Breast binding advice during COVID-19

I can see your point but I disagree. It’s like telling people who cut themselves how to reduce the risk of infection. Giving the idea that it’s just a personal choice.

I suppose that it ultimately comes down to whether you prefer to 'sacrifice' what is, in my opinion, a smaller number of people who might be totally dissuaded by not offering harm reduction vs a larger number of people vs a larger number of people who might be temporarily dissuaded during a time of particular risk. It was my understanding that, in self harm, both cessation and harm minimisation attempts are employed and I certainly know that for IV and IM drug use, harm reduction doesn't significantly increase the rate of use while at the same time preventing infections but I also know people who err on the side of cessation over prevention (of harm).

For binding, I don't believe harm is the aim so I'm of the opinion that people who use binding should definitely be made aware of the risks, those who wish to stop given help and those who wish to continue given advice to minimise harm but I recognise that that's a minority opinion here.

It seems like a sensible concession to me: clearly the sort of person this advice is aimed at is unlikely to listen to advice to 'just don't do it at all' so harm minimisation is preferable to ignoring them.

I can see your point but I disagree. It’s like telling people who cut themselves how to reduce the risk of infection. Giving the idea that it’s just a personal choice.

No! You’re self-harming, you need help to care for yourself, not advice on reducing the risk while harming yourself.

In fact I think it is subliminally implying that if you are truly trans, you will still be binding. Awful.

Might I suggest re-reading it? It opens with the title 'for trans and non binary people who bind their chest', i.e. identifying the association but not prescribing.

I can't see the pic in the op clearly enough but the cartoons and colours look to me as if this is aimed to a younger audience.

I found it fairly readable when zoomed in in a new window (ctrl & +). It seems quite neutral (perhaps more neutral than most here would like) but it's definitely not advocating their use. As before, I believe in a multi-pronged approach but I think, in this case, it's more helpful to not bash the reader with reiterations of the general harm, which I hope they'd be exposed to elsewhere and lest they completely ignore the rest of the advice and keep binding with a chest infection.

The difference with the self harm patients was that the psychiatrists were also working to stop the patients from doing it at all.

I think that is a really important distinction ByGrabTharsHammerWhatASavings. Beyond highlighting the increased risk, that link is not harm minimisation. In fact I think it is subliminally implying that if you are truly trans, you will still be binding. Awful.

I think there's a subtle but significant difference between 'they're going to do it anyway' (I've not seen evidence this is specifically aimed at kids) and 'those that are going to do it anyway should be given this advice to minimise harm'.

I can't see the pic in the op clearly enough but the cartoons and colours look to me as if this is aimed to a younger audience. And as we know it seems to be mostly teenage girls and younger women who are doing this, I makes sense that they would be the target group. And I agree there's a difference between "they're going to do it anyway" and "those who do it are going to do it anyway" but it's like the pp said about self harm advice, which was actually one of the things I had in mind when I wrote my other post. That advice is generally given to people who persist in self harm, alongside help to solve the root problem and with the aim of hopefully getting all harm to stop in the long term. Breastbinders on the other hand I've seen advertised in teen Vogue and online magazines etc. I can't speak specifically about the leaflet here as I don't know where it's circulated but in general breast binding is being normalised.

"kids are going to do anyway so let's make sure that they do it safely" kind of situation

I think there's a subtle but significant difference between 'they're going to do it anyway' (I've not seen evidence this is specifically aimed at kids) and 'those that are going to do it anyway should be given this advice to minimise harm'. I understand why neither sentiment might be acceptable but, unless you want to totally suspend autonomy, a 'zero tolerance' approach is generally more harmful than a combined approach. People do harmful things to their bodies every day and I believe that all that it's reasonable to do is to inform them about the risks and help those who wish to quit unless their lives are in immediate danger.

For example, in the case of obesity-related disease, there's nothing which a gastric band can solve which can't be solved by a controlled diet (with less physical harm), yet, we still offer them to those who are unable to regulate their dietary intake. We could achieve the same results by imprisoning the overweight and obese with fewer physical side effects but I wouldn't support it, nor would I support banning gastric bands because they might encourage a small number of overweight individuals to not use diet control.

Thinking back to my psych placement, the psychiatrists would actually give the self harming patients advice on how to self harm more safely. Things like using a rubber band to cause pain instead of cutting, and advice on how to avoid infections from wounds etc. The difference with the self harm patients was that the psychiatrists were also working to stop the patients from doing it at all. They weren't encouraging it and claiming it was normal and acceptable behaviour!

And no one has ever been able to answer that... I suspect the reasons behind either group wanting to present as a different sex than at birth are very different.

We are told some women have penises, get over it, so why the fuck can't some men have breasts?

Sorry - this is NOT* a "kids are going to do anyway so let's make sure that they do it safely" kind of situation

In the example presented here an opener of 'binding is generally unsafe but, if you must, please take these precautions' would be preferable.

Preferable to me would be if the organisations and people who are supposed to be looking out for the young and vulnerable, stopped encouraging breast binding and started talking to girls about why they hate their body so much. This is a "kids are going to do anyway so let's make sure that they do it safely" kind of situation, this is a new phenomenon and ten years ago it just would not be happening in the numbers that it is now.

According to a friend from Singapore, Asian women can often not have much of a curve between hips and shoulders - so some aspiring models remove 1 or sometimes 2 sets of ribs to emulate the Marilyn Munroe look.

You are kidding? For the love of god - why? I wonder if there is anything similar that men do?

Sorry Lord saw your post.. rib removal is still very rife.,

And Asian women removing ribs to have a more hour-glass shape.

Binding is never safe.
It is a harmful practice.
It should never be promoted.

Reminds me of the women in ye olden days who would almost kill themselves to get the teens waists with corsets and taking out ribs. Or foot binding.

I'm so angry. I saw that film made with the girl who had bound so much she said she couldn't play any sports and had difficulty walking, because of respiratory problems. How is the medical profession letting these girls down so badly?!

WHEN are people going to realise this is a mental illness, who has NOT noticed the link between this and eating disorders!

I ran rings around my doctors and parents when anorexic. I would drink 3 litres of water before weighing. But my Mum persisted, she had me sectioned. I was 34 kilos at the age of 19 and no one gave me advice to diet half the time!

Where’s the anorexia fact sheet?

Gasp0de, I agree that cessation is the best outcome but I don't believe that, in cases where that hasn't worked, harm reduction shouldn't be employed. I understand that harm reduction can be counterproductive in some cases (e.g. the aforementioned 'safe starvation' example offering an option which might reduce interest on total cessation) but zero tolerance is definitely harmful. Is this specifically aimed at teenagers?

In the example presented here an opener of 'binding is generally unsafe but, if you must, please take these precautions' would be preferable.

That isn't the approach taken when a teenager has an eating disorder, Gronky, so why do it this way with binding?

It seems like a sensible concession to me: clearly the sort of person this advice is aimed at is unlikely to listen to advice to 'just don't do it at all' so harm minimisation is preferable to ignoring them.