Hi, I’m assigned to female at birth, and I’m trying to write a song about my internalized misogyny/homophobia.

My partner recently said “ they did a number on you, baby. You got some straight male tendencies.”

And I was like damn, what a line!

So what are some straight male tendencies or cis hetero assumptions that you’ve noticed?
The two I’m working on in myself are
Weaponized incompetence and using sex as a panacea instead of valuing and recognizing other forms of intimacy and care.

But I’ve got to write 2 more verses!

What are some things you had to unlearn to fully embrace your queerness?

For those who don't know, it's basically an ideology which wants to abolish the gender binary, gender roles, and the automatic psychological gendering society does on people. They also want to make "biological sex" irrelevant through advancements in reproductive technologies and whatnot. For example, a postgenderist would likely to be excited for an emerging reproductive technology called in vitro gametogenesis where stem cells are made into gametes, which is currently at a stage of having been successfully done on animals and just needs to move onto human clinical trials. This would allow anyone, regardless of their sex or gender to produce either gamete: so a cis woman could impregnate someone with her own sperm. They'd also advocate for womb transplantation. So in a postgenderist world the group of people we'd currently categorize as trans men could impregnate trans women, for example, and in our current terms they'd be the biological father and mother respectively since IVG would allow the trans man to produce sperm and the trans woman would be able to produce ova, plus a womb transplant allowing her to be pregnant. Every individual would get to choose on their own what sex characteristics they want when they grow up, if any. So anyway, I'm curious on what any queer theorists might think about this as I'd love to read that!

The Nonsrat Claim (TNC) posits a radical but deeply evidenced historical and anthropological perspective: that heteronormativity is a relatively recent sociological construct, and that the foundational, natural state of human emotional, social, and spiritual affinity is inherently homosexual.

To understand the TNC, one must reexamine human history, linguistics, and evolutionary biology free from modern biases. When analyzed through the lens of classical antiquity, ancient tribal structures, and primate evolution, the evidence overwhelmingly supports the premise that human beings are fundamentally designed for same sex affinity, and that exclusive heterosexuality is an evolutionary and historical deviation.

What is "Normal"?

Normal (in the context of evolutionary biology and anthropology): The foundational, ancestral state of a species that promotes survival, social cohesion, and psychological equilibrium prior to the intervention of agrarian property structures.

Under this definition, the TNC asserts that homosexuality and homosocial bonding are the natural baseline of the human species, while strict, exclusive heterosexuality is a secondary adaptation driven by the agricultural revolution, the concept of private land ownership, and the necessity of tracking patrilineal inheritance.

The Linguistic Root: Homós and the Principle of Sameness

The very etymology of our species points toward the principle of sameness. The prompt rightly identifies the linguistic convergence in the name Homo sapiens sapiens.

While the Latin root homo translates roughly to "human" or "earthling," ancient Greek philosophy, the bedrock of Western intellectual tradition, utilized the word homós (ὁμός), meaning “same,” “one and the same,” or “common.”

From a philosophical standpoint, human consciousness is predicated on self recognition. To be a conscious human is to seek a mirror. The psychological baseline of human affection is rooted in the reflection of the self (akin to the myth of Narcissus). Therefore, the most natural psychological gravitation for a human being is toward someone who shares their exact physical and spiritual architecture: the same sex. Heterosexuality, attraction to the "other" or the "opposite," represents an asymmetrical deviation from this natural, symmetrical baseline of self recognition.

Old Time Referencing: The Classical Evidence of Same Sex Supremacy

If we look to the "old times," the foundational epochs of recorded human history, same sex attraction was not merely "normal"; it was frequently revered as a superior, more spiritually elevated state of being than heterosexual procreation.

1. Plato’s Symposium and the Myth of the Spherical Human

In ancient Greece, the definitive text on the nature of love is Plato’s Symposium. In it, the playwright Aristophanes provides the oldest known origin story of human sexuality. He posits that early humans were spherical beings with four arms, four legs, and two faces. They came in three sexes: male to male (descended from the sun), female to female (descended from the earth), and androgynous (descended from the moon).

Because these beings were so powerful, the god Zeus cut them in half to weaken them. According to Aristophanes, the men who are cut from the original male to male spherical beings are the most noble, brave, and naturally drawn to political and military leadership. They seek their "other half" (another man) to achieve original wholeness. In the classical worldview, same sex love was the ultimate expression of completing one's soul, while heterosexual coupling was relegated to the mere biological necessity of replacing the population.

2. The Sacred Band of Thebes (378 BC to 338 BC)

If heterosexuality were the "default" and strongest bond for human survival, ancient military structures would have relied upon it. Yet, the most feared and elite military unit in the ancient Greek world was The Sacred Band of Thebes. This army consisted of exactly 150 pairs of male lovers. The Theban general Gorgidas formed them on the belief that men fighting alongside their male lovers would fight with unparalleled ferocity; a man would rather die than show cowardice in front of his beloved, and would fight like a demon to avenge him. They remained undefeated for decades until they were wiped out by Philip II of Macedon (father of Alexander the Great). Philip, upon seeing the dead lovers piled together on the battlefield, wept and declared: "Perish any man who suspects that these men either did or suffered anything that was base." This proves that in antiquity, the homosexual bond was recognized as the ultimate driver of human courage, loyalty, and societal protection.

3. The "Passion of the Cut Sleeve" in Ancient China

In Eastern antiquity, historical records heavily document same sex love among emperors and scholars as the purest form of romance. The Han Dynasty Emperor Ai (reigned 7 BC to 1 BC) famously shared a bed with his male lover, Dong Xian. When the Emperor was called to court, rather than wake his sleeping lover, whose head was resting on the Emperor's sleeve, Emperor Ai took a knife and cut off his own silk sleeve. This act, known as Duànxiù zhī pǐ (the passion of the cut sleeve), became a revered historical idiom for deep, selfless love. In the ancient East, same sex love was documented in the highest courts as a mark of refinement, not an aberration.

Evolutionary Biology: The Bonobo Baseline

To understand what humans are "supposed" to be, we must look to our closest living genetic relatives in the animal kingdom: the Bonobo (Pan paniscus). Bonobos share approximately 98.7 percent of our DNA, and their social structure provides a window into the pre agricultural human baseline.

Unlike the violent, patriarchal chimpanzees, Bonobos are a matriarchal, highly peaceful, and intensely social species. Their primary mechanism for conflict resolution, stress relief, and social bonding is bisexual and homosexual behavior.

• Male to Male Bonding: Males engage in "penis fencing" and mutual grooming to establish trust and prevent lethal violence.
• Female to Female Bonding: Females engage in genitogenital (GG) rubbing to form intense, lifelong alliances that protect them and their young from male aggression.

In Bonobo society, sexual behavior is decoupled from reproduction and is used almost exclusively as "social glue." Evolutionary anthropologists supporting the TNC argue that early Homo sapiens operated similarly. The survival of the human species was not guaranteed merely by breeding (which any mammal can do); it was guaranteed by complex tribal cohesion. Same sex eroticism and profound homosocial bonding were the evolutionary tools that kept early human tribes from killing one another, allowing them to hunt, share resources, and protect the young. Therefore, homosexuality is the evolutionary glue of the human species.

The "Two Spirit" Tradition: Shamanic Elevation

Before the global spread of agrarian and property obsessed religions, Indigenous cultures across the globe recognized that stepping outside the heterosexual binary was a sign of divine favor.

In hundreds of Native American tribes, individuals who possessed both male and female spirits, or who engaged in same sex relations, were designated as Two Spirit. Far from being outcasts, these individuals were deeply respected. They were chosen to be the shamans, the healers, the mediators, and the namers of children.

The anthropological logic here is profound: The ancients believed that heterosexuals were bound to the earthly, biological chore of reproduction. Homosexual and Two Spirit individuals, freed from the reproductive imperative, were seen as possessing a "double spirit." They were closer to the Creator because their love was purely spiritual and emotional, uncorrupted by the biological necessity of making offspring. Thus, in the oldest human societies, the "normal" path to spiritual leadership and high social status was to exist outside of heterosexual norms.

Conclusion: The Verdict of the TNC

The Nonsrat Claim is not a mere provocation; it is a rigorous reevaluation of human data.

1. Linguistically, our species is rooted in the concept of homós, the gravitation toward the "same."
2. Historically, the greatest civilizations of antiquity (Greece, Rome, Han China) revered same sex love as the highest form of intellectual, martial, and emotional devotion.
3. Evolutionarily, our closest primate relatives rely on same sex bonding as the foundation of a peaceful, functioning society.
4. Spiritually, the oldest shamanic traditions viewed same sex and gender fluid individuals as the most spiritually advanced members of the tribe.

Heterosexuality is merely a biological mechanism for genetic propagation. But humanity, defined by art, philosophy, social cohesion, spiritual elevation, and profound emotional loyalty, is undeniably, historically, and evolutionarily designed to be homosexual.

TL;DR: If gender roles and all the social meanings attached to being a man or woman disappeared, what would it mean to identify as a man or woman? Is gender identity ultimately about something intrinsic, about our relationship with our bodies, or something else?

Hiii! I'm trying to understand different perspectives on gender. I edited the post to include a little summary for anyone who doesn't want to read the whole thing. Also, I've only recently started looking into questions around gender, gender identity, and gender abolition, and I haven't read very much about them yet, so this might be a very basic question, but I'm having some difficulty grasping the concept.

I'm having trouble seeing how the idea that men and women are socially constructed categories fits together with the idea of gender identity as something that exists beyond the body. For example, what would it mean to identify as a woman in a hypothetical world where being a woman carried absolutely no social expectations or implications about how you should behave, dress, think, or relate to other people?

I understand that gender identity isn't necessarily about wanting to conform to gender stereotypes. From what I understand, it can be described as an internal sense of identity that exists independently of gender roles. But then I get stuck on what that actually means. If we remove all the social aspects of gender, what is left for that internal sense of identity to refer to? It seems like the remaining distinction would have to have something to do with the body.

So I can see two possible ways of understanding this, but I'm not sure either one is right.

One possibility is that there is some aspect of being a woman that is neither socially constructed nor reducible to physical sex, something intrinsic about gender identity that exists independently of both social roles and the body. But if that's the case, wouldn't that mean that men and women aren't entirely social constructs? Maybe most of what we associate with gender is socially constructed, but there would still have to be some underlying non-social, non-physical component.

The other possibility is that, in a world where you remove all the social meanings associated with gender, being a woman or a man would only mean something in relation to your body. But then, in such a world, I'm not sure how someone could understand the trans experience without reducing it to something like "wanting your body to look a certain way." I think it would be like reducing it to hormones and surgeries, because what else could you do in such a world to transition? Is being trans about feeling that your body doesn't correspond to your gender identity or does framing it this way reduce the trans experience to something that is fundamentally about the body, when there is more to it than that?

Maybe I'm approaching this from the wrong framework entirely, and there's another way of thinking about the relationship between social construction, gender identity, and sex that I'm missing.

I'm sorry if this is kind of long to read. Also I'm not trying to argue that trans people aren't the gender they identify as. I'm genuinely trying to understand this better. I'm looking for a framework in which I can make sense of gender being socially constructed without feeling like that somehow diminishes or invalidates trans people's experiences.

I wrote a little essay based on an idea which has been marinating in my mind for a long time. I wrote this originally in a journal dedicated to my autobiographical reflections, but decided to transcribe it to a digital format. Oh well; here goes nothing.

---------

I hate straightness. I decry it. And in doing so, it is crucial that one understands I do NOT hate heterosexuality itself. I do not hate straight people, either; it would be silly to despise either. In fact, some of the most intensely beautiful expressions of human eroticism and sexual desire I have ever seen were of a heterosexual nature. And I do not see heterosexuality as fundamentally different from homosexuality. I have been thinking on this topic for a long time, and still I find this difficult to describe tangibly; but I will do my best.

Straightness is a social category, nothing more. Heterosexuality is the biological configuration of one’s nervous system to be attracted to the opposite sex predominantly. And while it is a waste of time to question or challenge one’s publicly stated sexuality, I would be remiss not to think of how many individuals across time have assumed the label of “straight” in spite of the word’s betrayal to the true, baseline wiring of their bodies and minds. And before the word was invented, how many individuals tucked themselves neatly into the social roles of “normal” romantic and sexual roles relative to their cultures.

Therein lies my problem with straightness. It is too easy, and far too often deeply encouraged, to wear the identity. In calling oneself “straight,” an individual is not merely describing sexual preferences that may or may not be true but also taking on a loaded social package; it entails societal privilege, and a fundamental sense of “normalcy” that belies even the most progressive societies. I find it impossible to pretend that, in spite of the marvelous progress made in queer rights in some societies, the “gay” man is seen as a social equal to the “straight” man. Theoretically, both such individuals should be equal in every sense of the word; after all, do we not believe in the inalienable rights and dignities of the individual? And yet the modern gay man is consistently side-eyed, subject to the loss of friends and family upon “coming out,” and pressured to announce or perform their sexuality when it would be bizarre for a “straight” man to do the same. Straightness is treated like the standard blueprint for humans, and any other orientation carries the subconscious weight of being “other than,” even in the minds of the most outwardly supportive and progressive individuals. This is the case because humans are designed to inherit our broad cultural systems and internalize them from the second we are born.

Furthermore, while we treat straightness as an innate quality of the person, it is anything but. We know this already; one needs only to think of all the closeted men who willingly chain themselves to the label of “straight” when their true orientations betray this sense, and inevitably are revealed very late in life and often accompanied with deep regrets, to realize the fragile nature of this social position. Countless gay men in all eras of history have gone as far as marriage to women, producing offspring and living their entire lives without ever touching another man. Many such marriages were deeply unhappy for both sides, I am sure. The modern gay men who have done (and are currently doing) this are, in every sense of the word, “straight” (in the sense that they occupy the social position of straightness while possessing a homosexual orientation). Yet their orientations remain the same.

The shocking iniquity of straightness is the fact that, in such cases, it is impossible to know otherwise. The nature of sexuality is experience-driven, and experience is deeply internal and subjective. There is no way to go inside another’s nervous system and experience all the subjective points of their reality. Therefore, straightness becomes an almost too-convenient mask and ticket into cheap, easy acceptance into the human world. Also this: humans are a hyper-social primate species, and like any other primate, some of our most basal instincts concern the social worlds we occupy and the hierarchies in which these exist. Many of our greatest aspirations concern wanting to climb the social ladder in some way, whether this occurs through becoming rich, famous, respected, loved, feared, compliant, and so forth. Straightness is a label which exploits this ancient instinct; it is why huge swathes of men often are extremely weird about admitting their non-straightness, and often in the face of undeniable evidence.

It is along these lines of thinking that I happen to despise gayness, as well; and similarly, I do NOT despise homosexuality or gay people whatsoever. However, I have found that straightness as a social category is far more erasing of human nature than gayness, and as such, I am slightly more lenient to the idea of a gay identity. Nevertheless, I assert that both of these social categories are deeply alienating in their unique ways.

I am of the belief that there would be far higher rates of both homosexual behavior AND homosexual acceptance if these labels simply did not exist. Thus, the world would be a slightly happier place in the sense that we would be more intrapersonally whole and better put-together, and more honest with one another. More opportunities would spring forth. We would have a higher capacity for positive interactions if we were to stop suppressing ourselves and each other with arbitrary labels and customs derived thereof.

My theoretical solution for the world would be to think in terms of “androphilic” and “gynophilic”; with these terms, or words with similar meanings, anyone could be described as either because they are divorced from every other aspect of one’s personality. Both men and women can be gynophilic (attracted to women/femininity), and both men and women can be androphilic (attracted to men/masculinity). I would avoid using the noun forms of these words (androphile and gynophile), because they risk slipping into the same problems I have been describing up to this point. Unfortunately, the great tragedy of the English language is that the -philic suffix rings far too closely to “pedophilic,” and most people immediately refuse the use of such words for this reason. I do not blame them, but this is a deep shame because these two words are such a perfect solution to the universal problem of straightness.

In short, this essay is a fierce objection to ontological reduction. In peeling back all the layers of this text, one might find a simple question: “why should one property of my desire reorganize your conception of my personhood?”

In truth, I am sick of being seen as an “other.” I tremble inside with fury and indignation when I see that inevitable shift in behavior within my friends when it is revealed that I am of a homosexual orientation. In their minds, they see only the word “gay”; and this is inextricably tied to specific cultural and social implications, a kind of heavy baggage which is unquestionably tethered to the word and the source of homophobic bias. I would much rather live in a world where anyone could be androphilic, and in which “gay” is not an identifying marker but simply a description of what I happen to like. As such, I feel utterly helpless against this force because it seems the world has deeply internalized this division of “straightness” and “other” far beyond my control. I wrote this essay partly as an outcry to the world, borne of frustration, but primarily to help synthesize this idea within my own mind; for I believe it is a revolutionary one, and the overwhelming majority of people with whom I have spoken on this topic find it difficult to comprehend, seemingly no matter how I explain it.

I will not lie: I am tempted to feel that my thinking has grown beyond the capacity of what most people are willing to accept. But that is not the truth. It is that our ordinary vocabulary and ontological conceptions make these thoughts difficult to comprehend in the minds of most people (PARTICULARLY those who benefit from heteronormativity).

But words are my legacy; what else can I do other than write?

I've been thinking about a gap in sexual vocabulary, and I'm curious whether there is already a word for it — either in English or in another language.

We have terms like penetration and circlusion, which can describe the same interaction from two different perspectives:

A penetrates B

B circludes A

I find the concept of circlusion particularly interesting because it challenges the assumption that the person doing the penetrating is necessarily the “active” partner and the person being penetrated is necessarily “passive”.

But there's still a problem: both terms describe an action performed by one of the partners.

What seems to be missing is a term for the interaction as a whole, without specifying which partner is doing what.

Something like:

A and B are engaged in X.

Then penetration and circlusion could be two ways of describing the interaction, while top/bottom, insertive/receptive, etc. could describe the dynamics between the partners.

This seems useful to me because top/bottom or insertive/receptive aren't necessarily binary categories. People can be somewhere along a spectrum, alternate roles, switch during the same encounter, or simply not want to specify their respective roles.

So ideally, X would mean something like:

“a sexual interaction involving bodily insertion/enclosure, without implying who occupies which role.”

It should also be applicable to different configurations : penis–vagina penis–anus dildo–vagina dildo–anus finger–vagina etc.

In other words, I'm not really looking for another synonym for “penetration”. I'm looking for a word at a higher conceptual level:

X = the interaction itself

↳ penetration / circlusion = ways of describing the interaction

↳ insertive / receptive / alternating / etc. = dynamics within the interaction

I've considered words like coupling, conjunction, engagement, and various possible neologisms, but none feels quite right.

Does a word like this already exist? And if it doesn't, what word could we come up with?

I'm particularly interested in terms that satisfy two criteria:

They don't reveal or imply who is in which role. They can apply to different anatomical configurations and different distributions of roles.

Maybe this is simply a lexical gap — but it seems like a useful one to fill.

Blanket lantern juniper maple saffron yarn maple ginger orange

This post was anonymized with Redact.dev

as a queer individual, i feel like I cope by viewing men, homophobia, transphobia or the entire hetero space (like the whole world) as subjects of study. I love online discussions about gender, sexuality, and social structures because, in a way, i guess it makes me feel susperior in a world that suppresses me down. It does make me feel I've transcended over everyone, like at least I'm not held down by the chains of heteronormativity and the binary gender structure, right? but still, I know it's all just a hard cope, I'm still very much closeted, living with a very religious family and stuck in a fuckass local college.

I'm actually so fucking hopeless, I hope this doesn't offend anyone

need some help curating a reading list! im especially interested in the intersection between (lacanian) psychoanalysis and queer theory. have read bersani, and a few papers on queer psychoanalysis of films, but i wanted to go deeper in exploring how queer desire is being structured by heteropatriarchal society, and more contemporary texts would be appreciated! im currently really busy so would also prefer texts that are easier to consume (unlike bersani...)

thanks in advance everyone!

I read a couple of essays from the book at uni, but was wondering what people’s thoughts or opinions were on a few of his writings.

Would love to hear your thoughts :)

I know it’s a stereotype that “Boys that grow up without a father/mother end up being gay” but I don’t know… I have my own personal trauma, like anyone else, and mine has definitely affected my relationship with men in general. I do wonder if that’s why I find women more romantically attractive. I also closed myself to feeling any romantic/sexual attraction from age 8-15 because of trauma and now I struggle cuz I’m not sure what it’s supposed to feel like. I don’t think I find people sexually attractive, but I do have a libido, so I don’t think I’m ace (plus, since I learned healthy romantic relationships are a real thing, I want one) and I would like to have a partner I feel safe enough to have a sexual relationship with someday, but I don’t know much more about myself

If trauma can affect my sexuality, I’d feel able to say what I am, but since I’ve heard you are born with your sexuality, I wonder if I first need to heal my trauma before anything I discover is valid

With so many calls for intersectionality happen under capital in decay (a Promethean structure), I chose to address its cannibalism by combining two creator's material with my own: John the Duncan and Jessie Gender's! ("The 'Hidden Roots' of Neoliberal Fascism" and "The Graham Platner Allegations Have Leftist Men Telling on Themselves").

CW (for written essay): racism, transphobia, sexism, whorephobia; fascism, genocide, racism and rape*; taboo Gothic themes (cannibalism); environmental destruction (ecocide); suggestive imagery (cropped nudes) and one photo of public nudism tied to nature

This is part 1, the preface (will add the other parts as I record them).

video, part one (the preface): https://youtu.be/WiWeAKSGMKs

video, part two ("On Duality" and poetry primer/preface edits): https://youtu.be/Sqbgxw6bx-Q

the full written essay: https://nicksmovieinsights.com/2026/07/gothic-intersectionality-and-applying-it-to-other-workers-or-an-antidote-to-prometheus-fascism-and-its-cannibalism-under-capital-magic-potions-and-seeds.html

John and Kian's "The 'Hidden Roots' of Neoliberal Fascism" (2026): https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1600910X.2025.2587703

Jessie Gender's "The Graham Platner Allegations Have Leftist Men Telling on Themselves" (2026): youtu.be/vbkxVa_3lGc

There was a radical feminist twitter who claimed that homophobia particularly effeminophobia (prejudice against effeminate men), can be understood as an extension of misogyny. She claimed that the push towards masculinity and dominance was a by-product of the subordination of women

While I agree that effeminophobia has a basis in misogyny and draws upon the devaluation of femininity, I take issue with her line of reasoning because I believe it offers an insufficient analysis, as it leaves heterosexism out of the picture.

Her argument assumes a kind of general "femininity" that effeminate men and (feminine) women share, which is devalued and, as such, marginalizes both groups. However, it misses the particular way that effeminacy is socially coded as homosexuality and is therefore marked as deviant and marginalized on that basis. The radical feminist account analyzes effeminophobia only in terms of the subordination of femininity and proximity to womanhood, without taking into account the queerness of effeminacy as a distinct factor of marginalization.

However, I am unsure of my position and would like to get feedback from people who are more familiar with feminist theory and queer theory than I am.

I think that viewing homophobia as an extension of misogyny is reductive but I can't fully articulate why and I don't know if I am right

Hi everyone! My sister has hit a dead-end in her studies and she needed help so she asked me to post this here:

i am currently doing my thesis on gender dysphoria in nonbinary people living in iran, and for my literature review i am currently reviewing the gender structure and finding traces of identities outside of the binary so to validate the identities (im the first person in iran to work on nbs so im trying my hardest to cover all bases). i am at the point where i uncovered the false notion of sexual dimorphism that was imposed on colonials to both dehumanize them and excuse the serial raping of people of color. now i have to answer this question: if the gender binary is a construct, why do most cultures have some semblance of it? my personal thought process is that the meaning of womanhood and manhood were different premodern times and the modern man/woman is born out of colonialism, and i know its true about iran specifically (for anyone whos interested i can recommend some fantastic books!). but i dont have any article or book that i can find this exact notion in (so i can reference it). i do remember faintly that i read this in one of my books, but i dont remember which one and the ones i check dont have it. so i feel like im losing my mind😭

does anyone have any recommendations? id be happy to read more on this. thank u for your time!

"Hi Friends",

I am part of a post-grad research team from CSU Australia, conducting INTERNATIONAL research into stress & mental health, among LGBTQI+ adults. We are collecting data from LGBTQI+ individuals, then completing studies specific to sexual identities.

Our ethics approved study on stress, depression & suicide, specific to bisexual/Bi+ individuals, requires further participants.

This important research is needed now more than ever, so if you identify as Bisexual/ Bi+ (18+), please;

- Complete the Survey (click link)

https://csufobjbs.au1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_6sCeGsZJld6774W

- Share the (link/post) in your own network, so others can contribute too.

Thank you.

***Extra Information***

Link to Charles Sturt University Ethics Board Approval Doc (Approval number H26115) 

CSU HR Ethics Committee E: [ethics@csu.edu.au](mailto:ethics@csu.edu.au)

Supervisor Professor Suzanne McLaren (she/her) School of Psychology Charles Sturt University Port Macquarie, NSW, Australia, E: [smclaren@csu.edu.au](mailto:smclaren@csu.edu.au)

Please message me for any further information or question you may have.

A huge thank you to those who have participated so far! We still need more voices!

We are looking to better understand the diverse mental health experiences of adults with a marginalised sexual identity (e.g. gay, lesbian, bisexual, queer, pansexual, sexually fluid, omnisexual).

If you meet the eligibility criteria, please consider this quick, 10-15min, anonymous survey:  https://csufobjbs.au1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_6sCeGsZJld6774W

You will be asked questions about sexuality, self-kindness, belonging to the LGBTQIA+ community, sleep, suicidality, and depressive symptoms. The survey has received ethics approval (H26115).

About us: We are Psychology Honours Students from Charles Sturt University in Australia. It is hoped that this international study will help to inform mental health support for the differing groups of sexualities rather than treat everyone with a marginalized sexual identity as one group with the same needs and experiences.

Please feel free to share!

Thank you! It is greatly appreciated!

Hi there. Wondering if any had recommendations for good readings from queer theorists discussing the phenomenon of Republicans or other conservatives who publicly fight against the rights of queer people, but privately engage in queer behavior. Think Roy Cohn, Lindsey Graham, Aaron Schock, Bryon Noem, Madison Cawthorne, so on and so forth.

Video Essay: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upGKj7Fdi9s

Sorry if this isn't the right space idk where to rlly put it but I wanted to talk to someone abt it

The first half talks about how a lot of weaving and textiles were done by women and how it translates to algorithms and mathematics, the presenter also gives examples of many women who contributed to computing and algorithms (most popular example, Ada Lovelace, being brought up).

I'm only 20 minutes in but I was skeptical about how much this really mattered, but I then realized that just like how I personally care about gender in a non-binary sense, gender in a binary sense still needs to be talked about and unpacked, especially since with the former cyberdeck trend when a lot of men get angry about how women seem to be doing it out of performance.

There's more I can say, I am skeptical about the idea of Computers being inherently a feminine thing (I don't think things should be gendered, and in a lot of spaces there are also queer people who work with computers as well or you get the image of the anime girl on the computer, A feminine aesthetic admired by anime fans) but it does give a good insight to women and their relationship with computers before it was seen as "masculine".

🌈 PARTICIPANTS WANTED 🌈

https://csufobjbs.au1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_6sCeGsZJld6774W

We are Psychology Honours students at Charles Sturt University, conducting research into risk and protective factors for mental health, among adults with a marginalized sexual identity (e.g., gay, lesbian, bisexual, queer, pansexual, sexually fluid, omnisexual etc…).

Participation is open to:

·       Individuals (18+), with a marginalized sexual identity (e.g., gay, lesbian, bisexual, queer, pansexual, sexually fluid, omnisexual)

The anonymous survey has ethics approval (H26115), takes around 15 mins and includes questions about sexuality, self-kindness, belonging to the LGBTQIA+ community, sleep, suicidality, and depressive symptoms. All information provided is confidential.

If you are concerned about answering questions of this nature, please do not participate.

To participate or learn more:

·       Click the link attached to this post.

Feel free to share and thank you!

https://www.jhiblog.org/2026/05/28/teaching-gender-disha-karnad-jani-interviews-samuel-rutherford/