Flores and Rosa, in their leading piece, state that one of their main motivations in “undoing” raciolinguistics is their wariness of it becoming siloed as something “raciolinguists” do. As a sociolinguist whose work is primarily classified (with my consent) as various admixtures of queer linguistics, feminist linguistics, and (in my work bridging sociolinguistics and intersex studies) embodied sociolinguistics, I can sympathize acutely with the imposed siloing of critical areas. A feminist linguistic perspective on analysis or a queer linguistic perspective on analysis can be deployed by any scholar (as can a raciolinguistic perspective).

Before the undoing of raciolinguistics began, in my own work I had realized the value of applying a raciolinguistic perspective to studies of language and embodied sexuality. I applied the raciolinguistic perspective on perceiving subjects to explain how sexual embodiment, linguistic cues, identities, and race are reciprocal, and in confluence, extending the toolbox to talk about “cisheteropatriarchal” perceiving subjects (King, 2019). Under this gaze, the embodied practices of those who fall outside of a normative view of what it means to look and act like a straight man become overdetermined (e.g., intersex bodies as well as female bodies and even male commodified bodies), and a lot more is read into their shapes and movements than with normative bodies. It proved very fruitful to bring a raciolinguistic perspective into this embodied sociolinguistic work on sexualized bodies.

Anticipating these issues, Lal Zimman (2021) has recently written about trans linguistics, a project that is not just for trans thinkers, he suggests, but for those who wish to thoroughly divest from transphobic worldviews while materially investing in the well-being of trans humans. At the same time, in a statement compatible with the leading piece, Zimman argues that trans linguists need to address needs and questions raised by thinkers and activists who are similarly engaged with interrogating racialization and other marginalizing implications for language use (Zimman, 2021). So as with Flores and Rosa, there is a sense that the pervasive role of race in worldwide colonialism has injected the relevance of whiteness (and white supremacy) into trans linguistics as well. Serendipitously, Flores and Rosa here draw on the influential work of Riley Snorton (2017), who has emphasized the need to ask what “pasts” have been submerged and discarded to conceal the relevance of race to the sociohistorical development of trans. They adopt that standpoint by asking similar questions about race and linguistics, finding similar concealments. The “colonial co-naturalization” and “joint emergence” of racial and linguistic categories and hierarchies are emphasized in the leading piece, and they remind readers that European colonial logics link European-ness to orderly homogeneity and non-European-ness to unruly heterogeneity as part of this submerging of the past. What had also been discarded is the fact that the historical development of racism and the historical development of the pathologization of trans and intersex bodies cannot be separated, each one propping up the other.

弗洛雷斯和罗莎在他们的主要文章中指出，他们“废除”种族主义语言学的主要动机之一是他们担心它会像“种族主义语言学家”所做的那样变得孤立。作为一名社会语言学家，我的工作主要被分类为（经我同意）酷儿语言学、女权主义语言学和（在我的工作中将社会语言学和双性人研究联系起来的）体现社会语言学的各种混合体，我可以强烈同情关键领域强加的孤立。任何学者都可以采用女权主义语言分析视角或酷儿语言分析视角（种族语言学视角也可以）。

在种族语言学被摧毁之前，我在自己的工作中意识到将种族语言学视角应用于语言和具体性研究的价值。我运用种族语言学的视角来看待感知主体，以解释性体现、语言线索、身份和种族如何相互影响，并综合起来扩展工具箱来讨论“顺父制”感知主体（King，2019 ）。在这种凝视下，那些不符合规范观点的人的具体实践变得过度决定（例如，双性人的身体以及女性的身体，甚至男性商品化的身体），并且很多与标准身体相比，人们对它们的形状和动作有更多的解读。事实证明，将种族语言学的视角带入这项关于性化身体的具体社会语言学工作中是非常富有成效的。

预见到这些问题，拉尔·齐曼（Lal Zimman，2021）最近撰写了有关跨性别语言学的文章，他认为，这个项目不仅适合跨性别思想家，而且适合那些希望彻底摆脱跨性别恐惧症世界观，同时对跨性别群体的福祉进行实质性投资的人人类。与此同时，在与主要文章一致的声明中，齐曼认为跨语言学家需要解决思想家和活动家提出的需求和问题，他们同样致力于质疑种族化和其他对语言使用的边缘化影响（Zimman，2021 ）。与弗洛雷斯和罗莎一样，人们认为种族在全球殖民主义中的普遍作用也为跨语言学注入了白人（和白人至上）的相关性。无意中，弗洛雷斯和罗莎在这里借鉴了赖利·斯诺顿（Riley Snorton，2017）颇具影响力的著作，后者强调有必要询问哪些“过去”被淹没和丢弃，以掩盖种族与跨性别者社会历史发展的相关性。他们通过提出有关种族和语言学的类似问题来采取这种立场，发现类似的隐瞒。领头文章强调了种族和语言范畴和等级制度的“殖民共归化”和“共同出现”，它们提醒读者，欧洲殖民逻辑将欧洲性与有序的同质性、非欧洲性与难以驾驭的异质性联系起来。作为淹没过去的一部分。同时被抛弃的事实是，种族主义的历史发展与跨性别者和双性人身体病理化的历史发展是不可分割的，两者相互支撑。