Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Mail online criticises Manchester MORF charity for distributing binders to young teens

145 replies

Needmoresleep · 01/12/2018 22:43

A detailed article with quotes from David Davies MP.

dailym.ai/2DV13Nf

Apparently binders are sent to young teenagers in plain packaging behind parents backs. The health implications sound horrific. Where is acknowledgement of parents safeguarding responsibilities?

OP posts:
Bowlofbabelfish · 02/12/2018 19:47

MORF. Interesting name.

This is child abuse. Encouraging self harm, grooming. And with public funding.

I am horrified.

Hyppolyta · 02/12/2018 19:47

What is going on at Red Oak Primary School?
I dont understand how this is relevant to the primary school, or why they have chosen to defend MORFs actions.

Id have serious concerns if my childrens school acted like that.

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 02/12/2018 19:49

I imagine it's not sanctioned by the school - it's probably someone in the PTA or something.

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 02/12/2018 19:52

The chair in 2012 was Elliot "Ewok" Brooker - don't know own how often roles change.

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 02/12/2018 19:54

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

OnTheDarkSideOfTheSpoon · 02/12/2018 19:55

This was a response to the article

Mail online criticises Manchester MORF charity for distributing binders to young teens
EverardDigby · 02/12/2018 19:55

And they were all male were they

Trans men maybe?

Bowlofbabelfish · 02/12/2018 19:58

Thank you.

I notice the blog says there are no manufacturers of binders in the Uk. That doesn’t surprise me. It also suggests that they are not licensed here.

Thoughts:

  1. Are binders a medical device?
If so, they are subject to strict rules - you cannot just go supplying certain medical devices which are not licensed if you’re publically funded, so..
  1. What is the legality of an organisation (if publically funded eg by lottery money) sending out unlicensed medical devices? Especially seeing as those devices have zero positive effects and potentially serious negative physical effects?

I suspect MORF could find themselves in breach of a few of the rules on supply of medical devices here. As well as breaking every safeguarding rule in the book.

Needmoresleep · 02/12/2018 20:02

Just been digging around the Charities Commion. MORF does not appear to be a charity in its own right, but a service provided by the LGBT Foundation. Even then it only gets one mention in the latest available annual report.

I assume the grant figures used by the Mail, if correct, were obtained from the organisations making the grants as it is not possible to work out from the LGBT foundations accounts.

Pictures of binders have also disappeared from the MORF website. Someone is having a busy day.

Committee list was all ‘male’ first names.

OP posts:
Rattinghat · 02/12/2018 20:04

Binders affect and retard the development of breast tissue in young girls, so when worn by girls still developing, they would count as a medical device. In grown women, I think they would just be an uncomfortable kind of corset.

Bowlofbabelfish · 02/12/2018 20:06

Interesting. Amazing how when you shine a light on this things just disappear.

Keep talking, ladies. Keep talking.

This is what will get the public talking - because most people will have thought it was just some daft metropolitan crap that didn’t affect them. But when you start on something that could affect people’s kids, people take notice. Suddenly it’s closer to home, and the vast, vast majority of parents will see this and be appalled.

Rattinghat · 02/12/2018 20:07

The fact that there is a treasurer and a secretary on the committee is clearly to give the impression that it is a constituted organisation. You don't need a treasurer unless you have money coming in.

Bowlofbabelfish · 02/12/2018 20:16

IF binders are medical devices (and I don’t know if they are or not) then I think there could be grounds to report to the MHRA.

But it would depend on if they were classed as such.

rightreckoner · 02/12/2018 20:18

What the heck is going on at Red Oaks? Wonder if any MNers have kids there? I'd be highly suspcious after that set of tweets - and awesome work lemonjello getting screenshots.

I wonder if MN could put together some safeguarding principles that we could all cohere around? NSPCC have let us down, likewise so many charities with responsibility for children. Perhaps we could put together a list of safeguarding principles. Not about trans - but about common sense things that you must do if you are dealing with children.

TimeLady · 02/12/2018 20:40

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 02/12/2018 20:49

Is Japanese rope bondage an LGBT thing?

lgbt.foundation/SWSTakeover

Rattinghat · 02/12/2018 20:52

Is Japanese rope bondage an LGBT thing?
The workshop is only an hour, let's hope none of the knots get stuck..

Needmoresleep · 02/12/2018 20:54

Just read the (self serving) MORF response posted by pain. Where does this bloody ‘48% of young trans people have attempted suicide’ come from. It is used as a fact and a reason for justifying their actions, yet With no source. .

I am also not convinced by the suggestion that many trans people live in poverty. Many 13 year old wannabe trans men will be living quite comfortable lives accessing YouTube from their warm bedrooms. It is a piss poor justification for sending out potentially harmful stuff behind parents backs. They suggest their ‘quality’ binders are the equivalent of sports bras, and won’t cause damage. How do they know?

Paul Martin, OBE and all, may be a lovely bloke, but what does he really know about social contagion amongst teenage girls? Next, perhaps, he will feel qualified to give dietary advice to their anorexic peers.

It feels like an attempt to win the hearts and minds of our daughters.

Safeguarding, safeguarding, safeguarding....

OP posts:
OldCrone · 02/12/2018 21:04

They suggest their ‘quality’ binders are the equivalent of sports bras, and won’t cause damage. How do they know?

If they've done any research at all they know that they do cause damage.

www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13691058.2016.1191675

Full version here (on a transgender support website).
transfigurations.org.uk/filestore/binding-project-postprint.pdf

hackmum · 02/12/2018 21:15

Astonished at the Red Oak tweets. What’s their interest in all this?

Rattinghat · 02/12/2018 21:17

And that's in adults.

LurkingWaspi · 02/12/2018 22:28

Sanchez Manning, excellent reporting, I bought the Mail on Sunday, just to read what you had to say.This is a two page spread, plus Editorial comment.

Thanks NeedMoreSleep for the posting the thread, and I'm grateful for the contributions here.

The magnitude of it all is frightening. It cast a shadow over me all day.

This is just another small piece of the jigsaw. There are those here who must be so battle weary with all of this, and I'm so grateful for your fortitude Flowers

I'm not sure of the readership figures of the Mail on Sunday, but a hell of a lot of people read this today and said WTF?

MnerXX · 02/12/2018 22:56

I think that the fact the children involved have the potential to be so young and that they are advocating not telling the parents is chilling. It is what will stick with the readers because how do they / we know it’s not their / our children?

pombear · 02/12/2018 23:47

LemonJello Star for screenshots of the school's tweets. I need to remember to include text as well as links!

I feel particularly passionate about the effect of the current transgender narrative on girls entering puberty and their bodies.

The fact that a primary school like Red Oak doesn't recognise this rocks me to the core.

I came across this tweet from a 'female to male' person accidentally the other day.

I'd ask you all not to link it to the tweeter by searching, as I don't want to identify them, but it made me incredibly sad and I wanted to share because it's so important to hear what's going on right now.

And because they said something that I think would resonate hugely with many, many women on this board.

They posted a selfie wearing a t-shirt and shorts:
Never EVER thought I would feel comfortable in shorts, always thought my legs looked to ugly to be female. Now I know they aren't supposed to look female and neither am I. Never hide yourself because you don't fit into a box someone else wants you in.

I never felt my legs fitted the box labelled by society as 'female' - as mine too, were 'too ugly'. And I never wore shorts. To be honest, I still struggle with that 'box' of 'what women in shorts should look like'.

But because I grew up in a different era, I still have my breasts (this young twitter person doesn't any more) . I became a grown adult female, not always happy with their body, but fully intact.

Transactivists would shout at us that we don't understand.

But so many of us with bodies that didn't fit the standards of ''femaleness' many years ago, never mind the increasing media-led bar of 'femaleness' now. We understand.

Which is why we're here. Shouting. Standing up for girls.

ChattyLion · 03/12/2018 03:50

Just read the MORF statement posted above.

I posted above about the government information standard: kitemark for ‘health information you can trust’ - the LGBTF statement makes a parallel between a sports bra and a binder. OK, fine- so why does the charity not send out ‘quality’ sports bras?

Also ‘broadside’ of ‘hate’? While only LGBTF know what genuine ‘hate’ they are exposed to, and all decent people oppose ‘hate’ - I really hope that asking questions about this is not being included as ‘hate’.

On this thread and the FWR board I see the exact opposite of hate- love and concern, female solidarity, challenging of gender stereotypes (which many people experience as restrictive and hateful).

In this case I see a lot of women and parents very concerned at the way kids are being offered potentially dangerous, potentially permanently body modifying (..to the extent of potentially impairing natural function years into the future, like breastfeeding), and at very best highly restrictive devices to wear (which will require the avoidance of exertion by a growing child lest the wearer gets breathless and potentially faints) ... by a registered charity.

But which the LGBTF statement describes as ‘.. a piece of clothing, similar to a sports bra.’ Hmm

This is not about hate. It’s not about adult restrictive or harmful clothing or adult self expression or adult permanent body modification or adult choices about breastfeeding or adult choices around whether to take exercise or not.
This is really not ‘a piece of clothing similar to a sports bra’..

Swipe left for the next trending thread