#GentleParenting presents a novel trend in networked parenting communities. Its rise correlates with the COVID-19 pandemic, during which parents' access to medical professionals decreased significantly. In this vacuum, a group of lay parenting experts arose and continues to gain influence. Through a mixed-method study that combines critical discourse analysis and contextual visual discourse analysis, this article analyzes a dataset and sample of posts compiled from TikTok and Instagram. My findings suggest that an epochal shift in parenting culture is taking place, involving a break with some of the fundamental tenets of the previously dominant parenting trend of intensive mothering. Informed by feminist critiques, my analysis of #GentleParenting explicates a concept I call the "fifth shift" to describe the additional burdens involved in online parenting. While #GentleParenting can be understood as positive in its efforts to allow parents to regain control over childrearing, it also poses some challenges, including its propagation of wealthy, White feminist presentations in digital networks, as well as its insistence on adding additional parenting labor. While empathy is resonant in #GentleParenting via satire, questions remain regarding the political effects of this community.

Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is a serious psychiatric condition, especially stigmatized in women. Stigma is a social injustice, as it discredits and reduces the wholeness of a person to one of taint and discount. Psychological scientists play a uniquely powerful role in the stigmatization and destigmatization of BPD by constructing the meaning of BPD at each step of the research process. We discuss this powerful role and how to destigmatize BPD by incorporating an intersectionality framework that includes disability as a category of difference (as with gender, race, and sexuality). This framework centers the role of systems and structures in creating and maintaining stigma, while emphasizing the close interactions between interpersonal and structural stigma. This article illustrates researchers' power to assign meaning to BPD in research and highlights the importance of considering individuals as embedded in intersectional social categories, which are multidimensional and dynamic in nature. We propose that intersectional cultural humility, with its social justice aim and feminist origins, can guide BPD researchers to conduct nonstigmatizing and rigorous research on BPD. To inform clinical practice and advance social justice, we offer action steps for researchers to destigmatize BPD with intersectional cultural humility at multiple steps in the research process.

Trans women incarcerated throughout the world have been described as "vulnerable populations" due to significant victimization, mistreatment, lack of gender-affirming care, and human rights violations, which confers greater risk of trauma, self-harm, and suicide compared with the general incarcerated population. Most incarceration settings around the world are segregated by the person's sex characteristics (i.e., male or female) and governed by strong cis and gender normative paradigms. This analysis seeks to better understand and appreciate how the "instructions" and the "authorities" that regulate trans women's corporeal representation, housing options and sense of self-determination implicate and affect their agency and actions in handling intimacies related to their personal life. Drawing upon lived incarcerated experiences of 24 trans women in Australia and the United States, and employing Ken Plummer's notion of , this analysis explores how trans women navigate choices and ways "to do" gender, identities, bodies, emotions, desires and relationships while incarcerated in men's prisons and governed by cis and gender normative paradigms. This critical analysis contributes to understanding how incarcerated trans women through grit, resilience, and ingenuity still navigate ways to embody, express and enact their intimate citizenship in innovative and unique ways.

This article explores the relationship between lesbian activists and the "psy professions" (especially psychology and psychiatry) in England from the 1960s to the 1980s. We draw on UK-based LGBTQIA+ archive sources and specifically magazines produced by, and for, lesbians. We use this material to identify three key strategies used within the lesbian movement to contest psycho-pathologisation during this 30-year period: from respectable collaborationist forms of activism during the 1960s; to more liberationist oppositional politics during the early 1970s; to radical feminist separatist activism in the 1980s. Whilst these strategies broadly map onto activist strategies deployed within the wider lesbian and gay movement during this time, this article explores how these politics manifested in particular ways, specifically in relation to the psy disciplines in the UK. We describe these strategies, illustrating them with examples of activism from the archives. We then use this history to problematise a linear, overly reductionist or binary history of liberation from psycho-pathologisation. Finally, we explore some complexities in the relationship between sexuality, activism and the psy professions.

Despite the growing body of research on the emotion of disgust - including its relationship to political ideology, moral judgment, matters of sex and sexuality, and death - the global reproductive rights movement has paid relatively little attention to the role disgust plays in the debate over abortion. By focusing on the right of a woman to make her own decision about an unwanted pregnancy, the pro-choice community has allowed anti-choice groups to define and frame the abortion procedure, abortion providers, and women who have abortions in terms associated with disgust. This commentary encourages further examination of what triggers disgust, its measurement, and ways of mitigating it, which could be useful for reducing abortion stigma, in future legal cases and in abortion research, advocacy, and communications.

This paper considers young disabled women navigating ableist and heteronormative constructs of adult womanhood. We consider adult womanhood at the embodied intersection of gender, sexuality and dis/ability (categories themselves mediated by race, class, coloniality, etc.). For young disabled women, questions of gender and sexuality were more often than not denied. Gendered and sexual identities were therefore politically and strategically used to claim "adult" and "woman." Yet, such identities often felt restricted to binary gendered frameworks. Already positioned through ableism as non-normative, to exist outside of heteronormativity felt dangerous, risking paternalism and non-consensual bodily intervention. Drawing on the cases of Ashley X and Marie Adams, we argue that these dangers are often more severe for those with labels of intellectual impairment and/or considered to have the most "severe" impairments. Adulthood needs to be understood, not as a natural state of development (the endpoint of youth), but as a heteronormative and ableist socio-cultural-political construct, as well as a complex site of negotiation, conflict and resistance, which (differently) restricts how young people are able to become in the world. We fill a gap in scholarship by exploring the intersection of critical disability studies, crip theory and youth studies from a feminist perspective.

Abortions in general, and second trimester abortions in particular, are experiences which in many contexts have limited sociocultural visibility. Research on second trimester abortion worldwide has focused on a range of associated factors including risks and acceptability of abortion methods, and characteristics and decision-making of women seeking the procedure. Scholarship to date has not adequately addressed the embodied physicality of second trimester abortion, from the perspective of women's lived experiences, nor how these experiences might inform future framings of abortion. To progress understandings of women's embodied experiences of second trimester abortion, we draw on the accounts of 18 women who had recently sought second trimester abortion in Scotland. We address four aspects of their experiences: later recognition of pregnancy; experiences of a second trimester pregnancy which ended in abortion; the "labour" of second trimester abortion; and the subsequent bodily transition. The paper has two key aims: Firstly, to make visible these experiences, and to consider how they relate to dominant sociocultural narratives of pregnancy; and secondly, to explore the concept of "liminality" as one means for interpreting them. Our findings contribute to informing future research, policy and practice around second trimester abortion. They highlight the need to maintain efforts to reduce silences around abortion and improve equity of access.

In this paper, I highlight key differences between a discourse analytic approach to women's accounts of abortion and that taken by the growing body of research that seeks to explore and measure women's experiences of abortion stigma. Drawing on critical analyses of the conceptualisation of stigma in other fields of healthcare, I suggest that research on abortion stigma often risks reifying it by failing to consider how identities are continually re-negotiated through language-use. In contrast, by attending to language as a form of social action, discursive psychology makes it possible to emphasise speakers' capacity to construct "untroubled" (i.e. non-stigmatised) identities, while acknowledging that this process is constrained by the contexts in which talk takes place. My analysis applies these insights to interviews with women concerning their experiences of having an abortion in England. I highlight three forms of discursive work through which women navigate "trouble" in their accounts of abortion, and critically consider the resources available for meaning-making within this particular context of talk. In doing so, I aim to provoke reflection about the discursive frameworks through which women's accounts of abortion are solicited and explored.

Between February 2012 and March 2015, the claim that sex selection abortion was taking place in Britain and that action needed to be taken to stop it dominated debate in Britain about abortion. Situating an analysis in sociological and social psychological approaches to the construction of social problems, particularly those considering "feminised" re-framings of anti-abortion arguments, this paper presents an account of this debate. Based on analysis of media coverage, Parliamentary debate and official documents, we focus on claims about grounds (evidence) made to sustain the case that sex selection abortion is a British social problem and highlight how abortion was problematised in new ways. Perhaps most notable, we argue, was the level of largely unchallenged vilification of abortion doctors and providers, on the grounds that they are both law violators and participants in acts of discrimination and violence against women, especially those of Asian heritage. We draw attention to the role of claims made by feminists in the media and in Parliament about "gendercide" as part of this process and argue that those supportive of access to abortion need to critically assess both this aspect of the events and also consider arguments about the problems of "medical power" in the light of what took place.