Glorifying double mastectomies - museum exhibition

[BristolW0man]

Artwork on prominent display that glorifies double mastectomies - part of 'Gender Stories' exhibition. This in Bristol's free of charge museum, popular with families and school trips. All funded with the public purse via National Lottery and Arts Council England.

I don't think this should be on display for all to see (different if it's a separate area, but this is in the main hall of the museum) and I certainly don't think public money should be paying for it. AIBU?

https://x.com/JamesEsses/status/1928346229181739240

No I suppose not. I meant on the fence in that I can see merit in argument and experiences on both sides of this issue. I can also see the dangers on both sides. I am not in support of "they're feeling uncomfortable in their body therefore they must be trans and present this way" but I also am not in the "trans people are all mentally ill or evil and a threat to our children" category either. I tend to piss people off on both sides because I'm not "enough" on either side, and I refuse to remove nuance from the discussion.

Who knows how they will feel in 5, 10, 15 years? They've undergone irreversible surgery when they are barely an adult, and certainly not an adult with much life experience. The NHS wouldn't sterilise a young woman of that age, yet very young women are being offered bilateral mastectomies.

There's a really strong correlation between autism and trans ideology in young women. Surgical intervention isn't a panacea for distress.

How much of the wider exhibition is viewable from the main hall, without having to pay and go through to a separate area?

"Surgical intervention isn't a panacea for distress" - that I agree with 100%. And it absolutely needs to be part of the conversation. Some of the best advice DH got when going on antidepressants is "this is not a cure all - you will still need lifestyle changes, therapy, support systems, safety plans and time to heal, the meds don't fix everything they just give you space to be able to do the things that will help". Loved that Dr.

Interestingly it goes the other way though, I know someone who was denied tubal ligation despite being mentally well, in her early thirties, finished with having children, because "you might change your mind later, and what if your children all die in a car accident, you might regret not being able to have a baby then". I kid you not. She said she had thought through all of that, was 100% sure, and was still declined. Incredibly patronizing and an example of gendered discrimination in healthcare (and saving money, of course). DH was given a vasectomy in similar circumstances, no questions asked.

And how many of us would decline a young woman an abortion, because she might regret it later (and some do)? In my evangelical church this was a defining point in support of abortion bans. A "gotcha". "Some women regret it, look here's their testimonies, abortions clearly hurt women as well as murdering babies, they don't know what they're doing or have support for other options, so all abortions should be illegal."

There's a balance here between making sure people are making informed healthcare decisions, with checks and balances to screen for mental health or other mitigating factors like ASD or lack of other supports, but then also allowing them to make those decisions because they are adults, have bodily autonomy and mental capacity. I may disagree with those decisions but at the end of the day it's not my body. Not my right.

I refuse to remove nuance from the discussion

It’s quite the category error to suggest that anyone not sitting on the fence has “removed nuance from the discussion”. Sitting in the middle is not a guarantee of nuance (or, indeed, righteousness), nor is it an moral good in itself (and there are plenty of things in your posts that others might wish to “nuance”).

I'm sure there probably are, I'm not an expert in this area. I only added my stuff because there appeared to be an insinuation of trolling directed at anyone who didn't immediately jump to shocked horror at the OPs link, that they were unknown posters so therefore suspicious. I didn't think that was the case, and a disingenuous suggestion designed to discredit alternate points of view.

I don't have a particular agenda other than maybe finding it weird that the display as I have seen it, and questions around gender in an age restricted exhibition, could elicit such a horrified reaction. It's not hard to explain to kids whichever way you like, and open conversations are always better than silence or fear. It's very much up to the parent in question as to what kids would take away from this.

And yes I'm sure there's nuance on both sides, however MN posts about it (of which there have been so, so many) are not usually bastions of this. I've found it's usually both sides yelling about how evil and awful the other is.

Oh and the opinions I added - they're just that. A hodgepodge of experiences and beliefs, likely some contradictory and certainly subject to change or challenge. I added them not to argue their merit as some bastion of righteousness or look how moral I am, but to say - yep, I'm probably an unknown poster, but I'm a human, this is a bit about me and yes I've experienced being yelled at by GC people and by pro-Trans people but no I won't be intimidated into taking a black and white position on what is an incredibly personal and politicized issue. And really this response to the exhibition seems to be more about a particular viewpoint than about the display.

I will also admit I clicked on this expecting it to be about mastectomies rather than a trans thread - I tend to avoid those if I can.

And yes I'm sure there's nuance on both sides, however MN posts about it (of which there have been so, so many) are not usually bastions of this. I've found it's usually both sides yelling about how evil and awful the other is.

You can’t have read many of these posts, because they really aren’t “both sides yelling about how evil and awful the other one is”.

Perhaps your reading of “both sides” requires some more nuance.

Perhaps you're right. I exited all of those threads a few years ago when yes, that is exactly what they were. There was a while when it was every other thread in AIBU, usually with vague or unrelated titles and a descent into name calling within a few pages.

And I note "evil" made it's appearance pretty early on in this thread.

Anyway, I'm off - said my piece and you can draw whatever conclusions you want from it.

Appalling that a museum should endorse this and show such action as positive. Those who have suffered due to cancer know what a painful experience this is, trying to present this operation as a choice is horrific

I agree with you OP.

My mother had a mastectomy due to breast cancer, which she later died from. It’s so bizarre to me that mastectomies are happening in contexts outside of cancer treatment.

The problem isn’t necessarily showing breasts or acknowledging that some women with breast cancer (or potentially at a higher risk of developing breast cancer) have their breasts removed, but presenting a mastectomy as some kind of normal thing that healthy people should undergo is shocking. It’s a horrible, painful surgery and certainly wasn’t something my mother wanted to do.

It’s a major surgery and I just don’t like the message sent to women who feel uncomfortable with their breasts, or by extension with their gender, that a solution should be to remove healthy breast tissue.

If we’re going to have a public display about mastectomies could they not include at least a few stories from breast cancer survivors, embracing their bodies after treatment, or at least some acknowledgement that a display of mastectomies is going to impact those who have had breast cancer, or those who love something who’s had breast cancer.

Wow. Did you actually take the time to go to the Museum's website and read about this exhibition? Why, by the way, has artwork from many well regarded artists (like David Hockney for example).

The point of the museum is not to "glorify mastectomies"!!!!! That's just rage bait nonsense on your part. As the museum explains:

We don’t have all the answers, but we’re excited to explore these complex questions together. Whether you’re beginning, continuing, or seeking to understand a gender journey – your own or someone else’s – this exhibition offers a meaningful space for reflection and discovery.

They are providing a learning opportunity for people who wish to understand more about gender, and also why some people are born with bodies that do not reflect their gender and how that feels to have to deal with that very difficult situation.

Perhaps if you feel that people are seeking to "glorify" having breast material removed you would benefit from actually attending the exhibition and taking the time to see things from a variety of different points of view.

In the meantime: policing art of any kind is a slippery slope. Freedom of artistic expression is hugely important and vital to a vibrant and free society where we all benefit from knowing we can express ourselves in our artworks without fear.

If you don't like the exhibit then don't go. If you don't want a double mastectomy then don't get one. But trying to impose your views on gender on other people is as bad as them imposing theirs on you: would you like it if people interfered with your surgical decisions? Of course not. Do you really think people are super happy and stoked to need to go to hospital and have hideously painful and hugely invasive surgery just to feel like their body is correct? Imagine if you were born a woman, but also happened to have an additional penis that of course completely interfered with your ability to properly identify as the sex you identified with? Wouldn't you want to be able to have that appendage removed/altered without being called horrific names and being demonised for doing so? What would it mean if you were prohibited from having that surgery?? The point of this exhibition is to allow people to have those conversations in a safe place. And to learn about people who have had to confront those kinds of massive decisions themselves and to understand why they made the decisions they made. These people exist: they are real, and their experiences are as valid as yours are.

Your post is very contradictory: Surely if the surgery is very painful and invasive then a person would need to have a very very good reason for having that surgery? They wouldn't just do it for fun or on a whim? So: using your own argument: it must be incredibly important for a person to make the decision to put themselves through that surgery - because it would have to be mega important for anyone to want to suffer through that kind of surgery.

The people who get mastectomy surgery are not in any way making any kind of comment about those who need them for cancer treatment reasons. So to conflate the two is awful. Plus, you are ignoring that fact that many women who have had mastectomy surgery for cancer treatment/prevention reasons DO celebrate their surgery: indeed there are art exhibitions dedicated to women who have undergone mastectomy surgery, and chosen to make an art feature out of their scars by having tattooed art added to make them look beautiful. Are you saying that women who have had mastectomies for cancer related reasons shouldn't be permitted to be proud of their journey? Or add body art to their bodies/scars? Or to be featured in art exhibitions???

Since you agree that it would have to be something really important to make a woman go through the agony of a mastectomy then why on earth can't you make the linkage between that and adults dealing with a body that does not reflect their gender??

Surely you must have also seen that there are men who require surgery because they have breasts that are overly big and have grown far too much breast material: they have breast reduction surgery so they feel more masculine, because otherwise they feel that both they and other people don't understand that they are not women/are not feminine as represented by their breasts. That surgery is tremendously important to them.

And, of course, your viewpoint would also prevent women from having things like breast reduction surgeries - which for some are utterly vital to their being able to walk/being able to avoid hideous spinal damage.

Again: if you don't want to go to the exhibition or don't want to have a mastectomy then don't have one. But to presume that you should be able to dictate what other people should do with bodies is offensive and wrong. Stay in your lane.

There should not be any need for a child to know what a mastectomy is. That's the problem, we've stopped sheltering our children and allowing them to have a childhood. They're learning adult concepts way too soon.

So what about photos of paedophilia? Is that 'subjective' too? What about art depicting severe animal cruelty? Where do you draw the line? Do you even have a line? 'Subjective' to me sounds like an excuse to go well beyond the bounds for society and a get out clause, an excuse. It won't wash with me.

They most certainly can in the US, one who had her breasts removed at age 14 is suing her surgeons as she was too young to consent. Another was only 15, also suing the surgeons. This is a very regular occurrence according to health insurance company data. It's around 15/16 in Canada, too.

Imagine if you were born a woman, but also happened to have an additional penis that of course completely interfered with your ability to properly identify as the sex you identified with?

Christ on a bike.

I mean, what?!?!

On another note, reading the stories of detransitioners who have had the surgery and now deeply regret it - is pretty devastating in fairness.

Would you be saying the same thing if instead of an exhibition about 'gender stories' it was one about self harm, or anorexia, with a mural like this outside the space, where children of all ages can view it?

Um.. no woman has or has ever had a penis, never mind an additional one. If you’ve got a penis, you’re not a woman. Are you pushing the “born in the wrong body” trope?

but I also am not in the "trans people are all mentally ill or evil and a threat to our children
Literally no poster has said that they are a threat to children.
The ideology, which the museum is promoting, and some posters are happy with, is a threat to children and young people.
It's not only weird (which I agree is subjective) it's dangerous.

Imagine if you were born a woman, but also happened to have an additional penis that of course completely interfered with your ability to properly identify as the sex you identified with?

What's an additional penis?

It’s the spare one we keep in our handbags in case we see a man who’s penis has got lost. It’s part of the #bekind rules. I often go up to men and ask them if they need a penis as I have a spare 😂😂

What you and others, eg @Silverbelles are doing is putting words in my mouth. What I have said is that I don’t think these murals should be in the main part of the museum where children and potentially vulnerable teenagers can see it. And, crucially I don’t think tax payers money should be funding it.

I do not want it “cancelled” or “banned”.

Given the threatening behaviour of the artist towards people with legally protected views, that is another reason why I don’t want her to be making money from the public purse. If she wants to create an exhibition, hire a space and let people in then of course that should be allowed.

As for the exhibition being an “exploration” etc etc. I bet they do not explore stories from a remotely gender critical point of view - of how “gender” has created so many very serious problems for women, children and LGB people. And for free speech for that matter. Perhaps someone will attend and report back.

The exhibition is paid for by the Arts Council, who had a harassment claim brought against them by feminist Denise Fahmy. They settled out of court - a good indication that they were in the wrong. They are a biased organisation on this topic and this exhibition in Bristol is also biased towards the side that is not in line with evidence and the law.