A critical discussion of inclusive

approaches to sexualities in ELT

Angelos Bollas

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/article/75/2/133/6237157 by University of Southampton user on 05 May 2025

The aim of this article is to challenge heteronormative as well as
homonormative practices in English language teaching. In doing so, the paper
demonstrates that both complete absence of LGBTQI+ references in ELT
materials, as well as recent attempts to provide more inclusive approaches to
materials design and classroom practices, can be problematic for L2 learners
irrespective of their sexuality. The paper traces current developments in ELT
materials design with regards to inclusive classroom practices and argues that
attempts towards exclusivity may reflect (hetero/homo)normative views, and
can therefore perpetuate a culture—learning and otherwise—of discrimination
and social exclusion. It concludes by identifying the need for an alternative
approach—one that does not focus on inclusion but on diversity.
Introduction Over the last few years, issues of sexuality in English language education
have received considerable attention. Blogposts, conference presentations,
and articles in academic and professional publications have emerged.
These focus on justifying the need for more inclusive practices in
relation to sexuality matters, as well as on specific strategies that teachers
can deploy in order to provide learners with curricula which promote
acceptance of non-heteronormative identities (Paiz 2019). The majority
of these efforts can be characterized as interventions to traditional
syllabi informed by heteronormative learning materials. In other words,
building on the work of Gray (2013), among others, recent attempts to
de-heterosexualize the English language curriculum confirm the absence
of non-heterosexual identities in mainstream published learning materials
(i.e. coursebooks and other supplementary resources), make a case against
the exclusive representation of heterosexual identities, and encourage
teachers to design and/or use inclusive materials in their lessons.
This increasing effort for inclusive practices in ELT is centred around one
theme: representation. Criticizing the absence of LGBTQI+ representation
in published coursebooks and promoting strategies and ideas for more
inclusive representation are important steps toward better and safer
education. However, as much as the importance of representation is
acknowledged, it is equally—if not more—important to raise educators’
awareness about the meanings of representation. For each one identity

ELT Journal Volume 75/2 April 2021; doi:10.1093/elt/ccaa075  133

© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press; all rights reserved.
Advance Access publication 19 April 2021
 that is being represented, there is another one that is not. This raises
questions with regards to the meaning of diversity, the potential of
curricula to become truly diverse, and the role of educators in providing
safe learning environments that are respectful of learners’ diverse
identities.
This paper follows Sauntson (2018) and Pawelczyk, Pakuła, and
Sunderland (2014) whose work has moved from focusing on
representation in ELT materials as an inclusion strategy to examining the

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/article/75/2/133/6237157 by University of Southampton user on 05 May 2025

ELT classroom as a locus for the destabilization of norms. In this paper,
I emphasize the importance of addressing both heteronormativity and
homonormativity when challenging established norms. For the purposes
of this article, by using the term heteronormativity, I refer to the fact that
particular heterosexual identities, practices, behaviours, and expressions
(dyadic, monogamous, reproductive, etc.) are the accepted norm. The
term ‘homonormativity’ is mostly attributed to Duggan (2003), who
observes an assimilationist tendency of gay civil rights groups as a result
of neoliberalism. In effect, homonormativity refers to the replication of
heteronormative values by homosexual people.
The aim of this paper is to challenge inclusive practices that might seem
progressive and beneficial, but could also be damaging in promoting
excluding practices. In doing so, the need to develop a diversity-focused
approach is proposed as a way of equipping teachers with the tools they
need to cater for the needs of all learners.

The problem of The range of manifestations of heteronormativity in everyday life vary

heteronormativity from reading fairy tales to one’s daughter about a princess who is looking
in representation for her prince, to asking a man who wears a wedding ring the name of
his wife. In relation to English language education, heteronormativity
manifests itself in the content, visual and textual, of mainstream
published materials, as well as in classroom discourse, in interactions
between students and teacher or among students. Global coursebooks
present exclusively heterosexual characters (Bollas 2020), while classroom
language use of the third-person singular pronouns he and she further
attest to a heteronormative view of fixed gender identities: boys and girls;
men and women.
Representation in learning materials is also important because it may
affect learners’ motivation (Bollas 2020). Dörnyei’s ‘L2 motivational
self’ system (2009) is centred around representation since learners
develop a sense of an ‘ideal L2 self’, an idealized impression of what
makes a successful L2 user, based on the contact they have with L2
speakers. Arguably, this contact comes from all types of media, for
example television shows, songs, films, travel. However, learning
materials play a significant part in bringing learners ‘in contact with’
L2 speakers too. The ‘L2 motivational self’ system suggests that based
on the L2 learning experience (i.e. the context of learning, including
learning materials), learners develop a sense of the ‘ought-to L2 self’
(i.e. characteristics learners believe they should possess to become
successful L2 speakers themselves). In turn, language learning may be

134 Angelos Bollas

seen as a means to becoming as close to the ‘ideal L2 self’ as possible
(Bollas 2020).
Studies examining L2 learners’ negotiation of identity have shown that
not being able to see themselves reflected in the L2 learning materials
they use may result in learners not being able to use English for purposes
immediate to them, as well as in limiting their L2 identity options
(Vasilopoulos 2015). The relationship between the ‘L2 motivational
self’ system and heteronormativity is clear: learners are exposed to

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/article/75/2/133/6237157 by University of Southampton user on 05 May 2025

materials that present L2 speakers as being exclusively heterosexual and
heteronormative (Widodo and Elyas 2020). This results in at least two
problems. If a learner does not identify as heterosexual, they are presented
with possible ideal L2 selves with whom they cannot identify. As a result,
they are excluded from a process that would, otherwise, affect their
motivation and, in turn, their language learning positively. If a learner
identifies as heterosexual, they are also presented with L2 speakers who
are exclusively heterosexual. This might not affect their motivation as they
are able to identify with an L2 ideal self, but they are presented with a
reality which suggests that societies of L2 speakers are almost exclusively
heterosexual.
To consider the implications of presenting learners with heterosexuality
as the only possible identity in an L2 context, it is important to activate
Gramsci’s construct of hegemony. Hegemony leads people to ‘affirm
social orders, social practices and certain ways of living’ (Ludwig 2011:
91) even if these are against their best interests. Contrary to its quotidian
meaning, Gramsci does not use hegemony to refer to forceful persuasion,
domination, or oppression. Ludwig (ibid.) clarifies that Gramsci is
interested in those practices which create perceptions, understandings,
and judgements that are shared by the majority of people.
Therefore, by combining the earlier discussion about the L2 motivational
self-system and Gramsci’s understanding of hegemony, it emerges that
learning materials as well as classroom discourse produce a false belief
that heterosexuality is tantamount to the L2 reality. In other words,
both learning materials and classroom discourses contribute to the
establishment and maintenance of hegemonic heteronormativity (Allen
and Mendez 2018); that is, heteronormative practices become common
sense and, by extension, non-heteronormative practices become deviant
acts that are to be stigmatized, discriminated against, and socially
excluded. It is not difficult to imagine the effects that such practices might
have on the lives of L2 learners and the people that L2 learners interact
with. Those who adhere to the norm—in this case being exclusively
heterosexual—enjoy the perks of being ‘normal’; the others suffer the
consequences of their ‘deviant lifestyle’ and live in the margins of society.
While this is a consequence of utmost importance, more often than not,
language teachers do not assume responsibility by claiming that they have
little part to play in the overall socialization process of their learners (Paiz
2019).
Considering the effects of hegemonic heteronormativity on the future
lives of some learners might not provide enough reason for teachers and
course designers to rethink their practices. It is, therefore, important also

A critical discussion of inclusive approaches to sexualities in ELT 135

 to consider how promoting, intentionally or otherwise, heteronormativity
affects the lives of some learners while they are in language learning
classes. El-Metoui (2018) argues that by not addressing heteronormative
practices, teachers may encourage discriminatory behaviour. This
often has the form of bad language, mockery-type body language and
gestures, stereotypical portraitures, negative attitudes, refusal to do
pair/group work, as well as sniggering and laughing at learners who
do not share characteristics with the stereotypical heteronormative

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/article/75/2/133/6237157 by University of Southampton user on 05 May 2025

portrait that is celebrated through coursebook materials and classroom
discourses. Whether we understand it or not, classrooms become unsafe
environments for some learners. This should be enough reason for
teachers and course providers to take action and address the issue.
Recently, there have been attempts by some ELT professionals to focus
on learning materials that include representation of a broader range of
sexualities. For example, in 2019, Seburn delivered a talk at IATEFL
where he presented an approach to designing and using inclusive
materials. In a subsequent report of his talk on his blog, Seburn presented
the ‘normalization approach’, the goal of which is ‘to include LGBTQIA2
as just one section within society and thus represented as such’. Indeed,
this as well as any other talk on the matter seem to be positive and
progressive steps towards fewer discriminatory practices in education.
However, examining the accompanying coursebook-type materials that
Seburn (2019) presented as samples for colleagues from the publishing
world to see, some may notice that what was being represented seemed
to be a replica of the heteronormative portraiture he criticized. The only
difference was that rather than looking at heterosexual couples, there were
homosexual couples living a heteronormative lifestyle.

The problem of Around the time Duggan’s (2003) work was published, in the global
homonormativity North the majority of gay civil rights groups were focused on issues
in representation related to gay marriage and child adoption policies and laws. ‘No longer
representative of a broad-based progressive movement, many of the
dominant national lesbian and gay civil rights organizations have become
the lobbying, legal, and public relations firms for an increasingly narrow
gay, moneyed elite’ (45) There has been a noticeable shift in contemporary
activist agendas. Not only has the subject-matter of activist protests
changed, but so has the rhetoric employed. Rather than celebrating
diversity, attempts to ‘normalize’ difference are observed. ‘We are the
same’ or ‘We are no different’ seems to be the message on placards. This
resulted in certain social issues being overlooked in favour of focusing on
gay marriage, family rights, and military service rights.
At IATEFL 2019, Seburn presented materials that portrayed ‘same-sex
romantic relationships, a drag queen, and a non-binary person’s familial
relationship’. As discussed earlier, both the same-sex couple, as well as
the familial relationship of the non-binary person, fall under the category
of homonormativity because, even though we are not presented with
heterosexual individuals, the situations or contexts within which they
appear are typically associated with heteronormative lifestyles, namely
romantic relationships and the family. Drag queens have also been
part of heteronormative mainstream society and culture as long as they

136 Angelos Bollas

 entertain. Seburn, possibly as a result of understanding the lack of true
representation in his suggested materials, advises being ‘cognizant of
realistically representing a wider variety of LGBTQIA2 people’s lives … as
we should (and more often do) with other members of the society’ (ibid.).
Seburn’s suggestion here truly reflects what the cause of the problem with
representation is: there cannot be an all-inclusive practice, and this is what
needs to be reflected in learning materials and classroom practices.
By definition, to include something means to acknowledge the existence

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/article/75/2/133/6237157 by University of Southampton user on 05 May 2025

of, and unintentionally promote, a commonly agreed-upon norm.
Therefore, any act of inclusion presupposes an act of exclusion. For each
identity or practice that we want to include in learning materials, there is
another—if not more than one—identity or practice that is left out. This
is not only applicable to the category of sexuality. It extends to all other
human characteristics, but for the purposes of this article, we will focus on
sexualities. Even within the same category, for lack of better word, people
express their sexualities in diverse and different ways. No two heterosexual
individuals behave the same. Similarly, no two non-heterosexual
individuals behave the same. Therefore, by attempting to adopt ‘inclusive
practices’, we always run the risk of excluding certain individuals. As
educators, therefore, we find ourselves in a vicious circle whereby we
engage in inclusive practices by excluding ‘categories’ of people. This
has similar results with the ones I discussed above when I presented the
effects of hegemonic heteronormativity. By using, for example, materials
such as the ones proposed by Seburn, we promote the idea that gay
men are welcome in the society as long as they adhere to the core social
principles of monogamy and family life.

Normalization, Schools OUT UK, an education charity that aims to make education
usualization, safe for LGBTQI+ individuals, has developed the VisiAble method
and actualization (the-classroom 2020) as a means of providing teachers of all contexts—
as approaches including language education—with more inclusive practices. This
towards inclusive includes a two-step approach toward inclusive education: the usualization
education and the actualization approach. The usualization approach refers to the
processes involved in acclimatizing people to the presence of what is to be
usualized. In essence, it refers to the weakening of feelings of threat which
are often the cause of fear and discrimination. In practice, the usualization
approach ‘occurs when a teacher references Lesbian, Gay or Bisexual sexual
orientation without inviting further comment’ (ibid., emphasis in original).
The goal of this approach is to inform learners about the existence of
LGBTQI+ people in all cultures, societies, and times. As a result, their
existence is acknowledged, and the non-threatening nature of their
difference is highlighted. Therefore, the classroom becomes a safer space
for all.
The next step in this two-step method is the actualization approach.
‘Actualise merely describes the fact that they are aware that they are
learning about LGBT lives. In “usualizing” this is not always the case’
(ibid.). Following the usualization process where learners have been
presented with LGBTQI+ individuals as acceptable parts of reality, in the
actualization process, learners are actively encouraged to engage with the
realities of the lives of LGBTQI+ people. For example, in the usualization

A critical discussion of inclusive approaches to sexualities in ELT 137

 process, learners might be working on a text about travel. The text might
present the experience of a trans man and his partner when travelling
to a certain destination, but the focus of the text and the accompanying
questions are on the experience of travelling to the specific place. In the
actualization process, the focus of the text as well as of the accompanying
tasks would be on the experience of travel as a trans person. Usualization
is about presenting something for what it is, while actualization refers to
the process of unpacking this that has been usualized.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/article/75/2/133/6237157 by University of Southampton user on 05 May 2025

Despite the fact that the actualization approach can be regarded as more
effective than the other two approaches in that it aims to problematize
learners in relation to specific issues of LGBTQI+ lives, it does not
manage to challenge the existence of a certain norm. In fact, all three
approaches that have been presented so far follow a ‘corrective’ approach:
they acknowledge the existence of a social norm that for the main part
has been heteronormative and to a lesser extent homonormative, and they
attempt to de-marginalize LGBTQI+ identities by making them part of the
‘accepted’ reality. At this point, it needs to be clarified that there is nothing
inherently wrong with these approaches. Indeed, educators who employ
them are commendable. However, these ‘corrective’ approaches cannot be
fully successful, especially when they are applied to specific societies and
cultures that tend to be less tolerant—let alone accepting—of difference.
Therefore, I propose that we stop focusing on promoting inclusion,
but rather adopt approaches and practices that celebrate diversity. By
activating a Foucauldian reading to the notion of inclusion, we allow
ourselves to examine the power formations that emerge from inclusive
practices, which, in turn, can be critically challenged as neoliberal
practices for the reproduction of exclusion (Nguyen 2019). In other words,
in this paper inclusion is viewed as a practice that inevitably encompasses
forms and practices of exclusion. Who gets to decide who is or should
be the norm, and at what cost to those who happen to be ruled out of
it, are just examples of how power formations come into play when we
focus on inclusion. Diversity, as it is used in this paper, focuses on the
deconstruction of the norm. In other words, an approach that focuses on
promoting diversity is an approach that does not aim to expand what is
included and accepted as part of mainstream society and culture; rather,
it renounces altogether the existence of a norm. Such an approach can
be effective for three reasons. Firstly, it is not invasive and can, therefore,
be adopted by educators in all places and cultures. Secondly, it does
not recognize, and hence endorse, any one behaviour and/or practice
as normative. Finally, an approach on diversity, rather than inclusion,
is primarily an approach that focuses on language. Therefore, it can be
applicable and easily adopted by language educators.

Towards a A diversity-focused approach in language education seeks to empower

diversity-focused learners to interact or engage with, rather than embrace, people who are
approach different from them. It aims to equip learners with linguistic tools that
in language will allow them to coexist peacefully with others despite the fact that they
education may not understand why they live their lives in a certain manner. It is an
approach that does not explicitly address matters of a certain ‘diversity’;
rather, it enables learners to perceive and celebrate what is different to

138 Angelos Bollas

them as diverse. The aim of such an approach is not to teach learners to
accept one identity over another or change learners’ mindsets or beliefs.
The main goal is to provide them with the necessary tools that will allow
them to interact with others in a peaceful manner. As a result, neither
a heteronormative nor a homonormative worldview is being promoted.
Below are three examples of how a diversity-focused approach can be
applied in English language education. It is important to highlight that the
purpose of these examples is to illustrate how professionals in the field

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/article/75/2/133/6237157 by University of Southampton user on 05 May 2025

can start (re)considering language teaching in light of this approach.
One of the most commonly used topics in published coursebooks is the
family (Bollas 2020). An inclusive approach would promote the need
to present learners with a number of different types of families, rather
than limit their exposure to the heteronormative images often included
in coursebooks (Seburn 2019). A way to activate a diversity-focused
approach, though, would be to encourage learners to consider why their
coursebooks present them with a limited representation of family types.
Questions that prompt them to think critically about who decides what is
included in a coursebook, to what effect, how this might affect them or
their peers, as well as how such representations reflect their society can
prove productive in relation to developing learners’ critical thinking skills.
Learners can also help educators equip them with the tools they need
to question social forces that dictate normativity. As a result, educators
do not run the risk of taking part—possibly unwillingly—in the politics
of inclusion. Instead, they help their learners challenge exclusionary
practices and, in turn, be more open to diversity.
A more practical area where a diversity-focused approach can be employed
is teaching pronouns. Traditionally, learners learn to use he for males and
she for females. Recently, teachers have started introducing singular they
as a means of making genderless references to people. However, this has
been something that learners are usually introduced to when they are at
an advanced level of English, or when they study English for academic
purposes. A diversity-focused approach in language education requires
a re-examination of the way pronouns are taught in the first place.
Therefore, rather than teaching beginners that he is to be used for males
and she for females, we could teach them that they should be used to refer
to anyone whom they do not know personally. They could also be taught
to first ask others about their preferred pronouns. Therefore, rather than
using a corrective method, which can often lead to resistance to change,
we teach learners to celebrate each other’s choices from the beginning.
Similarly, teachers could follow a functional approach to language
teaching to encourage learners to challenge the reality that is being
presented to them, while maintaining respect and kindness towards
each other. Teachers could focus on the difference between insult and
opinion. A diversity-focused approach encourages learners to focus on
the difference between insult and opinion not from the point of view of
subjects that should or should not be discussed. Rather, it encourages
learners to discuss and challenge all subjects while focusing on the
language they use. An easy way to introduce this in class would be to focus
on a trivial subject: ice-creams. Learners can be encouraged to identify the

A critical discussion of inclusive approaches to sexualities in ELT 139

 difference between statements such as ‘I think ice-creams are gross’ and
‘I do not like ice-creams, but others love them, and it is ok’. By working
with trivial subjects, learners can truly focus on the language used and
the function that different phrases or lexical items serve. Therefore, when
the time comes for them to express their opinions, they will be better
equipped to do so in a non-offensive manner.

Conclusion The three examples that are presented here illustrate how a diversity-

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/article/75/2/133/6237157 by University of Southampton user on 05 May 2025

focused approach can be applied to language teaching. This approach
follows on from a framework I developed in 2020 (Bollas 2020) in
which I argued that our goal as language educators is to equip learners
with the linguistic means that will enable them to challenge and
question established norms in a healthy and respectful manner. In this
paper, I discussed how problematic classroom practices and published
materials may be for some learners. When all that is being represented
and promoted are heteronormative models of life, some learners will
inevitably feel excluded and alienated. Similarly, when we attempt to
incorporate inclusive approaches in our practices, there is a danger that
we might further alienate some learners because inclusion presupposes a
norm that, no matter how much we try to expand, will always leave some
at its margins. Therefore, rather than focusing on inclusion, we should
reconsider our teaching practices and reorient them toward celebrating
sexual diversity. This paper proposes a diversity-focused approach to
language learning and invites researchers and classroom participants
to investigate its applicability further, as well as to consider how the
widespread adoption of the recommended practices should be encouraged.
Final version received November 2020

References a dialogue between Judith Butler and Antonio

Allen, S. H., and Mendez, S. N. 2018. ‘Hegemonic Gramsci about queer theory and politics’ in
heteronormativity: toward a new era of queer family M. C. Varela, N. Dhawan, and A. Engel (eds.).
theory’. Journal of Family Theory & Review 10/1: 70–86. Hegemony and Heteronormativity: Revisiting
Bollas, A. 2020. ‘A framework toward inclusive ‘The Political’ in Queer Politics, 83–105. London:
practices in EFL: the example of LGBTQI+ identities’ Routledge.
in S. Mavridi and D. Xerri (eds.). English for 21st Nguyen, X. T. 2019. ‘Unsettling ‘inclusion’
Century Skills, 141–8. Newbury: Express Publishing. in the Global South: a post-colonial and
Dörnyei, Z. 2009. ‘The L2 motivational self-system’ intersectional approach to disability,
in E. Ushioda and Z. Dörnyei (eds.). Motivation, gender, and education’ in M. J. Schuelka,
Language Identity and the L2 Self, 9–22. Bristol: C. J. Johnstone, G. Thomas, and Al. J. Artiles
Multilingual Matters. (eds.). Inclusion and Diversity in Education, 28–40.
Duggan, L. 2003. The Twilight of Equality? London: Sage.
Neoliberalism, Cultural Politics, and the Attack on Paiz, J. M. 2019. ‘Queering practice: LGBTQ+
Democracy. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. diversity and inclusion in English language teaching’.
El-Metoui, L. 2018. LGBTQI+ inclusion within ESOL. Journal of Language, Identity, & Education 18/4:
CPD session at the City of Glasgow College. 266–75.
Gray, J. 2013. Critical Perspectives on Language Teaching Pawelczyk, J., Pakuła, Ł., and Sunderland, J. 2014.
Materials. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. ‘Issues of power in relation to gender and sexuality in
Ludwig, G. 2011. ‘From the “heterosexual matrix” the EFL classroom—an overview’. Journal of Gender
to a “heteronormative hegemony”. Initiating and Power 1: 49–66.

140 Angelos Bollas

Sauntson, H. 2018. ‘Language, sexuality and inclusive Widodo, H. P., and Elyas, T. 2020. ‘Introduction to
pedagogy’. International Journal of Applied Linguistics gender in language education’. Sexuality & Culture
29/3: 322–340. 24: 1019–27.
Seburn, T. 2019. ‘This post will make you gay (or your
mats anyway)’ FourC. 31 July. Available at: http://
fourc.ca/lgbtqia2-coursebook/ (accessed 12 March The author
2020). Angelos Bollas is a researcher at EROSS (Expressions,
the-classroom. 2020. ‘The VisiAble method’. Research, Orientations: Sexuality Studies) at Dublin
Available at: http://the-classroom.org.uk/how-to- City University, Ireland. His main interests are

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/article/75/2/133/6237157 by University of Southampton user on 05 May 2025

do-it/ (accessed 23 March 2020). representations of sexuality in popular culture, queer
Vasilopoulos, G. 2015. ‘Language learner investment theory, and applications of diversity approaches in
and identity negotiation in the Korean EFL context’. education.
Journal of Language, Identity, & Education 14/2: 61–79. Email: [email protected]

A critical discussion of inclusive approaches to sexualities in ELT 141