Conference Agenda

This paper draws on my doctoral research to understand and problematize how binary thinking operates as an onto-epistemic framework in early childhood teacher education in Chile, shaping what counts as legitimate knowledge, appropriate professional identities, and possible forms of pedagogical action. Grounded in feminist posthumanism and new materialisms (Barad, 2007; Taylor, 2013; Lenz-Taguchi, 2016), the study conceptualizes binary thinking not as a set of individual beliefs but as a material-discursive practice that organizes educational realities through hierarchical oppositions such as reason/emotion, theory/practice, mind/body, and normal/abnormal. Here, “onto-epistemic” signals that binaries are not only ways of knowing but also ways of being and doing: they configure which bodies, affects, and pedagogical actions become thinkable and legitimate within teacher education assemblages.

The central research question guiding this inquiry is: What are the operations of binary thinking as an onto-epistemic framework in the initial training of early childhood educators in Chile? The main aim is to trace its operations through institutional arrangements, conceptual circulations, and material–affective configurations. This question becomes particularly salient in early childhood teacher education because this level exhibits a distinctive convergence: extreme feminization (Subsecretaría Educación Parvularia, 2022), marked material precariousness (CNED, 2022), and a strong reliance on developmental psychology and early childhood neuroscience discourses that present themselves as neutral and universal (Fox, Levitt, & Nelson, 2010). These dynamics tend to reinforce each other as an assemblage in which regimes of normality become naturalized and binary thinking is stabilized as pedagogical common sense.

The inquiry is situated in a politically contested field (Falabella et al., 2024), where professionalism, vocation, affect, care, and developmentalist/neurocognitive discourses are positioned through hierarchical separations (e.g., reason/emotion; science/care; objective/subjective; mind/body) (Burman, 2008; Nielsen et al., 2017). Feminist philosophy and science studies have shown that such divisions are not neutral descriptors but epistemic and political technologies that sustain unequal distributions of authority and credibility (Grosz, 1994). From this perspective, binaries do not simply “represent” reality; they participate in producing it through classificatory and evaluative practices.

One mechanism sustaining binary thinking is its naturalization through hegemonic scientific traditions that dominate biomedical, psychological, and neuroscientific knowledge production (Sanz, 2017; Hyde et al., 2019). Por example, in the case of gender, the biologization of sexual difference has justified hierarchies as outcomes of supposedly fixed bodily traits (Fausto-Sterling, 2000; Sanz, 2017), reinforcing binary and essentialist understandings (Hyde et al., 2019).

Conceptually, the paper mobilizes feminist new materialisms and posthumanist approaches to treat teacher education as a material–discursive assemblage rather than a bounded institutional site (Coole & Frost, 2010; Fox & Alldred, 2015; Taylor, 2013). In agential realist terms, binaries are analyzed as cuts and apparatuses that enact particular realities—stabilizing some categories while foreclosing others (Barad, 2007). This enables an analysis of how binary gender norms intersect with regimes of measurement, accountability, and professional formation, including the production of “datafied” subjects (Dixon-Román, 2017; Riberi & Matus, 2025).

This is not a nationally bounded issue: the binaries traced here are sustained through transnational regimes of expertise—developmental science, accountability, and data infrastructures—that circulate across education systems (Dahlberg et al., 2013). By working from a Chilean case, the paper contributes a Global South intervention into international debates on gender, epistemic authority, and the disrupted relation between knowledge and action, asking what research can make possible when binaries are treated as onto-epistemic infrastructures rather than attitudes or beliefs.

The UNESCO (2021) paper on the inclusion of LGBTI students emphasizes the vital role of teachers in creating a safe atmosphere for all students, regardless of their gender identity, gender expression, variation of sex characteristics or sexual orientation. Additionally, the European Commission (2025) underlines the importance of safe and inclusive education in its current LGBTIQ equality strategy. In recent years a significant shift has occurred in the political and social discourse surrounding sex/gender diversity in Germany. Note: While some researchers conceptionally separate LGBT and intersex (Jones et al. 2016), German language uses the concept of Geschlecht (which I translate as sex/gender), a word that entangles biological and social aspects of body, identity, and role.

In 2019, a third civil status “divers” was legally established for intersex people. Since 2021, the “Law to Strengthen Children and Youth” has included the well-being of trans, intersex and non-binary youth in the “Social Security Statute Book VIII”. In November 2024, the “Self-determination Law (SBGG)” took effect, opening the civil status “divers” to nonbinary and transgender individuals. The visibility of trans, intersex and non-binary students and the thematization of sex/gender beyond the binary increased in science, society and schools (De Witte et al. 2022). However, these legal improvements do not necessarily translate into better conditions for LGBTIQ students and teachers at school.

Although Germany offers information, guidelines, support systems, and inclusive national curricula, there is no mandatory teacher training on LGBTQI awareness (IGLYO 2025). Teachers often feel uncomfortable or incompetent addressing sex/gender diversity in the classroom (Klenk 2023). They acquire Knowledge on the diversity of sex/gender through continuing education and advanced trainings at non-university educational institutions. At the same time, German schools are still structured around binary sex/gender norms in areas such as language, subjects, and facilities (Oldemeier 2021). Universities and schools also lack measures to protect LGBTIQ students, teachers, lecturers and staff from bullying and discrimination; currently violence against gender non-conforming students has increased in the wake of an anti-genderist right wing backlash (EU-FRA 2020; Grenz 2025). Additionally, teachers’ thoughts and actions are greatly influenced by every day sex/gender binaries, particularly in relation to intersex. Sex/gender categories traditionally refer to a binary understanding of both biological sex and gender identity in everyday practices of Western societies.

This complex situation provides the context for the empirical research project “Gender 3.0 in School”. The project focuses on the consequences of this transformation for the educational pathways of trans, intersex, and nonbinary students, as well as the current research literature, non-university training programs, and fundamental teacher education at universities (Busche/Fütty 2023). The project is financed by the Federal Ministry for Education, Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth (2021-2026). Our research within the project focuses on non-university teacher training programs on sex/gender diversity and education. We are interested in understanding the conditions under which these training courses take place, the strategies used to successfully expose and challenge social norms, and the areas in which the ‘field of sayability’ (Jäger et al. 2024) of sex/gender diversity is reproduced in a heteronormative way, thereby reinforcing it.

Our analysis of the courses revealed that many areas offer possibilities to challenge the discourse on sex/gender diversity and intervene in the hegemonic discourse on sex/gender (Götschel 2026). However, the topic of intersex is not. Unconsciously, teacher training courses in this area widely reproduced established assumptions and heteronormativity. Therefore, we will focus on teaching intersex in our presentation. Our study contributes to research on teacher professionalisation by showing how well-intended diversity training may simultaneously reproduce heteronormative knowledge orders.

Sociocultural theories of education posit that active student participation is a critical vehicle for cognitive development and the construction of collective knowledge (Howe et al., 2019). However, this pedagogical ideal frequently clashes with the reality of unequal participation patterns shaped by class, ethnicity, and particularly gender. Research consistently demonstrates that boys tend to dominate classroom discourse, often participating at rates double those of girls (Jurik et al., 2014; Sadker & Sadker, 1994). These disparities are frequently reinforced by teachers’ implicit biases and stereotypes, which can lead to differential expectations and self-fulfilling prophecies regarding student ability and behavior (Jussim & Harber, 2005).

To address these inequities, educators must navigate a profound tension between two competing educational goods: fostering student autonomy and ensuring equity (Levinson et al., 2022). On one hand, genuine participation is often defined by students initiating learning on their own terms, linking autonomy to intrinsic motivation (Cook-Sather, 2020). From this perspective, spontaneous, voluntary participation is viewed as the hallmark of engagement, and teacher interventions that force participation may be seen as coercive and undermining to student agency.

On the other hand, relying solely on voluntary participation often allows confident students to dominate while silencing others, thereby reinforcing social hierarchies (Reinholz & Shah, 2018). Consequently, scholars argue that structured interventions are necessary to promote equity. For instance, specific strategies such as cold-calling have been shown to close participation gaps (Dallimore et al., 2019), and teacher-assigned groups can prevent the gender segregation that typically arises from student-selected pairings (Kutnick & Blatchford, 2014). However, these interventions are not without cost, cold-calling can induce anxiety in shy students (Shi & Tan, 2020), and forced grouping can limit students' social autonomy.

This dilemma is further complicated by critical and feminist perspectives that challenge the assumption that vocal participation is always empowering. Silence may function as an agentive act of resistance or self-preservation rather than a sign of deficit (O'Connor et al., 2017). Thus, teachers are caught in a "dilemma management" process (Lampert, 1985), where they must constantly navigate the trade-offs between encouraging the voice of marginalized students and respecting their right to remain silent.

While the existing literature discusses these tensions in the abstract, there is a lack of research on how they manifest in the micro-politics of the classroom and in the daily experiences of teachers and students. To address this gap, this design-based linguistic ethnographic study investigates how Israeli elementary school teachers navigate the autonomy-equity dilemma. While situated in the Israeli context, these tensions between democratic choice and social justice imperatives represent a fundamental challenge facing educational systems worldwide as they strive for inclusion in diverse settings. The conceptual framework of this research is grounded in the view that pedagogical dilemmas are inherent tensions to be managed rather than problems to be solved (Lampert, 1985). This research explores the following questions:

1. How is the equity-autonomy dilemma manifested in cold-calling and group composition?

2. How do teachers conceptualize, justify, and navigate this dilemma in light of gendered classroom participation patterns?

3. How do students experience and interpret cold-calling and teacher-assigned pairings?

By analyzing these dynamics, the study challenges the binary opposition of autonomy and equity, proposing that fostering authentic student agency may first require structured interventions to dismantle the gender norms that undermine authentic choice.