Suffolk health leader warns online restrictions risk reinforcing ‘shame’ around women’s health
MPs are debating the censorship of women's health and wellbeing content online.
A Suffolk health leader says restrictions on women's health content online risk reinforcing a culture of "shame" and embarrassment around women's bodies.
Wendy Herbert, independent chair of Knowing Works, which runs the Healthwatch Suffolk contract, has called for a more open conversation about women's health following concerns that social media platforms may be disproportionately restricting or removing health and wellbeing content aimed at women.
The issue has reached Parliament, with MPs debating the censorship of women's health and wellbeing content online earlier this year.
A House of Commons Library briefing prepared ahead of the debate said concerns had been raised about online platforms disproportionately restricting or removing women's health content.
It cited research and reports alleging that medically accurate material covering subjects including menstruation, fertility and menopause had been restricted, while campaigners have argued this could reinforce stigma and make it harder for people to access information.
‘A real call to action’
Speaking to us, Ms Herbert said seeing the concerns set out by Parliament should prompt wider discussion about the way women's health is treated.
"To see it written down on a House of Commons piece of paper about social media is a real call to action, I think."
Ms Herbert said the issue raised broader questions about the way women's bodies are discussed, including what she described as "a shaming about our bodies and an inability to talk to that".
She said it also presented an opportunity to change the way women talk about their experiences and communicate with those making decisions about health services.
Why is women's health content being restricted?
According to the Commons Library, restrictions can arise through automated content moderation and algorithmic suppression.
Social media platforms generally have rules limiting nudity and sexual material, although some make exemptions for educational or medical content.
However, reports cited by the Commons Library have suggested automated systems can struggle to distinguish between explicit material and legitimate clinical or educational content.
A 2025 report from campaign group CensHERship claimed terms including "vagina", "nipple", "libido" and "menopause" could trigger moderation filters even when they were being used in a medical or educational context.
Separate research cited by the Commons Library found posts relating to women's health received lower reach and engagement than comparable men's health content.
These findings and allegations do not establish that every restriction is deliberate censorship of women's health, and platforms have said their moderation policies provide exemptions in some medical and educational contexts.
Meta, for example, said in January 2025 that its automated enforcement systems had resulted in too many mistakes and that it was changing its approach in an effort to reduce erroneous censorship.
‘We don't talk about that’
Ms Herbert believes the online debate reflects a much wider difficulty in discussing women's health.
She pointed to changing conversations around periods, menopause and maternity as examples of subjects which historically have not always been openly discussed.
She said: "We're starting to see the cracks in that in so many different ways.
"And I think for still for some women, that's really hard to reach out.
"As a working woman, it can be really hard to say that you need time off because you're having a really painful period, or because menopause is wrecking your body."
Later in the interview, Ms Herbert described restrictions on women's health discussions online as a "sign" of a wider cultural problem rather than its cause.
She said: "I think this is a really clear sign that as a culture, we've got something wrong for the 21st century."
She added that people needed to become more open about women's health and said: "For all of us it can be very difficult to talk about some of this stuff even now."
Concerns over access to reliable information
Ms Herbert also questioned whether social media provides a safe environment for people looking for information or discussing sensitive health issues.
She said there was a broader need to enable women to discuss their bodies "in a way that doesn't carry shame or embarrassment".
Campaigners cited by the Commons Library have previously argued that restricting medically accurate content could make information harder to access and potentially discourage people from seeking help or advice.
However, the precise impact of social media moderation on health outcomes has not been established by the parliamentary briefing.
Ms Herbert said she wanted to see women encouraged to share their experiences, particularly when experiencing health problems.
She said: "I'd like to see a better conversation. I'd like to see people sharing their experiences of particularly their health issues, because I think that's where things are the sharpest."
She added: "Often we see people accepting as normal things that are really not acceptable or struggling to get help and being turned back."
What does the Government say?
The debate around moderation comes as the Online Safety Act places duties on online platforms to protect users from illegal and harmful content, with Ofcom responsible for overseeing the regulatory framework.
The Government has said the legislation does not prevent adults or children from accessing legal information about women's health and that protections for freedom of expression are built into the Act.
In response to a parliamentary question in April, it said the largest regulated services have additional duties preventing them from arbitrarily removing content.
It also said platforms must make clear what content is permitted, apply their rules consistently and provide complaints procedures allowing users to challenge material they believe has been wrongly removed.