In 2018, Hannah Gadsby created a sensation through her stand-up show Nanette. In it she shocked audiences by telling her hard-hitting trauma narrative, revealing the impact of sexual abuse, male violence, and homophobia on her mental health. Controversially, Gadsby also claimed that stand-up as a form and the mainstream stand-up industry itself were significant agents in deepening her psychological harm. This chapter examines Gadsby’s dramaturgical strategies and struggles in attempting to construct a means of speaking about the pain of her lived experience and seeking a therapeutic means of addressing her trauma through stand-up. Luckhurst analyses Gadsby’s interest in ethical story-telling and her notion of educating audiences about laughter and political complicity. Finally, Luckhurst argues that Gadsby draws on therapy models to transform her trauma narrative into a story of healing for herself and her audiences.

This case study of gender in advertising through the lens of two campaigns – one by Virgin Atlantic and one by Bud Light – examines these brands’ alignment with modern gender perceptions and the subsequent consumer responses. It considers how advertising mirrors or moulds society’s gender norms and how companies navigate this spectrum. Beginning with Virgin Atlantic’s ‘See the World Differently’ campaign and updated gender-identity policy in 2022, this example indicates the campaign’s success in its positive reception. Conversely, Bud Light’s collaboration with trans activist Dylan Mulvaney for the ‘Easy Carry Contest’ faced a polarised reception. While aiming to resonate with a younger, more inclusive demographic, the backlash from conservative corners illustrated the risks involved when a brand ventures into socially charged territories without thorough consideration of its diverse customer base.

The comparison between Virgin Atlantic’s holistic approach to embedding inclusivity into their brand ethos contrasts with Bud Light’s reactive stance, highlighting the importance of proactive engagement with social issues in brand strategy.

Historically, marketing has viewed women primarily as consumers and men as producers, a perspective deeply ingrained in societal gender constructs. Contemporary shifts in consumer culture, particularly the integration of physical and digital realms, have transformed the roles women play as both consumers and producers, challenging traditional gender-based market segmentation. Central to the discussion is the concept of gender as a cultural performance, with brands acting as signifiers aiding consumers in navigating their cultural landscapes. This navigation is influenced by a consumer’s gender identity and their desire for self-expression. Brands, therefore, are not just products but markers that consumers use to articulate and negotiate their identities within a gendered cultural context. Gender is presented as a spectrum, influencing how consumers relate to brands and how brands can segment their markets more effectively by gender identity rather than biological sex. Brands that understand and engage with the gendered performances of a consumer’s sense of self can create ‘safe spaces’ for consumers to express their identities, fostering deeper connections and brand loyalty.

This chapter charts the processes by which deceptive sex came to be regarded as potentially constituting rape. Through tracing these developments, the chapter shows how doctrinal features of the law, such as the way consent and deception are thought to be related and the modes of deception punished by law, were important to this process. Yet the chapter also argues that to fully appreciate how and why the changes occurred, it is necessary to pay attention to the array of interests the law has sought to protect and how these have shaped the range of topics of deception that might ground a charge of rape. This argument leads to the conclusion that, in the context of deceptive sex, deception has not been considered wrongful because it invalidates or precludes consent, as is commonly thought; rather, deception has invalidated or precluded consent because it has sometimes been considered wrongful. The chapter ends by introducing some reasons why this insight is important to ongoing debates regarding the criminalisation of deceptive sex.

This chapter examines the law of nullity of marriage to consider how deception has affected the existence or validity of consent. It articulates important differences between void and voidable marriages, arguing that these speak to the public and private sides of marriage, respectively. It also showcases the range of deceptions that have been considered legally significant, situating these within the cultural framework outlined in Chapter 1. On top of this, the chapter argues that the range of qualifying deceptions has often been justified with reference to public policy or convention on the basis that the relevant information would typically be important to an intimate partner or that its disclosure would serve a collective interest or value. The chapter concludes by suggesting that changes in the law of nullity, and a small number of related areas of law, demonstrate that there is still a desire for legal recognition of the wrongs and harms associated with inducing intimate relationships, even as these have shifted over time.

This chapter summarises the overarching narrative of this book and argues that as was as being intrinsically valuable it can inform contemporary debates about using law to regulate the practices of inducing intimacy. The discussion is organised around three sets of issues: the public and private dimensions of sex and intimate relationships, including the interests protected by law, the form of response (i.e., state or non-state), and the variety of legal response (i.e., public or private); the structure of legal responses, the meaning of consent and its relation to deception, targeted modes of deception, culpability matters, the requirement for a causal link between deception and ‘outcome’, and the temporalities of the legal wrong; and the substance of deceptions, including the dynamics governing the range of topics about which transparency has been expected. Drawing the discussion together, the chapter concludes by offering a new framework for constructing legal responses to deceptively induced intimacy, which builds on the core insight and these responses have historically been predicated on temporally sensitive associations between self-construction and intimacy.

This chapter will explore best practices in assessing, diagnosing, and treatment planning for LGBTQ+ clients. Examining issues and trends with standardized assessment tools with an emphasis on biopsychosocial assessment will be discussed. Within this chapter, effective strategies and techniques to assess sexual-affectional and gender identity will also be presented with an in-depth critique of heteronormative and cisnormative values that can negatively impact the assessment process. Throughout this chapter, resource examples of LGBTQ+ affirming treatment plans with case examples of intakes with sexual-affectional minority women will be presented.

This chapter will discuss information pertinent to understanding gender identity. We will discuss key terms and the importance of understanding language usage as a foundation for communicating respect, knowledge, and awareness. Counselors create safe and affirming spaces for the clients we serve. As such, counselors must understand the complex past and historical discrimination clients have experienced while examining their own understanding of these communities. Counselors will also seek to understand their ethical and legal responsibilities to marginalized and minoritized communities while understanding the importance of cultural considerations. Barriers to services and our collective responsibility to address these barriers rooted in discrimination will be addressed. While counselors maintain culture humility in an attempt to avoid ethnocentrism regarding their own beliefs around gender identity development, we seek to grow in knowledge and awareness. While antitrans legislation continues to increase, counselors must remain steadfast in their approach to advocacy and to providing ethical care.

This chapter – scaffolded by an interpretive, constructivist qualitative study design supported by liminality and intersectionality theory – shares the voices of nine undergraduate FGCS women of immigrant origin enrolled at a large, 4-year, public institution in the Mid-Atlantic. Our work was guided by the following research question: “How, if at all, do first-generation college student women of immigrant origin perceive the role of gender in their experiences on- and off-campus?” Analysis of multiple interviews with and among participants as well as analysis of participant journal reflections support findings that speak to the students’ perceptions of (1) how familial expectations and country/ies of origin values related to gender roles; (2) how race, immigration status, and language further complicated students’ perceptions of immigrant-origin identities; and (3) how serving in familial roles fostered gratitude, resilience, and transformation.