Explore the vast range of titles available.

The analysis shows that empirical social science studies examining psychological and social characteristics of conspiracy belief are characterized by a persistent deficit orientation, with a strong tendency to pathologize or stigmatize individuals. The core of this research is an empirical content analysis of 25 social sciences studies published between 2020 and 2025.The analysis identifies a set of recurring patterns in the academic representation of conspiracy believers, including associations with cognitive, social, and psychological deficits, emotional instability, and maladaptive personality traits. The dynamics of marginalization become particularly evident through the examination of discursive practices of delegitimization, which are further sustained by the selective interpretation of research findings.While some studies acknowledge structural or societal factors that may foster conspiracy beliefs, the narrative remains predominantly individualizing and negative. The findings highlight an ambivalence in the scholarly discourse: although conspiracy beliefs are recognized as complex, multidimensional, and sometimes rooted in legitimate grievances, they are frequently reduced to markers of irrationality or deviance. This suggests the need for greater reflexivity within the scientific community, particularly regarding language, methodological choices, and the balance between critique and stigmatization.

Daftari and Khaleghi’s recent editorial misrepresents peer-reviewed evidence on sex, gender, and sexual orientation, pathologizing diversity via selective citation and conceptual conflation. Contrary to their claims, empirical research demonstrates that while biological sex is largely chromosomal, gender, identity, and orientation are multidimensional and non-pathological. Their evolutionary and neurobiological arguments lack validity, ignoring cross-species evidence of same-sex behavior and misinterpreting descriptive neuroanatomical findings as “anomalies.” Psychiatric consensus rejects homosexuality as a disorder, attributing mental health disparities among sexual minorities to stigma, not intrinsic pathology. We call for editorial accountability and reaffirm that gender and sexual diversity are natural human variations grounded in robust scientific evidence.

Background: Transgender people have a gender identity different from the one allocated to them at birth. In many countries, transsexualism and transgenderism are considered mental illnesses under the diagnosis of gender dysphoria. This pathologization impacts on human rights. Main content: The United Nations (UN) has denounced violations against trans-people, including attacks, forced medical treatments, lack of legal gender recognition, and discrimination in the areas of education, employment, access to healthcare, and justice. The UN has linked these violations directly with discriminatory diagnostic classifications that pathologize gender diversity. Trans-people have been pathologized by psycho-medical classification and laws all around the world, with a different impact depending on countries. This paper argues that pathologization infringes infringes upon a wide range of human rights such as; civil, economic, social cultural and also the access to medical care. Conclusions: The current situation for trans-people with respect to legal healthcare matters, depends on the country. Human rights are universal, not a question for cultural interpretation. They are the minimum that every human being must have assured only by the fact of being human. Countries must protect these rights by regulating trans-pathologization with special attention dedicated to intersex people and their specific needs.

Historically, people with minority sexual and gender identities (e.g., gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender) have been pathologized by mental and medical health practitioners. The potential for pathologization of asexuality is particularly salient considering a lack of sexual desire or interest has been studied in relationship to depression, antidepressant medication, and hypothyroidism. To explore this potential pathologization, asexual individuals were asked about their interactions with mental health and medical practitioners. The study included 136 adult participants, primarily from the U.S., who self-identified as asexual. Participants completed an online survey which contained questions about their experiences with mental health and medical practitioners. Results indicated that the majority of participants did not disclose their identity and felt uncomfortable discussing issues related to sexuality with their providers. Participants were more likely to disclose their asexual identity to mental health providers, as compared to medical providers. Participants who had positive experiences were more likely than those who had negative experiences to indicate that their practitioners were familiar with asexuality, accepted the participant’s identity completely, and reacted to the disclosure in a positive and affirming manner. Positive experiences included practitioners educating themselves about asexuality, while negative experiences included practitioners disbelieving the existence of asexuality, and between one quarter and one half of participants reported that practitioners attributed their asexuality to a health condition. The findings from this study demonstrate the importance of including information about asexual identities in health education and ongoing diversity training in order to increase the cultural sensitivity of health practitioners.

Transgender conversion practices involve attempts to alter, discourage, or suppress a person’s gender identity and/or desired gender presentation, including by delaying or preventing gender transition. Proponents of the practices have argued that they should be allowed until proven to be harmful. Drawing on the notion of expressive equality, I argue that conversion practices are prima facie unethical because they do not fulfill a legitimate clinical purpose and conflict with the self-understanding of trans communities.

Political debate regarding trans youth’s access to gender-affirming care (GAC) has pushed many to advocate for GAC by pointing to tragic, pathological outcomes of non-treatment, namely suicide. However, these pathologized arguments are a harmful ethical “shortcut” which should be replaced by a meaningful engagement with the ethics of providing GAC to youth.

The phenomenon of bullying has received a great deal of international attention in the last few decades. In this article, we provide a critical review of some of the major contributions from the field of educational research. We first provide an overall description of the classic concept of bullying, including certain characteristics of bullies and victims that have received particular attention, and then describe what we consider to be the principal limitations of these predominant academic and professional discourses. These include the following three concerns: (1) the restrictive definition employed, (2) a pathologizing bully-victim dichotomy, and (3) a gender-blind or at best genderessentialist approach to gender difference. Finally, we propose a conceptual shift toward a more comprehensive understanding that is based, in part, on constructivist and poststructuralist perspectives on gender.

Most of Eudora Welty’s fiction, specifically her story “Music from Spain” (1948) and short novel The Ponder Heart (1954), appeared during a time when medical authorities still viewed same-sex desire as a mental illness. Welty’s work, however, suggests the problem lies not with the individual but with society’s prejudice and strict prescriptions of happiness contingent on marriage and domesticity, which do not account for sexual alterities. Eugene and Daniel, the texts’ respective male protagonists, struggle to find fulfillment within the confines of traditional marriage, rupturing the purported link between happiness and heterosexuality.

Medicalization appears to be an issue that is both ubiquitous and unquestionably problematic as it seems to signal at once a social and existential threat. This perception of medicalization, however, is nothing new. Since the first main writings in the 1960s and 1970s, it has consistently been used to describe inappropriate or abusive instances of medical authority. Yet, while this standard approach claims that medicalization is a growing problem, it assumes that there is simply one “medical model” and that the expanding realm of “the medical” can be more or less clearly delineated. Moreover, while intended to establish the reality of this growing threat, this research often requires making arbitrary or unjustified distinctions between different practices. To better clarify the concept of medicalization, I will focus more on capturing the variety of medical practices than on the sociological aspects of medical discourse. In doing so, I will explore the distinction between medicalization and pathologization, a distinction that is often overlooked and that brings with it many conceptual and practical implications. After defining these terms, I will use some examples to show that while pathologizing is closely tied to medicalizing, both can occur independently. I will then further develop this distinction in terms of the different individual and social effects of these practices.

The medicalization of queer bodies in the clinic and the lab is inexorably linked to the history of LBGTQ politics. Increasingly, activists and scholars are recognizing that while the natural origins of queer sexualities carry a certain political weight, invoking the naturalness of being \"born this way\" fails to articulate a more substantive challenge to the effects of unexamined cis- and heteronormativity on our social institutions. With this in mind, it is crucial to understand the way these biases operate in scientific research and healthcare so their impact on what we know and how we care can be addressed. It what follows, it will be shown that the medicalization of queer bodies not only fails to diminish these deep-seated biases from sexuality research and clinical practice, but that it also impedes care providers from addressing the healthcare disparities facing queer patients today.