Speculating the Queer (In)Human: a Critical, Reparative Reading of Contemporary LGBTQ+ Picturebooks

ARTICLES Speculating the Queer (In)Human: A Critical, Reparative Reading of Contemporary LGBTQ+ Picturebooks

JON M. WARGO & JAMES JOSHUA COLEMAN

Radically questioning and reparatively reading the (in)human, this article extends what counts as queer in critical multicultural children’s literature.

HISTORICALLY, EARLY lesbian, gay, bisexual, to spotlight the speculative promise and potential of the transgender, and queer-inclusive (LGBTQ+) picture- fantastic queer (in)human.1 More specifically, we ask: books deployed representations of (in)human characters How is the queer (in)human represented in contempo- (i.e., birds, bunnies, shapeshifters, and more) to open rary LGBTQ+ picturebooks? readers to queer subjects (Young, 2019). While useful What, if anything, does a reparative reading reveal for expanding conceptions of queer life, such a move has about the speculative potential of the queer (in)human? had unintended consequences. The (in)human—here in parentheticals to highlight the violence that minoritized In so doing, we qualify how abject animals and other subjects traverse in their vacillation of human/nonhuman fantastical creatures trouble the ontological underpin- status—has furthered certain undesirable outcomes for nings of both the “human” and the “animal.” For us, such queer representation in critical multicultural children’s representations promise spaces of speculation and repair literature. In seeking to achieve stable humanity, through which we might recognize, while also imagin- LGBTQ+ picturebooks have propelled particular forms ing beyond, the anti-Blackness, misogyny, and queerpho- of queer visibility. Tacitly aligned with 18th-century bia that, as Jackson (2020) pointed out, are inherent in Enlightenment concepts of the liberal hu/Man, LGBTQ+ representations in picturebooks have been primarily 1 Speculation and the speculative—while related to fantasy and white, cisgender, able-bodied, and rational. Such represen- the fantastic—are not synonymous. In this article, speculation tations threaten, indeed reinstate, heteronormative values and the speculative refer to both the potential for and the (e.g., marriage, monogamy) through queer bodies. As action of harnessing textual features common to speculative we suggest, it perpetuates “homonormativity” under the fiction genres to reimage past and present realities. Based guise of a universal human (Duggan, 2002; Hermann- upon available representations within extant LGBTQ+ picturebooks, we focus primarily, though not exclusively, on Wilmarth & Ryan, 2016). fantastic creatures to spotlight their speculative potential for Following mermaids, unicorns, and shapeshifters, reparative, critical readings. in this article, we read across a corpus of 18 picturebooks

Journal of Children’s Literature, 47(1), pp. 84–96, 2021. ©Children’s Literature Assembly ISSN 1521-7779 Jon M. Wargo & James Joshua Coleman Speculating the Queer (In)Human 85 categories of both the human and the animal. In the sections that follow, we first locate our project Born of the civil rights movement, in the broader field of critical multicultural children’s critical multicultural children’s literature, taking particular note of the rising trend to both read and represent “homonormativity” in LGBTQ+ literature’s commitment to racial picturebooks (Duggan, 2002; Hermann-Wilmarth & Ryan, justice has propelled advocacy for 2016). Drawing from queer theory and animal studies, we then detail the theoretical framework through which “more accurate and humanizing we illuminated the potential of the queer (in)human as representations of children of color.” an abject figure that troubles homonormative represen- Queer and trans kids, however, both tations (Luciano & Chen, 2015, 2019). Afterward, our methods section details the modes of inquiry that drove those of color and white, remain our corpus’s generation and the critical content analysis underrepresented within CMCL itself we conducted. Our findings spotlight the utility of using and within its attendant social justice critical multicultural analysis to address the abjection of queer (in)human characters in LGBTQ+ picturebooks project. While the reasons for this are (Botelho & Rudman, 2009). Although we argue that likely manifold and such trends are critical reading practices foregrounding power reveal, and in some cases, reify, homonormative logics within contem- shifting, “the closet” provides a porary LGBTQ+ picturebooks, we equally see them as powerful insight into queer striving toward repair. Reading across the corpus, we representational history. detail the pedagogical and theoretical significance of the project and, in doing so, urge readers, teachers, and researchers alike to reimagine a more just future for queer life, both in picturebooks and in the world. than African Americans, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, Latinx individuals, and Native Americans, Review of Literature standing second only to white children as featured protag- Critical multiculturalism has been deployed within the onists in today’s representational landscape of children’s study of children’s literature to foreground inequities in literature. the representation of human life (Bishop, 1990; Nieto & Born of the civil rights movement, critical multicul- Bode, 2019). As Botelho et al. (2014) explained, “multicultural children’s literature’s commitment to racial justice tural children’s literature was a response to racist sociopo- has propelled advocacy for “more accurate and humaniz- litical and publishing practices that contributed to the ing representations of children of color” (Thomas, 2016, p. underrepresentation, misrepresentation, and invisibility of 113). Queer and trans kids, however, both those of color people of color in U.S. society and, by extension, in school and white, remain underrepresented within CMCL itself curricula and children’s literature” (p. 42). Tethered to the and within its attendant social justice project (Botelho & human, critical multicultural children’s literature (CMCL) Rudman, 2009; Crisp et al., 2016; Young, 2019). While the has, in its unflagging address of power and social inequity, reasons for this are likely manifold and such trends are constrained itself to anthropocentric thought.2 Yet publish- shifting (Coleman, 2019a, 2019b; Matos & Wargo, 2019), ing statistics, such as those recently presented by the “the closet” provides a powerful insight into queer represen- Cooperative Children’s Book Center, reveal that anthropo- tational history. Tied to persistent invisibility, both humans morphized animals—nonhuman entities that are assigned and animals have, through their representations, operated human qualities—compose 27% of all children’s book as representational closets within LGBTQ+ picturebooks. protagonists (Cooperative Children’s Book Center, 2019; Importantly, the closet is not merely a place of Dahlen, 2019). Sadly, animals garner more representation shame and hiding. As Brockenbrough (2012) contended, it operates as a locus of both agency and abjection. Through human and more-than-human representations, LGBTQ+ 2 Like the inquiry featured in this article, contemporary picturebooks have both concealed and protected queer life scholarship in critical multicultural children’s literature in the midst of a social world that remains unwilling to is interested in examining anthropomorphic creatures and recognize queer humanity. Within the context of CMCL, controversial issues such as immigration (see, for example, Sotirovska & Kelley, 2020). that same closet has provided a mechanism for queer representation to proliferate despite the continued abjection

VOL 47 NO 1 SPRING 2021 JOURNAL OF CHILDREN’S LITERATURE 86 ARTICLES of queer individuals’ human status. Moreover, the closet and family organization (e.g., gay marriage and the nuclear has created representational possibilities that move beyond family) hallmarks contemporary picturebooks, and sadly, the bounds of the human and into the speculative potential both humans and animal representations have served to of queer (in)humanisms. Fantastic more-than-humans, obscure such power relations (Lester, 2014; Taylor, 2012). hybrid species, and animals, queer (in)human characters Embedded in both human and animal representa- invite speculation beyond the dehumanizing violence of tions, homonormativity can, however, be challenged. By queer abjection and toward reparative futures (Luciano & speculating with a fuller spectrum of queer representa- Chen, 2015, 2019). tion, readers might honor—while also imagining beyond— In LGBTQ+ picturebooks, queer animals have those narratives of tolerance, inclusion, and acceptance operated as representational closets that obscure homopho- that have propelled CMCL inexorably toward homonor- bic power relations. Objectified, animals ranging from mative conceptions of the able-bodied human. Readers birds to bunnies, worms to narwhals have each advanced might turn to queer (in)human figures (e.g., unflap- representations of queer life that provide agency to queer pable unicorns, mythical mermaids, and starry-eyed characters. Whether human or more-than-human, queer shapeshifts) to speculate the promise and possibility of children have been depicted living joy-filled, self-determined queer representation and life beyond domesticated logics lives, even in the face of persistent censorship challenges of homonormativity (Luciano & Chen, 2015, 2019). As levied by queerphobic readers (American Library Associa- Kim (2015) underscored, a “critical inhumanist position is tion, 2020). While two of the earliest representations of not [used] to recalibrate our understanding of the human queer life in U.S. picturebooks, Heather Has Two Mommies in more accurate and inclusive ways” (p. 305), but opens (Newman, 1989) and Daddy’s Roommate (Willhoite, 1990), up more diverse ways of knowing, being, and classifying both feature queer adult humans, representations of queer the queer subject. The queer (in)human functions as a children have, from their inception, been depicted most potential revision of abjected queer representations, thus often as animals. The Sissy Duckling (Fierstein, 2002), Odd qualifying it as a representation worthy of exploration in Bird Out (Bansch, 2011), and Introducing Teddy (Walton, adding to the already robust field of CMCL. 2016) found in birds and bears a means to represent gender and sexual nonconformity in childhood through acts of Theoretical Framework “cute-ifying” queer life (Cole & Stewart, 2016). Similarly, As two queer-identifying educators, we see queer theory controversial aspects of queer culture like “gay marriage” (Jagose, 1996) as our point of departure. It is simultaneously or same-gender child-rearing found in animals a represen- a rearticulation of and critical addition to the field of critical tational tool that provided entry points for teaching about multicultural children’s literature—one that invigorates the LGBTQ+ existence in schools (Bentley & Souto-Manning, field’s often tacit commitment to a notion of the human that 2016; Hartman, 2018; Ryan & Hermann-Wilmarth, 2018; is rooted in whiteness, hetero-patriarchy, cis-normativity, and Schall & Kauffman, 2003; Skrlac Lo, 2016; Souto-Manning ableism. As Jackson (2020) in Becoming Human: Matter & Hermann-Wilmarth, 2008). and Meaning in an Antiblack World asserted, “animal- From inclusion (Crisp et al., 2016; Möller, 2020) to ization is not incompatible with humanization: what is acceptance (Knoblauch, 2016), anthropomorphism has commonly deemed dehumanization is, in the main, more advanced LGBTQ+ representation in CMCL by stretch- accurately interpreted as the violence of humanization ing how humans are represented. Scholars have, however, or the burden of inclusion into a racially hierarchized called into question the value of representing queer universal humanity” (p. 18). Drawing upon the work of humanity as animals and have highlighted the potential Sylvia Wynter (2003), Jackson troubled a fundamen- for such representations to obscure power dynamics related tal tendency in CMCL, to set the human and animal in to both race and gender (Jiménez, 2018; Young, 2019). Such opposition to one another, creating a hierarchized binary concerns are well founded, particularly as representations that establishes the human as the desired ontology of of queer animals continue to drive 21st-century headlines— life. However, such a binary obscures the fundamental think, for instance, of John Oliver’s famed A Day in the Life racialization, gendering, and sexualization of “Man.” of Marlon Bundo (Twiss, 2018). Moreover, as Hermann- For as Wynter pointed out, “Man”—as a knowledge Wilmarth and Ryan (2016) warned, “these limited represen- system—emerged during the Enlightenment under the tations reify neoliberal ideas about sexuality’s relationship rubric of modern liberal humanism. It has served and to race and class, and encourage gay assimilation into continues to serve as an imperialist vision of the human normative but problematic, nonequitable institutions” (p. that organized global life in modernity. Critical of this 847). Referred to as “homonormativity,” this privileging of “Man,” Wynter detailed how Blackness and other minori- white, cis-normative identities and certain forms of coupling tized identities, for example the queer, were signaled as

JOURNAL OF CHILDREN’S LITERATURE VOL 47 NO 1 SPRING 2021 Jon M. Wargo & James Joshua Coleman Speculating the Queer (In)Human 87

Other and excluded from human status. Hence, they are the racialization of the (in)human and the cultural produc- rendered as (in)human. tion and dehumanizing violence of the abject writ large.3 Neither wholly human nor animal, the (in)human With a focus on queer (in)humanisms, we perform a critical provides a conceptual tool for disrupting our thinking of content analysis and reparative reading of a number of what it means and has meant to be human beyond the LGBTQ+ picturebooks inclusive of (in)human characters. genre of white, European, cis-heteronormative “Man.” In In doing so, we suggest that these children’s texts’ embrac- line with this thinking, we draw on the queer (in)human ing and rejecting of liberal humanist conceptions of “the (Luciano & Chen, 2015, 2019) to propel our critical content human” both constrain and incite the imagination and analysis and thereby contribute a line of inquiry into propel a practice of queer worlding. They provide a revised the ongoing conversation surrounding (de)humanizing ethics for reading queer life. Our analyses, in short, extend representation within CMCL. Addressing concerns incited what counts as queer by radically questioning and repara- by the posthuman turn, a turn triggered by the convergence tively reading the queer (in)human. of anti-anthropocentrism and anti-humanism, Luciano and Chen (2015) proposed the queer (in)human “to recollect and Methods and Modes of Inquiry foreground the very histories of dehumanization too often Given that our inquiry was centered on examining how queer overlooked in celebratory posthumanisms” (p. 196). Queer representation was made manifest through the (in)human, (in)humanisms, as defined by Luciano and Chen (2015, we conducted a critical content analysis (Johnson et al., 2017) 2019), refer not to a consolidated figure or type of represen- of selected texts, focusing on picturebooks that contained tation, but instead to a figure and invitation to speculate at least one (in)human (e.g., animal, multispecies hybrid, with, beyond, and across categories of non/humanity. or mythological creature) character. We searched for books The (in)human is configured “as an extension of intersec- via academic search engines, web-based LGBTQ+-inclusive tional analysis” (Luciano & Chen, 2019, p. 115). Whether literary resources (e.g., Rainbow Round Table [RRT] of the depicting queer animals, hybrid creatures, fantastic American Library Association), colleagues’ recommenda- organisms, or mythological species, queer (in)humans open tions, publisher websites, and children’s and youth literature queer theory and queer readings to “companion thinkers” blogs (e.g., Lee Wind, https://www.leewind.org/; Raise Them from diverse fields of scholarship (p. 117). Namely, queer Righteous, https://raisethemrighteous.com; YA Pride, (in)human representations invite insights from animal http://www.YApride.org). studies, environmental studies, critical race theory, and We first limited our book selection to texts published more, and they do so to invigorate speculation and repara- in the last 15 years (in and after 2005). We focused on tive readings of those “histories of dehumanization” often this frame of time for several reasons. First, this was attached to abjected communities (p. 115). the year the most debated picturebook featuring queer- While inviting speculation, queer (in)humanism also suggestive themes was published. And Tango Makes Three refuses to forget the past—the dehumanizing violence (Richardson & Parnell, 2005) today remains one of the of queer abjection—and does so by “point[ing] to the most contested children’s books. It is regularly featured on violence that the category of the human contains within the American Library Association’s top 10 challenged and itself” (Luciano & Chen, 2015, p. 196). Constructed in banned books list (American Library Association, 2020; anti-Blackness, queer- and transphobia, ableism, and Magnuson, 2011). We, like Hermann-Wilmarth and Ryan more (Jackson, 2020), the human is as fraught a category (2016), also recognize that this time frame (2005–2020) internally as externally; “however, it also carries a sense encompasses new political dimensions and law (e.g., of generativity—inhuman not simply as category, as a Obergefell v. Hodges, the Obama administration’s “Dear spatial designator or the name of a ‘kind’ of being, but as Colleague” letter on transgender students). Whereas others a process, an unfolding” (Luciano & Chen, 2015, p. 196). (see, for example, Jenkins & Cart, 2018) offer comprehen- It is this unfolding—in essence tracing the generativ- sive analyses of LGBTQ+-inclusive children’s and young ity of the queer (in)human as we bring queer theory into adult literature before this date, very few consider how the contact with other critical fields—that drives our analysis (in)human—as a personification of queer—functions today of LGBTQ+ picturebooks. We do so to speculate in search in and across spaces that are, in terms of federal and state of repair, while also remembering and honoring painful histories of queer abjection and its dehumanizing violence (Sedgwick, 2003). 3 We suggest that the normative subject of liberal humanism, Although our reparative project does not follow the Man, is predicated on the abjection of queerness. This is not based on configurations of queer-as-animal, but rather casts literary and visual culture of the African diaspora as queerness as ontologically malleable. Jackson’s (2020) does, we echo her sentiments regarding

VOL 47 NO 1 SPRING 2021 JOURNAL OF CHILDREN’S LITERATURE 88 ARTICLES policy, more inclusive. Upon further inspection, however, typology or classificatory system of how particular we decided to include one text that did not fall within this (in)human creatures were used solely as metaphorical span of 15 years. Given its acclaim and its focus on the substitutes or metonyms forwarding homonormative ideals. (in)human, we included The Sissy Duckling (Fierstein, Taking this last category and grouping of texts— 2012)—published in 2002—on our final list. picturebooks forwarding a vision of the (in)human as We also bounded our focal corpus in two additional more than metonymy and abjected creatures alone—we ways. First, we eliminated texts where the animal or performed a reparative reading. Specifically, we recast the (in)human—marked as queer or otherwise—was used hermeneutics of skepticism (Felski, 2015) that has long to solely document stories of LGBTQ+ humans. For undergirded critical reading practices by adopting a repara- example, The True Adventures of Esther the Wonder Pig tive orientation toward our corpus. In alignment with the (Jenkins, 2018) and The Adventures of Honey and Leon broader goals of this project, we did not categorize books as (Cumming, 2017) each feature animals; however, neither good or bad, but rather sought to “connect them to larger animal is the central protagonist. We also eliminated cultural constructs and social forces that may simultane- texts whose primary character or protagonist identifies ously reflect or subvert structural inequalities,” doing so as an LGBTQ+-identified human but transforms, either in pursuit of healing and repair (Grzanka, 2014, p. 135). by metaphor or costume, into what we categorize as Drawn from queer scholar Eve Sedgwick’s (2003) iconic (in)human (e.g., I Am Jazz).4 After applying these criteria, piece “Paranoid Reading and Reparative Reading, or, You’re we were left with 18 books. The text set with additional So Paranoid, You Probably Think This Essay Is About You,” information is described in Table 1.5 reparative reading allowed us to extend CMCL’s critical With this established set of texts, our initial analyses practices to address speculative potentials of the queer focused on the constructions of the (in)human and were (in)human. As Sedgwick explained, “in a world where conducted using Botelho and Rudman’s (2009) critical no one need be delusional to find evidence of systemic multicultural analysis (CMA). We first read each text oppression” (pp. 125–126), reparative readings refer to a independently, individually mapping how (in)human new affective orientation to a text, one both “additive and characters were represented. Were, for instance, these accretive” that “confer[s] plenitude on an object that will (in)humans configured as mythological multispecies then have resources to offer an inchoate self” (p. 149). hybrids (e.g., Neither or Miu Lan), or were they illustra- Healing and more-than-humanizing, in adopting a reparative of common animals from the natural world? After, tive orientation toward LGBTQ+ picturebooks featuring we followed a core set of questions suggestive of our queer (in)human characters, we were able to reinterpret complementary theoretical perspectives (see Table 2, the wounds of history, generating hope for a future divorced column 1). As CMA asserts, when reading with a critical from the homonormativity of the present. In short, we saw a multicultural lens, the following should be considered: the (queerer) future in the queer (in)human. social construction of identity (as it pertains to culture, gender, sexuality, etc.), closure and narrative ending Findings (e.g., whether a solution to a problem is presented or the Findings from this project are organized in accordance situation is left open), and the historical and sociopoliti- with the three themes that cohered from our critical cal conditions of the text and its relationship to power content analysis. Asking what the queer (in)human can and injustice. Reading the texts collaboratively in this do for recognizing and then reimagining homonormative way provided additional analytic insights. We identified a representations, these sections pair skeptical readings with reparative ones, finding in the oscillation between frameworks a more robust mechanism for understanding 4 We read transformations such as Julián’s in Julián Is a Mermaid (Love, 2018) as neither metaphor nor costume but as how CMCL operates as a “historical and cultural product an ontological exploration of (in)humanity. Julián “is” a mermaid [that] reveals how the power relations of class, race, and and, therefore, is simultaneously human and more-than-human gender [to name but a few] work together in text and in ways that trouble the liberal humanist concept of Man. image, and by extension, in society” (Botelho & Rudman, 5 We find it important to note here that several of the texts 2009, p. 1). Taking up the interplay of text and image featured in the corpus are less accessible than others. For afforded by LGBTQ+ picturebooks, in the three sections example, Square Zair Pair (Peeples, 2016), Vincent the Vixen below we demonstrate how representations of the queer (Reeves, 2018), and Goblinheart: A Fairy Tale (Axel, 2012) are (in)human might either reify or disrupt homonormative not readily available in schools or libraries. Albeit not criterion for disqualification, we underscore these issues of access as a power relations and, ultimately, locate in the speculative limitation. a means to reimagine the human in pursuit of a more just future for CMCL.

JOURNAL OF CHILDREN’S LITERATURE VOL 47 NO 1 SPRING 2021 Jon M. Wargo & James Joshua Coleman Speculating the Queer (In)Human 89

TABLE 1 Focal Picturebooks Included in Corpus

Does the Focal Abject Queer Focal Author or Year Narrative of Title (Author / Illustrator) Animal or Area(s) of Illustrator Published Acceptance Inhuman Exploration Identify as LGBTQ+?*

1 The Sissy Duckling 2002 Elmer, the Gender identity; Yes Self (S): N (Fierstein / Cole) duckling gender expression Community (C): Y Reader (R): Y 2 And Tango Makes Three 2005 Roy and Silo, two Homosociality; Yes S: N (Richardson & Parnell / Cole) penguins same-sex adoption C: N R: Y

3 Uncle Bobby’s Wedding 2008 Bobby, the guinea Homosociality; Unknown S: N (Brannen) pig same-sex marriage C: Y R: Y

4 Odd Bird Out 2011 Robert / Bobby Gender identity; No S: N (Bansch) Raver, the raven gender expression C: N R: N

5 Goblinheart: A Fairy Tale 2012 Julep, the goblin Gender identity; Unknown S: N (Axel / Bidlespacher) gender expression C: Y R: Y

6 A Peacock Among Pigeons 2015 Peter, the Gender identity; Yes S: Y (Curry / Gutierrez) peacock gender expression C: Y R: Y

7 Introducing Teddy 2016 Tilly, the teddy Gender identity; Yes S: Y (Walton / MacPherson) bear gender expression C: Y R: Y

8 Square Zair Pair 2016 Square-Bellied Homosociality Yes S: N (Peeples / Knopp) Zair C: Y R: Y

9 Worm Loves Worm 2016 Worm Gender identity; No S: N (Austrian / Curato) gender fluidity; C: N R: Y

10 BunnyBear 2017 BunnyBear, a Gender identity Unknown S: Y (Loney / Saldaña) hybrid creature C: Y R: Y

11 From the Stars in the Sky to the Fish 2017 Miu Lan, the Gender identity Yes S: Y in the Sea (Thom / Li & Ching) multispecies C: N R: Y

12 Not Quite Narwhal 2017 Kelp, the narwhal Gender identity; Yes S: Y (Sima) gender-fluidity C: N R: Y

13 A Day in the Life of Marlon Bundo 2018 Marlon Bundo, Same-sex marriage; Yes S: N (Twiss / Keller) the rabbit homosociality; C: Y/N R: Y

14 Julián Is a Mermaid 2018 Julián, the Gender identity; No S: N (Love) mermaid gender fluidity; C: N R: N

15 Lulu Is a Rhinoceros 2018 Lulu, the rhinoc- Gender identity No S: N (Flom & Flom / Corrigan) eros C: Y/N R: Y

16 Neither 2018 Neither, a hybrid Gender identity; No S: Y (Anderson) creature gender fluidity C: N R: Y

17 Vincent the Vixen 2018 Vincent, the Gender identity; Yes S: Y (Reeves / Kirk) vixen gender expression; C: Y/N R: Y

18 It’s Okay to Be a Unicorn! 2020 Cornelius J. Gender expression; Unknown Y: N (Tharp) Sparklesteed, the gender identity C: Y unicorn R: Y

* A range of information was used to garner answers to this question. We looked at authors’ Twitter feeds, where many self-identify; interviews done with publishers or libraries; and peritextual information present in the books under study.

VOL 47 NO 1 SPRING 2021 JOURNAL OF CHILDREN’S LITERATURE 90 ARTICLES

NOT THE NARWHAL! HOMONORMATIVE EXCEPTIONS surrounding community from discomfort, intolerance, and TO “NARRATIVES OF ACCEPTANCE” even disdain to acceptance. In Peeples’s (2016) Square Zair Pair, for example, anthropomorphized creatures of the “And All Were Welcome.” Mandoo tribe couple are “always in twos, one round with “The next day, the bunnies threw a party and all the one square” (p. 3). However, when two squares join their animals in the forest were invited.” tails together, the plot shifts into a community journey of queer (in)human acceptance. In contrast to picturebooks “And always remember to LOVE the feathers you were like Square Zair Pair (Peeples, 2016), The Sissy Duckling born with.” (Fierstein, 2012), and Odd Bird Out (Bansch, 2011), in “Because it doesn’t matter if you love a girl bunny which queer protagonists espouse self-acceptance from or a boy bunny, or eat your sandwich backward or the start of the narrative, Introducing Teddy (Walton, forward. / Stink bugs are temporary. Love is forever.” 6 2016), Not Quite Narwhal (Sima, 2017), A Peacock Among Pigeons (Curry, 2015), and Vincent the Vixen (Reeves, Drawn from the concluding page spreads of our picturebook 2018) depict their protagonists’ journey to self-acceptance. corpus, these excerpts demonstrate a prevalent aspect of Of the 18 books surveyed, seven espoused a narrative of critical multicultural children’s literature: “narratives of self-acceptance, while 10 promoted community acceptance acceptance.” Whether targeted toward the promotion of self, of queer (in)humans.7 community, or even reader acceptance, these narratives Reader acceptance, the third form of narrative of persist as facets of CMCL and have circulated alongside acceptance, reaches beyond the textual storyworld and terms like “tolerance” and “inclusion” to advocate for invites readers toward queer acceptance, most commonly representational equity within homes, libraries, and schools. through a story’s conclusion. This form of acceptance Related to LGBTQ+ representation, such acceptance has proved the most prevalent, with 16 of 18 texts concluding not been equally distributed across intersectional identities by inviting readers to accept queer (in)human protago- (Blackburn & Smith, 2010) and, furthermore, has resulted nists. On one hand, this acceptance reveals the valuable in a depoliticized queer culture framed by homonormative potential of representing the queer (in)human in CMCL, expectations (Hermann-Wilmarth & Ryan, 2016). Taking for it crafts metonyms or metaphorical substitutions (e.g., a up these perspectives in relation to the queer (in)human, sissy anthropomorphized duckling for a queer human child) in this section, we demonstrate the prevalence of such through which to represent queer life in the face of persis- narratives within our picturebook corpus, and then evoke tent banning from schools and libraries (American Library a reparative reading to speculate outside homonormativity Association, 2020). However, as Botelho et al. (2014) in LGBTQ+ picturebooks. rightly pointed out, “the literary category of multicultural The queer (in)human troubles homonormative children’s literature can distract adult and children readers representation. As a concept and analytic, it invites from addressing intragroup and intergroup diversity” (p. speculation beyond critical multiculturalism’s tacit commit- 42). We agree with this assertion and, through a paranoid ment to anthropocentric thought and to the category of the reading, find that these narratives extend acceptance to a “Human”—a category that, as Jackson (2020) and Wynter whiteness hidden in bunny bounces, winged whirls, and (2003) have pointed out, naturalizes white supremacy, linguistic lilts, doing so in ways that obscure tacit commit- anti-Blackness, cis-heteronormativity, and able-bodiedness ments to the liberal hu/Man embedded in representations of as the de facto norm of human representation. As revealed both human and animals. in column 6 of Table 1, across our corpus we noticed three Embracing the reparative reveals notable exceptions primary forms of narratives of acceptance. The first two to the false promise of homonormative acceptance within forms, self and community, take place within a picture- CMCL. A prime example, And Tango Makes Three book’s diegesis or storyworld and refer to a journey through (Richardson & Parnell, 2005), which is perhaps the which the primary queer character(s) come either to accept most famous or, better yet, infamous LGBTQ+ picture- their identity or are accepted by their home community. book, draws upon the queer (in)human to unsettle the Central to these narratives is the journey involved, that sedimented homonormativity of queer Man. As explained movement or change by the queer (in)human and their

7 As expressed in Table 1, three picturebooks were coded as 6 In order of appearance, these quotes are from Neither (Anderson, Yes/No, meaning that one community within the storyworld 2018), BunnyBear (Loney, 2017), A Peacock Among Pigeons (Curry, of the text moved toward acceptance of the queer (in)human, 2015), and A Day in the Life of Marlon Bundo (Twiss, 2018). while a second community did not.

JOURNAL OF CHILDREN’S LITERATURE VOL 47 NO 1 SPRING 2021 Jon M. Wargo & James Joshua Coleman Speculating the Queer (In)Human 91 in “Creating a Controversial Picturebook” (Young, 2011), imbued with the very values and institutions that previous together authors, illustrator, and editor “took out all queer coalitional groups critiqued (D’Emilio, 1983). Take, instances of anthropomorphizing in the book” (p. 35), a for example, Brannen’s (2008) Uncle Bobby’s Wedding and challenging feat considering the team’s desire to clarify Twiss’s (2018) A Day in the Life of Marlon Bundo, both of for young readers that “this was a love story and not just which position marriage as the de facto telos or outcome of about two good friends.” Ascribing human emotionality to queer life. While Uncle Bobby’s Wedding details how young (in)human figures, Tango’s team revealed the potential of Cleo (a guinea pig) navigates her uncle Bobby’s impending the queer (in)human. As nonanthropomorphized animals, marriage to his “friend” Jamie (both also guinea pigs) (p. protagonists Roy and Silo pressure the social frameworks 5), A Day in the Life of Marlon Bundo subversively parodies of homonormative queerness, for though we might ascribe Charlotte and Karen Pence’s A Day in the Life of the Vice queerness to them based upon our perceptions of their President, doing so in critique of then–vice president Mike same-sex coupling, such an application is based uniquely Pence’s stance toward LGBTQ+ rights. upon human forms of sociality. Nonanthropomorphized Reinforcing homonormative ideals, both books penguins, Roy and Silo are not subject to the impress of conclude in weddings that through their tuxedoed grooms homophobic histories or homonormativity. Thus, the text deploy sartorial choice to reinforce gender norms; in the invites a reparative reading through speculation into queer case of Uncle Bobby’s Wedding (Brannen, 2008), the final (in)human sociality. Disrupting hegemonic conceptualiza- page spread depicts Jamie and Bobby bookending Cleo tions of Man, representations such as these, when embraced with a family hug. Endearing, such an ending likewise for their speculative potential, can guide analysis of CMCL cosignals a queer future in which Jamie and Bobby become toward a more expansive critical project. It allows readers, parents—a detail collaborated by earlier dialogue between whether adult or child, teacher or student, to recognize Jaime and Cleo. Importantly, scholars have mobilized homonormative representations in LGBTQ+ picturebooks, “perverse reading[s]” (Hurley, 2011) of the text to suggest while also speculating social repair—toward reimagined the possibilities of “queer affinity” and “counterhegemonic forms of queer life and queer sociality that are central animal collectives” to repair these ostensibly homonorma- to dismantling homonormative futures. A form of queer tive representations (see, for example, Matos, 2018). These world-making, reading And Tango Makes Three as both a representations reject, however, the speculative world- homonormative tale and a speculative rewriting of queer making forwarded in the middle pages of the text as such sociality reveals the potential of the queer (in)human to world-making becomes so easily subsumed within the larger animate queer world-making toward a more just, nonnor- representational landscape of LGBTQ+ picturebooks—one mative future. in which marriage and child-rearing persistently propagate a vision of the future that relays homonormative ideals. ON MAMMALS AND MONOGAMY; OR, WHEN QUEER Queerer than Brannen’s (2008) and Twiss’s (2018) (IN)HUMANS ADVANCE QUEER MARRIAGE texts—insofar as the narrative amplifies the biologi- When critically reading across the broader corpus, particu- cal prowess of the species as a means to rethink gender larly from a paranoid and nonreparative perspective, we expression—is Worm Loves Worm (Austrian, 2016). Written also saw that the (in)human—here read as animal species by J. J. Austrian and illustrated by Mike Curato, Worm found in the natural world (e.g., worm, rabbit, guinea pig)— Loves Worm uses the (in)human to qualify the biologi- was used to illustrate implicit heteronormative logics (i.e., cal plasticity of the worm (as it pertains to biological sex). underscoring relationships that were monogamous and Indeed, the earthworm is a “simultaneous hermaphrodite” confined to two partners) through homonormative institu- (Cosín et al., 2011) as it carries both sex organs. Although tions (e.g., marriage). Although not reflective of the majority Worm Loves Worm starts with the declarative “Let’s be of texts under review, three books (Brannen’s [2008] Uncle married,” the text’s larger purpose is not to constrict what Bobby’s Wedding, Austrian’s [2016] Worm Loves Worm, queer partnership can be (in terms of marriage) but rather and Twiss’s [2018] A Day in the Life of Marlon Bundo) to reorient the pairing to the necessities of the ritual itself anthropomorphize the sexual politics of neoliberalism. (e.g., wedding rings). Unfortunately, despite the potentials These texts purport a “domesticated, depoliticized privacy” for repair embedded in the biology of the earthworm and the (Duggan, 2002, p. 179) that results in an (in)human variant lack of gender-specific pronouns, from a more paranoid or of “conventional gays” (p. 179). The (in)human thus serves nonreparative perspective, the picturebook reinforces what a politically acceptable purpose for highlighting LGBTQ+ marriage, as a capitalist ritual and performance, entails. access to otherwise straight-identified practices. A friendly bee, for instance, asserts, “But you still need / a Reorienting the possibility of queer world-making white dress, / a tuxedo, a top hat, / lots and lots of flowers, / toward a project of LGBTQ+ inclusion, these texts are and a cake with frosting” (p. 15). Concluding with an image

VOL 47 NO 1 SPRING 2021 JOURNAL OF CHILDREN’S LITERATURE 92 ARTICLES of the two earthworms wearing facets of both a tuxedo book concludes in a new setting entitled “The Land of All,” and white wedding dress, the (in)human sustains itself as a location where a vibrant collection of queer (in)human another tool to propagate a rote ending rooted in a neolib- variants (e.g., a blue-spotted kangaroo-unicorn) welcome eral, homonormative institution. Neither with the refrain “And everyone fits in here” (p. 26). One might, however, read perversely (Hurley, 2011; A narrative of acceptance, indeed, a reparative reading Matos, 2018) and for reparative purposes. By focusing on reveals, however, a speculative form of queer world-making queer (in)human representations in the beginning and enlivened by semantic play of the queer (in)human charac- middle sections of Worm Loves Worm and not the ultimate ters. With names like “Sort of,” “Just,” and “Rather,” an double-page spread, these worms offer the reader a form array of queer-kin are documented in the final pages; much of repair. Namely, the plasticity of the worm body opens like their semantic potential to be multiple parts of speech, readers to speculation about the conceptual limitations they only become fixed in relation to others. “Neither,” for of biological sex and not-so-queer institutions such as example, can function as either an adjective, a pronoun, or a gay marriage, while also prompting reimagined forms of conjunction dependent on syntactic placement. Neither bird gender identity and queer sociality. Reparatively, such nor bunny, our protagonist Neither reinforces Botelho and a reading opens potential for queer world-making as it Rudman’s (2009) assertion that “children’s literature can be invites speculation beyond hetero- and homonormative a tool for creating a historical, sociopolitical imagination in conceptions of life anchored in value-laden institutions young readers” (p. 9). Eschewing easy categorization, queer such as marriage. The (in)human, here, offers new ways (in)human characters—resplendent figures of hybridity, to challenge exclusionary—and dare we say unjust— fluidity, and multiplicity—provide a mechanism for readerly configurations of queerness and its representation in repair, enlivening possibilities for queer relations and queer LGBTQ+ picturebooks. world-building rooted in speculation. Queer (in)human representation takes particular SPECULATING THE QUEER FANTASTIC IN salience in narratives concerning transgender (trans) THE (IN)HUMAN AND ABJECT life. Long considered to “have no history…fundamen- The third and final theme resulting from our critical tally new and, somehow, therefore deserving of less than analyses involved understanding the queer (in)human human recognition” (Gill-Peterson, 2018, p. viii), trans as a speculative invitation through which readers might and gender-nonconforming children, quite to the contrary, strive toward repairing the dehumanizing violence of espouse a rich history in text and the historical archive. abjection within CMCL. Put more simply, a range of texts Yet, as Gill-Peterson (2018) argued, these children have used (in)human figures (e.g., fantastic creatures, multispe- been “left to fend for themselves in a culture that suffers cies more-than-human hybrids, and animal hybrids) from being unable to imagine” them (p. viii). Lost to gaps to represent alternative registers of queer social life. in the adult imagination (Thomas, 2019), narratives of Although distinct in their depictions, Neither (Anderson, gender creativity take on new reparative life in queer 2018), Julián Is a Mermaid (Love, 2018), and From the (in)human figures. InJulián Is a Mermaid (Love, 2018) Stars in the Sky to the Fish in the Sea (Thom, 2017) and From the Stars in the Sky to the Fish in Sea (Thom, each uniquely situates the (in)human as a concept and 2017), gender-creative young people summon painful construct to rethink who and what is rendered as queer. histories of abjection, even as they anchor readers Authoring texts that reframe discourses of tolerance and within present realities defined by the vibrancy of queer acceptance, the (in)human here makes visible a queer joy. However, due to an oversaturation of pathological world that is unrestricted by heteronormative logics narratives surrounding trans and queer life, that joy has and thereby underscores homonormative desires. These often been depicted as future oriented: Images of queer joy texts advance a new grammar of queer representation in have long been represented as vital components of a future LGBTQ+ picturebooks. ever deferred—frankly, of a future never to come. A telling tale of “this” (a blue rabbit) and “that” (a Challenging such deferral, Julián and Miu Lan—read yellow bird), Neither (Anderson, 2018) is a unique text here as a mermaid and a shapeshifter, respectively—exude insofar as it is the only picturebook in our corpus that queer joy, while holding both history and the future close at uses a multispecies animal hybrid (a green half-bird, hand. Exuberant, these queer (in)humans dance, swim, and half-rabbit) to represent the queer (in)human. Although fly through fantastically rich depictions of trans and gender- at first glance the narrative jolts Neither, the eponymous nonconforming childhoods. These picturebooks do not, protagonist, on a journey of self-acceptance, its penultimate however, shirk the realities of harmful histories that often pages and conclusion leave the reader with an awareness attach to queer life (e.g., “the other children still pointed of the possible repair of a queer elsewhere: The picture- and whispered [at Miu Lan]”). Recognizing those histories,

JOURNAL OF CHILDREN’S LITERATURE VOL 47 NO 1 SPRING 2021 Jon M. Wargo & James Joshua Coleman Speculating the Queer (In)Human 93 the joy of these queer (in)humans is not, however, lost to and it does so to invite readers to imagine toward what them, and “love” (Julián Is a Mermaid) and “happ[iness]” could be (Muñoz, 2009). (From the Stars in the Sky to the Fish in Sea) surface time For us, cultivating a speculative reading practice (e.g., and again, from panel to panel, page to page. a reparative reading) challenges the infusion of homonor- Holding painful histories in the present, these books mative logics in contemporary LGBTQ+ picturebooks. As demonstrate in their depictions of queer joy the speculative Schalk (2018) explained, speculation allows readers and potential “for trans children simply to be” (Gill-Peterson, “writers to represent a world not restricted by our contem- 2018). A notable exception, Julián encounters little more porary racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, and classist than a disapproving glance from his abuela, and critics realities” (pp. 21–22). Inviting a reimagining that does not have taken note of this potential historical inauthentic- “ignore what is queer about being queer” (Taylor, 2012, ity (Jiménez, 2018). An importantly critical read, we hold p. 148), (in)human characters in LGBTQ+ picturebooks in close proximity to it an equally critical yet reparative provide hermeneutical resources that spotlight homonorma- reading that finds in Julián’s failed encounter the promise, tivity’s increasing malleability. The 2020 reillustration of potential, and reality of trans children simply being allowed Uncle Bobby’s Wedding (Brannen, 2008) deftly illustrates to be. Seemingly speculative, such representations of this point. Transposing anthropomorphized guinea pigs being and of queer joy in CMCL are central to metaphori- into humans, the picturebook is now populated with human cally unfettering trans children from the false narrative figures, not animal ones, and thus indicates a new politi- “that they have no history, that they are fundamentally cal climate, one more willing to recognize queer life within new” (Gill-Peterson, 2018, p. viii). Such narratives reveal human characters. Crucially, Uncle Bobby’s Wedding the critical failure of adults to honor the fundamental joy demonstrates keen attention to racial diversity and also of trans childhoods, instead co-opting those lives for a acknowledges that only “some” committed couples get purpose—to define what gender is, how it functions, or even married. Nonetheless, the plot focuses, teleologically, around to cure the ills of a racist, cis-heteronormative world of our gay marriage. It positions child-rearing as the singular and own making. The queer (in)human can help us adults to most desired outcome of queer life—a notably homonor- engage in such important critical, speculative work that mative ending. Such a (re)presentation, while important, honors past, present, and future, allowing trans children, foregoes a certain speculative potential invited by the queer whether in representation or in life, simply to be. (in)human, by animality and other (in)human figures, that through their very existence trouble homonormative concep- Discussion tualizations of the human. As CMCL purports, however, In reading across our analyses, we want to close by it is not texts themselves but the meaning made through underscoring the theoretical and pedagogical significance reading texts that enlivens the speculation needed to repair of our project. Indeed, as we detailed, critically reading the harm of abjection and homonormative representations in (in)human representations both reified homonormative LGBTQ+ picturebooks. And such readings can be taught. depictions of queer life but also, reparatively, reconfigured The queer (in)human, as an abject form and concept, them. Notwithstanding, we suggest that the (in)human— does not rest solely at the level of the theoretical. Indeed, it both as a construct and as a concept—is worthy of further can also be utilized as a pedagogical tool in the classroom. investigation in critical multicultural children’s literature. Whereas previous scholarship has advocated for LGBTQ+- As a hermeneutic resource for speculation, the inclusive literature in the English language arts (see, for (in)human advances queer(er) reads of LGBTQ+ picturebooks. example, Bentley & Souto-Manning, 2016; Blackburn & The (in)human—the monstrous, the magical, as well as the Buckley, 2005; Blackburn & Smith, 2010; Crisp et al., abject—when read critically and from a paranoid stance, 2016; Hermann-Wilmarth & Ryan, 2016; Martino, 2009; illuminates the violence of abjection alongside those less Ryan & Hermann-Wilmarth, 2018; Schall & Kauffman, visible understandings of queer life in representation. Yet, 2003; Skrlac Lo, 2016), the (in)human amplifies advocacy when read critically and from a reparative stance, queer for sustained reading through a “queer” lens (Blackburn (in)human figures also detail what can or could be in the social et al., 2015; Ryan & Hermann-Wilmarth, 2013; Wargo, world. Inverting typical logics of CMCL, which positions texts 2017). Whereas critical multicultural approaches document as “a cultural and historical product” of a given social world power and injustice through asking “what is,” the (in)human (Botelho & Rudman, 2009, p. 8), we suggest instead that can be used as a queer concept to query “what could be” (in)human social worlds are equally positioned as products (see Table 2). In Table 2, we demonstrate the value of of texts. The (in)human—understood through CMCL— multiple readings of a text, ones that recognize the value of depicts the interplay of realist histories, oppressive traditional critical, paranoid readings, while also extending presents, and speculative futures attached to queer life, such critical practices toward more reparative ends.

VOL 47 NO 1 SPRING 2021 JOURNAL OF CHILDREN’S LITERATURE 94 ARTICLES

TABLE 2 Guiding Questions From a Critical Multicultural Lens and From a Reparative Lens

CMCL Guiding Questions: Speculating Toward Reparative Readings: “What is…” “What can be…” (Woolridge, 2001, as cited in Botelho & Rudman, 2009, p. 4)

• What (or whose) view of the world, or [what] kinds of behaviors are • How might normalized views of the world or kinds of behavior within the presented as normal by the text? text be written otherwise? • Why is the text written that way? How else could it have been written? • How might the text be written differently? And for what purposes? • Who is silenced/heard here? • Whose voices can be amplified through text? • Whose interests might best be served by the text? • Whose interests could be served by the text? • What ideological positions can you identify? • What ideological positions need to be represented in this text? • What are the possible readings of the situation/event/character? How did • What are possible reparative readings of the situation/event/character? you get to that reading? How can you get to that reading? • What moral or political position does a reading support? How do particular • What moral or political position could a reading support? How can cultural and social contexts make particular readings available? (e.g., particular cultural and social contexts make particular readings available? [W]ho could you not say that to?) How might it be challenged? How might it be rewritten?

Conclusion Reading the (in)human is, as we suggest, a critical literacy reifying diminutive returns for others, the (in)human— practice of “reading the word and the world” (Freire & as a concept—demands interrogation. Indeed, readers, Macedo, 1987). As we make evident above, the (in)human educators, and researchers alike are tasked with the critical invites nuance in LGBTQ+ literature by interrogating question, “Who (and what) counts as human?” � the ranges of experiences the animal, the abject, and the fantastic make possible in their experiences, storylines, Jon M. Wargo is an assistant professor in the Lynch School of Education identities, and ideological positions. Engaging this dual and Human Development at Boston College. Email: [email protected] reading perspective—one that both critiques and specula- James Joshua (Josh) Coleman is an assistant professor in the Department tively repairs—cultivates critical reading practices. Although of English and Comparative Literature at San Jose State University. many of these texts operate like an unfinished archive of Email: [email protected] thought that suggests advancement for some while

References intersectionality. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 53, American Library Association. (2020). Top ten most challenged 625–634. books lists. Banned and Challenged Books. http://www.ala.org Botelho, M., & Rudman, M. (2009). Critical multicultural analysis /advocacy/bbooks/frequentlychallengedbooks/top10 of children’s literature: Mirrors, windows, and doors. Taylor & Bentley, D. F., & Souto-Manning, M. (2016). Toward inclusive Francis. understandings of marriage in an early childhood classroom: Botelho, M. J., Young, S. L.-B., & Nappi, T. (2014). Rereading Negotiating (un)readiness, community, and vulnerability Columbus: Critical multicultural analysis of multiple historical through a critical reading of King and King. Early Years, 36(2), storylines. Journal of Children’s Literature, 40(1), 41–51. 195–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/09575146.2015.1104899 Brockenbrough, E. (2012). Agency and abjection in the closet: Bishop, R. (1990). Mirrors, windows, and sliding glass doors. The voices (and silences) of Black queer male teachers. Perspectives, 6(3), ix–xi. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, Blackburn, M. V., & Buckley, J. F. (2005). Teaching queer inclusive 25(6), 741–765. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2011.590157 English language arts. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, Cole, M., & Stewart, K. (2016). Our children and other animals: 49, 202–212. The cultural construction of human-animal relations in Blackburn, M. V., Clark, C. T., & Nemeth, E. A. (2015). Examining childhood. Routledge. queer elements and ideologies in LGBT-themed literature: Coleman, J. J. (2019a). Digital innocence: Queer virginity, painful What queer literature can offer young adult readers. Journal of histories, and the critical hope of queer futurity. Research on Literacy Research, 47, 11–48. Diversity in Youth Literature, 2(1), 1–18. Blackburn, M. V., & Smith, J. M. (2010). Moving beyond the Coleman, J. J. (2019b). Writing with impunity in a space of their inclusion of LGBT-themed literature in English language arts own: On cultural appropriation, imaginative play, and a new classrooms: Interrogating heteronormativity and exploring ethics of slash in Harry Potter fanfiction.Jeunesse , 11(1), 84–111.

JOURNAL OF CHILDREN’S LITERATURE VOL 47 NO 1 SPRING 2021 Jon M. Wargo & James Joshua Coleman Speculating the Queer (In)Human 95

References cont. content analysis of children’s and young adult literature: Cooperative Children’s Book Center. (2019). Books by and/or Reframing perspective. Routledge. about Black, Indigenous, and people of color 2018– . https://ccbc Kim, E. (2015). Unbecoming human: An ethics of objects. GLQ: A .education.wisc.edu/literature-resources/ccbc-diversity Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies, 21(2–3), 295–320. -statistics/books-by-and-or-about-poc-2018/ Knoblauch, D. (2016). Building the foundation of acceptance book Cosín, D. J. D., Novo, M., & Fernández, R. (2011). Reproduction by book: Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and/or transgender-themed of earthworms: Sexual selection and parthenogenesis. In A. books for Grades K–5 multicultural libraries. Multicultural Karaca (Ed.), Biology of earthworms (pp. 69–86). Springer. Perspectives, 18(4), 209–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/15210960 Crisp, T., Knezek, S., Quinn, M., Bingham, G., Girardeau, K., & .2016.1228325 Starks, F. (2016). What’s on our bookshelves?: The diversity Lester, J. Z. (2014). Homonormativity in children’s literature: An of children’s literature in early childhood classroom libraries. intersectional analysis of queer-themed picturebooks. Journal Journal of Children’s Literature, 42(2), 29–42. of LGBT Youth, 11(3), 244–275. https://doi.org/10.1080/193616 Dahlen, S. P. (2019). Picture this: Diversity in children’s books 2018 53.2013.879465 infographic. http://sarahpark.com/ Luciano, D., & Chen, M. Y. (2015). Has the queer ever been D’Emilio, J. (1983). Sexual politics, sexual communities. University human? GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies, 21(2–3), of Chicago Press. 182–207. Duggan, L. (2002). The new homonormativity: The sexual Luciano, D., & Chen, M. Y. (2019). Queer inhumanisms. GLQ: A politics of neoliberalism. In R. Castronovo & D. Nelson (Eds.), Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies, 25(1), 113–117. https://doi Materializing democracy: Toward a revitalized cultural politics .org/10.1215/10642684-7275600 (pp. 175–194). Duke University Press. Magnuson, M. L. (2011). Perceptions of self and the “Other”: Felski, R. (2015). The limits of critique. The University of Chicago An analysis of challenges to And Tango makes three. School Press. Library Research, 14, 1–12. Freire, P., & Macedo, D. (1987). Literacy: Reading the word and the Martino, W. (2009). Literacy issues and GLBTQ youth: Queer world. Routledge. interventions in English education. In L. Christenbury, R. Gill-Peterson, J. (2018). Histories of the transgender child. Bomer, & P. Smagorinsky (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent University of Minnesota. literacy research (pp. 386–399). Guilford Press. Grzanka, P. (2014). Media as sites/sights of justice. In P. Grzanka Matos, A. D. (2018). Rabbit weddings, animal collectives, and the (Ed.), Intersectionality: A foundations and frontiers reader (pp. potentialities of perverse reading: Children’s literature and 131–137). Westview Press. queer worldmaking in A day in the life of Marlon Bundo. QED: Hartman, P. (2018). A queer approach to addressing gender and A Journal in GLBTQ Worldmaking, 5(3), 28–41. sexuality through literature discussions with second graders. Matos, A. D., & Wargo, J. M. (2019). Editors’ introduction: Queer Language Arts, 96(2), 79–90. futurities in youth literature, media, and culture. Research on Hermann-Wilmarth, J. M., & Ryan, C. L. (2016). Queering chapter Diversity in Youth Literature, 2(1), 1–17. http://sophia.stkate books with LGBT characters for young readers: Recognizing .edu/rdyl/vol2/iss1/1 and complicating representations of homonormativity. Möller, K. J. (2020). Reading and responding to LGBTQ-inclusive Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 37(6), children’s literature in school settings: Considering the state of 846–866. research on inclusion. Language Arts, 97(4), 18. Hurley, N. (2011). The perversions of children’s literature. Muñoz, J. E. (2009). Cruising utopia: The then and there of queer Jeunesse: Young People, Texts, Cultures, 3(2), 118–132. futurity. New York University Press. Jackson, Z. I. (2020). Becoming human: Matter and meaning in an Nieto, S., & Bode, P. (2019). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical antiblack world. New York University Press. context of multicultural education (6th ed.). Pearson Education. Jagose, A. (1996). Queer theory: An introduction. New York Ryan, C. L., & Hermann-Wilmarth, J. M. (2013). Already on the University Press. shelf: Queer readings of award-winning children’s literature. Jenkins, C., & Cart, M. (2018). Representing the rainbow in young Journal of Literacy Research, 45, 142–172. adult literature: LGBTQ+ content since 1969. Rowman & Ryan, C. L., & Hermann-Wilmarth, J. M. (2018). Reading Littlefield Publishers. the rainbow: LGBTQ-inclusive literacy instruction in the Jiménez, L. (2018, September 24). Trans people aren’t mythical elementary classroom. Teachers College Press. creatures. Booktoss. https://booktoss.org/2018/09/24/trans Schalk, S. D. (2018). Bodyminds reimagined: (Dis)ability, race, and -people-arent-mythical-creatures/ gender in Black women’s speculative fiction. Duke University Johnson, H., Janelle, M., & Short, K. G. (Eds.). (2017). Critical Press.

VOL 47 NO 1 SPRING 2021 JOURNAL OF CHILDREN’S LITERATURE 96 ARTICLES

References cont. Thomas, E. E. (2016). Stories still matter: Rethinking the role Schall, J., & Kauffmann, G. (2003). Exploring literature with gay of diverse children’s literature today. Language Arts, 94(2), and lesbian characters in the elementary school. Journal of 112–119. Children’s Literature, 29(1), 36–45. Thomas, E. E. (2019). The dark fantastic: Race and the Sedgwick, E. K. (2003). Touching feeling: Affect, pedagogy, imagination from Harry Potter to the Hunger Games. New York performativity. Duke University Press. University Press. Skrlac Lo, R. (2016). On listening to children: Family variation in Wargo, J. M. (2017). Hacking heteronormativity and remixing an after-school reading club. Language Arts, 94(2), 6. rhymes: Enacting a [Q]ulturally sustaining pedagogy in middle Sotirovska, V., & Kelley, J. (2020). Anthropomorphic characters grades English language arts. Voices From the Middle, 24(3), in children’s literature: Windows, mirrors, or sliding glass 39–43. doors to embodied immigrant experiences. The Elementary Wynter, S. (2003). Unsettling the coloniality of being/power/ School Journal, 121(2). Advance online publication. https://doi truth/freedom: Towards the human, after man, its .org/10.1086/711054 overrepresentation—an argument. CR: The New Centennial Souto-Manning, M., & Hermann-Wilmarth, J. (2008). Teacher Review, 3(3), 257–337. inquiries into gay and lesbian families in early childhood Young, C. A. (2011). Creating a controversial picturebook: classrooms. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 6(3), 263– Discussions with the creators of “And Tango makes three.” 280. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476718X08094450 Journal of Children’s Literature, 37(2), 30–38. Taylor, N. (2012). U.S. children’s picturebooks and the Young, C. A. (2019). Interrogating the lack of diversity in award- homonormative subject. Journal of LGBT Youth, 9(2), 136–152. winning LGBTQ-inclusive picturebooks. Theory Into Practice, https://doi.org/10.1080/19361653.2011.649646 58(1), 61–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2018.1536915

Children’s Literature Cited Anderson, A. (2018). Neither. Hachette Book Group. Love, J. (2018). Julián is a mermaid. Candlewick Press. Austrian, J. J. (2016). Worm loves worm (M. Curato, Illus.). Newman, L. (1989). Heather has two mommies (L. Cornell, Illus.). HarperCollins Publishing. Alyson Books. Axel, B. (2012). Goblinheart: A fairy tale (T. Bidlespacher, Illus.). Peeples, J. (2016). Square zair pair (C. Knopp, Illus.). Zair Pair East Waterfront Press. Books. Bansch, H. (2011). Odd bird out. Lerner Publishing Group. Reeves, A. (2018). Vincent the vixen: A story to help children Brannen, S. S. (2008). Uncle Bobby’s wedding. GP Putnam’s Sons. learn about gender identity (P. Kirk, Illus.). Jessica Kingsley Brannen, S. S. (2020). Uncle Bobby’s wedding. GP Putnam’s Sons. Publishers. Cumming, A. (2017). The adventures of Honey & Leon (G. Shaffer, Richardson, J., & Parnell, P. (2005). And Tango makes three (H. Illus.). Random House Children’s Books. Cole, Illus.). Simon and Schuster. Curry, T. (2015). A peacock among pigeons (C. Gutierrez, Illus.). Sima, J. (2017). Not quite narwhal. Simon and Schuster. Mascot Books. Tharp, J. (2020). It’s okay to be a unicorn! Macmillan Publishing Fierstein, H. (2012). The sissy duckling (H. Cole Illus.). Simon and Group. Schuster. Thom, K. C. (2017). From the stars in the sky to the fish in the sea Flom, J., & Flom, A. (2018). Lulu is a rhinoceros (S. Corrigan, (W.-Y. Li & K. Y. Ching, Illus.). Arsenal Pulp Press. Illus.). Lulu is a Rhinoceros. Twiss, J. (2018). A day in the life of Marlon Bundo (E. G. Keller, Herthel, J. & Jennings, J. (2014). I am Jazz (S. McNicholas, Illus.). Illus.). Chronicle Press. Dial Books for Young Readers. Walton, J. (2016). Introducing Teddy: A gentle story about gender Jenkins, S. (2018). The true adventures of Esther the Wonder Pig and friendship (D. MacPherson, Illus.). Bloomsbury Publishing (C. Doerrfeld, Illus.). Little, Brown Books for Young Readers. USA. Loney, A. (2017). BunnyBear (C. Saldaña, Illus.). Albert Whitman Willhoite, M. (1990). Daddy’s roommate. Alyson Books. & Co.

JOURNAL OF CHILDREN’S LITERATURE VOL 47 NO 1 SPRING 2021