Mumsnet’s End Medical Misogyny campaign has resonated so widely because it reflects something deeply familiar. Women being dismissed and disbelieved, or being told their symptoms are ‘normal’ when they clearly aren’t. The findings make clear that this is a widespread, systemic issue.
Inevitably, those systemic issues are also playing out online.
Across social media, women’s health content is increasingly being restricted, hidden, or removed. Posts that use medically accurate language, words like vagina, vulva, menopause, endometriosis, are being flagged as explicit or inappropriate. Content isn’t always deleted outright, however, but is quietly suppressed, made harder to find, or prevented from reaching a wider audience. This invisible filter decides what appears on your feed, and what doesn't., When accounts or posts are pushed out of sight like this, it’s commonly referred to as being shadow banned and women’s health content is frequently shadow banned.
Concerns about how this content is moderated is now beginning to reach the political agenda. On 21 May, MPs will discuss the shadow banning of women’s health content in Parliament during a Backbench Business Debate. It is an important and overdue conversation, where MPs will examine the impact this censorship is having on access to information, as well as the wider consequences for public health, equality and innovation.
Evidence suggests this issue goes beyond anecdote. In a recent social media experiment conducted by Essity (our brands include Bodyform, Tena and Modibodi) influencer Aly Boghici (AllMumsTalk) shared posts on menopause, pain during sex, and vaginal dryness. These posts reached 66% fewer non-followers than her typical content and saw comments drop by 69%. By contrast, similar content on men’s health shared by her husband Justin saw engagement rise by 76% with both followers and non-followers showing strong interest and these findings point to the need for greater consistency and transparency in platform moderation.
Essity’s ‘The Vagina Uncensored’ campaign further illustrates this challenge. Launched by Bodyform, the campaign was designed to challenge the stigma and silence surrounding women’s intimate health. During the campaign, 16 posts were flagged across X, Instagram, Facebook, and TikTok, for being labelled ‘sexual’ even though the content was educational, simply for using correct anatomical terms. This included an advert using the term ‘menstrual cycle’” and showing a blood-stained sanitary towel, which Meta rejected on the grounds that it required an 18+ warning.
By drawing attention to when these words are restricted, the campaign exposed the barriers women face when accessing essential health information. It also underlined the importance of moderation systems that can distinguish clearly between inappropriate material and content that is factual, educational, and necessary for women’s health literacy.
Women already struggle to be taken seriously when they seek medical help, so access to clear, accurate information can be a lifeline. For many, social media has become a starting point, somewhere to sense-check symptoms, learn what is and isn’t normal, and hear from others with similar experiences.
When that information is restricted, the effects are cumulative. Women stay uncertain for longer. Symptoms are second-guessed. The point at which someone seeks help, or presents for further investigation, gets pushed further down the line. When straightforward, clinical language about women’s bodies is treated as inappropriate, it reinforces the idea that these topics are taboo and that they need to be softened or filtered.
It’s not difficult to see how that feeds into the same attitudes women encounter in healthcare settings. While these are different systems, the outcome is similar: women’s health is deprioritised. Women suffer.
This isn’t to argue against content moderation; platforms clearly have a responsibility to address harmful material. There’s an important distinction between moderating explicit content and limiting access to basic health information, but opaque filtering systems which are deciding what people see and do not see, are failing at both ends.
Social media giants are failing us and it’s having real-world consequences. Charities are finding it harder to reach the women who need support, educators and clinicians face inconsistent guidelines and women themselves have fewer easily accessible and reliable sources of information.
Medical misogyny doesn’t start and end in the consulting room. Addressing how it appears in digital spaces is becoming an ever more important part of tackling the problem.