Dr. Jessica Taylor • Oct 11, 2023

UN and WHO call for 'significant shift away from biomedical model of mental health'

But what does it mean for us all? I have summarised the new guidance for you.

I am writing to you today about an important development in trauma-informed approaches to mental health, pathologisation, and trauma. 

This development could change the lives of millions of people around the world - by moving us all away from the dominant biomedical model of mental health, and towards social models, rights-based models, and trauma-informed approaches to understanding distress and trauma. 

On the 9th October 2023, The World Health Organisation and United Nations collaboratively published their new practical guidelines to move away from the biomedical model of mental health, and instead, focus on the social determinants, oppression, poverty, abuse, violence, and other contextual factors that caused trauma and distress in humans. The new guidance is here: Click here to download the guidance pdf

At my company, VictimFocus, working towards our anti-pathology trauma-informed (APTI) models in policing, local authorities, health, education, charities, and private services has been paramount for several years. All our commissioners and colleagues work with us on the basis that they are working towards implementing anti-pathology, trauma-informed environments, policies, principles, training, education and support, not only for those in need, but for their workforces.

There has been much interest around implementing trauma-informed working, and moving away from biomedical models of mental health for several years. We have worked on projects for the NHS, who are trialling trauma-informed, anti-pathology versions of CAMHS in some places in the UK, for example. We are also working with a number of police forces to move to trauma-informed policing, improving victim care, writing new training packages, and working with force leadership to explore how they can truly implement trauma-informed approaches to their work in VAWG and wider.

This guidance is global, powerful, and long overdue. It is one of the first, and clearest, examples of guidance from the WHO and the UN which describes the biomedical model of mental health as ineffective, oppressive, harmful, outdated and narrow in focus. The document clearly argues for a human rights based approach to human suffering, a trauma-informed approach to mental health, and a move to anti-pathology, and anti-oppressive practice. Everyone at VictimFocus are proud to have been working to these standards and principles for several years, and we thank all our commissioners and leaders who have being doing the same.

What does the guidance say?

The guidance is pretty long, at over 200 pages. We recommend that you read it if you can, and consider the implications for your own lives, services and workforces. We will be here for you whilst you do this, and can help to build action plans and frameworks when you are ready.

I have summarised some of the most important parts of the report for you.

Here are some key takeaway points from the report:

  1. WHO and UN are calling for significant shift away from the biomedical model of mental health which encourages psychiatric diagnoses, medications, forced restraints, institutionalisation, imprisonment and other oppressive medical practices – towards a trauma-informed, social, human rights, person-centred approach to mental health

  2. WHO and UN highlight the current ways the biomedical model of mental health harms, oppresses, controls, isolates, stigmatises and discriminates against those who have been told they have psychiatric disorders, and who have not been validated in their traumas, distress, poverty, environments, oppression, or experiences

  3. WHO and UN recognise that women and girls, people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender are more likely to be labelled as mentally ill, and more likely to face forced sterilisations, coerced abortions, coerced contraception, and conversion therapies.

  4. WHO and UN recognise that there are widespread human rights violations and harm being caused by current biomedical model approaches to mental health, which includes our psychiatric hospitals, services, treatments, and approaches

  5. WHO and UN recognise that people who have been diagnosed with psychiatric disorders have been positioned as dangerous, unreliable and unstable, meaning that they are stigmatised and discriminated against in multiple systems of power (including health, criminal justice, family justice, education, employment, finances and their rights)

What changes are the WHO and UN expecting to see?

  1. The end of discrimination based on psychiatric diagnosis, including discrimination used to prevent access to health insurance, accommodation, and support.

  2. The recognition and respect for legal capacity and personhood of people using any kind of mental health services.

  3. The essential use of informed consent in all psychiatric services, treatments and approaches which includes accurate and truthful explanations of treatment evidence bases, side effects, withdrawal impacts, possible complications and non-medical alternatives.

  4. The elimination of coercive or manipulative practices in psychiatry and mental health, including the end of all forced psychiatric treatments, or treatments that are coerced or manipulative (e.g. You can only access support if you take this medication/You can only have access to your children if you accept this diagnosis and take this medication).

  5. The prohibition of involuntary sectioning and hospitalisation and forced treatment.

  6. The elimination of forced seclusion and restraints.

  7. The development of trauma-informed, rights-based community support for everyone in need of support in their trauma or distress.

  8. The development of peer-led and peer-run support services for people in distress and trauma.

  9. The implementation of programmes to help the deinstitutionalisation of people who have been institutionalised for long periods.

  10. Accountability in all psychiatric services and provisions, which includes the establishment of independent monitoring bodies.

  11. Establishing a system for implementing redress, reparations and remedies where people have been harmed by psychiatry and the biomedical model of mental health.

Why is this new guidance so important?

According to the document, the following reasons have been presented by the UN and WHO as to why this guidance to move away from the biomedical model is so important:

  1. Stigma, discrimination and several other human rights violations occur regularly in mental health and psychiatric provisions to this day.

  2. There is an overreliance on biomedical approaches to treatment options, which favour medications, and more dangerous procedures such as ECT.

  3. Many people with psychiatric diagnoses, particularly those who are minoritized and marginalised, are not treated equally in law.

  4. Access to justice for people with psychiatric diagnoses on file has commonly been restricted, affecting their right to a fair trial, denying them the possibility to contest detention, forced treatment and abuses in mental health services.

  5. Psychiatric diagnoses have been used to restrict a person’s right to file a police complaint or stand trial, to be taken seriously, to be protected from abuse, to be believed, to be seen as a credible victim or witness, to give evidence, to have access or custody of their children etc.

  6. People with psychiatric diagnoses on file will often be treated as if they do not have mental capacity and cannot make their own decisions about their lives or their care – including whether or not they wish to receive any care for perceived ‘mental health issues’.

  7. International human rights laws require non-discrimination and respect for human rights in all settings, including psychiatry.

  8. All humans should have the right to reject medical treatment in psychiatry and mental health, and should not be able to be forced or coerced into accepting medications or other treatments.

  9. There is little focus on the social determinants of ‘mental health’, as the biomedical model has been so influential. Instead there needs to be focus on the true roots of human suffering and distress including oppression, harm, violence, abuse, poverty, cultural norms, discrimination, isolation, disadvantage, exploitation, bullying, chronic illness, lack of access to services and breaches of human rights.

  10. There has been little acknowledgement of the racism, colonialism, homophobia, ageism, sexism, misogyny, ableism, classism or the many other factors that psychiatry has leant upon and supported over decades. Further, there is much evidence that those from poverty, those with refugee status, those who seek asylum, and those from indigenous communities and cultures are more likely to be positioned as mentally ill, dangerous, and non-credible.

  11. Psychiatry and the biomedical model of mental health is dominated by Western reductionist medical beliefs that people are mentally disordered and dangerous, which came from colonial rule, and the rise of the lunatic asylums via the church and the government


As you can probably see from this short summary of points, the new guidance from the UN and WHO has the potential to change millions of lives, and will contribute to the paradigm shift many professionals and members of the public have been waiting for. The guidance was developed in consultation and collaboration with a global group of mental health, psychology, psychiatry, and human rights experts, academics, practitioners, leaders, activists, law makers, organisations, people who have been harmed by psychiatry and people with lived experiences of oppression, harm, violence, abuse, and discrimination.

It is an important first step for humans around the world, and one of the first clear condemnations of the human rights violations in our mental health systems in the UK and beyond.

Crucially, for most of our colleagues and commissioners, this document finally sets out what is meant by moving away from the biomedical model of mental health, and moving towards trauma-informed, anti-oppressive, anti-pathology ways of working. 

In much of our work, we come across professionals and organisations who describe themselves as ‘trauma-informed’ but do not understand the theory, concept, power structures, or history of this paradigm. As a result, our trauma-informed training and approaches are usually radically different to what others have taught in the past. 

We are therefore very pleased to see the UN and WHO validate our training materials, resources and approaches in this document, and this should assure and support all commissioners who have been looking for something solid to lean on, when looking at describing and implementing trauma-informed approaches to their work.

What will VictimFocus being doing to support this guidance?

We are pleased that our work aligns with this document already, but we understand that for many of our commissioners and professional colleagues around the world, they may be thinking about how such a paradigm shift to trauma-informed, rights-based approaches to trauma would impact their workplace, their service design or their approaches to action plans, strategies, policies, and procedures.

Therefore, we will endeavour to provide the following to any organisation who needs it:


Email me on Jessica@victimfocus.org.uk if we can help you or your teams. 

As we have over 250,000 followers on social media and an average monthly reach of over 6 million people, we will also commit to:

  • Creating free fact sheets about moving to trauma-informed, anti-pathology ways of working - some are here: Victimfocus Factsheets
  • Provide free checklists and roadmaps to redesigning services and provisions, you can read one of ours here: Victimfocus Tool Kits
  • Provide free information about trauma-informed, rights-based, anti-pathology approaches to trauma and distress
  • Continue to share, translate, and develop our free trauma-informed courses, resources, leaflets and PDFs for everyone around the world, you can find some of these here: Home (victimfocus.com)
  • Continue to inform about anti-pathology approaches to understanding human trauma, vicarious trauma and distress via social media posts, videos and explainers
  • Ensure our commissioned work continues to align with WHO and UN best practice guidance as set out in this document
  • Continue to promote and encourage the use of our Indicative Trauma Impact Manual instead of biomedical model alternatives such as the DSM and ICD, you can read about this here: Welcome to the trauma-informed revolution! (victimfocus.com)

I hope you are as excited, optimistic, relieved, validated (and a little blown away!) as we are right now. The UN and WHO have published something truly life-changing for so many people who have been pathologised, abused, tortured and harmed by the biomedical model of mental health - and it is time that we listened, and built something much more human. 

Thank you for reading, please do share this article, and the new guidance with as many professionals and leaders as you can.

Again, a HUGE thank you to every academic, practitioner, researcher, activist, survivor, and human being involved in this collaborative document. It is so reassuring to know we are not alone in our mission for trauma-informed, safe, ethical services.

Get more trauma-informed content!

by Dr. Jessica Taylor 26 Oct, 2023
The world watched whilst Britney Spears rose to fame dressed in ‘sexy schoolgirl’ uniform dancing in a school gym, singing ‘hit me baby, one more time’. They watched as she become a global phenomenon and sex symbol. They laughed as she was chased endlessly by the press. As she struggled to cope. As she shaved her head. As she struggled to keep custody of her children. As she was sectioned and medicated. As she was forced to perform in Las Vegas whilst being regularly medicated to control and subdue her. As she was locked into a conservatorship for thirteen years by her abusive father. Prior to her solo artist career, she had been a famous child star of Disney’s The Mickey Mouse Club along with Ryan Gosling, Justin Timberlake and Christina Aguilera. She regularly performed songs, and dance routines and acted. At fifteen years old, she signed a record deal. I was eight years old when ‘Hit me baby, one more time’ came out. I watched it on the TV and didn’t know she was just a child until much later, when I was an adult working in child sexual exploitation services. I looked back on the video and wondered how old she was when they sexualised her and sold her to the world. I did a quick Google search. Sixteen. I thought about her song titles and music videos. ‘I’m a Slave 4 U’ was curiously released on the same album as ‘Not a Girl, Not Yet a Woman’ when she was eighteen years old. Interestingly, both produced by Pharrell Williams, the producer of ‘Blurred Lines’ with Robin Thicke – widely considered to be a misogynistic, pro-rape song about objectifying women. In ‘I’m a Slave 4 U’ and ‘Boys’ (again on the same album), she is posi- tioned as a sex-crazed woman who will do anything for men. Yet ‘Not a Girl, Not Yet a Woman’ positions her as a child, coming of age, and being stuck in between childhood and adulthood. I’m not a girl (Not a girl, not yet a woman) Not yet a woman (I’m just trying to find the woman in me) All I need is time, a moment that is mine While I’m in between Between 1998 and 2001, her management released an incredible number of songs and music videos that clearly portrayed her as sexy, sultry and out of reach. Sometimes, I wonder how much of that was deliberately paedophilic and illegal. The ‘jailbait’ trope. That men knew she was a child, but she was being positioned as a sexual adult. This included being interviewed several times about whether she was a virgin, when she lost her virginity, and whether she had a boyfriend yet. My next strongest memory of Britney was in 2003, when she released ‘Everytime’. The video was harrowing. I was thirteen years old, and even I noticed that something was very wrong. She was singing about pain and trauma. The music video featured her dying of an overdose in the bath and drowning. I watched it with horror. She wanted to die. Her portrayal of suicide was calm, peaceful and final. She is shown as having an out-of-body experience in which she sees herself being pulled out of the bath by a man and rushed to hospital, whilst paparazzi scramble to take pictures of her body. Since she released her memoir, we now know that the final scene was an apology to her aborted baby with Justin Timberlake. This video still haunts me; in fact, it hurts more to watch now than it did then. Here was a very young woman, shot into global stardom, sexualised and sold as a teenage sex object, struggling to cope with the pressure, and now depicting her own death. In 2008, her mother Lynne told the press that her daughter had ‘lost her virginity’ to an eighteen-year-old man when she was just fourteen years old, and way below the age of consent. She had started drinking at thirteen years old whilst working on The Mickey Mouse Club, and had started taking drugs at fifteen years old. In her memoir, Lynne recalls finding cocaine and weed in her daughter’s bag as she was boarding a private jet around the time ‘Baby One More Time’ was released. For some, this might just look like a teenager experimenting, having fun, and pushing boundaries – but to me, it looked like a teenager who was struggling to cope with something; a theme that would continue for another couple of decades. In her book, Lynne looks back on the way she was told by managers and music producers that the only way sixteen-year-old Britney would be able to compete with stars like Mariah Carey would be to sexualise her, and frame her as a ‘Lolita’. She writes that she was told that they wanted to deliberately manage Britney as a teenage sex object, and that Lynne regrets giving up control of her daughter’s career. Less than a year after Lynne gave this interview, in 2007 Britney was filmed having a ‘public breakdown’ and shaving her hair off. A month later, after being hounded by tipped-off paparazzi, she hit a car with an umbrella. This led to global media outlets framing her as violent, psychotic, insane and a bad mother to her children. Despite everything she was going through, and previously being regarded as a national treasure, she was framed as dangerous and disordered. She was then reportedly in and out of ‘rehab’ for years, sectioned several times and placed on psychiatric medication. At the end of 2007, her father, Jamie, placed Britney under a ‘temporary conservatorship’ which lasted over thirteen years. During this time, concerns slowly mounted amongst her loyal fanbase, who believed for years that she was being exploited and controlled. They argued that she was in danger, and being treated like a prisoner. They pointed to evidence on her social media which suggested that she was trying to carefully get messages to her fanbase that she was in danger. In 2009, they created a FreeBritney website, and demanded that her conservatorship was ended. In November 2021, Britney filmed and posted a video to her fan base, and specifically thanked the FreeBritney movement for ‘saving her life’, and ‘noticing that something was wrong’. I started to become interested in Britney’s journey around four years ago, when I noticed that she always looked disconnected in her social media videos and photographs. Her communication seemed odd. Her eye contact and body language weren’t right, and I had commented that she was extremely traumatised, but likely to be taking medication of some sort. I wondered whether she, like many of the women and girls I was working with, was being subjected to the same process of pathologisation and control. In 2019, one of the attorneys in the conservatorship case claimed that Britney was so mentally ill that she was like ‘a comatose patient’ and that she couldn’t make any decisions or sign any statements because she was the equivalent of an unconscious person. I started to feel that my worries were being confirmed. How could she simultaneously be so lacking in capacity that she was the equivalent of a person in a coma, and also be performing at a residency in Las Vegas every single night? How could people around her be claiming that she was so mentally ill that she needed round-the-clock supervision and medication, but she was still well enough to perform for hours? Something wasn’t right. Whilst many laughed off the idea that she was trying to send out messages that she was being abused and controlled as a conspiracy theory, I looked through her social media for hours and found that I agreed with her fanbase. There was something about her social media. The captions seemed strange, but purposeful. Were they being written deliberately by her social media managers to make her look insane? Were they being written by a woman who had been forced to take high dosages of medication? Were they coded messages to her fans, to keep campaigning for her to be released from her conservatorship? Maybe one day we will know the full truth, but in 2020, I wrote on my own social media that I was very worried about where her life was headed, and what the conservatorship was doing to her. I looked back over the life of a girl I had grown up at the same time as, and saw nothing but trauma, fear, confusion, pressure, harassment, abuse and pathologisation. It made sense to me that she struggled so much, but like so many others, she was diagnosed as mentally ill, lost custody of her children and was positioned as disordered and psychotic. The 2021 documentary, Framing Britney Spears, was the first time I had seen an angle taken by mass media outlets (New York Times) which clearly demonstrated that Britney was being abused and exploited. I watched it with my wife and we both cried as we watched the journey of a young girl being controlled and abused, financially exploited and framed to the media as a danger to herself and her children. Not long after, her father has recently announced that he would eventually step down from the conservatorship which controls her entire life, and she has recently been allowed to drive again after over fourteen years of not being allowed to drive her own car. I sincerely hope that the world supports her no matter whether she decides to put them all, or whether she quietly disappears from public life forever. Her life story and case should serve as one of the most public examples of sexualisation, exploitation and pathologisation of women that has ever occurred. Sexy but psycho – the Disney legacy In 2014, I came across a video on YouTube which seemed to suggest that there was a link between the Disney franchise and the sexualisa- tion and then subsequent ‘breakdown’ of female child stars. It wasn’t much, but it was implied. I have been interested in this process ever since. Britney was part of that cohort, but there have been many more girls since her era. As the years have passed, I’ve watched as rising child stars such as Miley Cyrus, Selena Gomez, Ariana Grande, Demi Lovato and Lindsay Lohan were taken down similar pathways of hypersexualisation and then pathologisation that were publicly discussed, but for some reason, not publicly scrutinised. Well, the girls were scrutinised, of course. Not so much scrutiny was afforded to the managers and corporations who had clearly developed a blueprint for transforming their cute child stars into pornified sex objects overnight. Sometimes it felt like they had deliberately removed their successful female child stars from the limelight for short periods of time and then relaunched them as sex siren pop stars – when they were barely seventeen years old. Miley Cyrus became famous for her starring role in Hannah Montana, in which she played a young famous popstar who has to disguise herself to enable her to live a normal life. However, by the age of fifteen, she was relaunched from actor to solo artist. Her songs were carefully constructed to be sexy, but almost acceptable – a teenager singing about her relationships or her crushes. In 2010, at seventeen years old, her management released ‘Can’t Be Tamed’, a song which describes her as crazy, sexy, wild, damaged, jagged and uncontrollable. In the video, she is dressed as a wild, exotic, sexy animal in a large cage, that rich people have paid to see. She becomes uncontrollable and difficult to tame, the rich people become frightened of her, and so the video is designed to position her as sexy, but out of control. Her clothing is ripped and shredded. Her makeup is dark. Her hair is wild. It is vital to remember that she is not only a child at this point, but is still starring in a Disney children’s programme with a viewership of millions of small children. It is therefore interesting that some critics have speculated that this could be a deliberate process that Disney use to move their young audience towards their pop stars as they age with them. This journey towards sexy, but ultimately, mentally ill, contin- ues for years in her career. By 2013, her music videos regularly showed her almost naked, taking drugs, and being encouraged to be as sexualised as possible. Huge smash hits such as ‘We Can’t Stop’ and ‘Wrecking Ball’ deliberately portrayed her as sexy, but disordered. Naked, but crying into the camera. Beautiful, but aggressive. Laughing but angry. Intoxicated. Exhausted. Messy. Wild. Uncontrollable. Sexy. I also have to wonder what the significance is of Miley crying into the camera with a shaved head in ‘Wrecking Ball’. Why, and how, was she positioned as sexy but psycho? In 2019, tabloids reported that Miley’s family were considering having her sectioned, in order to save her marriage to Liam Hemsworth. A source told the NW that ‘it was clear she was back in a dark place, and her family are telling her to face up to her demons and seek psychiatric treatment before it’s too late. If it saves her marriage, it will be a small price to pay.’ This is particularly distressing to read, considering that around that time she had come out as bisexual, and less than a year later, she came out as lesbian, and was in a relationship with a woman. The tabloids and celebrity gossip blogs continued to position her as acting out, crazy, wild, promiscuous and problematic for years. It was reported by Star that she was ‘acting out’ to ‘get attention’ from her on-off partner, Liam. Heat magazine reported that her relationship with Kaitlynn Carter was a ‘fling’ to ‘get attention’ and that she needed to be sectioned or sent to rehab for ‘social media addiction’. In 2020, NW published a criticism of Miley, claiming that she had a ‘mental breakdown’ due to jealousy about her ex moving on, and that her current partner Cody Simpson was going to have her sectioned or sent to a mental health facility. This targeting of a young woman is not unique, in fact it is a pattern which many young women have been subjected to. Selena Gomez recently announced that she had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, anxiety and depression having been put through the same process of sexualisation and framing as sexy, but psycho. Again, after being sent to a psychiatric hospital, she was told she was mentally ill. In 2011, after yet another career which took her from Disney child star to sex object popstar in a matter of months, an eighteen-year-old Demi Lovato was ‘sent to rehab’ and diagnosed with bipolar disorder. She quickly became the poster child for many mental health organisa- tions looking to ‘raise awareness’ of bipolar disorder. In 2018, she took a near-fatal overdose. However, she gave an interesting interview in 2020, in which she stated that she had been misdiagnosed with bipolar disorder, and that it seemed easier for doctors to slap a label on her anger and behaviour and tell her it was bipolar disorder. In her own words, ‘bipolar was used as a convenient excuse’ for what was really happening. Similarly to Miley Cyrus, Demi gave an interview in 2021 in which she said ‘I hooked up with a girl and was like, “I like this a lot more.” It felt right.’ She went on to say, ‘I know who I am and what I am, but I’m just waiting until a specific time to come out.’ Demi said that she would feel a ‘visceral reaction to being intimate with men’, and ‘blamed herself for ignoring red flags that she was not heterosexual’. This strikes me as important, that young girls and women who might not even be heterosexual were having their young female bodies exploited, sexualised and moulded for the male gaze by multimillion-dollar corporations – causing serious psychological trauma that would later be diagnosed in terms of psychiatric disorders. Ariana Grande was quickly sexualised as a young teenage girl, and then put through the exact same process as the others. She has spoken publicly about her depression and anxiety, and says that since the terrorist bombing of her Manchester concert in 2017, she hates performing. What is interesting about Ariana’s experiences is that rather than being labelled as bipolar or psychotic like the others, the public sympathised with her trauma from the terrorist attack, and see that as a real, tangible trauma. Instead, then, she was diagnosed with PTSD and her loyal fanbase promised to support her, even if she cancelled her tour dates. Lindsay Lohan, on the other hand, was bullied for years for her public ‘breakdown’ and drug dependency, despite disclosing domestic abuse and other traumas related to child stardom, sexualisation and pathol- ogisation. Lindsay was diagnosed with ADHD after ‘erratic behaviour’, which UCLA have argued is a misdiagnosis, leading her to be treated with Adderall. This drug is known to have similar effects to cocaine and amphetamines. However, she was also diagnosed with bipolar and alcohol dependency, which led to her living for several years on a cocktail of Dilaudid, Ambien, Adderall, Zoloft, Trazadone and Nexium. When she was twenty-four, doctors who felt she had been misdiagnosed helped to wean her off these drugs using careful tapering methods until she was completely medication-free. Her story – of yet more abuse, trauma and pathologisation – is a sobering read. A young child star who was struggling was diagnosed with several psychiatric disorders she never had, medicated for years and then publicly mocked and criticised as crazy and promiscuous: a hot mess. Throughout her childhood, Lindsay was subjected to various traumas. Despite having a complex relationship with her mum, which the tabloids have mocked for over a decade, in 2013 her mother stated to the New York Daily News that her trauma was all connected to things she witnessed and experienced in childhood. This important detail seems to have slipped past the general public, who focus on her wild nights out, legal troubles, financial issues and addiction. Despite there being a possible root of her trauma, it has been ignored for decades. Even after all of the years have passed, she has stated several times in interviews that she has been harassed and lied about. In an interview with the Daily Mail in 2016, Lindsay stated that her her mobile phone number had been shared on the internet, and several news outlets had been told that she was pregnant. But it wasn’t just the constant reports in the media. In 2016, footage surfaced which appeared to show Lindsay being assaulted on a public beach in Greece. In the video which was widely circulated, she ran from the attack to be followed, grabbed, exposed and forced away. It should be becoming painfully clear by now that what we are witnessing is a pattern of rising fame, sexualisation and then pathologisation of women and girls who are in fact being subjected to abuse, trauma and stress, and struggling to find how to cope, and who they really are in an industry which expects them to be happy, sexy, heterosexual objects of desire for men. Speaking of sexuality, Lindsay is yet another woman subjected to years of pathologisation who has had long relationships with men and women. Her relationship with DJ Samantha Ronson between 2008 and 2010 was met with scepticism, jokes and even outrage in the press. It is little wonder that she denied it and refuses to confirm whether she is bisexual or not. Sadly, I have come across several LGBT outlets who published articles and blogs blasting her for ‘bi-erasure’, ‘harming bisexual people’ and ‘denying being queer’ which seem to have very little insight into how traumatic and frightening it might be for her to talk openly about her sexuality after years of press harassment, ridicule and male violence. Whilst I have focused on Disney stars here, it would be wholly inac- curate to state that this journey is limited to their franchise. The ‘Sexy but Psycho’ blueprint has led to the abuse, harm and death of many women including Amy Winehouse, Whitney Houston, Kate Spade, Carrie Fisher, Anna Nicole Smith, Peaches Geldof, Bobbi Kristina Brown and Tina Turner. I know how that list might look to some, but maybe it is time we take a step back and reanalyse the lives and deaths of these women? All of them struggled with their traumas, stress, abuse or pressure of some kind. All of them were, at some point, positioned as wild, out of control, mentally ill, problematic or attention seeking. Instead of a humanistic response to what had been done to them, the public were encouraged to laugh along, gossip, harass them and speculate about their ‘breakdowns’.
by Dr. Jessica Taylor 22 Oct, 2023
Why is the racist history of psychiatry and psychology so often ignored?
by Dr. Jessica Taylor 18 Oct, 2023
I know you don't like to hear it, but we need to stop the belief that education will end rape and abuse. 
by Dr. Jessica Taylor 15 Oct, 2023
What does that phrase even mean?
by Dr. Jessica Taylor 08 Oct, 2023
It must be demons
by Dr. Jessica Taylor 03 Oct, 2023
And what if terrorism was reported like rape?
by Dr. Jessica Taylor 02 Oct, 2023
Palpitations? Fainting? IBS? Muscle pains? Read this article.
by Dr. Jessica Taylor 15 Sept, 2023
Answering big questions from small children: A guide from one parent to another
by Dr. Jessica Taylor 16 Aug, 2023
It's not okay to victim blame
by Dr. Jessica Taylor 28 Jul, 2023
I know you've thought about it! 
Share by: