Category: Analysis

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Mark Westgarth, Professor, History of the Art Market, University of Leeds

A juvenile dinosaur fossil, Ceratosaurus nasicornis, has sold at Sotheby’s New York for US$30.5 million (£22.7 million). It is part of a recent resurgence of art-market interest in fossils and natural history – palaeontology and geology especially. Indeed, this latest dinosaur sale was part of an auction specifically dedicated to natural history.

Led by iconic Tyrannosaurus Rex fossils, the prices for such specimens have reached eyewatering levels in recent years. “Stan”, currently the most expensive T-Rex, sold for US$31.8 million at Christie’s New York in 2020. Then a stegosaurus called “Apex” sold for US$44.6 million in New York in 2024.

The US$30.5 million sale of the juvenile Ceratosaurus, a much smaller species, raises the market bar significantly. Even a T-Rex fossil foot at the latest Sotheby’s auction far exceeded its published estimate of US$250,000-US$300,000, selling for US$1.8 million. When you reflect that a full T-Rex fossil by the name of “Sue” sold for US$8.4 million in 1997 – US$17 million in today’s money – it looks cheap by comparison.

Sotheby’s marketing of the Ceratosaurus highlights how the art market builds narratives around these objects of science. Publicity photographs emphasise the dinosaur’s sculptural qualities, along with descriptions like “mounted in an action pose … with jaws open”. This mirrors the presentation in taxidermy mounts, another market that is drawing in more collectors at present.

Photographs in the auction publicity have an almost filmic quality. They tie the fossil to its discovery process, with the image at the top of this article including an SUV in the distance that is kitted out for fossil hunting.

The extensive catalogue description builds on this, appropriating the language of science with a forensic account of how the fossil was discovered and pieced together, supporting the key art market criteria of authenticity.

It highlights the commodity status of the fossil as a spectacle, aimed at new, younger super-rich collectors who are seeking out statement pieces. These allow them to demonstrate what the French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu termed increasing levels of distinction – in other words, cultural choices as markers of status and power.

Auctions and ethics

Some palaeontologists express concerns about the idea of moving dinosaur remains “into the same realms as fine art”. Much opposition comes from the Society of Vertebrate Palaeontology (SVP), a leading body on fossil research based in Utah, which is influential far beyond the US.

Stuart Sumida, the president of the society, complained after the Ceratosaurus auction that such transactions can mean removing specimens “from the public trust and the scientific community for profit”. As his predecessor David Polly lamented in 2018, it can “create a perception that [fossils] have a commercial value”.

The premise here is that the market is somehow dislocated from palaeontology, but the truth is that scientific research is never conducted in a commercial vacuum. It benefits from private funding and publishes in journals whose access is restricted for commercial gain. Replicas of dinosaur specimens are commercially licensed by museums, while moving fossils or replicas between institutions involves huge costs, covering everything from transport to insurance.

Equally, the relationship between palaeontology and the market is more symbiotic than it might appear. The market for dinosaur fossils traces back to the late 18th century, with early operators including the fossil collector Mary Anning (1799-1847). Her discovery of dinosaur fossils on the English south coast in Dorset led to her establishing a successful shop called Annings Fossil Depot in the mid-1820s.

Now recognised as one of the leading palaeontologists of the 19th century, the market for fossils that she helped to create increased the visibility and public interest in dinosaurs. This in turn acted as a catalyst for increased research activity in this area.

More recently, the appetite for dinosaurs is reflected in multiple consumer spheres, from Jurassic Park to Barney & Friends. Every new product boosts public awareness of dinosaurs and no doubt ignites further research activity.

Each dinosaur auction that hits the headlines contributes to this effect. Privately owned fossils are also, in my experience, more likely to be exhibited in venues beyond natural history museums, such as major art fairs and even contemporary art museums. This too increases their visibility, which probably helps expand the range and scope of research interest.

Now, you might argue that public interest is strong enough to drive research without the need for any benefits from auctions. Maybe the benefits are also outweighed by the palaeontologists’ concerns about specimens being lost to science when they fall into private hands.

Then again, the SVP’s ethical guidelines contribute to such marginalisation. These insist that palaeontologists should “only conduct research on fossils held in collections with a permanent commitment to curation and accessibility” – in other words, museums. Loosen this restriction and the objection diminishes.

When bodies like the SVP call for a total separation between art and science, between research and the art market, maybe they’re the ones that are the dinosaura for taking such a simplistic approach. The reality of auctioning these discoveries is a lot more complicated than some would have you believe.

Mark Westgarth receives funding from Arts & Humanities Research Council.

– ref. Why it’s not a problem that dinosaurs are sold for millions of dollars – art historian – https://theconversation.com/why-its-not-a-problem-that-dinosaurs-are-sold-for-millions-of-dollars-art-historian-261542

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Dipa Kamdar, Senior Lecturer in Pharmacy Practice, Kingston University

When we think about the side effects of medicines, we might think of nausea, fatigue or dizziness. But there’s another, lesser-known risk that can have lasting – and sometimes permanent – consequences: hearing loss. A wide range of prescription and over-the-counter drugs are known to be ototoxic, meaning they can damage the inner ear and affect hearing or balance.

Ototoxicity refers to drug or chemical-related damage to the cochlea, which affects hearing, and the vestibular system, which controls balance. Symptoms can include tinnitus (ringing in the ears), hearing loss (often starting with high-frequency sounds), dizziness or balance problems or a sensation of fullness in the ears.

These effects can be temporary or permanent, depending on the drug involved, the dose and duration and a person’s susceptibility.

The inner ear is highly sensitive, and most experts believe ototoxic drugs cause damage by harming the tiny hair cells in the cochlea or disrupting the fluid balance in the inner ear. Once these hair cells are damaged, they don’t regenerate – making hearing loss irreversible in many cases.

Around 200 medicines are known to have ototoxic effects. Here are some of the most commonly used drugs to watch out for:

1. Antibiotics

Aminoglycoside antibiotics like gentamicin, tobramycin and streptomycin are typically prescribed for serious infections such as sepsis, meningitis, or tuberculosis – conditions where prompt, aggressive treatment can be lifesaving. In these cases, the benefits often outweigh the potential risk of hearing loss.

These drugs, usually given intravenously, are among the most well-documented ototoxic medications. They can cause irreversible hearing loss, particularly when used in high doses or over extended periods. Some people may also be genetically more vulnerable to these effects.

These drugs linger in the inner ear for weeks or even months, meaning damage can continue after treatment has ended.

Other antibiotics to be aware of include macrolides (such as erythromycin and azithromycin) and vancomycin, which have also been linked to hearing problems, particularly in older adults or people with kidney issues.

2. Heart medicines

Loop diuretics like furosemide and bumetanide are commonly used to manage heart failure or high blood pressure. When given in high doses or intravenously, they can cause temporary hearing loss by disrupting the fluid and electrolyte balance in the inner ear. Around 3% of users may experience ototoxicity.

Some blood pressure medications have also been linked to tinnitus.

Read more:
That annoying ringing, buzzing and hissing in the ear – a hearing specialist offers tips to turn down the tinnitus

These include ACE inhibitors – drugs like ramipril that help relax blood vessels by blocking a hormone called angiotensin, making it easier for the heart to pump blood – and calcium-channel blockers like amlodipine, which reduce blood pressure by preventing calcium from entering the cells of the heart and blood vessel walls. While these associations have been observed, more research is needed to fully understand the extent of their effect on hearing.

3. Chemotherapy

Certain chemotherapy drugs, especially those containing platinum – like cisplatin and carboplatin – are known to be highly ototoxic. Cisplatin, often used to treat testicular, ovarian, breast, head and neck cancers, carries a significant risk of permanent hearing loss. That risk increases when radiation is also directed near the head or neck.

Up to 60% of patients treated with cisplatin experience some degree of hearing loss. Researchers are exploring ways to reduce risk by adjusting dosage or frequency without compromising the drug’s effectiveness.

Read more:
Chemotherapy can be a challenging treatment – here’s how to deal with some of the side-effects

4. Painkillers

High doses of common pain relievers, including aspirin, NSAIDs – non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs such as ibuprofen and naproxen, commonly used to relieve pain, inflammation and fever – and even paracetamol, have been linked to tinnitus and hearing loss.

A large study found that women under 60 who regularly took moderate-dose aspirin (325 mg or more, six to seven times per week) had a 16% higher risk of developing tinnitus. This link was not seen with low-dose aspirin (100 mg or less). Frequent use of NSAIDs as well as paracetamol was also associated with a nearly 20% increased risk of tinnitus, particularly in women who used these medications often.

Another study linked long-term use of these painkillers to a higher risk of hearing loss, especially in men under 60. In most cases, tinnitus and hearing changes resolve once the medication is stopped – but these side effects typically occur after prolonged, high-dose use.

5. Antimalarial drugs

Drugs like chloroquine and quinine – used to treat malaria and leg cramps – can cause reversible hearing loss and tinnitus. One study found that 25–33% of people with hearing loss had previously taken one of these drugs.

Hydroxychloroquine, used to treat lupus and rheumatoid arthritis, has a similar chemical structure and poses a similar risk. While some people recover after stopping the drug, others may experience permanent damage, particularly after long-term or high-dose use.

People with pre-existing hearing loss, kidney disease, or genetic susceptibility face higher risks – as do those taking multiple ototoxic drugs at once. Children and older adults may also be more vulnerable.

If you’re prescribed one of these medications for a serious condition like cancer, sepsis or tuberculosis, the benefits usually outweigh the risks. But it’s still wise to be informed. Ask your doctor or pharmacist if your medicine carries a risk to hearing or balance. If you experience ringing in your ears, dizziness, or muffled hearing, report it promptly.

Dipa Kamdar does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. From painkillers to antibiotics: five medicines that could harm your hearing – https://theconversation.com/from-painkillers-to-antibiotics-five-medicines-that-could-harm-your-hearing-260671

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Susan Ann Samuel, PhD Candidate, School of Politics and International Studies, University of Leeds

Youth activist organisations including Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change and World Youth for Climate Justice recently coordinated massive online calls across two different time zones. These two global gatherings were in preparation for a coordinated global youth movement around the release of the most anticipated advisory opinion scheduled to be delivered by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on July 23 2025.

An advisory opinion is a legal interpretation provided by a high-level court or tribunal with a special mandate, in response to a specific question of law. Simply put, an advisory opinion is not legally binding in the way a court judgement between two nations would be.

But it is authoritative. The opinion carries significant legal, moral and political weight: since states often refer to advisory opinions when shaping policies, judges cite them for decisions and they’re used by civil society to hold governments accountable. An advisory opinion can influence shifting governance and principles governing it. I like to think of it as a northern star — it won’t change the reality but can guide potential outcomes and pave the way for future change.

As one of hundreds of participants attending both the online meetings, plus in my capacity as a researcher investigating the role of youth in climate law and politics, this collective action feels momentous.

The movement for an advisory opinion to ICJ began in 2019 when a few brave young people from the Pacific Islands stood up for the world. Twenty-seven law students at the Vanuatu campus of the University of South Pacific convinced their nation to champion climate action and accountability to the entire world by bringing climate justice to the world court.

For these students in the Pacific, the climate crisis means losing their identity, their culture and their homes to the rising sea levels and weather catastrophes. To the young people across the globe — including me — the concern about not being heard by world leaders becomes a shared reality, even though it is our future at stake.

Four courts, four continents

It’s not just the ICJ that’s delivering an advisory opinion. The world is at a turning point. For the first time, four world courts or tribunals across four continents are being asked to clarify nations’ legal obligations in the face of the climate crisis. The ICJ’s advisory opinion is the centrepiece: but it sits within a broader push primarily by global youth and developing countries — to clarify what human rights, state responsibility and climate justice mean in law.

A “quartet” of advisory opinions now spans four judicial bodies: the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, the ICJ, and the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights. See the diagram below to check the timeline of each court proceeding.

In addition to the advisory opinions, there are currently 3,113 climate cases across the globe. These include many youth-led cases that bolster solidarity for climate action, call for futureproofing environmental governance, and evoke soft power around the legal proceedings.

These legal proceedings are the result of bold, persistent advocacy. These cases are not abstract. There’s a moral arc here: they primarily stem from advocacy from global youth movements, developing countries, civil society coalitions and frontline communities demanding legal recognition of climate harms and protection of future generations.

As such, the role of youth in bolstering moral power is massive. Their influence in empowering states across the globe to embody climate leadership is critical to pushing for political action, even amid geopolitical realities.

Tracing climate litigation patterns suggests that youth are changing the environmental governance space: as youth litigators (both young lawyers and youth-led cases), youth negotiators and youth activists. Youth across these three spheres — law, politics and activism — are mutually reinforcing each other in their advocacy, unlike ever before.

Themes of climate justice in litigation, negotiation, and social movements are deeply interconnected, rather than isolated from one another. Youth, who are active across all these spheres, often serve as key advocates, thereby reshaping governance dynamics in the process

The push for justice by youth is palpable, despite growing political concerns across the globe. Youth remains the common face of vulnerability, agency and promise. The call for justice is now.

Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?

Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 45,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.

Susan Ann Samuel receives funding from Prof. Viktoria Spaiser’s UKRI FLF Grant MR/V021141/1 and is supported by the University of Leeds – School of Politics and International Studies.

– ref. How young people have taken climate justice to the world’s international courts – https://theconversation.com/how-young-people-have-taken-climate-justice-to-the-worlds-international-courts-261033

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Kimon-Andreas Karatzas, Associate Professor of Food Microbiology, Department of Food and Nutritional Sciences, University of Reading

You pile your plate high at the buffet, savouring the freedom to try a little bit of everything. But while your tastebuds might be celebrating, your gut could be at risk.

From shared serving spoons to lukewarm lasagne, buffets can be a breeding ground for bacteria – and a hotbed for food poisoning. In the UK alone, millions of cases go unreported each year. So what makes buffets so risky, and what can be done to stay safe?

Food poisoning is a serious issue in the UK and around the world. While most cases are mild and don’t require treatment, some can lead to hospitalisation or even death. Official figures suggest approximately 2.4 million people in the UK fall ill each year due to food-borne illness – mostly caused by viruses, bacteria or toxins in contaminated food. But because many people recover at home without reporting their symptoms, the real figure is likely much higher.

The Food Standards Agency (FSA) estimates that there are closer to 18 million cases of food poisoning in the UK each year. That’s almost one in four people. And buffets – particularly all-you-can-eat venues – are a common setting for outbreaks.

So, what is it about buffets that makes them such a hotspot for illness? Here are the key reasons these self-serve spreads carry higher risks:

1. Cross-Contamination

One of the biggest concerns at buffets is cross-contamination, when harmful bacteria, viruses or allergens are transferred from one food to another. This can happen in any kitchen, but buffets are particularly vulnerable.

Why? Because dozens of dishes are often displayed close together, customers serve themselves (sometimes without washing their hands), utensils are shared between people and dishes and food are exposed to the air for extended periods.

If just one dish becomes contaminated – say, with under-cooked meat juices or bacteria from unwashed hands – they can spread to other foods, affecting many people. Sneezes over platters and untrained customers handling food directly all increase the risk.

Even something as simple as using the same spoon for multiple dishes can be enough to transfer bacteria. With many hands touching the same utensils and food being moved or mixed between containers, even a well-run buffet can become a hazard zone as it is difficult to monitor and control that all customers abide to food safety rules.

2. Allergens

For people with food allergies, buffets can be particularly dangerous. Cross-contamination means that allergen-free foods can become unsafe through even minimal contact with allergenic ingredients.

For example, a spoon used in a nut-containing salad and then placed into a nut-free one can be enough to trigger a reaction. To reduce this risk, check that buffet venues clearly label all dishes with allergen information, use separate serving utensils for different foods, keep allergen-free dishes physically separate from others and train staff on allergen safety and cross-contamination risks.

Despite best intentions, busy buffet settings don’t always allow for these precautions to be enforced perfectly, putting allergic diners at greater risk.

3. Temperature trouble

One of the main food safety challenges at buffets is temperature control. Harmful bacteria multiply rapidly in what experts call the “danger zone”: the temperature range between 8°C and 63°C. If food sits within this range for too long, it becomes an ideal breeding ground for microbes.

Several types of bacteria are commonly responsible for food-borne illness in buffet settings.

Salmonella is often found in under-cooked poultry, eggs, and dairy products. It can cause diarrhoea, fever, and abdominal cramps, and it spreads easily if hot food is not kept at a safe temperature.

E. coli, typically linked to under-cooked beef and raw vegetables, can cause severe gastrointestinal illness and, in some cases, lead to kidney failure.

Listeria monocytogenes can grow in chilled foods like soft cheeses, pâté, and pre-packed sandwiches. It poses serious risks to pregnant women, older adults, and those with weakened immune systems.

Clostridium perfringens thrives in food that has been left warm for too long – especially items like stews, casseroles and roasts. It can cause sudden stomach cramps and diarrhoea.

Norovirus, also called the winter vomiting bug, is a stomach bug that causes vomiting and diarrhoea. Infected customers can pass this virus on the food with direct contact and cause disease to others that will consume it.

Staphylococcus aureus is a bacterium commonly found on the skin of humans and when it grows on food produces toxins that can cause nausea, vomiting, stomach cramps and diarrhoea. This bacterium can easily end up on the food through contact with utensils or customers and grow if the temperature of food is not within the correct range.

Maintaining safe food temperatures is essential to prevent these pathogens from multiplying. According to food safety guidelines, hot food should be kept above 63°C, and cold food below 8°C. However, in many buffet settings, food is left sitting out for extended periods – sometimes in ambient room temperatures, and sometimes without adequate heating or refrigeration equipment. This allows bacteria to flourish.

To minimise risk, hot food should not be left out for more than two hours, and cold food should be consumed within four. After these limits, leftover items should be discarded and not mixed with fresh batches. Reusing food that’s been sitting out not only compromises freshness but also risks spreading bacteria from old to new dishes.

Unfortunately, in busy all-you-can-eat environments, it’s common for staff to top up half-empty trays instead of replacing them. While this may reduce food waste, it increases the likelihood of contamination, especially during high-traffic service times. Without strict hygiene protocols in place, even small lapses in temperature control can lead to widespread illness.

Staying safe

Buffets don’t have to be a recipe for disaster – but safety depends on both the venue’s hygiene practices and diners’ own behaviour. Here’s what to look for:

• dishes should be steaming hot or chilled, not lukewarm

• clean utensils should be available for each item

• clear allergen labels should be visible

• staff should be monitoring and maintaining food stations

• diners should wash their hands before serving themselves.

If in doubt, it’s safer to skip questionable dishes, especially those that look like they’ve been sitting out too long, are unlabelled, or have been clearly mixed with other items.

Buffets can be a delicious way to explore new flavours and enjoy variety. But without proper precautions, they can also pose serious food safety risks. Whether you’re tucking into a carvery, grazing a hotel breakfast, or piling your plate at an all-you-can-eat spread, it’s worth keeping an eye on hygiene – and knowing when to walk away from the buffet table.

Kimon-Andreas Karatzas receives funding from the EU, BBSRC, EPSRC and private companies (Future Biogas, Natureseal and AB Mauri)

– ref. Three reasons buffets can be a recipe for a health disaster – and how to keep diners safe – https://theconversation.com/three-reasons-buffets-can-be-a-recipe-for-a-health-disaster-and-how-to-keep-diners-safe-260754

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Renaud Foucart, Senior Lecturer in Economics, Lancaster University Management School, Lancaster University

The UK government’s new ten-year-plan to transform the NHS includes a focus on preventing ill health rather than treating illness. But to what extent should people depend on the state to help them make healthy decisions?

Some think any kind of nudge in that direction is symptomatic of a “nanny state” overstepping its boundaries. Others might argue that nanny knows best, or that governments should do whatever works best both economically and to keep people healthy.

Either way, if a country like the UK wants to keep providing free (or at least tax-payer funded) and universal healthcare, rather than charging every patient for their specific needs, its choices are limited.

Take obesity for example, which is estimated to cost the NHS around £12.6 billion a year – more than 5% of its total budget.

In 2022, 28.7% of adults in the UK had obesity, compared to 10.9% in France, 14.3% in Denmark and 22% in Belgium. (In the US, it was 42.8%.)

Government analysis claims that if everyone who is overweight reduced their calorie intake by just 216 calories a day – roughly equivalent to a single 500ml bottle of fizzy drink – obesity would be halved, and so would the associated costs. It also estimates that cutting the calorie count of a daily diet by just 50 calories would lift 340,000 children and 2 million adults out of obesity.

But how should it persuade people to cut those calories? Happy to ignore accusations of being a nanny state, the UK government is now working with food retailers and manufacturers to encourage people to make healthier choices.

Under the plan, products will be made with less sugar and fat. And the data that supermarkets own about your shopping habits (through online shopping and loyalty cards) will be used to nudge you towards more fruits and vegetables and fewer bags of crisps. Businesses that fail to induce changes in customer consumption will face financial penalties.

And perhaps this is more effective than personal responsibility. Recent alternative policies which relied on individual action like following diets using the NHS weight loss app have not worked.

The UK has also invested hundred of millions of pounds trying to encourage people to burn calories by walking and cycling more. But the country remains reluctant to reduce its car-dependence, with its cities poorly served by public transport. Walking and cycling are just not that popular.

So perhaps state intervention is the only policy British people are willing to accept. Understandably, they want the freedom to make their own choices when it comes to exercise, eating and drinking, but they also want to keep the NHS free. Only 7% would support charging people for their use of healthcare.

Fat tax

Another option is to tax the consumption of fat and sugar to pay for the cost it imposes on others. In 2016, the UK was among the first countries to introduce a tax on sugary drinks. Since then, the total amount of sugar in British soft drinks has decreased by 46%, because changing the recipes means the producers pay less tax.

Research shows that the tax also deters younger people from buying too much sugar. However, it does little to reduce consumption among those who have the most sugar-intensive diets, just like alcohol taxes do nothing to convince the most addicted alcoholics to drink less.

There is also a valid argument that taxing sugar and fat is unfair. Unhealthy food is a much larger proportion of the budget of poorer households than it is for wealthier one, making it a regressive tax.

Yet policies nudging people towards healthy choices often have a good track record. A study of food labelling policies which placed warning labels on high sugar and high calorie foods in Chile showed that people bought less of them.

To stay below the threshold, firms then changed their recipes, just like with the tax. In that case, the warnings led to people consuming 11.5% less sugar and 2.8% less fat.

While paternalistic interventions can be annoying or upsetting, pretending obesity is purely an individual choice is misleading. Obesity starts in childhood, and can destroy future choices. Children with obesity are more likely to be bullied, and don’t do as well at school.

The state regularly bans harmful products without controversy. Even if you wanted to, you could not insulate your house with asbestos, and the UK is currently busy banning the sale of tobacco to anyone born after 2009.

With NHS waiting lists remaining at record highs, and a struggling economy, risk of the country becoming a nanny state by trying to encourage healthier food might actually be a pretty minor one.

Renaud Foucart does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Is a ‘nanny state’ a price worth paying to keep the NHS free? The evidence shows it could work – https://theconversation.com/is-a-nanny-state-a-price-worth-paying-to-keep-the-nhs-free-the-evidence-shows-it-could-work-260539

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Kevin Guyan, Chancellor’s Fellow & Director of the Gender + Sexuality Data Lab, University of Edinburgh

Any account of love and dating in the 2020s is incomplete without addressing an uncomfortable topic: are our encounters with technology shaping who we are and how we desire?

Dating apps such as Tinder, Bumble and Feeld allow users to choose from dozens of genders, sexualities, desires and relationship types. Commonplace descriptors such as “straight”, “gay” and “bisexual” are now joined by labels including “polysexual” (an attraction to multiple, but not all, genders), “skoliosexual” (an attraction predominantly to people who don’t conform to traditional gender norms) and “heteroflexible” (an attraction that is mostly heterosexual with some exceptions).

But do these categories provide a more accurate representation of the world beyond the app? Or do they partly construct the world they claim to describe?

As a regular user of gay dating apps throughout the late 2000s and early 2010s, I discovered a menu of categories to describe myself. There was everything from “twinks” (slim build, youthful appearance and little or no body hair) and “otters” (the same but with a bit more body hair and a more masculine appearance) to “bears” (large build and lots of body hair) and “muscle daddies” (older with a muscular physique).

I quickly understood how to maximise my success on the app by hacking the algorithm: the curated buzzwords in my bio, profile pics that struck the right balance between “sexy” and “intelligent”, how often to use the app and when. If the app gave prominence to a certain “category” of gay man in its listings, I was more than willing to present myself as that category.

But, in the process, the line between the category and the thing being categorised (me and my desires) became increasingly impossible to untangle.

This experience inspired research in my new book Rainbow Trap, which investigates the technical aspects of app design and how the provision of more “inclusive categories” for LGBTQ+ communities often does nothing to reconfigure the narrow accounts of desire encoded in the tech.

Dating today can feel like a mix of endless swipes, red flags and shifting expectations. From decoding mixed signals to balancing independence with intimacy, relationships in your 20s and 30s come with unique challenges. Love IRL is the latest series from Quarter Life that explores it all.

These research-backed articles break down the complexities of modern love to help you build meaningful connections, no matter your relationship status.

Writing in the early 2000s, science and technology scholars Geoffrey C. Bowker and Susan Leigh Star coined the term “convergence” to describe what happens when “people get put into categories and learn from those categories how to behave”. Philosopher of science Ian Hacking similarly used the term looping effect“ to describe the multi-directional relationship between a category and the “thing” being categorised.

These encounters, however, highlight a fundamental tension between queer communities and classifications: the classifications used to describe us also come to define us. This can determine what doors are opened and closed and who we are allowed to be.

Thinking back to my early forays into dating apps, I would often assign myself to the category of “twink”. Although used by app designers to assist with the algorithmic sorting of users, the identity felt contoured to my life.

The connections suggested by the app, based on my self-categorisation as a “twink”, felt as if they reflected who I was and what I had always wanted. And, for a period, I believed it.

However, in hindsight, I don’t know if I was ever really attracted to men with 26-inch waists and hair frazzled by too much bleach. I had limited myself to what the app told me I should like. But desire isn’t so easily put into a box.

Getting critical about categories

Underpinning the mechanics of all dating apps are categories, and we can learn a lot about love and dating by thinking critically about the categories used.

Between 2021 and 2023, Tinder reported a 30% increase in the use of gender identities other than “male” or “female” on the app, creating more than 145 million new matches. Identification with the label “non-binary” also more than doubled in just one year.

In 2023, the dating app Feeld (which describes itself as designed “for the curious”) reported that more than half its users who identified as “heterosexual” connected with someone on the app who did not identify as “heterosexual”. Feeld also has claimed that over 180,000 people “changed their sexuality” during their first year of using the app and that “the longer Feeld members are on the app, the less heterosexual they get”.

I am not suggesting that our navigation of love and dating through the prism of technology (and its growing menu of categories) is making us more queer – as these technologies could just as equally be making us more straight. But whatever is happening, it is clear that assigning yourself to a particular category opens and closes opportunities for love and desire.

It is app designers who then hold the power to decide what connections are made – for example, whether “twinks” connect with “bears”, whether your category features first or last on the home page. Because the classifications used to describe us are also now defining us, app designers partly shape how you think about yourself and your desires. This power does not stop when you turn off the app, it extends into offline worlds too.

So, for app users, be open to how your encounters with categories shape who and how you desire. Who will the app include and exclude based on your self-categorisation? And is that the experience you necessarily what?

Kevin Guyan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Dating app categories could be shaping you more than you know – https://theconversation.com/dating-app-categories-could-be-shaping-you-more-than-you-know-256368