smiled and replied, "No, it's homemade. We mix these spices ourselves at home." This moment highlights the challenge of co-constructing meaning through integrating lived experience and multidimensional being, knowing, and communicating into science learning. The use of a spice mix from the student's kitchen reflects their cultural background and home practices. This demonstrates how the student's cultural identity influences their approach to learning and talking about scientific concepts. The cultural practice of using homemade spices, which lacked standard labeling, conflicted with the teacher's normative expectations of using standardized ingredients. The teacher's question about the label assumes a specific context that may not align with the student's intersectional identity, leading to othering practices. This underscores the potential for mismatch between home and school environments, yet also presents a productive opportunity to make science learning relevant by integrating students' multidimensional being, knowing, and communicating into science learning. This was a missed opportunity for the teacher to blend different identities in this context as well as for the student to thrive by bridging home and school. Due to power structures, marginalized learners are exposed to the perceptions of their hearers and are labeled according to what is normal and expected, what sounds good, and what counts as a legitimate way of knowing and communicating. The way scientific concepts are communicated can include or exclude certain student groups depending on their cultural and linguistic identities. Existing practices care more about fixing and labeling these learners without reflecting on how their fixing and labeling make them feel about themselves. These practices rarely experiment with hopeful and imaginary ways of being and knowing so that marginalized learners can take agency in reflecting on and deciding what counts as knowledge and language in their learning. Butler's quote challenges normative structures and binaries by rejecting the idea of policing language and identities: "My version of feminist, queer, trans-affirmative politics is not about policing. I don't think we should become the police (Bennett, 2024, para. 15)." This stance opposes rigid norms and binaries, advocating instead for fluidity and flexibility in identity expression. The enthusiasm for "experimentation" and "play" with language suggests a resistance to traditional, binary understandings of gender and identity, promoting a more inclusive and diverse approach (Bennett, 2024, para. 15). This also suggests a dynamic, nonnormative, and evolving approach to language, where creating and trying out new terms can lead to greater self-expression and a better sense of ourselves. How can challenging normative structures and binaries inform how we position language in science education? Social bodies, identities, and languages are understood in this work in a post-structuralist and post-humanistic sense: not as static entities but dynamic, fluid, amorphous, nonnormative, and evolving (Butler, 2004). We are all genderers and languagers in such a way that we are formed as well as we form ourselves (Knisely & Russell, 2024). This understanding is key to working against unfairness in the realm of knowledge involving exclusion and silencing through deliberate misrepresentation of one's ideas or contributions and underestimation of one's position or influence in communicative contexts (Fricker, 2007). The normative structures and binaries show up in learning spaces when an individual is treated unjustly in their role as a provider of knowledge based on their background, language, beliefs, culture, race, age, body, and identity. A very prevailing biased-led example of this is that when an individual speaks with an accent, the listener tends to assign a deflated credibility to them, making assumptions about their competence without considering the actual merit of their ideas. This manifests itself in science classrooms in which marginalized students are "invisibilized and overshadowed by deficit-based discourses centered around language" (Harper & Kayumova, 2023, p. 1118). Based on their race, gender, and linguistic abilities, students who are figuring their worlds in the margin have been labeled as struggling and lacking and have been exposed to a false, deficit-based narrative about their competencies in doing science (García, 2020; García & Solorza, 2020; Morton & Parsons, 2018; Wade-Jaimes et al., 2021). Language also plays a crucial role in defining and interacting with gender identities in science classrooms, where oppressive language can often prevail. It is essential to counteract such language in various science learning and teaching communities. One key aspect is to avoid portraying LGBTQ people as merely needing to be saved, which reinforces a deficit view that pathologizes them as victims (Gorski et al., 2013; Wright et al., 2024). Instead, we should adopt asset-based perspectives that empower LGBTQ people by highlighting their strengths and contributions. Rather than assimilating, pathologizing, othering, and policing diverse ways of languaging in science classrooms, we should reframe perspectives on language using nonnormative and nonbinary structures to open up science learning spaces for students to thrive in embodying and talking science. This requires purposeful designs of instructional practices that center on diverse ways of being and knowing in science learning spaces (Kayumova & Dou, 2022). This also requires avoiding the trapfall of what we call an add-marginalization-and stir approach where language and LGBTQ diversity is relegated to heroes, celebrations, and discrete cultural elements (Knisely & Paiz, 2021; Lustick et al., 2024). Instead we must embed these perspectives into the curriculum as part of critical interdisciplinary literacy and acculturation to underscore how science teaching and learning are performed in and through language. This shift moves away from an additive approach to language use towards a more integrative and transformative practice that values identities and languages as promotive for science learning and teaching. We believe that marginalized learners can take control of their languaging practices and reposition themselves as thriving learners in science learning spaces, promoting a dynamic and evolving intersectionality of their bodies, identities, and languages. Butler emphasizes the importance of understanding and respecting individuals' personal experiences and the language they choose to describe them: "Call me this. Use this term. We agree to use this language (Bennett, 2024, para. 15)." This reflects an appreciation for lived experiences and the recognition that individuals have the right to define and claim their own identities. This indicates that language choices are not just about communication but also about validating and affirming identities. This affirmative action involves the creativity of marginalized groups as they redefine their identities beyond societal constraints, foster and sustain their communities, and strive to enhance these environments for themselves and future generations (Pease et al., 2024). The call for "a little more compassion for the adjustment process" highlights the need for empathy and respect for personal journeys, aligning with the principles of epistemic justice, which advocate for the acknowledgment and valuation of marginalized perspectives and knowledge (Bennett, 2024, para. 15). As language evolves and new terms are introduced, there is an acknowledgment that individuals may need time to adapt. This compassion is crucial for fostering an inclusive and safe space where everyone can learn, grow, and be their authentic self. Why does promoting lived social experiences and epistemic justice matter when it comes to languaging in science learning and teaching spaces? Leveraging lived experiences and fostering epistemic justice are crucial in science learning and teaching spaces because it ensures that diverse perspectives and knowledge systems are acknowledged and respected. This inclusivity enriches the learning environment and allows learners to connect doing and talking science to their own experiences and cultural backgrounds, focusing on helping them thrive (Cian & Dou, 2024; Fackler, 2024). It also promotes equity by recognizing and addressing the power imbalances that can marginalize certain voices, leading to a more just and effective science learning experience for all learners (Harper & Kayumova, 2023). To accomplish this, we should actively involve educators and researchers in addressing not only the technical aspects of teaching and learning with multilingual students but also in critically understanding the systemic power dynamics among languages, the ways we perform them, and the ways we make them count in learning spaces (Prasad & Bettney Heidt, 2023). Understanding how queer and trans people thrive is critical to this discourse. For example, in a lesson on chemical resonance—where chemical bonds can be arranged into different structures within molecules—a ninth and eleventh grade physical science and chemistry trans, nonbinary science teacher uses an NPR podcast (Rende, 2022). In this podcast, a nonbinary scientist explains how chemistry and resonance impacted their understanding "that it is natural and normal to be a human who exists between categories" (Rende, 2022, p. 102). This creativity is also seen in how trans people of color develop an understanding of themselves outside rigid societal norms, survive within these contexts, and seek to improve them for themselves and future generations (Pease et al., 2024). One way to help marginalized learners express their authentic selves beyond normative constraints is to shift from the concept of the White listener-as-science teacher to the multilingual listener-as-science teacher. It has the potential to change how we perform languages and how we make them count in science learning spaces. For instance, the way a student performs languages can greatly influence the level of credibility attributed to them by teachers, bearing both a social and an epistemic significance (Fricker, 2007). Similarly, when a student speaking English as an additional language mispronounces a word or selects an incorrect term to convey their thoughts, it is interpreted as a lack of understanding. Discrediting them for such language nuances leads to an unjust erosion of credibility, indicative of epistemic injustice. This deficiency may place marginalized learners at a disadvantage in understanding and making sense of their lived, social experiences. Instead of othering, gatekeeping, and pathologizing, educators should think about designing science learning spaces as a place and structure for dignity-affirming praxis (Espinoza et al., 2020). This dignity-affirming praxis can stem from actively providing learners with safe spaces and agency in the learning process. Despite the challenges, this praxis can also arise from resisting barriers to accessible learning opportunities (Espinoza & Vossoughi, 2014). This commentary discusses how trans–queer studies can transform language use in science education, emphasizing individual agency, safe spaces, resistance, visibility, and respectful engagement. By challenging normativity and unintelligibility, we advocate for using trans–queer insights to create more inclusive and dynamic language frameworks. The science education community should adopt intersectional approaches to address structural oppressive systems, fostering embodied autonomy and agency in marginalized learners. Trans–queer studies provide a framework for TRANSforming language use in science education, enhancing opportunities for marginalized learners to experience dignity and authenticity in their learning. As Philip and Sengupta (2021) suggest, how we conceptualize learning reflects our vision for society. The future of our society depends on our ability to create hopeful and imaginative possibilities where all students can thrive authentically.