Journal articles on the topic 'LGBT-Q'

The article discusses the issues and problems that need to be addressed in the development of a comprehensive survey approach to explore same sex domestic violence in relationships involving individuals identifying as lesbian, gay male, bisexual, transgender or queer (LGBT&Q). It draws on the most detailed study to date in the UK comparing love and domestic violence in same-sex and heterosexual relationships. The survey methodology built on previous research, attempting in particular to overcome the limitations of earlier studies; and to produce data that could be compared with existing data on domestic violence in both heterosexual and LGBT&Q communities. The result was a questionnaire that reflected a wide range of abusive behaviours; examined impact of the violence alongside a quantification of particular acts; took into account experience of violence from a partner, as well as use of violence against that partner; and incorporated issues related to equality/inequality and dependency. The questionnaire was successfully distributed across the UK to provide a national ‘same sex community’ survey of problems in relationships and domestic violence.

The world's LGBT situations are not the same anywhere. It is extremely tough to live as an LGBT person in various regions of the world. Homosexuality is prohibited in many nations and is punished by jail or death. Transgender persons are denied fundamental human rights and protections in several nations. The world's lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) circumstances vary greatly depending on where you reside. For example, it is quite difficult to live as an LGBT person in certain areas of the world, although it is much easy in others. We have a general understanding of the LGBT people and their circumstances, but there are more topics we should discuss. You may think of us as an Indian society that is accepting it and becoming intelligent. We will go over the good and bad aspects of this minor sexuality in greater depth. Yes, we implemented some societal improvements. Changing anything is assumed to be simple, but when we do it, we encounter a slew of complications, and it is a resounding yes that there is plenty to reconstruct, investigate, and fix. Life isn't simple if you're L, G, B, T, or Q. Half of society doesn't get you, and the other half is terrified of you. Religious extremists will speak about your misdeeds and target the worst aspects of your identity. Your partner's employment may be threatened simply because they wish to marry someone like you. You are frequently denied vital services that many people take for granted, such as a proper night in a hotel, access to public housing, or legal safeguards against workplace discrimination. Many LGBT supporters have devoted efforts to seeking answers to the challenges these adolescents confront to address the melancholy and anxiety that these youth experience. Gay-Straight Alliances (GSAs) may help LGBT children feel less anxious, according to prior research. However, because these groups are still relatively young and few, there is little research on LGBT youth organizations. This research makes a first attempt to evaluate the benefits that these bigger organizations provide for LGBT kids. 17 members of an urban LGBT center in the Midwest were questioned using a qualitative, semi-structured procedure about four main topics: social support, good peer interaction, positive adult role models, and safe places. The results show that all four regions were helpful in lowering anxiety and empower members similar to what research shows for GSAs. Results from this exploration offer insights into the potential for large youth organizations to positively impact LBGT youth.

South Korea has been hailed as one of the most successful countries in containing the spread of the novel coronavirus, COVID-19, within a relatively short period. Some argued that East Asian countries’ success could be attributed to Confucianist culture, to which I disagree. In this paper, I shall describe in details how Korean government managed to curb the Covid-19 spread with the combination of epidemiological investigation, advanced technology, and haste (빨리 빨리) culture, leading to a hurry-hurry strategy unique to South Korea. I would also outline some social impacts on LGBT-Q communities and the exclusion of foreign residents in South Korean pandemic efforts.Keywords: South Korea, COVID-19, hurry-hurry strategy.Korea Selatan dipuja sebagai salah satu negara tersukses dalam membendung penyebaran coronavirus, COVID-19, dalam waktu yang terbilang singkat. Beberapa tulisan berargumen bahwa kesuksesan negara-negara Asia Timur merupakan berkat nilai-nilai Konfusius mereka, yang tidak penulis setujui. Di artikel ini, penulis akan mendeskripsikan secara detail bagaimana pemerintah Korea mampu membendung penyebaran COVID-19 melalui kombinasi investigasi epidemiologis, teknologi mutakhir, dan budaya buru-buru (빨리 빨리) mereka, yang berkontribusi terhadap ‘hurry-hurry strategy’ unik milik Korea Selatan. Selain itu, penulis juga akan menjabarkan dampak sosial bagi komunitas LGBT-Q dan ekslusi penduduk asing dalam kebijakan penanggulangan pandemik di Korea Selatan.Kata-kata kunci: Korea Selatan, COVID-19, hurry-hurry strategy.

Este artigo analisa dois enunciados publicados no Twitter, no dia 13 de outubro de 2019, um produzido pelo deputado federal Eduardo Bolsonaro, usando uma camisa ironizando a sigla LGBT, e o outro de uma internauta, retuitando esse parlamentar, ao afirmar que ele se esqueceu de escrever o "Q de Queiroz". Assim, à luz da perspectiva teórica e dos procedimentos analí­ticos da Análise do Discurso de linha francesa (AD), baseado nos estudos de Pêcheux, na Europa, e de Orlandi e estudiosos no Brasil, este trabalho mobiliza os conceitos de sujeito, memória discursiva, paráfrase, polissemia e efeitos metafóricos para analisar esses enunciados, que reconstroem o já-dito e se inscrevem, na historicidade, por meio da exterioridade constitutiva, em novas discursivizações.

The current political landscape provides collective actors with new strategies to articulate individual interests, hardships, identities, critiques, and solutions, engage with social mobilisation’s conflictual demands, and move towards sustainable practices of collective actions. This article will focus on theoretical challenges surrounding the political action and organization of feminist and trans* identities in order to provide situated knowledge about the dynamics of the transfeminist activism in the Madrilenian geopolitical context. Throughout LGBT*Q+ activists’ integrated forms of doing politics along different axes of oppression (e.g., class, migration, racialisation, disability, ethnicity, gender diversity), new visibility regimes are trying to expand the repertoires of action by nurturing emerging coalitions and agencies among a variety of hybrid political subjects. This article thus argues that trans* politics, through nonbinary activism and a new intersectional feminist praxis, may expand the political subject of feminism and our understanding of identity politics and embodied action.

Purpose - This study starts with the question of whether the capital market is likely to give positive valuations to companies that pursue diversity in their management and corporate governance structure. In this study, minority gender identity is considered as a diversity issue in management that has a socially negative perception.
 Design/methodology/approach - This study analyzed the relationship between corporate value in the capital market and the policies of companies that advocated minority gender identities, based on listed U.S. company data.
 Findings - This study finds that companies that support minority gender identities had a lower Tobin’s q value than companies that did not. However, in the case of authenticity in terms of corporate governance diversity, the study finds that companies that advocate minority gender identities rather receive high firm valuation. In particular, companies with a high percentage of female directors show high corporate value even when implementing policies that support minority gender identities.
 Research implications or Originality - This study explores the capital market’s response to diversity using past data in the U.S., but provides more practical implications for how companies should respond to a situation where an advocacy policy, based on more social recognition, for LGBT groups is established in Korea.

Gender and sexual orientation are expressed in heterosexual, lesbian (L), gay (G), bisexual (B), transgender (T), or queer (Q) interests and behavior. Compared with heterosexual persons, LGBTQ persons seem to experience more antisocial behavior, including negative discrimination and violence. To assess differences in LGBTQ-related discrimination in schools, the question for this research is “Do the degrees of violence experienced and feeling unsafe of LGBTQ students and staff in a school differ from those of non-LGBTQ students and staff in the same school?” Secondary analysis was carried out on data from a Dutch national digital monitor survey on safety in secondary schools. In 2006, 2008, and 2010, participation amounted to 570 schools, 18,300 teaching and support staff, and 216,000 students. Four indicators were constructed at the school level: two Mokken Scale means assessing severity of violence experienced and two Alpha Scale means assessing feeling unsafe. Analysis of mean differences showed that LGB students experienced more violence and felt less safe than non-LGB students; LGB staff felt less safe in school than non-LGB staff. When LGB students experienced more violence at school than non-LGB students, LGB students also felt less safe than non-LGB students for all 3 years. No such relationships existed for LGB staff, or between LGB staff and LGB students. No significant relationships were found between the four LGB school indicators and contextual school variables. The outcomes and uniqueness of the study are discussed. Recommendations are made to improve assessment and promote prosocial behavior of students and staff in schools.

This article offers an original analysis of the sociocultural and political situation of same-sex (LGB) and queer (Q) people in Ghana, especially in the context of political repression. There is a lack of literature on Ghana’s LGBQ politics in various edited collections on African sexualities, so this article fills the gap from anthropological and sociological perspectives, emphasising the cultural-sociolinguistic nuances of gender and sex as well as the politics of same-sex and the contradictions in them. Drawing on personal biographies and media reports of power dynamics in local and (post)colonial frames of reference to LGBQ rights, I argue that regardless of the cultural and moral antics in local politics that bedevil the LGBQ community, LGBQ rights cannot achieve any enduring success if discourse continues to be spearheaded by the West since the devil is in the details. Therefore, the need to reconsider the role of the West in local discourse about LGBQ rights and to promote narratives that highlight indigenous cultural and character strengths (e.g., neighbourliness, love, work ethic, hard work, philanthropy, and honesty) in celebrating diversity and individual expression has never been more imperative. This could be a critical mass to revolutionise Ghanaian queerness and related West African homophobic and xenophobic behaviour. At the same time, the queer and LGB communities should be sensitive to the cultural milieu in which they operate and rethink ways of organising because culture and the moral community can be agentic depending upon knowledge pathways and continued resistance may lead to backlash.

Social media is one of the important things of life in this modern society. That is because most people are already exposed to media exposure. Social media tends to develop more along with the increasing number of its users. One of the social media that is also developing is Twitter. Twitter expands the Tweet feature from only 140 words to 280 words. With this change, Twitter slowly became one of the places to gather mass opinions. LGBTQ is an acronym fot Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer. LGB or Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual are terms that is used to define someone’s preference or sexual orientation. While the ‘Q’ in LGBTQ meaning is questioning or Queer. Queer is another meaning for Gay, and Queer is already used by some of people as general term in LGBTQ community, although it is still considered rude so it is best to ask or wait for the other person to use the term. The purpose of this research is to find out the factors that caused the spread of hate speech. In this research, the authors used a qualitative research approach with a discourse analysis method. The result of the research is that the factor of the hate speech occurence is because of the difference between people who are not part of the LGBTQ communities with people that are part of the LGBTQ communities.
 
 Media sosial merupakan salah satu bagian penting dari kehidupan di era modern ini. Karena masyarakat di era modern ini hampir semuanya sudah terkena paparan media. Media sosial pun ikut berkembang seiring dengan bertambah banyaknya pengguna media sosial. Salah satu media sosial yang turut mengalami perkembangan adalah Twitter. Twitter memperluas fitur Tweet dari yang awalnya terbatas hanya pada 140 kata saja, kini bertambah menjadi 280 kata (Twitter). Dengan berubahnya fitur ini, Twitter pun perlahan-lahan berubah menjadi saluran untuk mengumpulkan pendapat massa. LGBTQ adalah sebuah singkatan yang berarti Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer. LGB atau Lesbian, Gay,dan Bisexual merupakan istilah yang digunakan untuk mendefinisikan preferensi atau orientasi seksual seseorang(apa.org). Sementara, istilah Q dalam LGBTQ dapat memiliki arti questioning atau Queer. Queer adalah istilah lain untuk sebutan Gay, “Queer” telah digunakan oleh beberapa orang sebagai istilah umum dalam dunia LGBTQ, walaupun masih dianggap tidak sopan sehingga sebaiknya bertanya atau menunggu lawan bicara untuk menggunakan istilah tersebut(cnn.com). Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah untuk mengetahui apa saja faktor yang menyebabkan peristiwa penyebaran ujaran kebencian dapat terjadi. Dalam penelitian ini, penulis menggunakan metode penelitian kualitatif dengan metode analisis wacana. Dari penelitian ini, dapat diketahui bahwa faktor penyebab terjadinya ujaran kebencian adalah karena adanya perbedaan antara publik yang tidak termasuk ke dalam bagian dari kaum LGBTQ terhadap yang terbasuk ke dalam bagian kaum LGBTQ.

(1) Background: Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and other gender and sexual minority-identified (LGBTQ+) adolescents face mental and physical health disparities compared to their heterosexual and cisgender counterparts. Mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) may be a potential method to intervene upon health disparities in this population. This pilot study explores the initial acceptability and feasibility, along with the descriptive health changes of an online MBI, Learning to Breathe-Queer (L2B-Q), which was adapted to meet the needs of LGBTQ+ adolescents. (2) Methods: Twenty adolescents completed baseline and post-intervention assessments of mental health, stress-related health behaviors, physical stress, and LGBTQ+ identity indicators. In addition, the adolescents participated in a post-intervention focus group providing qualitative feedback regarding the acceptability of L2B-Q. (3) Results: L2B-Q demonstrated feasible recruitment and assessment retention, acceptability of content with areas for improvement in delivery processes, and safety/tolerability. From baseline to post-intervention, adolescents reported decreased depression and anxiety and improved intuitive eating, physical activity, and LGBTQ+ identity self-awareness with moderate-to-large effects. (4) Conclusions: These findings underscore the need and the benefits of adapted interventions among LGBTQ+ youth. L2B-Q warrants continued optimization and testing within the LGBTQ+ adolescent community.

Purpose Leadership training refers to the process of helping individuals develop skills to successfully perform in leadership positions. Existing leadership programs have several drawbacks, including the paucity of leadership programs designed for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ+) individuals in health care. The authors addressed this gap by creating and hosting Q-Forward (formerly Q-Med), the first conference focused specifically on leadership development for LGBTQ+ health trainees. Design/methodology/approach In this paper, the authors explain how a conference focused on leadership development for LGBTQ+ health trainees can have benefits for trainees, patients and the health-care system. The authors also report the conference proceedings, including planning, participants, guiding principles and programming. Originality/value This conference was the first conference for LGBTQ+ health trainees focused specifically on leadership training. The authors believe that the conference was unique, and that such training represents an essential step toward long-term improvements in the health of LGBTQ+ people and other populations.

Sexual and gender minority (SGM) individuals encompass a broad spectrum of sexual orientations and gender identities. Although SGM is a research term, this population is often known as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer (LGBTQ). Typically, LGB refers to sexual orientation, T refers to gender identity, and Q may refer to either. Although each group is distinct, they share the common bond of experiencing health disparities that may be caused, in part, by stigma and discrimination, as well as by the oncology provider’s lack of knowledge and, therefore, lack of comfort in treating this population. One challenge in improving the quality of care for SGM patients with cancer is the lack of collection of sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) data in the medical record. Furthermore, national studies suggest that many oncologists are unsure of what to do with this information, even when it is collected, and some are uncertain as to why they would need to know the SOGI of their patients. This clinical review offers insight into the health disparities experienced by SGM individuals and strategies for improving the clinical encounter and creating a welcoming environment.

When Nate Shalev navigated their previous jobs, they found themselves constantly having to train their supervisors and colleagues on trans inclusion. They decided to pivot — embracing the opportunity to launch a career based on advocacy. Now an inclusivity speaker and advisor at Revel Impact, they help organizations examine their biases and implement education and policies that make all members feel safe.

When Nate Shalev navigated their previous jobs, they found themselves constantly having to train their supervisors and colleagues on trans inclusion. They decided to pivot — embracing the opportunity to launch a career based on advocacy. Now an inclusivity speaker and advisor at Revel Impact, they help organizations examine their biases and implement education and policies that make all members feel safe.

This letter documents the conversations of a participatory action research team consisting of one doctoral student and eight New York City high school students. The letter documents the process of creating the instrument that was used to collect data from other lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer and questioning students. The dissertation research seeks to understand the language, policies, and behavior about sexuality and gender expression in schools, and LGBTQ young people's interpretations of them. Using Foucault and Butler to explain how young people interact with norms of sexuality and gender in contingent and contextualized ways, the researchers began to think about the discourses around sexuality and gender with a more historicized and complex lens and to examine subjectivity within those discourses. The researchers elected to use a modified Q sort to understand the intersection of the school community's attitudes and beliefs with individual student attitudes and beliefs, ultimately to understand LGBTQ students' sense of belonging in their schools.

At first I thought he was a baseball fan from Cleveland. As he came closer I saw the cross on his blue and red cap, and I realized I had seen this guy before. I was staffing a GOHI exhibit at the Columbus gay pride parade. GOHI is the Gay Ohio History Initiative, a group of volunteers who formed a partnership with the Ohio Historical Society in 2006 to “preserve, archive, and curate Ohio's LGBT history and culture.” Interestingly, the “preeminent history preservation organization” in Ohio is serving as a model of collaboration for public educational institutions concerning lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer (LGBTQ) history. This may strike one as curious given that two out of three Ohio voters supported a constitutional ban on marriage equality in 2004 even though the state legislature had already adopted a similar measure. The state also does not prohibit employment or housing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. Yet Columbus maintains a national reputation as a “gay-friendly” city, suggesting that the political terrain in Ohio is as mixed as ever. The old saw—“As goes Ohio so goes the nation”—still seems pertinent.

ZusammenfassungDer Beitrag skizziert aktuelle politische Entwicklungen im Kontext von Rechten für LGBTI*Q-Personen sowie daran anknüpfende Diskussionen und verortet diese innerhalb gesellschaftlicher Kultur- und Deutungskämpfe um Gender und Familie. Dabei wird deutlich, wie die Leben von queeren Menschen zunehmend zum Angriffspunkt konservativer und rechter Identitätspolitik werden. Anhand einer umfassenden Analyse einer katholischen Predigt des Vorsitzenden der Jugendkommission der Deutschen Bischofskonferenz wird exemplarisch nachgezeichnet, wie sich tradierte queerfeindliche Ablehnungs- und Abwertungsmuster in scheinbar liberale Narrative einfügen und in Verbindung mit (rechts)populistischen Argumentationsmustern Eingang in hegemoniale Diskurse finden können. Daraus werden Herausforderungen und Prämissen für sozialpädagogische Arbeit (nicht nur) für und mit queeren Jugendlichen skizziert.

The threat of criminal punishment of same-sex relationships has revived in Indonesia. Despite the remarkable improvements that were made in recent years, such as the Yogyakarta principles in 2007 and the organisation of the Jakarta Q-film festival, homophobia has been gradually observed throughout the country. The criminal punishment of both prostitution and homosexuality in the (Islamised) region of Aceh by virtue of local laws (perdas) and incidents such as the raid of a Jakarta gay sauna in late 2017 that resulted in several prosecutions demonstrate that the struggle for non-discrimination and equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) communities is still ongoing in this extremely diverse country. The present paper discusses this situation, highlighting the need for Indonesia to comply with its human rights obligations.

This article attempts to describe sexual diversity among people in Bhutan. We investigate ways in which Bhutan addresses sexual diversity in sex education and the law. We also review existing data to assess health issues affecting sexually diverse populations in Bhutan. Although limited, the available evidence indicates a higher likelihood of committing suicide, abusing substances, and facing barriers to accessing health care services and programs. The review finds the need for more representative researches for understanding sexually diverse people in Bhutan. The paper highlights the need for research with these populations with equal focus in ensuring active participation by the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, inter sex & questioning (LGBTI&Q) community. The judiciary, education, and health system are crucial agencies that can facilitate and create accepting environments for the sexually diverse population in Bhutan.

Abstract Background: In the US, food insecurity is a public health issue and can have a negative impact on the health and well-being of adult populations including those who have cancers. Data on food insecurity among lesbian, gay, bisexual, or other sexual minority (LGB+) adults with cancers (AWCs) is lacking. Further, disparities in food insecurity across LGB+ and racial/ethnic minority AWCs at the national level are not clear. Methods: We conducted a secondary analysis of publicly available data from the 2021 National Health Interview Survey that used stratified clustering sampling to interview US adults aged ≥18 years. We further limited the analysis to adults who 1) had a cancer diagnosis, 2) reported sex assigned at birth, and 3) self-identified as either straight/heterosexual or LGB+. Food insecurity, measured using a 10-item questionnaire assessing household food situations in the past 30 days, was dichotomized as “yes/no.” Weighted proportions and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated and compared using Rao-Scott chi-square tests. Multivariable logistic regression was used to compute adjusted odds ratios (aOR [95% CI]) and examine differences in food insecurity by race/ethnicity and sexual orientation. All analyses accounted for complex survey design. Results: We obtained an unweighted sample of 3,517 (weighted sample 23,747,209) AWCs. The mean age was 65.4 years; 3.1% were self-identified as LGB+; 83.5% were White, 6.5% were Black, and 6.3% were Hispanic. Overall, 4.7% (95% CI: 3.8–5.6%) experienced food insecurity. LGB+ AWCs reported a higher proportion of having experienced food insecurity than heterosexual AWCs (14.7% [95% CI: 6.4–23.0%] vs. 4.4% [95% CI: 3.5–5.3%], p<.0001). Among female AWCs, LGB+ AWCs were more likely than heterosexual AWCs to have experienced food insecurity (20.1% [95% CI: 7.7–32.5%] vs. 5.2% [95% CI: 4.0–6.4%], p<.0001). Compared with White AWCs (3.8%, 95% CI: 2.9–4.7%), Black (10.0%, 95% CI: 5.1–15.0%) and Hispanic (9.7%, 95% CI: 5.4–14.1%) AWCs reported higher proportions of having experienced food insecurity (p<.0001). In the adjusted regression model, LGB+ AWCs had higher odds of food insecurity than heterosexual AWCs, though the difference was not statistically significant (aOR=2.01, 95% CI: 0.74–5.48). Black AWCs had higher odds of food insecurity than White AWCs (aOR=2.24, 95% CI: 1.15–4.36). AWCs on Medicaid/Medicare had greater odds of food insecurity than those privately insured (aOR=2.54, 95% CI: 1.43–4.52). AWCs who were not employed also had greater odds of food insecurity than those employed (aOR=3.56, 95% CI: 1.87–6.77). Conclusions: In this national sample of US AWCs, the prevalence of food insecurity was higher in LGB+ and racial/ethnic minority groups. Black and Hispanic AWCs were more likely than their White counterparts to have experienced food insecurity. Our findings suggest the need for intervention programs and public policies addressing food insecurity among AWCs, particularly among those who are in LGB+, racial/ethnic minority, or socioeconomically disadvantaged communities. Citation Format: Jincong Q. Freeman, Xinyi Li, Yong Gun Lee. Prevalence of and disparities in food insecurity among racial/ethnic and sexual minority adults with cancers in the US: Analysis of the National Health Interview Survey [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 16th AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2023 Sep 29-Oct 2;Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2023;32(12 Suppl):Abstract nr B012.

Küresel bir ilginin odağı olan toplumsal cinsiyet olgusu, formal eğitimin hemen hemen her kademesinde yer almaya başlamıştır.
 Kapsayıcılığı zaman içerisinde artan ve toplumsal cinsiyeti özellikle “eşitlik” minvalinde ele alan eğitim; öğrencilerin toplumsal cinsiyet
 algılarını, tutumlarını ve davranışlarını şekillendirmek gibi çok önemli bir vizyona sahiptir. Bu vizyonu gerçekleştirmek için aracılık
 eden bölüm müfredatları, öğrenme çıktıları ve ders kaynakları, belli aralıklarla geliştirilmeye ve iyileştirilmeye ihtiyaç duyulan öğretim
 materyallerindendir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, cinsiyete ve toplumsal cinsiyete dair detaylıca bilgi edinilen ruh sağlığı bölümlerinde “toplumsal
 cinsiyet temalı” derslerin incelenmesi ve mevcut eğilimlerin değerlendirilmesidir. Çalışmanın yürütülebilmesi için YÖKATLAS Web
 sitesinde güncel olarak yer alan psikoloji, psikolojik danışmanlık ve rehberlik, sosyal hizmet ve çocuk gelişimi programlarından toplam
 97 bölüm, bu bölümlere sahip olan toplam 42 üniversite seçilmiştir. Üniversite bilgi sistemlerine erişilebilen derslerin müfredatları, ders
 öğrenme çıktıları ve bu derslerin içeriğini oluşturan ders kaynakları listelenip içerik analizine tabii tutulmuştur. Elde edilen bulgulara
 göre toplumsal cinsiyetin üniversite eğitiminde temsili kadınları odak alan bir bakışla özdeşleşirken LGBTİ-Q hakkında konuşulmaya
 başlanan içerikleri de kapsamaktadır. Çalışma neticesinde, toplumsal cinsiyet derslerinin belirli kalıplar üzerinde sınırlandırılmaması ve
 jenerasyonları tek tipleştirici içeriklerle ele alınmaması adına; güncel müfredatların belli periyotlarda yenilenmesi ve ilgili derslerin bu
 alana özgü akademik ilgisi olan akademisyenler tarafından verilmesi önerileri getirilmiştir

Abstract Background Lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and queer (LGBT+Q+) youth are highly vulnerable to work-based discrimination, which correlates with poor social, physical and mental health. The European Union funded WE-Project aims to empower LGBT+Q+ youth in Europe through work-based educational interventions. The first leg focused on exploring barriers and facilitators to workplace equality in Austria, Croatia, Serbia, Slovakia, Spain and the United Kingdom, gathering experiences of LGBT+Q+ youth and stakeholders. Methods Self-identifying LGBT+Q+ 15-26 year-olds were recruited via social media and diverse organisations for semi-structured interviews, while stakeholders from various institutions were invited to participate in focus group discussions based on standardised interview and discussion guidelines. Transcriptions were coded, categorised and thematically analysed, revealing five themes: societal discrimination influencing work-life, experiences of workplace discrimination, barriers to resolve discrimination, facilitators to overcome discrimination and creation of inclusive strategies. Results Overall 56 LGBT+Q+ youth interviewees and 38 stakeholders from 6 European countries were recruited. Facilitators overcoming workplace discrimination and inclusive strategies towards work-based equality for LGBT+Q+ youth were varyingly emphasised and included: clear policies, open communication, staff involvement and inclusive infrastructure, LGBT+Q+ quotas as well as education on diversity in schools and increasing visibility, legal recognition of partnerships, implementing youth centres, and access to counselling. Conclusions Results indicate several strategies to consider when designing interventions challenging work-based discrimination of LGBT+Q+ youth. Participating countries differ in social acceptance and legal protections of LGBT+Q+ youth, but experiences and voiced issues are similar, necessitating relevant anti-discrimination interventions throughout Europe.

The ubiquity of gender-bending and sexually ambiguous imagery in the media seems to herald a post-gay era. But are LGBT/Q identities and representation politics really a thing of the past? Inspection of the circulation patterns of LGBT/Q images on a global scale suggests a more nuanced story. Taking the lead from distribution and film festival studies, in this essay I sketch out how LGBT/Q images travel around the world. The festival network was always an alternative channel to mainstream work. Therefore, I pay particular attention to the international film festival circuit with its art film bias, on one hand, and activist festivals, such as LGBT/Q film festivals and their LGBT/Q-themed films, on the other. Utilizing Lisa Henderson's notion of "queer relay" I argue that the relationship between the queer film ecosystem and the larger art film circuit is highly ambivalent. The deployed art film strategies reveal that we have not yet arrived at actual acceptance and universality in a post-gay, post-identitarian world. However, the positions on the side of distinction and cultural capital do not just lean towards exploitation of queer subcultural productions by neoliberal forces but offer also a relay position that accounts for queer agency in the wider cultural arena.

The L Word: Generation Q is the reboot of The L Word, a long running series about a group of lesbians and bisexuals in Los Angeles in the early 2000s. Both programmes are unique in their positioning of lesbian characters and have been well received by audiences and critics alike. These programmes present a range of characters and narratives, previously excluded from mainstream film and television, bringing a refreshing change from the destructive images typically presented before. We argue that the reboot Generation Q now offers more meaningful representation of the broader lesbian and transgender communities, and discuss its relevance in the changing portrayals of gay representation. Gay visibility has never really been an issue in the movies. Gays have always been visible. It is how they have been visible that has remained offensive for almost a century. (Russo 66) In 2004 The L Word broke new ground as the very first television series written and directed by predominantly queer women. This set it apart from previous representations of lesbians by Hollywood because it portrayed a community rather than an isolated or lone lesbian character, that was extraneous to a cast of heterosexuals (Moore and Schilt). The series brought change, and where Hollywood was more often “reluctant to openly and non-stereotypically engage with gay subjects and gay characters” (Baker 41), the L Word offered an alternative to the norm in media representation. “The L Word’s significance lies in its very existence” according to Chambers (83), and this article serves to consider this significance in conjunction with its 2019 reboot, the L Word: Generation Q, to ascertain if the enhanced visibility and gay representation influences the system of representation that has predominantly been excluding and misrepresentative of gay life. The exclusion of authentic representation of lesbians and gays in Hollywood film is not new. Over time, however, there has been an increased representation of gay characters in film and television. However, beneath the positive veneer remains a morally disapproving undertone (Yang), where lesbians and gays are displayed as the showpiece of the abnormal (Gross, "Out of the Mainstream"). Gross ("Out of the Mainstream") suggests that through the ‘othering’ of lesbians and gays within media, a means of maintaining the moral order is achieved, and where being ‘straight’ results in a happy ending. Lesbians and gays in film thus achieve what Gerbner referred to as symbolic annihilation, purposefully created in a bid to maintain the social inequity. This form of exclusion often saw controversial gay representation, with a history of portraying these characters in a false, excluding, and pejorative way (Russo; Gross, "What Is Wrong"; Hart). The history of gay representation in media had at times been monstrous, playing out the themes of gay sexuality as threatening to heterosexual persons and communities (Juárez). Gay people were incorrectly stereotyped, and gay lives were seen through the slimmest of windows. Walters (15) argued that it was “too often” that film and television images would narrowly portray gays “as either desexualized or over sexualized”, framing their sexuality as the sole identity of the character. She also contested that gay characters were “shown as nonthreatening and campy 'others' or equally comforting and familiar boys (and they are usually boys, not girls) next door” (Walters 15). In Russo’s seminal text, The Celluloid Closet, he demonstrated that gay characters were largely excluded from genuine and thoughtful presentation in film, while the only option given to them was how they died. Gay activists and film makers in the 1980s and beyond built on the momentum of AIDS activism (Streitmatter) to bring films that dealt with gay subject matter more fairly than before, with examples like The Birdcage, Philadelphia, To Wong Foo, Thanks for Everything! Julie Newmar, and In and Out. Walters argues that while “mainstream films like Brokeback Mountain and The Kids are Alright entertain moviegoers with their forthright gay themes and scenes” (12), often the roles have been more of tokenisation, representing the “surprisingly gay characters in a tedious romcom, the coyly queer older man in a star-studded indie hit, the incidentally gay sister of the lead in a serious drama” (Walters 12). This ambivalence towards the gay role model in the media has had real world effects on those who identify themselves as lesbian or gay, creating feelings of self-hatred or of being ‘unacceptable’ citizens of society (Gamson), as media content “is an active component in the cultural process of shaping LGBT identities” (Sarkissian 147). The stigmatisation of gays was further identified by the respondents to a study on media and gay identity, where “the prevailing sentiment in these discussions was a sense of being excluded from traditional society” (Gomillion and Guiliano 343). Exclusion promotes segregation and isolation, and since television media are ever-present via conventional and web-based platforms, their messages are increasingly visible and powerful. The improved portrayal of gay characters was not just confined to the area of film and television however, and many publications produced major stories on bi-sexual chic, lesbian chic, the rise of gay political power and gay families. This process of greater inclusion, however, has not been linear, and in 2013 the media advocacy group known as the Gay and Lesbian Alliance against Defamation (GLAAD) mapped the quantity, quality, and diversity of LGBT people depicted in films, finding that there was still much work to be done to fairly include gay characters (GLAAD Studio Responsibility Index). In another report made in 2019, which examined cable and streaming media, GLAAD found that of the 879 regular characters expected to appear on broadcast scripted primetime programming, 10.2% were identified as gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and or queer (GLAAD Where Are We on TV). This was the highest number of queer characters recorded since the start of their reporting. In January 2004, Showtime launched The L Word, the first scripted cable television to focus chiefly on lesbians. Over the course of six seasons it explored the deep bonds that linked the members of an evolving lesbian friendship circle. The central themes of the programme were the love and friendship between the women, and it was a television programme structured by its own values and ideologies. The series offered a moral argument against the widespread sexism and anti-gay prejudice that was evident in media. The cast, however, were conventionally beautiful, gender normative, and expensively attired, leading to fears that the programme would appeal more to straight men, and that the sex in the programme would be exploitative and pornographic. The result, however, was that women’s sex and connection were foregrounded, and appeared as a central theme of the drama. This was, however, ground-breaking television. The showrunner of the original L Word, Ilene Chaiken, was aware of the often-damning account of lesbians in Hollywood, and the programme managed to convey an indictment of Hollywood (Mcfadden). The L Word increased lesbian visibility on television and was revolutionary in countering some of the exclusionary and damaging representation that had taken place before. It portrayed variations of lesbians, showing new positive representations in the form of power lesbians, sports lesbians, singles, and couples. Broadly speaking, gay visibility and representation can be marked and measured by levels of their exclusion and inclusion. Sedgwick said that the L Word was particularly important as it created a “lesbian ecology—a visible world in which lesbians exist, go on existing, exist in forms beyond the solitary and the couple, sustain and develop relations among themselves of difference and commonality” (xix). However, as much as this programme challenged the previous representations it also enacted a “Faustian bargain because television is a genre which ultimately caters to the desires and expectations of mainstream audiences” (Wolfe and Roripaugh 76). The producers knew it was difficult to change the problematic and biased representation of queer women within the structures of commercial media and understood the history of queer representation and its effects. Therefore, they had to navigate between the legitimate desire to represent lesbians as well as being able to attract a large enough mainstream audience to keep the show commercially viable. The L Word: Generation Q is the reboot of the popular series, and includes some of the old cast, who have also become the executive producers. These characters include Bette Porter, who in 2019 is running for the office of the Mayor of Los Angeles. Shane McCutchen returns as the fast-talking womanising hairdresser, and Alice Pieszecki in this iteration is a talk show host. When interviewed, Jennifer Beals (executive producer and Bette Porter actor) said that the programme is important, because there have been no new lesbian dramas to follow after the 2004 series ended (Beals, You Tube). Furthermore, the returning cast members believe the reboot is important because of the increased attacks that queer people have been experiencing since the election of Donald Trump in 2016. Between the two productions there have been changes in the film and television landscape, with additional queer programmes such as Pose, Orange Is the New Black, Euphoria, RuPaul’s Drag Race, and Are You the One, for example. The new L Word, therefore, needed to project a new and modern voice that would reflect contemporary lesbian life. There was also a strong desire to rectify criticism of the former show, by presenting an increased variation of characters in the 2019 series. Ironically, while the L Word had purposefully aimed to remove the negativity of exclusion through the portrayal of a group of lesbians in a more true-to-life account, the limited character tropes inadvertently marginalised other areas of lesbian and queer representation. These excluded characters were for example fully representative trans characters. The 2000s television industry had seemingly returned to a period of little interest in women’s stories generally, and though queer stories seeped into popular culture, there was no dedicated drama with a significant focus on lesbian story lines (Vanity Fair). The first iteration of The L Word was aimed at satisfying lesbian audiences as well as creating mainstream television success. It was not a tacky or pornographic television series playing to male voyeuristic ideals, although some critics believed that it included female-to-female sex scenes to draw in an additional male viewership (Anderson-Minshall; Graham). There was also a great emphasis on processing the concept of being queer. However, in the reboot Generation Q, the decision was made by the showrunner Marja-Lewis Ryan that the series would not be about any forms of ‘coming out stories’, and the characters were simply going about their lives as opposed to the burdensome tropes of transitioning or coming out. This is a significant change from many of the gay storylines in the 1990s that were seemingly all focussed on these themes. The new programme features a wider demographic, too, with younger characters who are comfortable with who they are. Essentially, the importance of the 2019 series is to portray healthy, varied representations of lesbian life, and to encourage accurate inclusion into film and television without the skewed or distorted earlier narratives. The L Word and L Word: Generation Q then carried the additional burden of countering criticisms The L Word received. Roseneil explains that creating both normalcy and belonging for lesbians and gays brings “cultural value and normativity” (218) and removes the psychosocial barriers that cause alienation or segregation. This “accept us” agenda appears through both popular culture and “in the broader national discourse on rights and belongings” (Walters 11), and is thus important because “representations of happy, healthy, well integrated lesbian and gay characters in film or television would create the impression that, in a social, economic, and legal sense, all is well for lesbians and gay men” (Schacter 729). Essentially, these programmes shouldered the burden of representation for the lesbian community, which was a heavy expectation. Critiques of the original L Word focussed on how the original cast looked as if they had all walked out of a high-end salon, for example, but in L Word: Generation Q this has been altered to have a much more DIY look. One of the younger cast members, Finlay, looks like someone cut her hair in the kitchen while others have styles that resemble YouTube tutorials and queer internet celebrities (Vanity Fair). The recognisable stereotypes that were both including and excluding have also altered the representation of the trans characters. Bette Porter’s campaign manager, for example, determines his style through his transition story, unlike Max, the prominent trans character from the first series. The trans characters of 2019 are comfortable in their own skins and supported by the community around them. Another important distinction between the representation of the old and new cast is around their material wealth. The returning cast members have comfortable lives and demonstrate affluence while the younger cast are less comfortable, expressing far more financial anxiety. This may indeed make a storyline that is closer to heterosexual communities. The L Word demonstrated a sophisticated awareness of feminist debates about the visual representation of women and made those debates a critical theme of the programme, and these themes have been expanded further in The L Word: Generation Q. One of the crucial areas that the programme/s have improved upon is to denaturalise the hegemonic straight gaze, drawing attention to the ways, conventions and techniques of reproduction that create sexist, heterosexist, and homophobic ideologies (McFadden). This was achieved through a predominantly female, lesbian cast that dealt with stories amongst their own friend group and relationships, serving to upend the audience position, and encouraging an alternative gaze, a gaze that could be occupied by anyone watching, but positioned the audience as lesbian. In concluding, The L Word in its original iteration set out to create something unique in its representation of lesbians. However, in its mission to create something new, it was also seen as problematic in its representation and in some ways excluding of certain gay and lesbian people. The L Word: Generation Q has therefore focussed on more diversity within a minority group, bringing normality and a sense of ‘realness’ to the previously skewed narratives seen in the media. In so doing, “perhaps these images will induce or confirm” to audiences that “lesbians and gay men are already ‘equal’—accepted, integrated, part of the mainstream” (Schacter 729). References Anderson-Minshall, Diane. “Sex and the Clittie, in Reading the L Word: Outing Contemporary Television.” Reading Desperate Housewives. Eds. Janet McCabe and Kim Akass. I.B. Tauris, 2006. 11–14. Are You the One? Presented by Ryan Devlin. Reality television programme. Viacom Media Networks, 2014. Baker, Sarah. “The Changing Face of Gay Representation in Hollywood Films from the 1990s Onwards: What’s Really Changed in the Hollywood Representation of Gay Characters?” The International Journal of Interdisciplinary Cultural Studies 10.4 (2015): 41–51. Brokeback Mountain. Dir. Ang Lee. Film. Focus Features, 2005. Chambers, Samuel. A. “Heteronormativity and The L Word: From a Politics of Representation to a Politics of Norms.” Reading Desperate Housewives. Eds. Janet McCabe and Kim Akass. I.B. Tauris, 2006. 81–98. Euphoria. Dir. Sam Levinson. Television Series. HBO, 2019. Gamson, Joshua. “Sweating in the Spotlight: Lesbian, Gay and Queer Encounters with Media and Popular Culture.” Handbook of Lesbian and Gay Studies.London: Sage, 2002. 339–354. Graham, Paula. “The L Word Under-whelms the UK?” Reading Desperate Housewives. Eds. Janet McCabe and Kim Akass. I.B. Tauris, 2006. 15–26. Gross, Larry. “What Is Wrong with this Picture? Lesbian Women and Gay Men on Television.” Queer Words, Queer Images: Communication and the Construction of Homosexuality. Ed. R.J. Ringer. New York: New York UP, 1994. 143–156. Gross, Larry. “Out of the Mainstream: Sexual Minorities and the Mass Media.” Gay People, Sex, and the Media. Eds. M. Wolf and A. Kielwasser. Haworth Press, 1991. 19–36. Hart, Kylo-Patrick. R. “Representing Gay Men on American Television.” Journal of Men’s Studies 9 (2000): 59–79. In and Out. Dir. Frank Oz. Film. Paramount Pictures, 1997. Juárez, Sergio Fernando. “Creeper Bogeyman: Cultural Narratives of Gay as Monstrous.” At the Interface / Probing the Boundaries 91 (2018): 226–249. McFadden, Margaret. T. The L Word. Wayne State University Press, 2014. Moore, Candace, and Kristin Schilt. “Is She Man Enough? Female Masculinities on The L Word.” Reading Desperate Housewives. Eds. Janet McCabe and Kim Akass. I.B. Tauris, 2006. 159–172. Orange Is the New Black. Dir. Jenji Johan. Web series. Netflix Streaming Services, 2003–. Philadelphia. Directed by Jonathan Demme. Film. Tristar Pictures, 1993. Pose. Dirs. Ryan Murphy, Steven Canals, and Brad Falchuk. Television series. Color Force, 2018. Roseneil, Sasha. “On Missed Encounters: Psychoanalysis, Queer Theory, and the Psychosocial Dynamics of Exclusion.” Studies in Gender and Sexuality 20.4 (2019): 214–219. RuPaul’s Drag Race. Directed by Nick Murray. Reality competition. Passion Distribution, 2009–. Russo, Vito. The Celluloid Closet. Rev. ed. New York: Harper & Row, 1987. Sarkissian, Raffi. “Queering TV Conventions: LGBT Teen Narratives on Glee.” Queer Youth and Media Cultures. Ed. C. Pullen. Palgrave Macmillan, 2014. 145–157. Sedgwick, Eve Kosofsky. “Foreword: The Letter L.” Reading 'The L Word’: Outing Contemporary Television. Reading Desperate Housewives. Eds. Janet McCabe and Kim Akass. I.B. Tauris, 2006. 20–25. Schacter, Jane S. “Skepticism, Culture and the Gay Civil Rights Debate in Post-Civil-Rights Era.” Harvard Law Review 110 (1997): 684–731. Streitmatter, Rodger. Perverts to Fab Five: The Media’s Changing Depiction of Gay Men and Lesbians. New York: Routledge. 2009. The Birdcage. Dir. Mike Nichols. Film. United Artists, 1995. The Kids Are Alright. Dir. Lisa Cholodenko. Film. Focus Features, 2010. The L Word. Created by Ilene Chaiken, Kathy Greenberg, and Michelle Abbott. TV drama. Showtime Networks, 2004–2009. The L Word: Generation Q. Prods. Ilene Chaiken, Jennifer Beals, Katherine Moennig, and Leisha Hailey. TV drama. Showtime Networks, 2019–. To Wong Foo, Thanks for Everything! Julie Newmar. Dir. Beeban Kidron. Film. Universal Pictures, 1995. Walters, Suzanna Danuta. The Tolerance Trap: How God, Genes and Good Intentions Are Sabotaging Gay Equality. New York: New York UP, 2014. Yang, Alan. "From Wrongs to Rights: Public Opinion on Gay and Lesbian Americans Moves towards Equality." New York: The Policy Institute of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, 1999.

The impact of companies’ environmental, social, and governance (ESG) policies and practices, particularly sociopolitical activity, on corporate performance is a hotly debated issue. Proponents of corporate ESG efforts and sociopolitical activism believe these actions build corporate social capital that will protect overall corporate value during challenging times and after negative corporate publicity. Corporate LGBTQ inclusiveness is a social dimension of ESG that some stakeholders may consider sociopolitical activism that requires extra effort and cost. We address the impact of corporate LGBTQ inclusiveness policies during challenging economic conditions, using the COVID pandemic as a natural experiment. We examine the association between ratings of organizations based on their policies and activities in support of LGBTQ employees and the LGBTQ community, the Corporate Equality Index (CEI), and corporate performance during challenging economic conditions. We show that CEI rankings before the pandemic are positively and significantly related to Tobin’s Q in 2020 and the change in Tobin’s Q from 2019 to 2020. Also, panel data analysis shows that the positive impact of CEI on Tobin’s Q is more salient in 2020. This study provides evidence that ESG investments in diversity helped improve corporate performance, especially during the COVID crisis.

Although research indicates school-based agricultural education teachers work to make classrooms more inclusive, some teachers may not feel prepared to support LGBTQ+ youth. The purpose of this study was to explore the attitudes of agricultural education teachers about the inclusion of LGBTQ+ youth in agricultural education. The 38-statement Q set was sorted by 21 Oklahoma agricultural education teachers. The resulting attitudes from the three-factorial solution were labeled: It’s Up to Me, It’s Up to Us, and It’s Up to Leadership. The It’s Up to Me teachers accept the responsibility to create an inclusive environment and program for LGBTQ+ youth. The It’s Up to Us teachers acknowledge the important collective role that students, teachers, and school and university leaders play in creating an inclusive classroom and program. The It’s Up to Leadership teachers acknowledge a need for further education and training in LGBTQ+ inclusion and feel there is too much pressure placed on teachers to be inclusive. The attitudes describe the diverse understandings of how LGBTQ+ inclusion in agricultural education might be implemented and supported with the need for more education and resources in LGBTQ+ inclusion.

Previous research finds that diversity and inclusion efforts improve corporate value. Likewise, previous research finds a positive correlation between some desired accounting measures and the religiosity of the population in an area. This study examines the relationship between Corporate Equality Index (CEI) ratings of support for the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered, queer or questioning (LGBTQ) community, the religiosity of populations in the county in which corporate headquarters are located, and corporate value. A common notion is that religious people are less likely to support policies desired by LGBTQ people, and by extension, less LGBTQ support exists in more highly-religious communities. We find little indication that the religiosity of the people in the county where a corporate headquarters is located affects corporate CEI ratings or shareholder value as measured by Tobin’s q in general. This study offers a primary contribution because examination of the relationship between religiosity and LGBTQ policies is relevant and rare in the literature.

Foster, Manikas, and Preece's "LGBTQ WORKPLACE INCLUSION BEFORE AND AFTER OBERGEFELL V. HODGES: ASSOCIATION WITH TOBIN'S Q AND ROA," addresses LGBTQ+ inclusion following Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court case that legalized marriage equality in the United States. This commentary addresses the findings of the work while also highlighting future research considerations, including employing dynamic capabilities and influential ethical decision-making to shape future research studies. Additionally, this work also addresses how influential decision-making in future works should utilize a multi-level approach to analyze the law's impact on workplace policy and the individuals within the organization.

Diversity and inclusion advocates claim organizations benefit from diversity. Diversity is purportedly associated with many positive outcomes such as increased creativity, reduced turnover, increased productivity, a broader talent pool from which to choose, improved employee performance, increased innovation, potentially new customers and, ultimately, higher profits. Many studies support that claim, finding evidence that diversity is associated with higher company returns and market values. We examine if the association of company LGBTQ-benefits and policies with corporate returns and market valuechanged in the years around the 2015 Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodgesthat legalized same-sex marriage nationally. The Corporate Equality Index (CEI), calculated and reported by the Human Rights Campaign (HRC.org 2020a),is used as a proxy for the level of company LGBTQ inclusiveness and support. The CEI is meant to provide a tool to rate U.S. businesses on their treatment of LGBTQ employees, investors and consumers, thereby focusing on a different aspect of diversity than simply defining diversity based on gender and/or race and ethnicity. Results indicate that higher HRC CEI ratings appear to be associated with higher Tobin’s q, a measure of long-term corporate performance. We find similar results for three time periods, pre-Obergefell, during the Supreme Court decision year, and post-Obergefell. These results indicate that diversity policies toward the LGBTQ community are associated with higher company market value, regardless of how uniformly US law has regarded same-sex marriage.

Individuals with different sexual orientations may face various problems in society because of their sexual orientation or gender at birth. This includes individuals who classify themselves as "LGBTI+Q", i.e. "lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersexual and queer". The aim of this study is to examine the impact of individuals' sexual orientation on their professional lives. In this study, which is based on the phenomenological design of qualitative research, a total of 15 participants (8 gay, 4 transsexual, 2 bisexual, 1 lesbian) were selected by snowball sampling method. In the survey, 6 personal information forms prepared by the researcher and 4 semi-structured interview questions were used. Semi-structured interview questions were interviewed with each participant for 30 minutes via video conferencing method over online (Zoom programme). The data were analysed by content and analysis methods. In order to ensure the reliability of the study, themes were identified in the process of analysing the data subjected to content analysis, and each theme was first divided into codes and then into categories and analysed within itself. The responses of 15 LGBTI+Q individuals participating in the survey regarding the effects of their sexual orientation on their professional lives were grouped under 4 themes, 21 codes and 8 categories. Each of the four themes was further divided into two different categories. According to the survey results, it was determined that sexual orientation affects career choice positively and negatively, sexual orientation can be revealed/hidden in business life, sexual orientation affects professional performance, and various problems may arise in terms of overlapping sexual orientation and career goals.

Abstract Controlling seawater intrusion (SWI) into freshwater aquifers is crucial for preserving water quality in coastal groundwater management. This research evaluates the performance of three machine learning (ML) models: eXtreme Gradient Boosting (BO-XGB), Light Gradient Boosting Machine (BO-LGB), and Categorical Gradient Boosting (BO-CGB) in predicting the SWI wedge length. A database of 345 numerical simulations was compiled from previous research, and Bayesian Optimization (BO) with fivefold cross-validation was used to fine-tune the models. The inputs included abstraction well distance (X a ), abstraction well depth (Y a ), recharge well distance (X r ), recharge well depth (Y r ), abstraction rate (Q a ), artificial recharge rate (Q r ), and SWI wedge length (L). Results show that BO-CGB consistently achieved the best performance, with high R2 values (0.996 in training and 0.969 in testing) and low RMSE values (0.439 m in training and 1.327 m in testing). SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) analysis highlighted that Q a and Q r had the most significant impact on SWI wedge length predictions, followed by X a and Y a . Partial Dependence Plot (PDP) analysis revealed a strong negative correlation between flow variables Q a and Q r and wedge length, while X r displayed a more complex, non-linear pattern. BO-CGB emerged as the most reliable model for predicting SWI wedge length. To facilitate practical application, an interactive Graphical User Interface (GUI) was developed, enabling users to input variables and receive instant predictions, enhancing the practical usability of the ML models in managing SWI in coastal aquifers.

Abstract The social media platform Instagram popularises a “healthy eating” movement, but some of its trends may be harmful. We assessed the risk of viewing #cleaneating and #whatieatinaday content on eating behaviours using adapted items from a short version of the Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire (EDE-Q) and body satisfaction using the Body Image States Scale (BISS). A total of 403 women aged 18–78 years recruited through snowball and opportunity sampling were randomised into three study groups: #cleaneating (n = 140), #whatieatinaday (n = 141) and #nature (n = 122) as control. Participants completed online EDE-Q (lower score indicated more disordered eating behaviour) and BISS scales before and after viewing the content of their assigned hashtag. Post-exposure EDE-Q or BISS scores below pre-exposure (baseline) scores were defined as deficit scores. Logistic regression, adjusted for age and BMI, and presented as odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI), was used to compare deficit scores between study groups. The overall baseline mean (SD) age was 26.7 years (11.7), BMI 23.3 kg/m2 (3.6), EDE-Q 2.7 (1.0) and BISS scores 5.6 (0.8), which were similar between study groups. Compared to control (#nature), EDE-Q scores were reduced after exposure to #cleaneating and #whatieatinaday (ANOVA: P < 0.001), and there was an increased risk for having deficit EDE-Q scores after exposure to #cleaneating: OR = 2.86 (95% CI = 1.68–4.90), and to #whatieatinaday: OR = 2.58 (95% CI = 1.52–4.39). The corresponding ORs were higher in younger age (18–21 years) but similar in different BMI categories. Exposure to #cleaneating or #whatieatinaday did not change BISS scores. A single exposure to #cleaneating and #whatieatinaday content on Instagram may encourage disordered eating behaviours, especially in younger women. Future research should examine the effects of this type of diet advice media on all genders, race, ethnicity, socioeconomic, educational and marital status, as well as LGBTQ + identity, over the longer term and after exposure to video-based content.

Abstract LGBTQI+ individuals have existed throughout human history and across cultures. Natural variations of sexual orientation and gender identity exist regardless of enacted laws and policies. So-called sodomy laws have existed in many countries around the world at different moments in distant and recent history, focusing on criminalising consensual sexual acts between same-gender adults. Recently, several countries (e.g., Ghana, Uganda, Kyrgyzstan) have started to propose and introduce new laws that, beside sexual acts, criminalize the very existence of sexual minorities (e.g., [self-]identification as gay, lesbian, or bisexual). This roundtable discussion will explore the public health impact of the criminalisation of LGBTQI+ individuals and related discrimination in the European region, and will discuss the public health, ethical and legal arguments and obligations for the entire public health community to act both inside and outside Europe. Beyond the direct and obvious consequences that criminalisation of sexual minorities has on the health and human rights of those prosecuted, it also has broader detrimental public health impacts. Research has shown that structural anti-LGBTQI+ legal climates further promote hostility, violence, and harassment against LGBTQI+ persons (Hatzenbuehler et al. 2019; Van der Star et al. 2020) as well as directly jeopardise a plethora of health outcomes across the entire community, including psychological distress (Van der Star et al. 2021), life satisfaction and wellbeing (Van der Star & Bränström, 2015; Pachankis & Bränström, 2018), risk for psychiatric disorders (Hatzenbuehler et al. 2010), and suicidal ideation (Pachankis et al. 2021). In addition to these direct ramifications for LGBT health, negative public anti-LGBTQI+ discourse surrounding the introduction of such legislation may also instigate harassment and discrimination (Hatzenbuehler et al. 2019) as well as reduce psychological wellbeing (Frost & Fingerhut, 2016) among LGBT persons and their families, friends and close communities. Most recently (at the time of submission), the Parliament of Uganda passed the Anti-Homosexuality Act in March 2023, which includes the death penalty for ‘serial offenders.’ The Act and related legislation in other countries was condemned by the European Parliament in April 2023. The public health community has an obligation to speak out strongly against the introduction of laws criminalising LGBTQI+ individuals. Our aim for this roundtable is to bring together several public health disciplines to discuss the ethical and public health obligations the public health community has to act and speak out. We will discuss cases from several countries from across the globe, the evidence around the public health impact of anti-LGBTQI+ legislation, and ethical, legal, and human rights argumentation. We will also dedicate time for questions from the audience to enable sharing of concerns and diverse personal and regional experiences. Key messages • After decades of net human rights progress for LGBTQI+ individuals, new laws criminalising this community are being introduced across the globe with detrimental public health consequences. • The entire public health community has the obligation to actively speak out against the criminalisation of the LGBTQI+ community. Speakers/Panelists David Patterson University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands Arjan van der Star EUPHA-SGMH Els Maeckelberghe University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands Elena Petelos EUPHA-HTA, EUPHA-GH

Photo by Christian Bowen on Unsplash ABSTRACT Assisted Reproductive Technology can be a beneficial tool for couples unable to reproduce independently; however, it has historically discriminated against the LGBTQ+ community members. Given the evolution and acceptance of LGBTQ rights in recent years, discrimination and barriers to access reproductive technology and health care should be readdressed as they still exist within this community. INTRODUCTION In recent years, the LGBTQ+ community has made great strides toward attaining equal rights. This fight dates back to 1970 when Michael Baker and McConnell applied for a marriage license in Minnesota.[1] After the county courthouse denied the couple's request, they appealed to the Minnesota Supreme Court. Baker and McConnell’s dispute reached the US Supreme Court. Baker v. Nelson[2] was the first time a same-sex couple attempted to pursue marriage through higher courts in the US.[3] Because the couple lost the case, Baker changed his name to a gender-neutral one, and McConnell adopted Baker, allowing Baker and McConnell to have legal protections like the ability to receive certain inheritances. Baker and McConnell received a marriage license from an unsuspecting clerk from Blue Earth County, where they wed on September 3, 1971.[4] BACKGROUND The Supreme Court’s decision left individual state legislatures the option to accommodate same-sex couples’ rights constitutionally. As a result, some states banned same-sex marriage, while others offered alternative options such as domestic partnerships. With many obstacles, such as the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and President Bush’s efforts to limit marriage to heterosexual people, Massachusetts became the first state to legalize gay marriage in 2003.[5] Other states slowly followed. Finally, in 2015 the US Supreme Court made same-sex marriage legal in all 50 states in Obergefell v. Hodges,[6] marking an important milestone for the LGBTQ+ community’s fight toward marriage equality. The Obergefell v. Hodges decision emphasized that members of the homosexual community are “not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization's oldest institutions,” thus granting them the right to “equal dignity in the eyes of the law.”[7] This paper argues that in the aftermath of the wide acceptance of LGBTQ rights, discrimination and barriers to access reproductive technology and health care persist nationally. Procreation also faces discrimination. Research supports that children’s overall psychological and physical welfare with same-sex parents does not differ compared to children with heterosexual parents.[8] Some others worry about the children’s developmental health and argue that same-sex male couples’ inability to breastfeed their children may be harmful; however, such parents can obtain breast milk via surrogate donation.[9] Further concerns regarding confusion in gender identity in children raised by same-sex parents are not supported by research in the field indicating that there are “no negative developmental or psychological outcomes for a child, nor does it result in differing gender identity, gender role behavior or sexual partner preference compared to opposite-sex parents.”[10] ANALYSIS l. Desire to Procreate The American perception toward same-sex unions has evolved “from pathology to deviant lifestyle to identity.”[11] In 2001, only 35 percent of Americans favored same‐sex marriage, while 62 percent favored it in 2017.[12] The “Gay marriage generation”[13] has a positive attitude toward same-sex unions, arising from the “interaction among activists, celebrities, political and religious leaders, and ordinary people, who together reconfigured Americans’ social imagination of homosexuality in a way that made gay marriage seem normal, logical, and good.”[14] Same-sex couples’ right to build a biological family and ability to do so using modern reproductive technology is unclear. The data generated by the LGBTQ Family Building Survey revealed “dramatic differences in expectations around family building between LGBTQ millennials (aged 18-35) and older generations of LGBTQ people,”[15] which may be in part attributable to recent federal rulings in favor of same-sex couples. Three important results from this survey are that 63 percent of LGBTQ millennials are considering expanding their families throughout parenthood, 48 percent of LGBTQ millennials are actively planning to grow their families, compared to 55 percent of non-LGBTQ millennials; and 63 percent of those LGBTQ people interested in building a family expect to use assisted reproductive technology (ART), foster care, or adoption to become parents.[16] There are 15.9 million Americans who identify as LGBTQ+ (6.1 million of whom are 18 to 35 years old); thus, an estimated “3.8 million LGBTQ+ millennials are considering expanding their families in the coming years, and 2.9 million are actively planning to do so.”[17] Yet access and affordability to ART, especially in vitro fertilization (IVF) and surrogacy for same-sex couples, has not been consistent at a national level. The two primary problems accessing ART for the LGBTQ community are the lack of federal law and cost. A federal law that guaranteed coverage would address both problems. ll. ART for Same-Sex Couples All same-sex male (SSM) couples and same-sex female (SSF) couples must involve third parties, including surrogates or egg or sperm donors.[18] ART involves the legal status of “up to two women (surrogate and egg donor),” the intended parents, and the child for SSM couples.[19] While sometimes necessary for heterosexual couples using ART, an egg or sperm from someone other than the intended parents or a surrogate will always be necessary for the LGBTQ people seeking ART. ART, in particular IVF, is essential for infertile couples unable to conceive on their own. Unlike other industrialized countries (such as Canada, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Germany, and Australia), the US does not heavily oversee this multibillion-dollar industry.[20] The American Society for Reproductive Medicine does provide lengthy guidelines to fertility clinics and sperm banks; however, state lawmakers have been less active as they seem to avoid the controversy surrounding controversial topics like embryo creation and abortion.[21] As a result, states “do not regulate how many children may be conceived from one donor, what types of medical information or updates must be supplied by donors, what genetic tests may be performed on embryos, how many fertilized eggs may be placed in a woman or how old a donor can be.”[22] lll. A Flawed Definition of Infertility The WHO defines the medical definition of infertility as “a disease of the reproductive system defined by the failure to achieve a clinical pregnancy after twelve months or more of regular unprotected sexual intercourse.”[23] This antiquated definition must be updated to include social infertility to integrate same-sex couples’ rights.[24] In the US, single individuals and LGBTQ couples interested in building a family by biological means are considered “socially infertile.”[25] If insurance coverage is allotted only to those with physical infertility, then it is exclusive to the heterosexual community. Although some states, such as New York, discussed below, have directly addressed this inequality by extending the definition of infertility and coverage of infertility treatments to include all residents regardless of sexual orientation, this is not yet the norm everywhere else. The outdated definition of infertility is one of the main issues affecting same-sex couples’ access to ART, as medical insurance companies hold on to the formal definition of infertility to deny coverage. lV. Insurance Coverage for IVF Insurance coverage varies per state and relies on the flawed definition of infertility. As of August 2020, 19 states have passed laws requiring insurance coverage for infertility, 13 of which include IVF coverage, as seen in Figure 1. Also, most states do not offer IVF coverage to low-income people through Medicaid.[26] In states that mandate IVF insurance coverage, the utilization rate was “277% of the rate when there was no coverage,”[27] which supports the likelihood that in other states, the cost is a primary barrier to access. When insurance does not cover ART, ART is reserved for wealthy individuals. One cycle of ART could cost, on average, “between $10,000 and $15,000.”[28] In addition, multiple cycles are often required as one IVF cycle only has “about a 25% to 30%” live birth success rate.[29] Altogether, the total cost of successful childbirth was estimated from $44,000 to $211,940 in 1992.[30] On February 11, 2021, New York Governor Andrew M. Cuomo “directed the Department of Financial Services to ensure that insurers begin covering fertility services immediately for same-sex couples who wish to start a family.”[31] New York had recently passed an IVF insurance law that required “large group insurance policies and contracts that provide medical, major medical, or similar comprehensive-type coverage and are delivered or issued for delivery in New York to cover three cycles of IVF used in the treatment of infertility.”[32] But the law fell short for same-sex couples, which were still required to “pay 6 or 12 months of out-of-pocket expenses for fertility treatments such as testing and therapeutic donor insemination procedures before qualifying for coverage.”[33] Cuomo’s subsequent order made up for gaps in the law, which defined infertility as “the inability to conceive after a certain period of unprotected intercourse or donor insemination.”[34] Cuomo’s order and the law combine to make New York an example other states can follow to broaden access to ART. V. Surrogacy Access to surrogacy also presents its own set of problems, although not exclusive to the LGBTQ community. Among states, there are differences in how and when parental rights are established. States in dark green in Figure 2 allow pre-birth orders, while the states in light green allow post-birth parentage orders. Pre-birth orders “are obtained prior to the child’s birth, and they order that the intended parent(s) will be recognized as the child’s only legal parent(s) and will be placed on the child’s birth certificate,” while post-birth parentage orders have the same intent but are obtained after the child’s birth. [35] For instance, states can require genetic testing post-birth, possibly causing a delay in establishing parentage.[36] Although preventable through the execution of a health care power of attorney, a surrogate mother could be the legal, medical decision-maker for the baby before the intended parents are legally recognized. On February 15, 2021, gestational surrogacy – the most popular type of surrogacy in which the surrogate has no biological link to the baby – was legalized in New York,[37] but it remains illegal in some states such as Nebraska, Louisiana, and Michigan.[38] In addition, the costs of surrogacy are rising, and it can cost $100,000 in the US.[39] Medicaid does not cover surrogacy costs,[40] and some health insurance policies provide supplemental surrogacy insurance with premiums of approximately $10,000 and deductibles starting at $15,000.[41] Thus, “surrogacy is really only available to those gay and lesbian couples who are upper class,”[42] leaving non-affluent couples out of options to start a family through biological means. Vl. A Right to Equality and Procreation Some argue that same-sex couples should have the right to procreate (or reproductive rights). Based on arguments stemming from equal rights and non-discrimination, same-sex couples who need to use ART to procreate should have access to it. The need to merge social infertility into the currently incomplete definition of fertility could help same-sex couples achieve access through insurance coverage. The human right of equality and non-discrimination guarantees “equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground.”[43] The United Nations later clarified that “sexual orientation is a concept which is undoubtedly covered” [44] by this protection. The right to procreate is not overtly mentioned in the US Constitution; however, the Equal Protection Clause states that “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States… without due process of law.”[45] In fact, some states have abridged the reproductive privileges of some US citizens by upholding prohibitive and intricate mechanisms that deter same-sex couples from enjoying the privileges other citizens have. The Supreme Court acknowledged procreation as a “fundamental”[46] personal right, in Skinner v. Oklahoma, mandating that the reproductive rights of individuals be upheld as the right to procreate is “one of the basic civil rights of man”[47] because “procreation [is] fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”[48] In Eisenstadt v. Baird, the courts also supported that “the decision whether to bear or beget a child” fundamentally affects a person.[49] I argue that this protection extends to same-sex couples seeking to procreate. Finally, Obergefell v. Hodges held that the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses ensure same-sex couples the right to marriage, as marriage “safeguards children and families, draw[ing] meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education.”[50] By implicit or explicit means, these cases align with the freedom to procreate that should not be unequally applied to different social or economic groups. Yet, the cases do not apply to accessing expensive tools to procreate. As heterosexuals and the LGBTQ community face trouble accessing expensive ART for vastly different reasons, especially IVF and surrogacy, the equal rights or discrimination argument is not as helpful. For now, it is relevant to adoption cases where religious groups can discriminate.[51] The insurance coverage level may be the best approach. While the social norms adapt and become more inclusive, the elimination of the infertility requirement or changing the definition of infertility could work. Several arguments could address the insurance coverage deficit. Under one argument, a biological or physical inability to conceive exists in the homosexual couple trying to achieve a pregnancy. Depending on the wording or a social definition, a caselaw could be developed arguing the medical definition of infertility applies to the LGBTQ community as those trying to procreate are physically unable to conceive as a couple planning to become parents. One counterargument to that approach is that it can be offensive to label people infertile (or disabled) only because of their status as part of a homosexual couple.[52] CONCLUSION In the last 50 years, there has been a notable shift in the social acceptance of homosexuality.[53] Marriage equality has opened the door for further social and legal equality, as evidenced by the increased number of same-sex couples seeking parenthood “via co-parenting, fostering, adoption or surrogacy” – colloquially referred to as the ‘Gayby Boom’.[54] However, some prejudice and disdain toward LGBTQ+ parenting remain. Equitable access to ART for all people may be attainable as new technology drives costs down, legislators face societal pressure to require broader insurance coverage, and social norms become more inclusive. [1] Eckholm, E. (2015, May 17). The same-sex couple who got a marriage license in 1971. Retrieved April 08, 2021, from https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/17/us/the-same-sex-couple-who-got-a-marriage-license-in-1971.html [2] Eckholm, E. [3] A brief history of civil rights in the United States: A timeline of the legalization of same-sex marriage in the U.S. (2021, January 27). Retrieved April 08, 2021, from https://guides.ll.georgetown.edu/c.php?g=592919&p=4182201 [4] Eckholm, E. [5] A brief history of civil rights in the United States: A timeline of the legalization of same-sex marriage in the U.S. (2021, January 27). Retrieved April 08, 2021, from https://guides.ll.georgetown.edu/c.php?g=592919&p=4182201 [6] A brief history of civil rights in the United States [7] A brief history of civil rights in the United States [8] Lee, J., & Bolzendahl, C. (2019). Acceptance and Rejection: Patterns of opinion on homosexuality in the United States and the world. Sociological Forum, 34(4), 1026-1031. doi:10.1111/socf.12562 [9] Lee, J., et al. [10] Lee, J., et al. [11] Lee, J., et al. [12] Lee, et al. [13] Lee, et al. [14] Lee, et al. [15] LGBTQ family building survey. (2020, July 02). Retrieved April 08, 2021, from https://www.familyequality.org/resources/lgbtq-family-building-survey/ [16] LGBTQ family building survey. (2020, July 02). Retrieved April 08, 2021, from https://www.familyequality.org/resources/lgbtq-family-building-survey/ [17] LGBTQ family building survey. (2020, July 02). Retrieved April 08, 2021, from https://www.familyequality.org/resources/lgbtq-family-building-survey/ [18] Mackenzie, S. C., Wickins-Drazilova, D., & Wickins, J. (2020). The ethics of fertility treatment for same-sex male couples: Considerations for a modern fertility clinic. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 244, 71-75. doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2019.11.011 [19] Mackenzie, et al. [20] Ollove, M. (2015, March 18). States not eager to regulate fertility industry. Retrieved April 08, 2021, from https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2015/3/18/states-not-eager-to-regulate-fertility-industry [21] Ollove, M. [22] Ollove, M. [23] World Health Organization. (2020, September 14). Infertility. World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/infertility [24] Leondires, M. P. (2020, March 19). Fertility insurance Mandates & same-sex couples. Retrieved April 08, 2021, from https://www.gayparentstobe.com/gay-parenting-blog/fertility-insurance-mandates-same-sex-couples/ [25] Lo, W., & Campo-Engelstein, L. (2018). Expanding the Clinical Definition of Infertility to Include Socially Infertile Individuals and Couples. Reproductive Ethics II, 71–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89429-4_6 [26] Mohapatra, S. (2015). Assisted Reproduction Inequality and Marriage Equality. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 92(1). Retrieved April 08, 2021, from https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4146&context=cklawreview [27] Mohapatra, S. [28] Mohapatra, S. [29] Mohapatra, S. [30] Mohapatra, S. [31] Governor Cuomo announces new actions to expand access to FERTILITY coverage for same sex couples as part of 2021 Women's Agenda. (n.d.). [32] Health Insurers FAQs: IVF and Fertility Preservation Law Q&A Guidance. (n.d.). Retrieved April 08, 2021, from https://www.dfs.ny.gov/apps_and_licensing/health_insurers/ivf_fertility_preservation_law_qa_guidance [33] Governor Cuomo announces new actions to expand access to FERTILITY coverage for same sex couples as part of 2021 Women's Agenda. (n.d.). Retrieved April 08, 2021, from https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-new-actions-expand-access-fertility-coverage-same-sex-couples-part#:~:text=February%2011%2C%202021-,Governor%20Cuomo%20Announces%20New%20Actions%20to%20Expand%20Access%20to%20Fertility,Part%20of%202021%20Women's%20Agenda&text=Cuomo%20today%20directed%20the%20Department,wish%20to%20start%20a%20family. [34] Leondires, M. P. [35] Assisted reproduction parentage proceedings information: Academy of Adoption and Assistive Reproduction Attorneys (AAAA). (2019, March 14). Retrieved April 08, 2021, from https://adoptionart.org/assisted-reproduction/parentage-proceedings/ [36] Assisted reproduction parentage proceedings information. [37] Governor Cuomo reminds surrogates and parents of their new Insurance rights and protections During Gestational Surrogacy. (n.d.). Retrieved April 08, 2021, from https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-reminds-surrogates-and-parents-their-new-insurance-rights-and-protections-during [38] U.S. Surrogacy Map: Surrogacy laws by state. (2020, December 23). Retrieved April 08, 2021, from https://www.creativefamilyconnections.com/us-surrogacy-law-map/ [39] Mohapatra, S. [40] Beitsch, R. (2017, June 29). As surrogacy surges, new parents seek legal protections. Retrieved April 08, 2021, from https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2017/06/29/as-surrogacy-surges-new-parents-seek-legal-protections#:~:text=Medicaid%20does%20not%20cover%20surrogacy,and%20intended%20parents%20at%20risk. [41] Where to find surrogacy insurance? (2017, November 02). Retrieved April 08, 2021, from https://surrogate.com/intended-parents/surrogacy-laws-and-legal-information/where-can-i-find-surrogacy-insurance/ [42] Mohapatra, S. [43] International covenant on civil and political rights. (n.d.). Retrieved April 08, 2021, from https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx [44] United Nations. (2003). Human rights in the administration of justice: a manual on human rights for judges, prosecutors and lawyers. [45] U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. [46] Skinner v. Oklahoma, Https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/316/535.html (June 1, 1942). [47] Skinner v. Oklahoma [48] Skinner v. Oklahoma [49] Eisenstadt v. Baird, Https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-eisenstadt-v-baird (March 22, 1972). [50] Obergefell v. Hodges [51] Higgins, T. (2021, June 17). Supreme Court sides with Catholic adoption agency that refuses to work with LGBT couples. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/17/supreme-court-sides-with-catholic-adoption-agency-that-refuses-to-work-with-lgbt-couples.html. [52] Bowerman, M., May, A., & Rossman, S. (2017, April 24). Should the definition of infertility be more inclusive? USA Today. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/04/22/same-sex-couples-covered-infertility-insurance/100644092/. [53] Mackenzie, et al. [54] Mackenzie, et al.

AbstractThis study was an investigation of the utility of behavioral economic demand curves (quantitative models showing how consumption changes with price) in assessing acceptance of hypothetical HIV vaccines among sexual and gender minorities (SGMs). Two experiments used simulated purchase tasks (hypothetical scenarios measuring purchasing decisions). SGMs were recruited through Reddit and LGBTQ+ community organizations across the United States. In Experiment 1, participants were randomly assigned to nine instructional sets combining varying vaccine administration modes (oral, mucosal, or subcutaneous) with different dosage schedules (one dose, two doses, or one dose annually). Experiment 2 examined how bundling HIV vaccines with one of nine health commodities affected demand. Participants also responded to questions assessing demographics, HIV risk behaviors, experiences of racial discrimination, and trust in institutions. The results demonstrated that the exponentiated demand equation effectively modeled vaccine acceptance across conditions (median R2 = 0.92). Contrary to expectations, vaccine characteristics had a minimal influence on demand (Q₀: R2 = 0.007; log α: R2 = 0.001). Instead, individual factors significantly influenced demand intensity (consumption when price = 0; Q₀) and price sensitivity (sensitivity of consumption to increasing price; α). Significant predictors of Q₀ included injection drug use history, experiences of racial discrimination, and trust in science. Low household income was the strongest predictor of log α. Bundling HIV vaccines with other health commodities showed subtle effects on acceptance, with condoms and dental examinations significantly differing from the reference category. These findings suggest that behavioral economic approaches can inform policy decisions about pricing, bundling strategies and targeted interventions to maximize HIV vaccine uptake among SGMs who face disproportionate HIV risk without requiring exposure to non‐market‐ready vaccines.

Both mass shootings and acts of bias-motivated violence have significant psychological consequences, as survivors commonly experience psychological distress in the form of depression symptoms, anxiety symptoms, and posttraumatic stress symptoms (PTSS) following the event. Moreover, increases in psychological distress are common near the year mark of a traumatic event. However, little is currently known about how communities affected by the intersection of bias-motivated violence and mass shootings are affected by these events in the longer term. The present study therefore investigated survivors’ psychological reactions around the 1-year mark of the Club Q shooting, which targeted members of the Colorado Springs lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, queer and questioning (LGBTQ+) community. Specifically, informed by the social support deterioration deterrence model, this study used path analysis to explore how exposure to the shooting, community solidarity, and receiving social support were associated with psychological distress among N = 64 LGBTQ+ individuals in Colorado Springs. Results indicated that higher community solidarity was associated with more severe psychological distress, a latent variable comprised of depression symptoms, anxiety symptoms, and PTSS, β = .39, p = .001, but no other predictors were statistically significant. These results suggest that community solidarity may increase vulnerability to psychological distress, perhaps because these individuals are more personally affected when their community is targeted and harmed. This study also highlights the need for ongoing community support and healing efforts around the 1-year mark of a bias-motivated mass shooting.

AbstractAimThe present review and meta‐analysis sought to synthesise previous findings of studies examining the correlation between therapist cultural humility, the quality of the therapeutic alliance and psychotherapy outcomes.Materials and MethodsThree databases were searched for relevant citations, yielding 548 records for review. After the systematic review of these articles, a final sample of 13 citations was submitted for coding and analysis. A random‐effects meta‐regression model was used to synthesise correlations collected from the final sample of studies. Heterogeneity was assessed using Cochran's Q, I2 and τ2. Publication bias was assessed using contour‐enhanced funnel plots and Egger's test for asymmetry.ResultsThere was a statistically significant, positive correlation between cultural humility and alliance quality (r = .66, 95% CI = [0.64, 0.68]). Similarly, a smaller, yet still statistically significant and positive association between cultural humility and psychotherapy outcomes was also found (r = .39, 95% CI = [0.36, 0.42]). Moderators related to client race, gender and lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) status were also examined though nonsignificant.ConclusionSuch results suggest that therapist cultural humility is an important part of a strong working relationship and eventual positive outcomes in psychotherapy regardless of race, gender or LGB status. Thus, efforts should be made to foster cultural humility among therapists.