I write this commentary both as a French teacher in the United States who has taught at the primary and secondary (K−12) and college levels and as a speaker of French who uses nonbinary pronouns—identities that inform my positionality on this topic and my takeaways. In this position paper, as in his other work on gender-just pedagogies, Knisely makes a significant contribution to French language teaching and provides teachers with useful tools for realizing gender-just language pedagogies. Knisely's position paper is a valuable reminder to us as language educators to continually question how we conceptualize language, centering trans knowledges and linguistic practices and effecting a paradigm shift away from language-as-noun, about which we teach, to language-as-verb, in which we participate alongside our students. Using frameworks like trans-affirming queer inquiry-based pedagogies (TAQIBPs; Knisely & Paiz, 2021) and drawing on educational resources such as those available through Knisely's (2022) gender-just language education project are valuable and impactful steps we can take to center trans knowledges and linguacultures in our teaching.

As an educator working in a progressive political climate at a large public university, surrounded by support for trans-affirming pedagogies and their implementation in French language education, I have the privilege of being able to center trans knowledges and linguistic practices in my teaching with relatively little resistance. I have been fortunate in the undergraduate French language classes I teach to have received only positive feedback so far from students about my use of gender-inclusive pronouns and agreements in lessons and course materials. Rather than facing any kind of pushback or discrimination as I had feared when I first added the pronouns “she/they,” and a French equivalent “elle/iel,” to my email signature and included it in my syllabus statement on gender pronouns, the first reactions I recall were the teaching assistant for my class immediately thanking me for sharing my pronouns and a nonbinary student expressing their delight upon finding out that they were taking a class with someone who uses nonbinary just like them. Students of French I worked with who use nonbinary pronouns let me know they felt seen and valued by my use of teaching strategies that loosely align with TAQIBPs (Knisely & Paiz, 2021) and really appreciated this, as did other students. Last fall, a student approached me after class to tell me how meaningful she found my inclusion of epicene terms for family members so that she could describe her nonbinary younger sibling in French without misgendering them and how much, in turn, the younger sibling who studied French in high school appreciated learning from my student about gender-neutral pronouns in French for the first time. I consider myself fortunate to be able to have these types of interactions with my students and bring discussions of nonbinary gender agreement and pronouns like “iel,” “al,” “ol,” and “ille” into my classes. Experiences like these with my students continually remind me of the importance of centering trans knowledges and linguistic practices as outlined by Knisely's position paper, anecdotally demonstrating their tangible overwhelmingly positive effects. I have had the privilege of working in departments that support me doing this and pursuing research on this topic. I recognize that this is by no means a privilege universally enjoyed.

As Knisely argues, we should draw more on trans linguacultures and use them to interrogate cisnormativities and cislingualisms in our work as teachers. I want my students to do language in this way, and I strive for this in my teaching. That said, eliminating trans exclusion from “enlanguaged knowability” is a daunting task (p. 617, this issue). Knisely's anchor piece highlights the positive outcomes of trans-affirming pedagogies in language teaching, without focusing on barriers to their implementation. Knisely explicitly does not elaborate on hardships facing trans people, as he does not want us to use oppression as the primary lens through which we think about them. This approach is valuable for conceptualizing gender justice beyond inclusion, helping us as educators see trans people not as a group that needs to be included but as a current and crucial part of our teaching, learning, and languaging. However, in so doing, we risk minimizing the very real cisnormative, cislingual, and anti-trans barriers facing the implementation of gender-just pedagogies.

Teaching for gender justice is controversial and political, and when querying ways of centering trans knowledges and linguistic practices in our teaching, we cannot avoid or lose sight of this. I take, for example, teaching using inclusive language in French, such as including nonbinary pronouns or using inclusive writing conventions like the period or middot to combine masculine and feminine-gendered terms, which continues to be controversial and has a history of opposition. I think back to the vehement controversy that surrounded the publication of the first textbook in France that used the period to combine masculine- and feminine-gendered names for professions such as “facteur.rice [mail carrier]” and “apprenti.e [apprentice]” (Le Callennec et al., 2017, pp. 27, 39). This book was loudly denounced by conservative French news media (Pech, 2017), sparking a larger debate in France on écriture inclusive [binary gender inclusive language].1 French language authority the Académie Française [French Academy] (2017) declared that these practices place the French language in mortal peril, unnecessarily burdening teachers, readers, future generations, language learners of French, and French speakers outside of France. The middot was banned in educational contexts by the French Minister of Education (Blanquer, 2021) for similarly articulated reasons. What is the impact of this and why should we care? These and similar arguments against inclusive language use fail to acknowledge that French as a language is constantly changing, informed by and belonging to all who use it (Candea & Veron, 2019), and typify prescriptive ideologies of French language as a “rigidly prescribed,” “fossilized thing” (Knisely, p. 617, this issue).

Language is not a rigidly prescribed system whose rules are determined by a governing language regulatory body, and we should not be teaching as if that were the case. That said, this is a pervasive view of what language is and how language works, a key obstacle to implementing trans-affirming pedagogies in language education. As we co-create a more gender-just languaging experience with our students, we also have to acknowledge that not everything they come across in their languaging journey is going to be gender-just. Arguments made against gender-inclusive language use in French (Académie Française, 2017; Blanquer, 2021) carry important ideological weight. The lack of trans-affirming language forms such as nonbinary pronouns or the middot, along with the erasure of nonbinary people that this lack perpetuates, is prevalent, for example, in recent textbooks used to teach French in the United States (Anderson & Dolidon, 2021; Le Bougnec & Lopes, 2020; Mitchell & Tano, 2023; Scullen et al., 2020), although there are some notable exceptions (Dolidon, 2021). This leaves it largely up to French teachers to find and incorporate additional trans-affirming language course materials into our teaching, an ongoing task that takes time and labor. Furthermore, when selecting these materials, we must also attend to ways in which they are trans-affirming or reinforce cisnormativity, as Moore's commentary details.

Navigating systemic opposition to gender-just language pedagogies in language education is a key part of enacting these pedagogies, especially in K−12 education. Knisely gives a glimpse into anti-trans laws and educational policies that can and do impede efforts to implement gender-just teaching. I also highlight Florida's recent introduction of House Bill 1223, which would have prohibited classroom instruction on sexual orientation or gender identity from occurring in prekindergarten through grade 8 (H.B., 1223, 2023, para. 1). Policies like this are the antithesis of trans-affirming pedagogies; the implications and outcomes of this type of legislation on language teaching are chilling. Concern for our students’ and our own safety and the threat of reprisal from parents, school boards, and/or school administrations, for example, if we include gender-neutral pronouns in our lessons, makes teaching for gender justice in anti-trans political and social climates really hard, especially where anti-trans policies like these are in effect. It takes time, can feel overwhelming, and is emotionally draining. This is, for example, one of many reasons I continue to stay in post-secondary education where I have a lot more instructional freedom and the privilege of being able to implement trans-affirming pedagogies, as opposed to returning to teach at the K−12 level. In this way, I am an example of the teacher burnout Knisely laments. Working to dismantle anti-trans legislation, advocating for trans-affirming pedagogies, and bringing these pedagogies into our daily teaching practices are actions that we can and should take, actions that many of us are already taking, but this work takes time and energy. Furthermore, we cannot assume that teachers have the resources, the time, or the inclination to do this work.

Another example of an obstacle to implementing gender justice in language education is standardized testing, which can perpetuate cisnormativities, including language prescriptivism, through questions and scoring. Teaching to standardized tests is often a reality for language teachers, especially at the K−12 levels. I think back to a conversation I had with a high-school French teacher about standardized testing, in which we lamented the fact that students might be penalized for using gender-inclusive language forms such as the middot, alternating masculine and feminine gender agreement when writing in the first person, or the pronoun “iel” on standardized tests such as the AP standardized tests such as the AP exam. Achievement level descriptions rubrics for the AP French Language and Culture Exam evaluate students for their “consistent use of standard conventions of the written language” (College Board, 2020, p. 117). While it is further clarified that students will not be penalized in the writing part of the AP exam if they use “la Nouvelle Orthographe, the spelling reform that is officially encouraged but not required by the French government” (College Board, n.d., Policies section), there are no mentions of trans-affirming or gender-inclusive language forms. In not making explicit allowances for trans-affirming language practices such as nonbinary pronouns and forms of agreement, as it does for la Nouvelle Orthographe, the “standard conventions of written language” (College Board, 2020, p. 117) of grading criteria for the AP French exam exclude these forms, and students who use them are subject to graders who may or may not penalize them for trans-affirming language practices. Students are incentivized to obtain high scores on AP exams to receive college credit, and so rather than centering trans knowledges and ways of languaging, as Knisely promotes, they, along with their teachers, have reason to focus on using standardized, prescriptive grammatical conventions. Trans linguistic practices are therefore treated as a separate piece of the language learning process and are deliberately excluded from use in certain contexts—if they are taught at all. To realize trans-inclusive pedagogies in language education, we must recognize and address systemic barriers to their implementation, including, but not limited to, the grading criteria of and overreliance on standardized testing.

I have only discussed a few of the innumerable obstacles to take into consideration as we work toward centering trans knowledges and linguistic practices in our teaching. Ideally, we as educators would not have to think about trans knowledges as supplements, things to be added into curricula or items on our to-do lists. We would not need to draw attention to the fact that trans knowledges and ways of languaging are already present and making valuable contributions in our classrooms because this would be widely recognized and accepted. Unfortunately, that is not the reality that many of us live and teach in right now. Drawing attention to barriers and working through ways of including trans-affirming pedagogies in language education are useful strategies for realizing gender-just pedagogies in language education.

我作为一名曾在中小学 (K−12) 和大学任教的美国法语教师以及一名使用非二元代词的法语使用者撰写这篇评论——这些身份表明了我在这个主题上的立场以及我的观点。外卖。在这份立场文件中，正如他在性别公正教学法方面的其他工作一样，尼尼斯利对法语教学做出了重大贡献，并为教师提供了实现性别公正语言教学法的有用工具。克尼斯利的立场文件对我们作为语言教育者来说是一个有价值的提醒，要不断质疑我们如何概念化语言，以跨知识和语言实践为中心，并实现从我们所教授的语言作为名词到语言作为动词的范式转变，我们与我们的学生一起参与。2021）并利用教育资源，例如通过 Knisely 的性别公正语言教育项目提供的资源，是我们可以采取的有价值且有影响力的步骤，将跨性别知识和语言文化集中在我们的教学中。

作为一名在进步的政治氛围中在一所大型公立大学工作的教育工作者，周围是对跨性别肯定教学法及其在法语教育中的实施的支持，我有幸能够在我的教学中以相对的方式将跨性别知识和语言实践集中起来。阻力很小。我很幸运，在我所教授的本科法语课程中，到目前为止，我只收到了学生对我在课程和课程材料中使用性别包容代词和协议的积极反馈。当我第一次在我的电子邮件签名中添加代词“她/他们”和法语对应词“elle/iel”并将其包含在我的性别代词教学大纲声明中时，我并没有面临任何形式的阻力或歧视，我记得的第一反应是我班的助教立即感谢我分享我的代词，而一名非二元学生在发现自己正在和像他们一样使用非二元的人一起上课时表达了他们的高兴。与我一起工作的使用非二元代词的法语学生让我知道，我使用与 TAQIBP 松散一致的教学策略（Knisely 和 Paiz，2021年）并且非常欣赏这一点，其他学生也是如此。去年秋天，一名学生在课后找到我，告诉我她发现我在家庭成员中加入了新世术语是多么有意义，这样她就可以用法语描述她的非二元弟弟妹妹，而不会误解他们的性别，以及反过来，这个弟弟妹妹学习了多少高中时的法语很欣赏我的学生第一次向我学习法语中的中性代词。我认为自己很幸运能够与我的学生进行此类互动，并将非二元性别协议和“iel”、“al”、“ol”和“ille”等代词的讨论带入我的课堂。与我的学生一起经历的这些经历不断提醒我，如克尼斯利的立场文件所述，以跨性别知识和语言实践为中心的重要性，轶事展示了它们切实的压倒性的积极影响。我有幸在支持我从事这项工作并从事该主题研究的部门工作。我承认这绝不是普遍享有的特权。

正如克尼斯利所说，我们应该更多地利用跨语言文化，并用它们来质疑我们作为教师工作中的顺规范性和顺语言主义。我希望我的学生以这种方式学习语言，我在教学中也努力做到这一点。也就是说，消除“语言可知性”中的跨性别排斥是一项艰巨的任务（第 617 页，本期）。尼尼斯利的主打文章强调了跨性别肯定教学法在语言教学中的积极成果，但没有关注其实施的障碍。尼尼斯利明确没有详细说明跨性别者面临的困难，因为他不希望我们使用压迫作为我们思考跨性别者的主要视角。这种方法对于概念化超越包容性的性别正义很有价值，帮助我们作为教育工作者，不要将跨性别者视为一个需要纳入的群体，而是将其视为我们教学、学习和语言的当前重要组成部分。然而，在这样做的过程中，我们面临着最大限度地减少实施性别公正教学法所面临的真正的顺规范、顺语言和反跨性别障碍的风险。

性别公正的教学是有争议的和政治性的，当质疑在我们的教学中集中跨性别知识和语言实践的方式时，我们不能避免或忽视这一点。例如，我以法语中使用包容性语言进行教学为例，例如包含非二元代词或使用句点或中点等包容性写作惯例来组合男性和女性性别术语，这仍然存在争议，并且有反对的历史。我回想起围绕法国第一本教科书出版所引发的激烈争议，该教科书利用这一时期将职业的男性和女性名称结合起来，例如“facteur.rice [邮递员]”和“apprenti.e [学徒” ]”（Le Callennec 等人，2017，第 27、39 页）。这本书遭到法国保守派新闻媒体的大声谴责（Pech，2017 ），在法国引发了一场关于écriture包容性（二元性别包容性语言）的更大辩论。 1 法语权威机构Académie Française（法国学院）（2017）宣称这些做法将法语置于致命的危险之中，给教师、读者、后代、法语学习者和法国境外的法语使用者带来不必要的负担。法国教育部长在教育环境中禁止使用 middot（Blanquer，2021）出于类似的明确原因。这会产生什么影响？我们为什么要关心？这些和类似的反对包容性语言使用的论点未能承认法语作为一种语言是不断变化的，由所有使用它的人告知并属于所有使用它的人（Candea＆Veron，2019），并将法语的规范性意识形态典型化为“严格规定的， ” “化石化的东西”（Knisely，第 617 页，本期）。

语言并不是一个严格规定的系统，其规则是由语言监管机构确定的，我们不应该这样教学。也就是说，这是对语言是什么以及语言如何运作的普遍看法，是在语言教育中实施跨肯定教学法的主要障碍。当我们与学生共同创造更加性别公正的语言体验时，我们还必须承认，并非他们在语言之旅中遇到的所有事情都是性别公正的。反对法语中性别包容性语言使用的论点（法国科学院，2017 年；Blanquer，2021 年））具有重要的意识形态分量。例如，在美国最近用于教授法语的教科书中，普遍缺乏诸如非二元代词或中点之类的反式肯定语言形式，以及对非二元人的消除，这种缺乏使之长期存在（Anderson & Dolidon，2021；Le Bougnec & Lopes，2020；Mitchell & Tano，2023；Scullen 等人，2020），尽管也有一些值得注意的例外（Dolidon，2021））。这很大程度上取决于法国教师寻找额外的反式肯定语言课程材料并将其纳入我们的教学中，这是一项需要时间和精力的持续任务。此外，在选择这些材料时，我们还必须注意它们反式肯定或强化顺式规范的方式，正如摩尔的评论所详述的那样。

在语言教育中引导对性别公正语言教学法的系统性反对是制定这些教学法的关键部分，特别是在 K−12 教育中。尼尼斯利让我们了解了反跨性别法律和教育政策，这些法律和教育政策可能而且确实阻碍了性别公正教学的实施。我还强调佛罗里达州最近推出的众议院法案 1223，该法案禁止从学前班到 8 年级进行有关性取向或性别认同的课堂教学（HB，1223，2023 年，第 7 段。1）。这样的政策是反式肯定教育学的对立面。此类立法对语言教学的影响和结果令人不寒而栗。出于对学生和我们自身安全的担忧，以及来自家长、学校董事会和/或学校行政部门的报复威胁，例如，如果我们在课程中加入中性代词，就会在反跨性别政治中进行性别公正教学。社会气候确实很艰难，尤其是在实施此类反跨性别政策的情况下。这需要时间，会让人感到不知所措，并且会在精神上耗尽精力。例如，这是我继续留在高等教育中的众多原因之一，在那里我有更多的教学自由和能够实施反式肯定教学法的特权，而不是回到 K− 12级。这样，我就是克尼斯利感叹的教师职业倦怠的一个例子。努力废除反跨性别立法，倡导跨性别肯定教学法，并将这些教学法纳入我们的日常教学实践，是我们可以而且应该采取的行动，我们许多人已经在采取行动，但这项工作需要时间和精力。此外，我们不能假设教师有资源、时间或意愿来做这项工作。

在语言教育中实现性别公正的另一个障碍是标准化测试，它可以通过问题和评分来延续顺规范性，包括语言规定主义。对于语言教师来说，标准化考试教学通常是现实，尤其是 K−12 级别的教师。我回想起我与一位高中法语老师关于标准化测试的对话，我们在对话中感叹学生可能会因为在写作时使用中点、交替使用男性和女性性别协议等性别包容性语言形式而受到惩罚。第一人称，或标准化考试中的代词“iel”，例如 AP 标准化考试，例如 AP 考试。2020 年，第 17 页 117）。虽然进一步澄清，如果学生使用“ la Nouvelle Orthographe，法国政府官方鼓励但不要求的拼写改革”，则不会在 AP 考试的写作部分受到处罚（大学理事会，nd，政策部分） ），没有提及跨性别肯定或性别包容的语言形式。没有明确考虑反式肯定语言实践，例如非二元代词和协议形式，就像《新正字法》那样，“书面语言的标准惯例”（大学理事会，2020），p。AP 法语考试评分标准第 117 条排除了这些形式，使用这些形式的学生将受到评分者的约束，评分者可能会也可能不会因反式肯定语言练习而对他们进行处罚。学生们被激励在 AP 考试中获得高分以获得大学学分，因此他们和老师们有理由专注于使用标准化、规定性的语法惯例，而不是像克尼斯利所提倡的那样以跨性别知识和语言方式为中心。因此，跨语言实践被视为语言学习过程的一个单独部分，并被故意排除在某些上下文中使用——如果有的话。为了在语言教育中实现跨性别包容性教学法，我们必须认识到并解决其实施的系统性障碍，包括但不限于：

我只讨论了我们在教学中努力以跨知识和语言实践为中心时需要考虑的无数障碍中的几个。理想情况下，我们作为教育工作者不必将跨性别知识视为补充，将其添加到课程中或我们的待办事项列表中。我们不需要提请注意跨性别知识和语言方式已经存在并在我们的课堂上做出宝贵贡献的事实，因为这将被广泛认可和接受。不幸的是，这并不是我们许多人现在生活和教学的现实。提请人们注意障碍并通过将跨性别肯定教学法纳入语言教育的方法，是在语言教育中实现性别公正教学法的有用策略。