AIBU to think schools shouldn't promote breast binding to 11 year old girls?

[OhHolyJesus]

Article in the Times today about a top grammar school.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/913e7f94-b038-11eb-b844-593e41a4a1a5?shareToken=96489378584664b8e46495232a22b86a

From the comments you can see the parents weren't aware.

Maybe you could write to tell them this Elle?

Increasingly I think companies, organisations and schools will only begin to rethink if it hits them in their pockets.

(Not derailing my own thread but look at M&S.)

We need to change the world that makes girls hate their bodies not the bodies

Couldn’t agree more.

@LadyWhistledownsQuill

I wonder how many people on this thread think that, if sex education and access to condoms wasn't provided, teens simply wouldn't have sex?

What's your point here? There is a massive gulf between teaching kids about safe sex and consent to linking to sites selling fisting gloves and chemsex packs

@ElleDubloo

Oh god. I was actually thinking of sending my girls to that school until I read this. We live in the area and have been prepping for the 11+ But I’m afraid this is a dealbreaker. Not just that the newsletter went out, but that the school has defended it.

Elle- write in and express concerns as it will show the school how seriously parents and prospective parents take these issues. Use SAS materials to raise pointed queries. Schools are paid on a per pupil basis and they need to be full and don’t want to jeopardise this. The article appearing in The Times will also show how much of a mistake this was.

YADNBU. I went there and was proud of my school.

I wouldn’t send my daughter there in a million years having seen this.

Can’t believe that some posters think it’s ok to send this sort of material to children of 11.

@LadyWhistledownsQuill

I wonder how many people on this thread think that, if sex education and access to condoms wasn't provided, teens simply wouldn't have sex?

I’m going with no posters on this thread think this

And I’m prepared to bet that everyone who appears on this thread in the future doesn’t believe this either

@Lockheart

The school isn't "promoting breast binding to girls".

A newsletter prepared by pupils included an article on how to breast bind safely.

I'm not in favour of breast binding in any way but your post and the headline of that paper is dogwhistle alarmist rubbish.

Would you equally defend a school newsletter that told 11 year old girls how to stuff their bras safely?

@Thecatonthemat

Missed opportunity for children to be informed about what are dangerous activities. Some children will already be aware or have direct knowledge or experience. These materials just imply there is no problem.

From the article

After clicking on one of the links, she was shocked to see information about the potential side-effects of breast binding.

So they are telling the pupils that it can be dangerous.

Isn't it strange how safeguarding of children is really important until the words trans or non binary are mentioned then suddenly it doesn't matter at all.

www.transgendertrend.com/breast-binding-sexual-objectification-grooming/

@Mrgrinch

If the students wanted to publish it and the school didn't allow it, there would still be a group of outraged people.

Schools can't win with this type of thing.

If students wanted to publish a newsletter about how to cut "safely" - which part of the wrist, what kind of blade - should the school also be obligated to publish that lest they "outrage" the students?

What about a newsletter about how to "safely" throw up after meals?

Isn't it strange how safeguarding of children is really important until the words trans or non binary are mentioned then suddenly it doesn't matter at all

Trans children deserve and need the same level of safeguarding as every other child. I'm never sure why the opposite is what is advocated for.

@FightingtheFoo

Would you equally defend a school newsletter that told 11 year old girls how to stuff their bras safely?

I haven't defended the newsletter (or its content) at any point. Could you please quote where I say breast binding is good? My point is that the OPs (and the Times') premise that this is an official school promotion is wrong and designed for maximum froth at the expense of the facts.

My only comment on breast binding on this thread has been to agree with the OP that there is no safe way to breast bind.

Some people really do struggle with reading comprehension.

You said the school was promoting this. Which is patently untrue. The school is not promoting it, a pupil-produced newsletter included some links.

A newsletter approved and endorsed by the school with the school's name on and sent using the school's email system and data. So yes, the school is promoting it regardless of who wrote it.

What about foot binding? Teen girls don’t need big feet, should information be provided on this?

I struggle with reading comprehensions? Let's break down your comment, shall we?

"The school isn't "promoting breast binding to girls"."

Yes. It is. I highly doubt schoolchildren are allowed to send out newsletters without some kind of teacher/school supervision. I remember when I worked on the student paper at sixth form there was a supervising teacher who checked the content and occasionally asked us to change it. If they don't have such a supervisor, that is in itself a safeguarding issue.

The school also provided the resources to create and send out the letter. Finally, they defended the newsletter after parents complained. So yes, given the newsletter contained a guide on how to breast bind, all of the above amounts to the school promoting it.

A newsletter prepared by pupils included an article on how to breast bind safely.

There is no way to breast bind safely anymore than there is a way to self-harm safely. It's not safe. End of. But beyond that, as a message to young girls who are just beginning to experience puberty, the idea that breasts should ever be bound (even if there were a way to do it safely) or mutilated is as regressive and dangerous as telling them they should be stuffing their bras and getting breast augmentations. No school would ever promote that so why are they promoting binding and mastectomies? Because one comes with a stamp of approval from Stonewall.

I'm not in favour of breast binding in any way but your post and the headline of that paper is dogwhistle alarmist rubbish.

Regardless of your view of breast binding, this post and The Times's headlines are not "dogwhistles" (dogwhistles of what? Would an article about a newsletter written by sixth formers to 11 year old pupils about how to be anorexic also be a "dog whistle"?) or "alarmist". As the many comments from current and prospective parents on this thread and on The Times's own comments section will attest.

I think my reading comprehension is just fine, thanks. Perhaps you should work on your own.

You said the school was promoting this. Which is patently untrue. The school is not promoting it, a pupil-produced newsletter included some links.

Erm, you do know what a 'school' is, yes? Adults are responsible for educating children. Anything that is being sent to the children in the care of the adults, no matter who has created it, should be checked by the adults to ensure that it is suitable and appropriate for the children in their care.

I can't believe I had to even explain that?!

Also, I am really naive here, but WTF is 'chemsex'? Is it sex whilst on drugs? How the fuck did that make it onto a newsletter for 11 year olds?

What the hell is going on here?!

This is chemsex. Apparently curious 11 year olds need to know about this

I would be removing my child if school sent out this newsletter. Breast binding is not safe. The school has a responsibility to the students for their safeguarding and welfare. Any literature promoting Breast binding or trans surgery should be stopped.

@LadyWhistledownsQuill

I wonder how many people on this thread think that, if sex education and access to condoms wasn't provided, teens simply wouldn't have sex?

Yes because info about safe sex and condoms is totally the same as info on fisting gloves (whaaaaat?!) and 'chemsex'. For 11 year olds....

Providing links to websites is also realky problematic. 11 year olds should not be discussing their bodies with complete strangers on line via live chat or email.

I wonder if the school safeguarding lead is going to be as nonchalant about this when Ofsted come knocking? Should go down well...

Schools of all places should have a clear awareness of safeguarding.

They shouldn't be overseeing or distributing or supporting the distribution of information on breastbinding, anal sex and chem sex to 11 year old children.

It's not 'alarmist' to say so.

To send an all pupils email requires oversight from the school. These are dangerous facets of queer theory being promoted by teenagers to younger teens.

LGBTQ student groups should not be given free rein to send materials to students, any more than any other political interest student group.

We know that high achieving girls' schools are absolute hotbeds for ROGD. This is legitimised social contagion

@LadyWhistledownsQuill

I wonder how many people on this thread think that, if sex education and access to condoms wasn't provided, teens simply wouldn't have sex?

I doubt that any parent would think this. But it could be interpreted that your intention is the shame parents who can see a clear breach of safeguarding in sending out a newsletter sanctioned by the school that in the section that says 'How can I bind safely', simply has links. Not any advice to check with your Doctor because there are some serious risks to binding.

Just links.

And links that have obviously not been checked by the school for where those links lead.

There are several other issues with this newsletter that are factually incorrect or show incredible bias such as the points about 'spousal veto'.

But the implication is that you think people who have concerns are ignorant, obviously.