Keywords

Key Points

  • Several euphorias were strongly evidenced across multiple LGBTIQ+ cohort surveys and sites.

  • Individual and Microsystem influences had the strongest impacts on euphorias, particularly identity and intimacy achievement motivations, and institutional inclusion.

  • LGBTQ+ professionals had the most changeable euphorias, LGBTQ+ parents the most stable.

  • Events, objects, and colours have euphoric values, stimulating collective social and institutional euphorias. The euphorically queer dismiss or re-order dysphoric values of bodies, social spectres, and institutions.

  • These studies suggest more nuanced models of LGBTIQ+ people for service provision pathways, and research.

Introduction

This book shared the euphorias or positive feelings of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, and queer (LGBTIQ+) about their identities and variations around education contexts (Chaps. 3, 4, 5, and 6) and health-related diagnoses. This final chapter revisits their data to answer the book’s key questions on the typical characterisations of:

  1. 1.

    Euphorias of LGBTIQ+ people around institutional engagements, and their influences.

  2. 2.

    Change-trends for these euphorias, and their influences.

This chapter first reflects across the data and literature examined to assert the most typical euphorias for LGBTIQ+ people uncovered overall, and their value for stakeholders. It then uses the ecological model of psycho-social development introduced in Chap. 2 to frame a comparison of the dominant influences on euphorias for LGBTIQ+ people across the studies examined. It explores these findings in relation to existing literature and theory on euphoria, emotions, and LGBTIQ+ people, clarifying significant new information and information gaps arising across the studies. The chapter concludes by summarising applications of euphoria knowledge in practice for stakeholders and setting agendas for the study of euphorias.

Comparing Typical LGBTIQ+ Euphorias

The four surveys covered across five chapters in this book found that 13 euphorias were most typical for LGBTIQ+ people in education, healthcare, and potentially other settings (see Fig. 8.1). Data were especially strong (with the highest collective number of hits across all survey comments examined) for five dominant euphorias:

  1. 1.

    Institutional Inclusion euphorias: 740 hits across three surveys.

    Feelings of affirmation, comfort, safety, joy and/or fun from institutional efforts and supports; feelings of affirmation, comfort, safety, joy and/or fun from institutional efforts and supports; including direct structural supports and celebratory inclusion including events (inclusive forms, inclusive education, expressions of support in classrooms and activities).

  2. 2.

    Acceptance euphorias: 676 hits across three surveys.

    Feelings of safety and comfort in social acceptance and to a lesser degree self-acceptance (more common for LGBTQ+ adults and particularly parents, and people with intersex variations around their bodies), sometimes surrounded by negative feelings or their potential; from being accepted by others (especially friends for students and colleagues and students for staff) or the self, sometimes in the face of or against potential negativity or exclusion.

  3. 3.

    Community Connection euphorias: 558 hits across two surveys.

    Feelings of happiness, comfort, satisfaction, and safety in connection to other LGBTIQ+ individuals and groups; from observing or engaging with other LGBTIQ+ individuals and groups in shared education settings.

  4. 4.

    Category Validation euphorias: 316 hits across three surveys.

    Feelings of validation within a category, relief, elation and/or humour; from validation of LGBTIQ+, gender or parental identity categories through institutions or people’s open acknowledgement of or support for the identities conceptually, in forms/work-sheets or pragmatic efforts at correct nomenclature/pronoun use and so on, or sometimes surrounded by negative feelings or their potential over the possibility of fit versus non-fit over time or related social treatment prospects.

  5. 5.

    Body Positivity euphorias: 86 hits across one survey.

    Feelings of increased love and care for one’s body and bodily diversity; often inspired by exposure to body positive messaging, resources or communities after a negative experience around physical condition diagnoses or body negating viewpoints and experiences.

Fig. 8.1
5 rows of stacked horizontal bars for specific euphorias are illustrated. The row headers are as follows. People with intersex variations post diagnosis, People with intersex variations on diagnosis, L G B T Q plus parents, staff, and students in education.

Leximancer hits by survey group for specific euphorias

Full size image

The five dominant euphorias’ recurrences across many comment hits in the Leximancer analyses, often across several surveys, suggest them as core starting points for individuals, therapists, (education, health, mental health and social) service providers’ work towards their exploration and encouragement. It also suggests them as core themes for comparative euphoria studies for other focal identities and bodies; for other institutional contexts for LGBTIQ+ people; or in other contexts internationally. These five dominant euphorias were particularly important for LGBTIQ+ people in how they correlated and overlapped with experiences of other euphorias; suggesting they may be conducive towards them. Across several surveys and populations Institutional Inclusion and Community Connection euphorias and some instances of Acceptance euphorias reflected several theorists’ concepts of euphoria as being or requiring social redress [1, 2], here including institutional redress within Microsystems for both LGBTQ+ staff and students for whom these euphorias could emerge in response to rectifying perceived social and institutional exclusion threat. These euphorias had revolutionary, Butlerian subversive potentials through their use of ‘transference’ onto non-traditional bodies [3] happiness and acceptance by institutions re-ordering existing hierarchies of acceptability. Category validation euphorias reflected the joyful feeling of rightness, upon identity achievement and fidelity in engagement with the Microsystem, seen in existing studies [4, 5]. Though Body Positivity euphorias only emerged for people with intersex variations, they may also have especial relevance for other (e.g. TGD, female) groups around overcoming suppressive health contexts or body image issues [6,7,8]; further research would be useful. The five dominant euphorias largely focussed on actions representing positive reactions to the LGBTIQ+ people by themselves as ‘the Individual’ or in what Bronfenbrenner terms the Individuals’ Microsystems [9], and reflected Ahmed’s idea that emotion-laden actions are reactions to particular identities and bodies in a politics of their value within institutions and cultures (2004, p. 4). Like in early feminist and queer writings, euphorias overplayed joy from achieving what is problematized or denied—for LGBTIQ+ people broadly (acceptance, category validation); LGBTQ+ people in education (inclusion, community) or people with intersex variations (body positivity) [10,11,12]. Thus, euphorias can have oppositional traits to dysphorias [13], yet complex relations to negative contexts and feelings, echoing this emphasis in euphoria literature [4, 14]. The next section considers influences on these euphorias, using Chap. 2’s ecological model.

Comparing LGBTIQ+ Euphorias’ Influences

The ecological model of influences on LGBTIQ+ people’s euphorias developed for this book provides a useful picture of influences the surveys in previous chapters emphasised (Fig. 8.2). This section discusses (sometimes inter-related) Individual, Micro and Meso, Exo and Macrosystem level influences towards the second research question on what influences euphorias; whilst the next considers the influence of the Chronosystem with other data towards addressing the third research question on change over time.

Individual Level Influences on Euphorias

At the Individual level LGBTIQ+ groups had asymmetric experiences of euphorias overall, and specific euphorias, with influences including their stage-based motivations, demographics, and roles. Firstly, Table 8.1 shows how all surveys emphasised the importance of Erikson’s Stage 5 & 6 identity fidelity and intimacy motive achievements for increasing the likelihood of LGBTIQ+ people’s euphorias [15, 16]. Happiness rewards for what Marcia termed identity moratoriums and formation fidelity—especially where explored identities were socially endorsed—were highlighted in quantitative data showing outness increased euphorias [17, 18], and qualitative data showing the increased achievement of identity formation and intimacy/connection were emphasised across LGBTIQ+ people’s euphorias. Acceptance, Category Validation, Community Connection, Institutional Inclusion, Knowledge Integration, Sudden Hope (and other) euphorias rewarded identity and intimacy achievements for different sub-groups variously. Although transgender and gender diverse (TGD) identity is especially emphasised in existing euphoria literature, online media and artistic subcultures [4, 5, 7, 19,20,21], its influence on euphorias depends on context. Being non-binary and non-male sex allocations at birth were more associated with euphorias and positive experiences of what Sara Ahmed terms ‘moving towards’ [22] or social endorsement for youth amongst their friends in schools. Since non-binary people have lower dysphoria presentation [23], euphoria is an important additional consideration for use in affirmation and support pathways for the group in mental health and other services. TGD youth euphorias also emphasised their pronouns and names being endorsed by teachers; whereas LGBQ+ youth euphorias emphasised community contact and acceptance from friends. Contrastingly, school endorsement underlined staff roles and lesbian and gay sexuality and to a small extent mother roles for adults, particularly from teachers, above TGD identities or other sexualities. In schools where Institutional Inclusion and Community Connection euphorias dominate, this reflected how professional, gay, and lesbian, and mother identities are privileged for social inclusive measures above the less common structural supports TGD people need [24,25,26,27]. Lesbian and gay parents’ euphorias may also benefit both from how their identities are statistically more common [26] enabling more connections with more peers supporting Community Connection euphorias; and how traditional cis-gendered parenting roles are celebrated in schools even when conceived more expansively—including in Mothers’ or Fathers’ Days (excluding non-binary parent conceptualisations). LGBTQ+ parents were however overall less likely to experience euphorias compared to LGBTQ+ staff and students; as relative ‘outsiders’ in school spaces during most of the day physically and ideologically. This supports the argument that outsiders are less aligned to positive emotions in an emotional economy [28], and less likely to experience alignment to institutional ‘insider’ objects and events creating community memberships and institutionalising happiness [29]. These data underlined the idea that happiness is allocated to certain privileged identities, bodies, and roles within varying contextually, institutionally, or social-group orders.

Fig. 8.2
An illustration of the L G B T I Q plus individual within 4 layers of system labeled microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, and macrosystem, the outermost layer. The chronosystem is illustrated below in stacked form with stages 2, 5, 6, 7, and 8.

Ecological model of emphasised influences on LGBTIQ+ people’s euphorias

Full size image
Table 8.1 Influences on euphorias for LGBTIQ+ groups from previous chapters
Full size table

Secondly, three surveys emphasised the importance of Erikson’s Stage 7 generativity motive achievement [15, 16] for LGBTIQ+ adults. LGBTIQ+ adults were rewarded for generative processes of development of pride in identity or bodily diversity and contributing towards the expansion of these phenomena across marginal group community engagements, institutional activisms, and education efforts in purposeful via Pride Generativity and Body Positivity euphorias. These processes evoked Ahmed’s and Butler’s notions of the subversive work of the euphorically queer [22, 30, 31]; disrupting existing politicised happiness economies upholding identity and body orders; and co-contributing to new (re)orderings. Only the survey of LGBTQ+ parents emphasised the importance of Erikson’s Stage 8 integrity motive achievement [15, 16]; and this was an important influence for some parents’ development of (Self-)Acceptance and Pride Generativity euphorias. This reflected the culturally endorsed ideals of a sense of integrity about the life lived and one’s development and happiness across it, pride, and few regrets. It was especially associated with age, time, and perseverance of the euphorically queer parent-advocate. Finally, individual surveys emphasised other stages. Only the survey of people with intersex variations emphasised the core nature of Erikson’s Stage 2 autonomy motive achievement [15, 16], driving their Autonomous Control and Body Positivity euphorias. Development of will can be frustrated for people with intersex variations by enforced early unwanted/unconsented to surgeries reshaping their genitalia to fit endosexist norms, and similarly coercion into hormonal therapies. This increases shame and confusion about bodies, foreclosed identities, and social isolation from infancy and youth [32,33,34]. Chapter 7 showed (re)claiming autonomy and wilfulness around one’s control of healthcare, identity, or bodily pride within a broader concept of valuing and allocating positive emotions to diverse bodies underscored the euphoric person with intersex variations’ development of happiness and will. This was a subversive, re-ordering development. It centred most people with intersex variations in their own bodily engagements troubling their past Microsystems and challenging ideas within their Macrosystems, by transferring autonomy and positivity onto non-traditional bodies towards Butlerian and Ahmedian ‘liberatory willfulness’ [22, 30, 31]—making them especially euphorically queer(intersex). Contrastingly, LGBTQ+ education data featured no Autonomous Control and Body Positivity euphorias; issues of Will around bodies may be comparatively less vexed for these identities in these contexts. Further research could explore whether TGD people or women experience Autonomous Control and Body Positivity euphorias in overcoming barriers vexing their health decision/body autonomies (within Exosystems restricting affirmation or abortion, etc.); or whether these are stronger where bodily will was problematized in (Stage 2) infancies. Demographic-specific nuances in stage-based crises shape both what is ‘difficult to achieve’ and thus most euphorically celebrated. Discriminatory interventions and disapprovals of LGBTIQ+ peoples’ atypical identity and bodies could defy, stall or block normative age-based staging progression; especially frustrating will, identity and intimacy achievement. Overcoming such conditions could conversely advance LGBTIQ+ people’s self-possessed, community-minded and/or purpose-driven maturation, especially accelerating (pride) generativity, or (euphorically queer) integrity achievements and related euphorias.

Micro- and Mesosystem Level Influences on Euphorias

At the Micro and Mesosystem levels LGBTIQ+ groups had asymmetric experiences of euphorias overall, and of specific euphorias, due to various influences including service provider characteristics or efforts, and sometimes social exposures. Firstly, Table 8.1 shows how all surveys emphasised the importance of service providers. Across the board inclusion efforts by education and health providers and supportive accepting treatment by professionals improved likelihood of euphorias. Inclusion efforts could become centred on events Wear it Purple day and Pride events such that the colour purple, or purple objects, badges and wristbands; or rainbow objects like jumpers and flags associated with these events, became euphoric symbols for diversity tied to and increasing euphoric emotions within institutions. The colour purple or rainbow icon were not important nor the objects themselves; indeed these were interchangeable (including the orange some parent participants perhaps erroneously or randomly recalled). Instead it was colours and objects’ symbolic affective values that increased euphorias; their making visible—and rectifying impulse towards—harmful rejecting or conforming mainstream happiness economies through accepting affirmation of and ‘moving towards’ the LGBTIQ+ groups that mattered; like for any community-uniting-object or joy-laden-symbolic-body in Schutz, Pekrun and Ahmed’s theories [22, 29]. Colour/objects could be worn from one’s existing wardrobe, not solely purchased, mediating feminist identity commodification concerns [35], to co-socialise and institutionalise inclusion, connection, acceptance, and validation for LGBTQ+ identities, bodies, and groups. Euphorias around coloured-object/events thus challenged existing social orders and performed Butlerian processes towards revealing queer unhappiness and transferring or overplaying happiness for non-normative parties, building euphorically queer people and institutions [30, 31]. The same process of euphoric socialisation may also conceivably be used at education and health provider events with intersex flags and symbols to encourage Community Connection euphoria for people with intersex variations, as the intersex Mardi Gras example implied. Microsystems and institutions’ uses of colours, objects, symbols, flags and even strangers’ bodies thus can have euphoric value; and euphoric object manifestation can likely be re-appropriated as needed to contribute towards institutions and communities enabling other othered marginal groups’ euphorias. Community Connection, Institutional Inclusion, Acceptance and other euphorias stimulated in these ways have incredible benefits for LGBTIQ+ people; diminishing their sense of negated vulnerability through strength of numbers and loss of individuation within broader diversity of or support for LGBTIQ+ expression that necessarily includes positive expressions, role models and feelings as people move towards each other. As individuals become protected by being with a peer or group and responsibility becomes shared, it helps to override the broader cultural or institutional reflexes working against marginal gender, sex characteristics, and sexuality identifications; alternative unanimity drives disrupt mainstream conformity drives and enable Individuals to accept and pleasure in otherwise vexed identities.

In education services, institutions’ rurality, religiosity, and exclusionary institutional approaches to LGBTQ+ people decreased likelihood of their euphorias. Quantitative data showed school rurality was an especial factor of decrease for LGBTQ+ students and staff euphorias reflecting broader rural research underlining increased harms around the lack of anonymity and harder to escape nature of homophobia in some rural areas [36, 37], but also potentially showing the impact of metronormativity (assumptions that queer lives are better in metropolitan institutions) [36]. School religiosity especially decreased euphorias for LGBTQ+ students, extending the research on how religious schools show increased harms to the groups’ mental health, and discrimination and violence exposures [38,39,40]. Euphoric potentials were also decreased by a range of negative social interactions at the Microsystem level and social spectres at the Mesosystem level though this varied by LGBTIQ+ sub-group; and mostly comprised those adults of institutional or local community authority believed to have disapproving meta-emotions [41] around LGBTIQ+ bodies and identities. For students this included certain parents and teachers, for parents it could include parties expressing judgement over marriage equality, for professionals it could include communities in which they lacked safety or job security and for people with intersex variations it included providers not foregrounding their access to health-care information and decision-making. Euphoria blockers in the Mesosystem also include the spectre of anti-LGBTQ+ parent, which may be exacerbated in Australia by media exaggerations and a lack of awareness of increased parent support data [42]. Indeed there were examples where in various parents, staff and students experiences displayed a 360-degree version of Gottman et al.’s meta-emotion emotion-coaching pattern [41], occurring culturally and institutionally, to encourage Pride Generativity, Acceptance and other euphorias. For people with intersex variations their being excluded from key decision-making processes about their identities and health that occurred in the Mesosystem was a key euphoria blocker hindering Knowledge Integration, Category Validation and Autonomous Control euphoria among others, especially where their body parts were allocated dysphoric values and targeted for removal.

Exo- and Macrosystem Level Influences on Euphorias

Whilst Individual and Microsystem factors were the most important and influential for euphorias’ development, as Bronfenbrenner has asserted [9] for all development, there were Exo and Macrosystem level influences. The survey data emphasised particular laws, policies, media debates, and (indirectly) various conceptual movements. Specifically, LGBTQ+ student and staff euphorias could be complicated by specific anti-discrimination and workplace protections (which protected people in government schools, but exposed those in religious schools due to exemptions). Both LGBTQ+ education staff and parents’ euphorias could be enabled or blocked by marriage equality laws and related media debates. There were also indirect impacts of the lack of historic protections for the health and autonomy rights for people with intersex variations in Australia [43], which underscored and enabled past negative experiences of health-care. At the Macrosystem level various identity movements (post-gender) and inclusive movements (inclusive education, body positivity, pride) likely contributed indirectly to the reported euphoric experiences of participants through supporting enabling environments.

Euphorias themselves hold the potential, in return, to contribute their most impactful socio-cultural work to movements through not just individuals, but groups. Taking these studies’ data together suggested that certain euphorias require the involvement of groups, whilst others are more clearly individual, and that the former had subversive potential at the Exo and Macrosystem levels. The more massive euphorias are in terms of number, overlap, collective engagement in them, intensity, and duration; the more distorted and changed the hierarchies of emotional politics in the systems around the individuals experiencing them. This reinforces their greater subversion to institutional and socio-cultural dynamics. Community Connection, Institutional Inclusion and Body Positivity euphorias especially appeared to have a gravity that creates a magnetism for people in schools, pride events or online groups [8] moving towards joy; such that they can warp the fabric of classrooms, public and online spaces and thus ‘attract’ other LGBTIQ+ bodies to engaging in them physically or ideologically. This consequently increases the conceptual and socio-cultural weight and pull of these euphorias, with more bodies joyfully moving towards these more joyful bodies. Such euphorias can hold LGBTQ people within certain institutions, classrooms, or social spaces in practice and in reminiscence, whilst their absence can make people more free to leave certain institutions and move on. The specifics of collectively catalysed euphoric events like Wear it Purple Day, Mardi Gras, and pride do not matter so much as how they operate to reaffirm joyful commitments and engagements with our political movements and reinvigorate and reinforce pushes for policy change. In these times of complex policy advancements and rescindments, collective discrimination and dysphoria, the euphoric value to such events can reaffirm community connection to each other through the symbols of our shared policy goals for greater inclusion and safer more positive futures. Events, objects, colours, bodies, and social spectres thus have euphoric or dysphoric value influencing collective social and institutional euphorias. With Micro-/Mesosystem support (e.g. education inclusion, therapy or community), and Exo-/Macrosystem inspiration (enabling laws, Wear it Purple and body positivity movements etc.) the euphorically queer may learn to dismiss or subvert dysphoric values of their identities, bodies, social spectres and institutions.

Comparing LGBTIQ+ Euphorias’ Change-trends

Particular LGBTIQ+ sub-groups euphorias’ had differing changes expressed across Individuals’ Chronosystems, frequency of euphoric experiences; and reporting on euphorias’ change manifestations and trends. The Chronosystem’s characterisation for LGBTIQ+ people’s euphorias overall was variable, fluid and tenuous. Chronosystem influence LGBTQ+ youth on euphorias was characterised by increase and monumentality; for LGBTQ+ professionals by site-specific shifts; for LGBTQ+ parents by relative stability or stable gradual increase; and for people with intersex variations by diagnoses monumentality and post-diagnoses increase (Table 8.1). There were also variable changes across the frequencies of LGBTIQ+ people’s euphorias, which mostly occurred sometimes or often. Over half of people with intersex variations experienced euphorias post-diagnoses and some upon diagnoses (around a fifth), followed by LGBTQ+ parents in schools who mainly experienced euphorias often or always; LGBTQ+ professionals who mainly experienced euphorias often or sometimes; and LGBTQ+ students who experienced euphorias least frequently overall (mainly sometimes or often). The existence of change for euphorias was directly reported by most LGBTIQ+ people overall; over two thirds of LGBTQ+ professionals (68.2%); under two thirds of LGBTQ+ youth; and just over a third of LGBTQ+ parents and people with intersex variations. Considering all change collectively, it appears most apparent for LGBTQ+ education professionals’ euphorias in amount and nature; followed closely by students. The least change overall is apparent for LGBTQ+ parents and even where it occurred it had a stable graduality. Although people with intersex variations appeared to report less euphoria change than some other groups, the monumentalism and life-long impact inherent to their changes (sudden shifts around diagnoses, information sharing, community engagement etc.) were more dramatic than the graduality of LGBTQ+ parent education euphorias’ changes.

There were different change-trends for the same euphorias across different LGBTIQ+ groups. Whilst Acceptance euphorias mostly build gradually, for LGBTQ+ youth they may be intensified and increased with support; blocked, or inspired by dissipation of, internalised biases; and heightened or deadened by specific teachers. For LGBTQ+ staff they may have site-specific shifts across long careers; are increased with safety; and blocked by employment concerns and rejection fears. For LGBTQ+ parents (Social-) Acceptance euphorias were more consistent; but they still had external contingencies when increased by relationships or relationship view changes; and could even be learned and taught. (Self-) Acceptance euphorias instead were internally driven and could increase with age and time. They were also grown through persistence; or Ahmed’s ‘wilfulness’ around activisms [44] and have a radical quality for the euphorically queer parent. These euphorias sometimes teamed with dismissive meta-emotion philosophies [41] which resisted external views’ change impacts, affording gains (resilience) and costs (emotional/relational shut-down). For people with intersex variations (Self-) and (Social-) Acceptance euphorias were both more common post-diagnosis, increasing with contact with exposures to affirming intersex community, ideas, or resources.

Conversely, Category Validation euphorias mostly shift suddenly. For LGBTQ+ youth sudden shifts in these euphorias functioned as complex indicators of ‘identity fit’ and yet their lack also revealed youth wariness around socialised and cultural biases for or against identities that likely fit them, during identity ‘moratoriums’ within Stage 5 identity formation [16,17,18]. For parents Category Validation euphorias could be learned and taught in school communities over time in inter-generational ways. They could also arise when parenting categories were validated in specific moments onwards through institutional and pedagogical acknowledgements by teachers and children; and in their own sudden relationship changes. Relationships usually increased LGB people’s personal identifications and social validations in schools—reflecting Hook and Power’s emphasis on institutional and socio-cultural valuing of homonormative coupledom for parents [45, 46]. Marriage debates in the Macro, Meso, and Microsystems both reduced and increased parents’ sense of validation. For people with intersex variations Category Validation euphorias were more common upon their initial diagnosis usually before 18, and as they progressed through identity moratoriums to formation fidelity.

Community Connection euphorias expand with community socialisation for LGBTQ+ youth overall; but were slower to increase for LGBTQ+ staff; and shifted in relation to relationships and learning for LGBTQ+ parents. Institutional Inclusion euphorias were site-specific overall, especially for LGBTQ+ staff for whom they were blocked by employment or safety concerns. For LGBTQ+ youth they monumentally and erratically shifted in the presence of specific teachers, whilst LGBTQ+ parents increasingly expected and enabled these euphorias through inclusion advocacy. Pride Generativity euphorias were associated with adulthood—increasing for LGBTQ+ staff and parents closer to Erikson’s Stage 7 in motivational development [15, 16]. For people with intersex variations initial diagnoses (mostly in youth) might slowly or quickly spark Difference Legitimisation, Knowledge Integration, Medical Sense-making or Sudden Hope euphorias; whilst post-diagnoses Body Positivity, Relative Gains & Fitness Edge euphorias built up over age, time, and exposures. Autonomous Control euphorias had the most unique change catalysts, increasing only upon people with intersex variations’ increased control of their body, intervention, and health-care decision-making. Widening this experience requires many system levels: Micro- and Mesosystem health provider and family supports, Exosystem health autonomy policy protections, Macrosystem body diversity positivity movements.

Concluding Recommendations for Stakeholders & Researchers

It is politically important to emphasise, when anti-LGBTIQ+ campaigns claim otherwise, that there is nothing inherently queer about unhappiness, and nothing inherently straight about education or health … such alignments occur where we make them. Given supportive efforts (occasionally even lacking them) people pleasure in their LGBTIQ+ identities and bodies, and education and health providers joyfully upraise human sex, gender, and sexuality diversities. The ecological model of influences on euphorias provided in this book showing happiness (re)alignments can be changed over time, was repeatedly supported by data from the largest combined LGBTIQ+ cohort euphoria surveys to date. It is of value to individuals, mental health providers, and institutional service providers. It shows euphorias are strongly influenced by norms across individuals’ development stages, institutions, and socio-cultural systems—and efforts towards their dismissal or subversion. Euphorias are not experienced by all LGBTIQ+ people in all contexts. However, convincing evidence showed significant groups experienced euphorias this book taxonomised most typically Institutional Inclusion, Acceptance, Community Connection, Category Validation, or Body Positivity euphorias. These euphorias have key implications for various disciplines and stakeholders.

In setting agendas for ‘euphorias’ uses’, this book showed that individuals, groups, institutions, resources, and events can support the conditions for and incite the proliferation of euphorias; especially by expanding LGBTIQ+ community connections, institutional inclusions, social- and self-acceptance, category validation, body positivity, and pride generativity efforts. Euphorias also have applications for consent-based and other models supporting additional non-disordering, non-victimising, or nuanced understandings of LGBTIQ+ people, services access, and institutional support expansions. Recommendations for the uses of euphorias therefore include:

  • Individuals from marginal groups should consider their euphoric experiences and happiness in making identity determinations, not just unhappiness with mainstream offerings. Those confident in long-term identifications might share positive reminiscence about their identities and bodies to contribute to our understanding of what that entails, as well as towards the broader positive euphoric circularity movements uplifting LGBTIQ+ communities. Sharing reminiscences online and in-person creates emotion-coaching contexts within encouraging and celebrating positive experiences as core to an identity or bodily variation type; breaking away from negating stereotypes reliant solely on dysphoria, discrimination or victimisation (which though important to acknowledge, should never be our ideal). The ecological euphoria models or lists of euphorias in this book, as well as participants’ story samples, are useful starting points. For LGBTIQ+ people, questions of whether one is happy and queer, or euphorically queer, can deepen ongoing self-reflections.

  • Service providers in social services, education, mental health and health should introduce the concept of euphoria/happiness into discussions, classifications and identifications of LGBTIQ+ people for consent-based service support pathways and models (are clients happier as, rightly, more comfortably ‘X’?), to provide alternative added nuanced understandings of these groups to deficit-based models (which retain some value given an overall lack of queer happiness). Emphasis of euphoria for non-binary youth who may not experience classic dysphoria presentations, for LGBTQ+ staff employment decisions and for LGBTIQ+ youth support framings could have especially useful mental health service applications. A caveat: euphorias’ socio-cultural blockers must be accounted for. The ecological model of euphoria development, euphoria lists and participants’ story samples and data, might be useful for furthering identity-based supports in and beyond education, health, and social services.

  • Organisations supporting people with intersex variations should promote the conditions for Body Positivity euphoria, given it is the euphoria most linked to other euphorias and most beneficial for the group, that could be externally encouraged. Body positivity themed intersex community events and texts, government funding and supports (training on body diversity for health, mental health and other service providers in contact with this cohort), and revised body diversity messaging in psycho-medical approaches and texts (e.g. the DSM-5-TR) are recommended. Body positive stories from this book may be starting points, alongside community group resources (InterAct, IHRA, AISSGA etc.).

  • Education and health institutions and professionals should promote LGBTIQ+ institutional supports enabling Institutional Inclusion, Community Connection, Acceptance and Category Validation euphorias (which can all be externally encouraged), for staff and the communities served. Use of celebratory and symbolic events, colours, objects, flags, and symbols; support groups/GSAs; training and education about euphorias and factors supporting euphorias’ development; distribution of affirming resources around identity and body diversity and other methods this book emphasised are encouraged. Positive stories and statistics from this open access book can be used to change the conversation about LGBTIQ+ identities and bodies via pamphlets, posters, websites, memes, and other displays. Other options include supporting protective policies for LGBTIQ+ people’s rights; whole institution and community use of requested names/pronouns; removal of religious institutions’ anti-discrimination law exemptions; and countering cultural propaganda. Data on parents, teachers, and students’ support for improved gender and sexuality diversity education may counter false spectral meta-emotions used in education and health cultural wars.

In proposing new fields and setting agendas for ‘Euphoria Studies’, the implications of this work included the fact that researchers may be overlooking positive experiences through focusing on harm. Our work in past years necessarily emphasised and must still capture discrimination, dysphoria and other concepts towards policy protections that may alleviate these negating phenomena … the research suggests negative experiences still may be more dominant than positive ones depending on LGBTIQ+ people’s stages, roles, and system contexts. But over-emphasising the rain, overlooks the rainbows, euphorias can alleviate LGBTIQ+ people’s difficulties and support important community-supporting and advocacy work. Unhappiness need not be ‘inherent’ to LGBTIQ+ identity or experience. The research here went beyond existing literature to show euphorias aren’t merely sourced from individual practices like hair removal or alignments with mainstream corporate gendering processes and political functions. Euphorias are also inspired by ideological, social, and institutional phenomena with important subversive queer socio-cultural functions. These phenomena can be sourced from and enhanced by Australian education and health contexts; but are not limited to them. They conceivably could occur across countries; industries; worlds real, fictional, media-constructed and virtual. Euphoria studies are urgently needed to evidence (or dispute) this prediction, including (but not limited to):

  • LGBTIQ+ people’s euphorias in other settings within and beyond education including online and in-person classrooms, and work in health, mental health, social, aged care, sport, and other services—including consideration of dysphorias.

  • Iterative measures for euphorias that should factor in systemic socio-cultural blockers’ influences.

  • Intersectional influences for LGBTIQ+ people’s euphorias via norm-critical interviews and deeper community focus group sharing for Indigenous peoples, CALD sub-groups, women and LGBTIQ+ people with disabilities or in especially vexed rural and religious contexts and so on.

  • Non-LGBTIQ+ people’s euphorias including cisgender, heterosexual, endosex male and female experiences for mainstream and other marginal groups; including for the most common euphorias in institutions and any alternatives (and particularly where identities or bodies might be problematized).

  • Why people lack euphorias and action-based interventions, including how euphorias are best enabled, taught, and learned, and the overcoming of euphoria blockers in clinical, educational, social, and other settings.

  • International, longitudinal, comparative, and other angles.

Such studies will enrich our understandings and hopefully, experiences of euphorias. Collective efforts can, over time, contribute towards expanding access to the euphorically queer life.