Gender and Sexual Diversity in Language Education: Global Approaches to Educational Media

This chapter introduces the reader to the many issues schools are facing that relate to gender and sexual diversity. This chapter presents a brief overview of some of the main topics including bullying and harassment, diversity and equity, sexual and emotional health, positive school climates, and academic success. It also presents some related educational theories and situates how the theoretical foundations of each argue for inclusive discussions of gender and sexual diversity. The following educational philosophies are introduced: democratic, critical pedagogy, multicultural, social justice, feminist, anti-oppressive, and queer. Finally, the chapter gives examples from the curriculum, extracurricular activities, and school design to show how sexual and gender diversity are already present in schools, but generally not addressed in positive or inclusive ways.

Gays, Cross-Dressers, and Emos

PurposeThe objective of this proposal was to propose an educational innovation resource for the delivery of workshops with lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex and asexual (LGBTQIA) themes aimed at students in high school and middle school to promote complex thinking as a necessary competency for understanding their continuously changing environment.Design/methodology/approachTraining for sexual and gender diversity challenges higher education institutions, some of which have bet on developing complex thinking to meet this need. Although not all universities have sufficient resources to create activities that foster relevant and diversity-sensitive competencies, some have implemented strategies ranging from modifying their curricula to designing specific classroom tasks that support student inclusion. In response to the challenges faced by higher education institutions (HEIs) to promote the acquisition of thinking skills for complexity, this paper proposes deploying a humanoid robot as an educational innovation tool in training initiatives that promote issues of sexual and gender diversity. The deployment model is described, considering design, delivery and evaluation. The value of this proposal lies in using humanoid robotics as a classroom resource within the framework of social robotics, considering its implications in the educational context to develop complex thinking competency and training for diversity in higher education students.FindingsThe data presented here highlight the importance of educational institutions integrating content into their plans, programs and activities (both curricular and extracurricular) that promote inclusion and sexual and gender diversity and attractive teaching strategies to reinforce this perspective. So, this proposal offers a support tool for implementing this content in everyday educational contexts where the objectives focus on triggering complex reasoning competencies.Research limitations/implicationsThe varied responses and perceptions of students towards robotics and sexual diversity, as well as the lack of clear methods to assess educational outcomes, may compromise the effectiveness of the intervention.Practical implicationsThe workshop proposed in this paper is configured as a series of iterations and repetitions in different educational fields, whether disciplinary (e.g. design or engineering) or transversal (e.g. entrepreneurship). The goal is to achieve educational strategies that generate a more significant impact at the institutional level. In this sense, the present proposal joins the actions implemented by other higher education institutions to make sexual and gender diversity visible to university students.Social implicationsThe overall aim is to bring awareness, understanding and education to students with an inclusive, respectful and equitable perspective.Originality/valueSocial robotics is an innovative and attractive tool for young people at the higher education level. We consider our study a pioneer in the area.

Sexuality- and gender-diverse (SGD) young people experience substantial health disparities relative to cisgender heterosexual peers. Little is known about SGD adolescents younger than 15 years. To describe SGD prevalence and associated factors in a population-representative cohort of younger adolescents in Australia. This prospective cohort study was part of the Future Proofing Study, with enrollment of year 8 students at 134 Australian secondary schools from 2019 to 2021 and annual follow-ups for 5 years. Data were analyzed from June 20, 2023, to June 6, 2024. Outcomes of interest were baseline self-reported gender and sexuality identities, individual characteristics, and mental health and disability diagnoses, as well as school characteristics. Among 6388 participants, median (IQR) age was 13.9 (13.6-15.8), with a range of 10.7 to 17.5 years. Most participants attended school in a major city (76.0%), were born in Australia (91.4%), and spoke English at home (93.7%). Approximately half (3122 participants; 48.9% [95% CI, 45.2%-59.0%]) identified as female or girls, and 46.5% (2973 participants; 95% CI, 39.8%-53.4%) identified as male or boys. The overall proportion of transgender identity was 3.3% (95% CI, 2.7%-3.9%), with 23 participants (0.4%) identifying as transgender boys, 10 participants (0.2%) identifying as transgender girls, 117 participants (1.8%) identifying as transgender nonbinary, and 59 participants (0.9%) identifying as another transgender identity. The overall proportion of sexuality diversity was 12.0% (95% CI, 10.4%-13.8%). The proportion of cisgender participants who were sexuality-diverse (13.0% [95% CI, 11.4%-14.8%] of girls and 4.7% [95% CI, 3.7%-5.9%] of boys) was lower than the proportion among gender-diverse participants, which ranged from 30.0% (95% CI, 9.3%-64.1%) of transgender girls to 91.5% (95% CI, 81.3%-96.4%) of those with another diverse gender identity. Gender diversity and sexuality diversity were strongly associated (odds ratio [OR], 66.24; 95% CI, 38.23-114.80), and both were negatively associated with age (gender diversity: OR per 1-year older, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.49-0.76; sexuality diversity: OR per 1-year older, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.65-0.93) and positively with mental health diagnosis (gender diversity: OR, 2.41; 95% CI, 1.79-3.24; sexuality diversity: OR, 2.50; 95% CI, 2.10-2.98), and disability diagnosis (gender diversity: OR, 2.39; 95% CI, 1.68-3.40; sexuality diversity: OR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.64-2.36). While there were significant associations between individual and school characteristics and responses to gender and sexuality identity items, patterns of association differed, with no consistent association with economic disadvantage. This cohort study of young adolescents found higher rates of SGD than among samples of older adolescents. The significant associations with younger age, poorer mental health, and disability underscored the urgent need for inclusive programs to promote a safe and welcoming environment in schools, health care settings, and communities.

Rick Kern's (2024, this issue) critical engagement with the implications of technological advancements such as artificial intelligence (AI) and machine translation in the postpandemic era should prompt many to reflect on the so-called "existential crisis" we face, both as language teachers and as human beings. Language teachers, like many other professionals (e.g., accountants and lawyers), may fear that they will be replaced by AI (e.g., Felix, 2020) while modern language education programs already face funding cuts in many contexts such as the United States and Australia (e.g., Gao & Zheng, 2019; Lanvers et al., 2018). For this reason, I completely agree with the premise that there is a need for language educators to identify the affordances and constraints presented by technological tools in language education. It is also critical to ascertain how we can draw on intellectual sources to help language teachers make informed use of technological tools to provide the best possible learning experience for language learners. At the same time, however, I wonder if the challenges that technological advancements present for language teachers may require more in-depth elaboration. Such an elaboration might help us better "articulate and communicate the value of language study" (Kern, 2024, this issue, p. XX) for the public and implement the pathways in language (teacher) education advanced by Kern. It should be noted that technological developments such as the rise of generative AI pose challenges for most professions. Generative AI tools have already been tested for their ability to replace humans in the fields of accountancy and law (e.g., Choi et al., 2021; Vasarhelyi et al., 2023), and language teachers may also feel their profession is at risk. A counterargument against "fearmongering" discourses about this technological development is the assertion that AI can replace human beings for the completion of individual tasks but cannot replace their jobs altogether. Indeed, professions such as teaching involve complex orchestration of multiple tasks (e.g., delivering content, facilitating thinking, and guiding and supporting learning), which is beyond the current capacity of generative AI tools. As an increasing number of tasks can be executed by these new technological means, however, the ways in which human beings are needed in these jobs are also likely to change. In the context of language learning and use, technologies such as machine translation may generate inaccurate texts, but they are sufficient for communication tasks that do not require high levels of precision. For instance, as a journal editor, I may need to look up a colleague in a Turkish university to find out whether their research background and expertise match a manuscript that needs to be reviewed. I would not be able to understand the content of this colleague's webpage on their university's staff directory, which would be in Turkish, if I did not use Google Translate in my Chrome browser. While it is possible that Google Translate would not accurately translate the entire website from Turkish into English, it would be adequate to help me to decide whether this colleague had sufficient expertise to review the manuscript. In a similar way, I imagine that hundreds of such day-to-day professional tasks do not require translations that are 100% accurate. For example, generative AI tools can help people to create texts such as letters of complaint or appreciation in different languages. Machine translation and generative AI tools can help people overcome language barriers without necessarily needing to learn new languages to complete these tasks. Most of these tasks involve the transactional use of language (i.e., the communication of information for exchange), a form of language use that has motivated many learners to learn languages in traditional classrooms. It should also be noted that machine translation and generative AI tools are undergoing further development and refinement. Kern's (2024, this issue, p. X) article suggests that generative AI tools such as ChatGPT are "harmful to a social understanding of knowledge and learning" because they do not make the sources of knowledge explicit, have "no notion of empirical truth," and "no conception of a theoretical frame" (Peters et al., 2023, pp. 14−15), and cannot apply ethical principles in the course of reasoning. Moreover, generative AI tools tend to appear to be "uncritically affirmative" (Peters et al., 2023, pp. 14−15). In my view, these issues cannot be fixed through continuous technological developments, but it is likely that generative AI tools will function as if they have appropriate understandings of empirical truth and use theoretical frameworks when presenting views on particular issues. They may also appear to have balanced views on different topics and to use ethical principles when elaborating upon these views. As an applied linguist, I cannot evaluate how well generative AI tools are "learning" and what they are capable of in terms of functionality in the future. However, it is very likely that the community of language teachers faces a crisis, as the rise of generative AI tools will lead to a worldwide diminishing of the scale of language education. Opportunities to learn languages will likely be reserved for those aiming for an expert level of proficiency and competence that enables them to outperform and manage machine translation and generative AI tools in language use; or those who are intrinsically motivated to learn languages. Will this create a world in which people are categorized into those who have the resources and expertise to manage technological tools, and those who depend on such tools? The growing inequity as a result of this knowledge gap is beyond the scope of this response, but the crisis engulfing language education has important ramifications for language teachers, which I shall now rely on Chinese cultural wisdom to discuss. The dialectical idea of "crisis" in the Chinese language "危机 wei ji" means both "danger [危 wei]" and "opportunity [机 ji]" (Wang, 2014). In the spirit of Kern's (2024, this issue) article, the crisis here presents an opportunity for language educators to rethink the values involved in the study of language and how these values can be articulated and realized. Such critical reflections and conversations will help reenergize language education with new understandings and commitments. It is my contention that the changes that must take place in language education have been well presented in Kern's (2024) article. For this reason, I will focus on the critical question of how we can "articulate and communicate the value of language study" to the public to develop a clear agenda for language teacher education moving forward. My first response regarding the value of language study against the backdrop of technological developments is that language learning needs to be promoted as a fundamentally humanistic endeavor. Many tasks involving the transactional use of language can be performed with improved functionality by rapidly evolving machine translation and generative AI tools. Although generative AI tools may appear to be increasingly humanlike when interacting with us, our deep, intrinsic needs—such as a sense of belonging, identity aspirations, and desirable attributes associated with speaking languages other than our own (such as "coolness," creativity, etc.)—cannot be satisfied by these tools. The value of language study lies in the human life journeys that language teachers undertake together with learners. I recall what my English language teacher used to say many years ago: You can live multiple lives if you learn to speak multiple languages. Nevertheless, I understand that we must develop a much more persuasive message if we are to persuade the public to value language studies. Let us shift our attention to other professions where automation can replace human beings, but human beings still play a critical role. For example, autopilot technology is already quite well developed in the aviation industry. We now have the technology to pilot a plane from takeoff to landing, yet we still rely on human pilots to operate planes. The obvious reason is that we do not want human beings to lose the essential skills and capacity required to operate increasingly sophisticated modern aircraft in complex situations. If we fully rely on automatic instruments to fly the plane, pilots may not have the opportunity to operate these planes themselves. Reliance on human pilots for the operation of aircraft helps ensure that the world still has reliable pilots if technology fails. We also want to remain the "masters" of technological tools. The same reasoning can be applied in defense of language study: It can be argued that language makes us human, and language use is an essential characteristic of our humanity. If we rely on technological tools for human interaction, we will have fewer opportunities to develop critical skills, competence, and practices for cross-cultural communication and mutual understanding. Which tasks can be replaced by technological tools that can perform them more efficiently than human beings? Which tasks can be replaced by technological tools but should be retained by human beings as essential skills? Which tasks cannot be performed entirely with technological tools but can be approached by using these tools to facilitate the growth of our skills, knowledge, competencies, attributes, and dispositions? A lack of rigorous answers to these questions will undermine the efforts of language educators to respond to the challenges posed by technological developments. Robust responses to these questions will help language teachers identify where they stand in relation to technological developments and the need for effective pedagogy. For example, generative AI tools may help us remove grammatical infelicities in our written language and improve the quality of our writing as users of English as an additional language. It is perfectly reasonable for us to use these tools to help us write texts in languages other than our own. However, this does not mean that learners should also give up learning the skills needed to notice and appropriate target language forms. Another example involves the use of technologies that may help learners to spend less time drilling and practicing their linguistic knowledge. This does not mean that learners do not need to develop the capacity and disposition needed to monitor and reflect upon their language development, either. In this way, language education researchers may now need to identify a repertoire of essential skills, knowledge, competencies, attributes, and dispositions that human beings should retain as language users, regardless of whether technological tools can replace human beings in the completion of many tasks connected to language use. For instance, language learners want to be heard and listened to, while language teachers also want to promote language learners' acquisition of linguistic knowledge and skills, as well as fostering their personal growth in teaching. In order to achieve such aspirations, language teachers and learners need to work together to find the most effective ways to develop language learners into agentic and lifelong learners who are capable of creating learning opportunities for themselves—learners who are resilient, persevering, and highly motivated; who can regulate their learning processes, and believe in their own capacity to take control of language learning (Larsen-Freeman et al., 2021). Indeed, the use of technological tools such as generative AI can give language teachers the time and opportunity to focus on the development of the list of essential skills, knowledge, competencies, attributes, and dispositions that may otherwise receive insufficient attention. The effort to identify this list of qualities addresses the critical question language educators must answer to the public regarding the value of language study. Further research is required to demonstrate the value of the essential skills, knowledge, competencies, attributes, and dispositions language learners can develop through their learning process. For instance, language learners' perception of self-efficacy, which relates to their beliefs about what they can learn and how they can manage their learning process, is essential for their development through learning both subject content and languages. While learners may develop a positive perception of self-efficacy through language learning, this can also be promoted in other arenas, such as learning mathematics or participating in sports. For this reason, I suggest that language teachers focus on the variety of skills, knowledge, competencies, attributes, and dispositions that are unique to the learning of languages, rather than more generic counterparts. As an example, intercultural communicative competence is a highly desirable attribute that language learners can develop through learning languages. At this point, it is not clear whether future technological tools will be capable of detecting and appropriately responding to subtle cultural nuances in the context of intercultural communication, but this is a valuable, essential skill for human beings to retain (e.g., Gao & Yang, 2023). When language teachers possess a list of what can be best learned through language education, we can achieve a clear articulation of the value of language study for the public. Language teachers also need this list to clarify the roles that they must perform in this brave new world. In my perspective, the shifting responses to the roles of language teachers by generative AI tools presented in Kern's (2024, this issue) article are at once deeply comforting and concerning. The article indicates that generative AI tools are learning how to respond based on the available language data at their disposal, which suggests that we are still refining our thoughts on this critical question. I can imagine that their responses will become increasingly sophisticated as language educators' engagement with this critical question deepens. At present, these responses highlight the role that teachers have in providing emotional support to language learners in terms of motivation, confidence, and engagement. Additionally, human teachers are responsive to individual language learners' needs, preferences, and styles when monitoring, regulating, and facilitating language learners' learning processes. Human teachers promote language learners' critical reflections on values and norms to develop a better sense of self and belonging toward community building. Human teachers are also believed to facilitate language learners' development of knowledge, skills, and dispositions for adaptive and creative responses in real-world environments. However, these represent patterns of responses that human beings have been producing to the question as captured and identified by the AI tools. As such, they likely reflect our limited understanding of what technological tools are capable of at present, and how they may evolve into in the future. While these responses are valuable, I also wonder if they partly reflect the wishful thinking of language educators. As generative AI tools are further refined in terms of their functionality, I imagine that these tools can perform the aforementioned tasks that have been ascribed to human teachers so far. These tools may appear to behave as if they were language teachers who attempt to provide emotional and human support to language learners; offer feedback responsive to language learners' needs, preferences, and styles; facilitate their critical skills of reflection and reflexion; and enable language learners with knowledge and skills to promote their adaptability and creativity. The fundamental difference between generative AI tools and human teachers is found at the fact that these are not essential qualities of AI tools but rather represent their behavioral functions. Importantly, these are qualities that human teachers cannot afford to lose. As a result, language teacher education programs should reorient themselves to focus on the development of these essential qualities that language teachers must offer as human teachers (Gao, 2019). While the changes induced by technological developments do not fundamentally change the roles that language teachers play in education, they do indicate that language teachers must prepare for the shifting priorities in their professional practice. Consequently, language teacher education programs must also adjust their pedagogical priorities so that they can better prepare language teachers for the need to adapt their teaching practice to the new world to come. Language teacher education programs help language teachers to develop a critical awareness of technological affordances and constraints so that they can be clear about the mission they undertake as human teachers: They need to develop the knowledge, skills, and dispositions that are essential for human beings to maintain. Without these essential attributes, humans may be unable to claim ourselves as human agents in control of our own life and existence. The humanistic aspects of language education should become more prominent as human language teachers focus on the satisfaction of language learners' intrinsic and integrative needs, while technological tools address the instrumental needs of language learners. Language teacher education programs may need to focus on developing language teachers' adequate understandings of technological tools so that they use these tools effectively in collaboration with language learners to facilitate their personal growth (Tao & Gao, 2022). Effective use of these tools will create time and space for the development of the skills, knowledge, competencies, attributes, and dispositions that have not been well addressed in traditional language classrooms, in which the main tasks of learning and teaching relate to linguistic knowledge. Language teacher education programs prepare preservice language teachers who need to teach languages other than their own for using technological tools to help develop and refine their knowledge of these languages. Pedagogical priorities will shift toward the learning and teaching of language-related outcomes, including intercultural communication, as well as nonlinguistic outcomes such as perseverance, adaptability, and creativity. Teaching can also focus on the growth of inner resources such as agency, so that learners have opportunities to develop these crucial inner resources (Larsen-Freeman, 2019). For example, teachers might use learner-oriented feedback to allow language learners to choose the aspects of their learning that they would like to receive feedback on and how they would like feedback to be given to them. As technology increasingly replaces human beings in the performance of a variety of tasks, it is critical for language educators to reorient our focus toward developing the essential skills, knowledge, competencies, attributes, and dispositions that make us human through learning languages. For me, the crisis brought about by technological developments presents an opportunity for language educators to revive the fundamentally humanistic cause of language education—that is, to promote critical cultural and human understandings and to bring people together so that we can respond to the existential crises facing the human race, such as climate change and war. Open access publishing facilitated by University of New South Wales, as part of the Wiley - University of New South Wales agreement via the Council of Australian University Librarians.

A escassa literatura sobre ensino jurídico e diversidade sexual e de gênero indica que as faculdades seguem um padrão tradicional e tecnicista, não dialogando com questões sociais, necessárias para profissionais do Direito. Diante disso, o presente trabalho buscou investigar se futuros profissionais se sentem preparados para lidar com questões relacionadas à diversidade sexual e de gênero e quais relações eles estabelecem entre suas formações universitárias e seus graus de preparo/competência. Foi realizada, então, uma pesquisa empírica de cunho exploratório, através da aplicação de 200 questionários com estudantes do último ano da graduação em Direito de uma universidade particular de Recife. Os dados coletados foram tabulados e analisados através de uma abordagem quantitativa, demonstrando, sobretudo, que apesar de uma parcela significativa (40%) dos pesquisados se sentir preparada para trabalhar com demandas de diversidade de gênero e sexualidade na sua prática profissional, poucos deles atribuem essa preparação ao ensino universitário, ou seja, 76,5% apontam que a universidade não ofereceu (13,5%) ou ofereceu pouca (63%) formação em diversidade sexual e de gênero. Com isso, então, pode-se dizer que o pensamento jurídico brasileiro carrega raízes do modelo positivista e, por isso, se limita, muitas vezes, ao que está posto nas leis e códigos. É necessário repensar o modelo de ensino jurídico vigente, suas características e a atuação docente perante o mesmo e, assim, potencializar o Direito enquanto ciência que desempenhe um papel importante no combate à discriminação, ao preconceito, produzindo mecanismos que garantam, efetivamente, direitos fundamentais a populações vulneráveis.

Tiresias and His Trouble with Ambiguity in Gender Marco Posadas (bio) To begin, I would like to identify my position as chair of the Sexual and Gender Diversity Studies Committee of the International Psychoanalytical Association (IPA). The IPA is the first, oldest, and largest international psychoanalytical association in the world. It was created by Freud with the help of Ferenzci, Jung, Eitington, Abraham, and Jones in 1910 with the purpose of organizing what started to be a body of theory and clinical mental health practice, and for the promotion of scientific activities at an international level. Today the IPA has almost fourteen thousand members and more than six thousand candidates within three consolidated regions—North America (including China, Korea, and Japan), Europe (including New Zealand, Australia, India, and South Africa), and Latin America—and a new, fourth region, Asia, which hopes to consolidate China, Korea, Japan, India, New Zealand, and Australia. It organizes a biannual international congress that is one of the largest psychoanalytic events in the world. The IPA has four official languages—English, French, German, and Spanish—and more than fifty languages among all its constituent psychoanalytic societies and institutes. A large part of its organizational and scientific work is divided, planned and executed by committees. Committees are appointed by the executive committee and ratified by the IPA board. The committee I chair was appointed by Stefano Bolognini's administration in June 2017. Our committee is fortunate to continue to be strongly supported [End Page 93] by Virginia Ungar, the first female president of the IPA, and Vice President Sergio Nick's administration. Before the creation of the Sexual and Gender Diversity Studies Committee, during its planning stages, there was already a lot of ambiguity around addressing issues of gender and sexual diversities in psychoanalysis. An important part of the committee's mandate is to create spaces for IPA-affiliated psychoanalysts and candidates and for non-IPA-affiliated psychodynamic clinicians and psychotherapists, among an increasing number of people interested in psychoanalysis, to discuss issues pertaining to psychoanalytic clinical theory and practice and to the intersection of sexual and gender diversity. Although our committee had anticipated the resistance that has been historically present when addressing these types of topics in psychoanalytic institutions (Drescher 2008; Roughton 1995, 2002), we were not able to identify and agree upon a specific point of contingence within psychoanalytic theory and practice that could cause the most resistance. This article is an initial step to engage with the resistance encountered in analytic spaces when we shift from a binary system to a non-binary way of thinking gender and sexuality. I will describe the experience in an attempt to provide models of understanding and working through these types of conflicts. Why am I calling it a conflict? This will be better answered with an example, in this case a non-clinical general vignette. I will disguise the participants' identities and will use a composite vignette to protect confidentiality. The Trouble with Ambiguity In 2016, I was delivering a workshop to strengthen clinical skills when working with racialized LGBTQ patients from a psychoanalytic perspective using an anti-oppressive approach. I was surprised to hear a senior analyst openly state from the back of the room that they preferred to hold on to their prejudices regarding trans and gender-creative patients. The audience mostly consisted of psychoanalysts, psychoanalytic candidates, training [End Page 94] analysts, and psychology graduates interested in psychoanalysis. Given the wide range of the audience and our shared interest in psychoanalysis, I usually clarify Freud's "progressive" perspective toward homosexual patients and the distortions of Freud's statements as the message got passed around through generations of culturally sanctioned homophobic clinicians (Socarides 1968; Roughton 2002). The questions from this particular audience led to a discussion about misconceptions in psychoanalytic literature about trans experiences and of trans bodies being misrepresented and misdiagnosed as psychotic (Millot 1989). Addressing misrepresentations of gender variance rooted in prejudiced formulations of trans subjectivities within psychoanalytic theory and proposing less-biased ways of approaching gender polymorphism from a non-pathological perspective can be a complicated task. This is not unheard-of in our field; in fact, queer theorists, Lacanian analysts, and transgender...

LGBTQA+ young people experience suicidal thoughts and behaviors at a much greater rate than their heterosexual and cisgender peers. This study explored firsthand accounts of the coping strategies employed by LGBTQA+ young people when experiencing suicidal thoughts and behaviors. LGBTQA+ young people (N = 27; ages 14–25) in Australia with a history of suicidal thoughts and/or attempts participated in semi-structured interviews. Using reflexive thematic analysis, four major themes were developed: (1) It’s about the journey, not the destination, (2) Connecting with others, (3) When I knew better, I coped better, and (4) Doing the best I can with what I have. LGBTQA+ young people reported utilizing a range of coping strategies, however these were limited by a lack of knowledge around mental health, gender and sexuality diversity, and available resources. Experiences of discrimination within support settings and limited access to clinicians with knowledge of sexuality and gender diversity were cited as significant barriers. Interventions to increase mental health literacy in LGBTQA+ young people and improvements to clinician knowledge of sexuality and gender diversity are needed to enhance LGBTQA+ young people’s access to effective coping strategies when experiencing suicidal thoughts and behaviors.

Recent research on gender and sexual majority individuals suggests that their attractions, identities, and experiences may not be as homogenous or easily generalizable as is often assumed. Sexual configurations theory (SCT; van Anders, 2015) is a framework for conceptualizing individuals' partnered sexualities and gender/sexes with a focus on gender/sex and sexual diversity. SCT has been successfully used in recent empirical work with gender and sexual minority individuals (Schudson, Manley, Diamond, & van Anders, 2018), but it has not yet been tested with heterosexual, cisgender individuals. In the present study, we tested the use of SCT in qualitative interviews with 26 gender and sexual majority participants to address the following research questions: What are the strengths and weaknesses of SCT for representing heterosexual, cisgender individuals' gender/sexes and partnered sexualities? How do gender and sexual majority individuals use SCT to express their gender/sexes and partnered sexualities? And, what insights about sexual and gender diversity can be gained from using SCT with a gender and sexual majority sample? Using thematic analysis, we evaluated how participants interacted with SCT and the SCT diagrams. Results showed that our participants used components of SCT to convey comprehensive and nuanced interests, which included gender/sex and sexual diversity outside of what is typically expected in research on heterosexual, cisgender individuals. We discuss findings and challenges specific to working with majority participants and offer implications for future work on gender/sex and sexual majorities and on gender/sex and sexual diversity in general.

The main objective of this study was to explore the perceptions of LGBTQIA+ students regarding sexual and gender diversity in the university context by (1) identifying conceptions about a being LGBTQIA+ student in the higher education context, (2) researching perceptions of the stigma and discrimination against, and inclusion of LGBTQIA+ students and (3) to recognize discourses and scenarios identified by students in the university context regarding sexual diversity and gender diversity, distinguishing their experiences in the classroom as well as in the university, with their peers and with their professors. This research was based on a quantitative method, the sample consisted of 171 students from the School of Medicine of a public university in the United States in the state of Texas. The results showed that there is currently a greater knowledge of the subject of sexual and gender diversity and of the spaces and resources offered by the university on the subject compared to previous years, however, it is found that knowledge is still limited and that this knowledge may possibly be due to the faculty in which they study.

Introduction. Theoretical Issues. 1. Language Attitudes and Educational Policy H. Christ. 2. Language Planning and Education M. Fettes. 3. Critical Applied Linguistics and Education A. Pennycook. 4. Linguistic Discrimination in Educational Contexts J. Baugh. 5. Language Policy and Political Issues in Language Education D. Waite. Minorities and Education. 6. Human Rights and Language Policy in Education T. Skutnabb-Kangas. 7. International Law and Education in a Minority Language W.K. Hastings. 8. Language Policies for Indigenous People D. Corson. 9. National Sign Languages and Language Policies J. Branson. 10. Non-Standard Varieties and Educational Polity D. Corson. Specific Areas. 11. Language Policies for a Multicultural Britain N. Rassool. 12. Language Policy and Education in Australia M. Clyne. 13. Language Policy and Education in the US T. Ricento. 14. Language Policy and Education in Canada B. Burnaby. 15. Language Policy and Education in Francophone Countries S. Babault, C. Caitucoli. 16. Language Policy and Education in South Africa U. Smit. 17. Language and Education in the Indian Sub-Continent L. Khubchandani. 18. Language Policy and Education in New Zealand and the South Pacific R. Watts. Practical and Empirical Issues. 19. The Politics of English Language Teaching R. Philipson. 20. Media in Education T. van Leeuwen. 21. Language Policy in Teacher Education H. Christ. 22. School Language Politics St.A. May. 23. Teaching Language and Power H. Janks. Index.

This study involved an analysis of the teaching guides for the subjects included in Spain’s primary education teaching degree programmes to determine if content on affective-sexual education was included. Mixed methods were employed to examine 132 teaching guides from 108 universities. The results revealed an abundance of subject areas in which some of the subject content had a focus on sexuality diversity, but specific courses or modules with a focus on the topic were scarce. Three key thematic areas were identified: family diversity, gender, and sexuality and gender diversity. Our quantitative analysis identified that sexuality related content was offered to a greater extent in universities that were publicly funded, non-religious in their affiliation, founded before 1980, and with more than 10,000 students currently enrolled. The main conclusion we reached is that primary education teachers in Spain are not adequately prepared to engage with gender and sexuality diversity in the classroom.

The South African Schools Act of 1996 inaugurated a new education system that confronts all forms of unfair discrimination and intolerance. South African schools remain heteronormative and heterosexist. We report on learners' attitudes and experiences towards the learning of LGBT issues. Using a case study methodology, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 11 high school learners. Findings reveal that sexual and gender diversity is not taught in schools due to a lack of knowledge, ignorance and stereotyping of gender and sexuality. We learned that gender and sexual diversity is a silent topic in schools and that silence perpetuate the compulsory heteronormative culture in schools. However, young people are exposed to and confront same-sex sexualities from different sources since many of the peers are disclosing their same-sex sexualities at younger ages. This study concludes that learners are positive and willing to learn about sexual diversity. If the learners are ready to be taught then we will have to revisit those who are charged with teaching, the educators. We conclude that the educators seem to be the barriers to the teachers and learning of sexual diversity and more research will have to look at in and pre-service teacher education.

The rapid growth of social media has significantly shaped education, particularly in language learning across Saudi Arabia. This study examines how platforms such as TikTok, Instagram, and X (formerly Twitter) are being integrated into English language teaching. Using a mixed-methods approach, data were collected through surveys from 150 university students, interviews with 10 English instructors, and content analysis of some followed English-learning accounts on these platforms. Findings showed that around 75% of students use TikTok for learning English, mainly to improve vocabulary and pronunciation, while 65% rely on Instagram for similar purposes. Instructors see the potential of these platforms to enhance student engagement but also express concerns about cultural appropriateness, digital distractions, and the lack of institutional support. Content analysis showed that successful educational accounts attract higher engagement when they include interactive features, visually rich content, and culturally relevant topics. Despite these benefits, challenges remain, such as unequal access to devices and limited digital literacy. While some studies have examined social media in education, there is a noticeable gap in research focusing on its practical use in English language instruction within the Saudi Arabian context. In line with Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030, which prioritizes English proficiency, this study concludes that social media can serve as a useful supplement to traditional language instruction. It also provides recommendations for educators and content creators to better integrate these tools into English education while addressing current limitations.

Shortlisted for the 2023 British Association for Applied Linguistics (BAAL) Book Prize This book combines teaching-informed research studies and research-informed teaching accounts which explore English language education that engages with gender and sexual diversity. Informed by critical theories, critical literacy, post-structuralism, queer theory, and indigeneity/(de)coloniality, the critical perspectives in this volume consider gender and sexuality as dimensions of human life and aim to promote sexual, gender, emotional and relational wellbeing together with the construction of cultural horizons and citizenship. The chapters are organised around three interdependent areas of inquiry: 1) how educators design pedagogies and curriculums around gender diversity, 2) how students and teachers navigate issues of gender diversity in practice, and 3) how issues of gender diversity are and aren't addressed in the materials for teaching and learning English. The contributors are all teacher educators-researchers and therefore have vast experience in enacting, implementing, designing, and examining the field of English language teacher education from/for the classroom with a gender perspective in diverse settings, with chapters come from Argentina, Bangladesh, Canada, Germany, Norway, Poland, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Spain, Taiwan, Turkey, the UK and Uruguay.