Publication alert: "What is Decolonial Trans* Feminism and What Can It Do for Queer/Trans BIPOC Education Research?" Read it here: https://t.co/gw2fYyCIvW #TransFeminism #DecolonialTheory

Deleting this account by Friday; see you at 🦋🦋🦋 https://t.co/On9BC9bmIP

Leaving this site, please follow me on Bluesky

📢Reminder📢 Join us tomorrow, Nov. 12, at 9 a.m. PT (noon ET) for a panel discussion with Latina/o/x faculty about the presidential election results and the impact on the Latina/o/x community. Haven’t RSVP’d? Do it now ➡️: https://t.co/AzfsPyYDXq

Let’s talk colorism and why the majority of Brown migrants from Abya Yala with Indigenous roots are a threat to some Natives and also White Cubans.

With that said, I’ll be presenting with the @decolonial_sig panel: Reimagining Resistance: Playfulness as Decolonial Praxis in Marginalized Communities & paper: Weaponized Free Speech: Decolonial Perspectives on Anti-Trans and Pro-Palestinian Rhetoric in Academia

Not having people “familiar” with QTBIPOC frameworks isn’t an excuse. A basic Google search would’ve given these external reviewers a starting point. If you claim to understand gender and sexuality in research, it’s your job to engage with these frameworks thoughtfully.

Yet the external reviewers for the Queer SIG—those who claim to know gender and sexuality—fell short. Let me repeat: this wasn’t the Queer SIG but external SIG reviewers handling conflicts of interest, as I am the SIG chair. #QueerEd #TransStudies #AERA2024

The irony? The Decolonial SIG accepted two of our papers on the roles Jotería and decolonial trans feminism can play in educational research.

@aeraqueersig @AERA_EdResearch Reviewer 2 & 3 saw the value of the session and noted its potential for a special issue or edited volume. They appreciated its cohesive use of theory and its value for audience reflection. This thoughtful engagement contrasts starkly with Reviewer 1’s dismissive, biased take.

@aeraqueersig @AERA_EdResearch wants to foster transformative scholarship, it must ensure that reviewers understand the frameworks they’re evaluating. QTBIPOC research deserves respect and recognition, not condescension or dismissal due to lack of cultural competency.

@aeraqueersig It’s frustrating that this work—already recognized with Dissertation and Paper of the Year awards—gets dismissed in mainstream spaces due to lack of reviewer familiarity. The proposal received to highly positive reviews, but one “didn’t get it,” and that was enough for rejection.

@aeraqueersig My co-authors and I reviewed over 120 papers this cycle, amplifying QTBIPOC scholarship along the way. Meanwhile, others reviewing our panel didn’t even do basic research on the frameworks we use. This double standard is glaring.

@aeraqueersig What’s even more telling? The fourth review wasn’t completed because reviewers “did not know” enough to evaluate it. This speaks volumes about the lack of QTBIPOC representation in the field. It’s painful proof that QTBIPOC work stays hidden because it’s misunderstood or ignored.

@aeraqueersig As the SIG chair, I assembled this proposal in line with Queer SIG guidelines, which prioritize cultural relevance and flexibility. Reviewer 1’s response shows how rigid adherence to Eurocentric norms actively sidelines scholarship that challenges these frameworks.

@aeraqueersig Reviewer 1 claimed “structures to make this legible” were missing, as though QTBIPOC research needs extra explanation to be valid. But the work cited is well-established, and if they had done a basic Google Scholar search, they’d know. This gatekeeping is exhausting.

@aeraqueersig Reviewer 1’s comments reveal a deep-rooted bias towards Eurocentric academic norms, as if only traditional frameworks and “objective” methods have scholarly value. Demanding excessive justification for community-grounded research is a tactic that sidelines our work

@aeraqueersig It’s exhausting to see QTBIPOC work treated as needing extra “legibility” or definitions when our methodologies—grounded in community, reflection, and arts-based approaches—are clearly cited in the proposal. This isn’t just “a bunch of feelings”; it’s rigorously developed theory.

@aeraqueersig One reviewer’s comments dismiss “theory in the flesh” as “a bunch of feelings” that lack academic rigor. This bias against embodied knowledge and lived experience is disheartening but, unfortunately, not surprising. For QTBIPOC scholars, emotions ARE integral to our epistemes

Reflecting on recent feedback for our Rejected Jotería session proposal to @aeraqueersig frustrating how QTBIPOC scholarship continues to face gatekeeping disguised as “review.” As the SIG chair, I assembled this proposal with the SIG’s guidelines in mind, yet…

All of a sudden is “60% of Latinx/Latine voted for Trump” No sweethearts it’s the Latinos and Latinas for Trump because you prefer misogyny and racism over one letter that makes you think it’s changing your way of life.