The struggle with transnormativity: Non-binary identity work, embodiment desires, and experience with gender dysphoria.

I examine how non-binary people who have considered, or accessed, gender-affirming health care experience accountability to transnormativity using 12 in-depth interviews conducted between 2018 and 2019 in a midwestern American city. I detail how non-binary people who want to embody genders that are still largely culturally unintelligible think about identity, embodiment, and gender dysphoria. Using grounded theory methodology, I find that non-binary identity work around medicalization differs from that of transgender men and women in three primary ways: 1) regarding how they understand and operationalize gender dysphoria, 2) in relation to their embodiment goals, and 3) concerning how they experience pressure to medically transition. Non-binary people describe increased ontological uncertainty about their gender identities when researching gender dysphoria that is contextualized by an internalized sense of accountability to the transnormative expectation for medicalization. They additionally anticipate a potential medicalization paradox, where accessing gender-affirming care leads to a different type of binary misgendering and risks making their gender identities less, rather than more, culturally intelligible to others. Non-binary people also experience external accountability to transnormativity as pressure from trans and medical communities to think about dysphoria as inherently binaristic, embodied, and medically treatable. These findings indicate that non-binary people experience accountability to transnormativity differently than trans men and women. Since non-binary people and their body projects often disrupt the transnormative tropes that are the framework for trans medicine, they find trans therapeutics, and the diagnostic experience of gender dysphoria, uniquely problematic. Non-binary experiences of accountability to transnormativity indicate the need to re-center trans medicine to better accommodate non-normative embodiment desires and focus future diagnostic revisions of gender dysphoria to emphasize the social aspects of trans and non-binary experience.

How Ohio's proposed abortion bans would impact travel distance to access abortion care.

CONTEXT: Since March 2021, the Ohio legislature has been actively considering laws that would ban abortion if the United States Supreme Court overturns the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion nationally in 1973. METHODS: We used a national database of publicly advertised abortion facilities to calculate driving distances for Ohioans before and after the activation of proposed abortion bans. Using a legal analysis of abortion laws following the overturn of Roe, we determined which states surrounding Ohio would continue providing abortion care. We calculated distances from each Ohio county centroid to the nearest open abortion facility in three scenarios: (1) as of February 2022, (2) the best-case post-Roe scenario (two of the five surrounding states continue to offer abortion care), and (3) worst-case post-Roe scenario (no surrounding states continue to offer abortion care). We calculated population-weighted distances using county-level data about women aged 15-44 years from the 2019 American Community Survey. RESULTS: In February 2022, all Ohio county centroids were at most 99 miles from an abortion facility (median = 50 miles). The best-case post-Roe scenario shows 62 of Ohio's 88 counties to be 115-279 miles away from the nearest facility (median = 146). The worst-case shows 85 counties to be 191-339 miles away from the nearest facility (median = 264). The current average population-weighted driving distance from county centroid to the nearest facility is 26 miles; the post-Roe scenarios would increase this to 157 miles (best-case) or 269 miles (worst-case). CONCLUSIONS: Ohio's proposed abortion bans would substantially increase travel distances to abortion care, impacting over 2.2 million reproductive-aged Ohioans.

'I guess I do have to take back what I said before, about television': pregnant women's understandings and use of televisual representations of childbearing.

Research on television as a source of childbearing information is divided on its importance. Drawing from a sample of 64 pregnant women in the greater New York and Connecticut metropolitan area, we examine how women understand the influence of television on their expectations for pregnancy and birth. A sizable minority (44%) regularly watched reality television programmes on childbearing; all engaged in active viewing practices, such as recognising programme formula and evaluating plausibility of depictions. We find clear educational differences in how viewers believed television influenced their pregnancy knowledge: women with higher levels of education generally disavowed all television as an information source, but used reality programming to educate their children about pregnancy and for entertainment. Women who had lower educational attainment were more likely to include reality programmes as part of their comprehensive approach to information gathering. Only one woman asserted that fictional television was a good source of pregnancy information. Although many devalued television, women referenced television programmes and imagery as they described their expectations and concerns for pregnancy. A large proportion of respondents were unaware of the influence television exerted on them. Health scholars must better engage with the complexities of media use.