In the reading “As a Sort of Blanket Term: Qualitative Analysis of Queer Sexual Identity Marking” by Kolker, Taylor, and Galupo, it discusses queer sexual identity marking and other forms of sexuality marking. It is stated that “sexuality marking serves as a way to assert one’s sexuality to others through language, behavior, aesthetics, and/or other non-verbal cues” (Kolker, Taylor, & Galupo, 2019, p. 1339). This is a term that I have never heard before, but I have always known that this concept existed and it is important to look into. We can see that there are many ways in which queer sexual identity marking is both similar to and distinct from other forms of sexuality marking. When it comes to heterosexual individuals, they “engage in heterosexual marking when their sexual identity is questioned, challenged, or suggested to be something other than heterosexual” (Kolker, Taylor, & Galupo, 2019, p. 1339). This involves making jokes that directly imply that they are not gay, which is definately something that I have witnessed people doing in the past. When we look into bisexual marking, we basically see the oposite of heterosexual marking. This involves acting against the negative stereotypes. Even though heterosexual marking and bisexual marking have different intents, they are both used to avoid having their identities misinterpreted. Now looking into queer identity marking, “because queer as a term has a unique history it is likely that queer sexual identity marking will also be unique” (Kolker, Taylor, & Galupo, 2019, p. 1340). It is stated that in their research, there were themes that came up regarding queer identity marking, including “(1) Using Queer as an Encompassing Label, (2) Using Queer to Avoid Explanation, (3) Using Queer Based on Who is Present and (4) Avoiding Using Queer” (Kolker, Taylor, & Galupo, 2019, p. 1346). In these trends, we see a similarity to both heterosexual marking and bisexual marking in the sense that queer identity marking happens when they want to remind people that they are non-cis and non-straight. An important idea is that “all forms of sexuality marking are used to inform others of a specific aspect of an individual’s identity, specifically their sexuality” (Kolker, Taylor, & Galupo, 2019, p. 1352). Unlike heterosexual marking and bisexual marking, queer marking is about belonging in a community and can be used to avoid defending their sexual identity.

In the article “Queering Curriculum Studies” by Sykes, it discusses the incorporation of queerness into the curriculum. It states that “a queering of curriculum studies has to deal with the White heteronormative imaginary that overpopulates curriculum studies and haunts queer studies” (Sykes, 2011, p. 29). This makes it evident that queerness in the curriculum “has to interrogate these logics of White supremacy so that it doesn’t slide into becoming merely the rehabilitation of White, Western lesbian and gay perspectives and bodies” (Sykes, 2011, p. 30). When it comes to integrating queerness into curriculum studies for me, I think this is very important to ensure that all students feel comfortable. I believe that this is not only about educating students on the topic, but it is also about the classroom environment itself. When it comes to my classroom, in terms of what this would look like, it could include having a pride flag in the classroom and moving away from separating students into groups according to the gender binary. For what this would sound like, language and terminology is very important. The students cannot be addressed using terms such as “boys” and “girls,” and instead, they can be addressed using terms such as “everyone,” “scientists,” or “mathematicians.” There would also be introductions using pronouns, by myself and the students, as well to expand on this, there would be meaningful discussions around this topic. In terms of what this would feel like, I would like it to be a welcoming space where everyone feels like they can be themselves. It will feel like a safe space where students should not be afraid to talk about their identities.

In the reading “Posy-gay, Political, and Pieced Together: Queer Expectations of Straight Allies” by Forbes and Ueno, it talks about allyship and the importance of examining allies from multiple different angles, including from queer people’s perspectives rather than from straight allies. It is mentioned that “although straight people may claim that they would challenge queerphobia through actions such as confronting a person using discriminatory language, researchers found that they do not always do so when presented with the opportunity” (Forbes & Ueno, 2020, p. 160). This is something that is interesting to think about, being that it is common to occur with many other things as well. The general conclusion here is “that the idea of allyship is not fixed but can vary within a marginalized population, having different meanings for different people” (Forbes & Ueno, 2020, p. 173). In knowing this, I can think of many teacher implications for allyship. As mentioned by Forbes and Ueno, it is important to know what allyship is, but also what actions are considered as being thoroughly impactful. A student in this study mentions how it is not enough for a teacher to simply ask for pronouns in order to be considered an ally. It is significant to see that “these insufficient actions tended to focus on interactional exchanges” (Forbes & Ueno, 2020, p. 169). This results in the understanding that as teachers, implications for allyship must involve moving away from this focus on interactions. We must actually engage in understanding the students’ identities. This could involve simply asking how we can be an ally and then continuing to follow through with it in the form of an action.

References:

Forbes, T. D. & Ueno, K. (2020). Posy-gay, Political, and Pieced Together: Queer Expectations of Straight Allies. Interpersonal Relationships and Social Networks Formation, 63(1), pp. 159-176.

Kolker, Z. M., Taylor, P. C., & Galupo, M. P.  (2019). “As a Sort of Blanket Term”: Qualitative Analysis of Queer Sexual Identity Marking. Sexuality & Culture (pp. 1337-1358).

Sykes, H. (2011). Queering Curriculum Studies. Journal of Curriculum and Pedagogy, 29-31.