Bound to Ideology: Why is Macmillan supporting breast binding?
Why are charities such as Macmillan teaming with gender ideology organisations to promote known harmful practices such as breast binding?
Picture - credit Getty Images
Macmillan supported The Rainbow Project for a “Binder and Bra Fittings Information Evening” on 12 May 2025 at the Belfast Trans Resource Centre. While we hope participants were encouraged to examine themselves for signs of breast cancer, were they also informed that medical transitioning — such as the use of testosterone — is associated with risks including endometrial cancer? Are they aware they may require Macmillan cancer support themselves in the future as a result?
Macmillan have funded a three-year Cancer Champion pilot project to be delivered by The Rainbow Project — an activist organisation that promotes affirmative medical and social transition, including the prescribing of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to children. Why are charities such as Macmillan teaming with ideological activist organisations that promote harmful unevidenced practices, in this case breast binding? This is all the more shocking due to Macmillan’s knowledge and responsibilities to support women who have breast cancer that deal with the consequences of cancer and its treatments, which include mastectomy. Why support the damage of healthy breast tissue? We would and do condemn similar practices elsewhere.
The UK’s National FGM Centre classifies breast flattening in other cultures as a form of child abuse which should be reported. Mothers press or pound girls’ breasts to delay puberty, often to protect them from sexual abuse, rape, or early marriage. This reflects a desire to shield girls in a society where breast development signals sexual readiness, increasing vulnerability. Similarly, in Western contexts, many girls turn to chest binding as a perceived protective measure. The 2024 Cass Review notes that children seeking to transition often have histories of abuse, trauma, or body dysmorphia. Binding is used to avoid sexualisation or manage bodily distress.
73% of referrals to the Tavistock in 2022 were females. The harsh reality is there is a population of vulnerable girls and young women that often have other conditions, history of trauma and are in mental distress. They want to opt out of womanhood and the flattening and removal of breasts are a symptom of this.
Yet, while most charities would condemn breast flattening, many endorse binding under the guise of gender ideology. Some might argue binding is “safer” in the West, but this is no excuse—harm is harm. Macmillan would never support breast flattening considered harmful in other cultures; why are they promoting its ideological equivalent in the UK?
Binding is not benign. It can lead to serious health issues and often sets girls on a path towards irreversible interventions like mastectomies. Macmillan should recognise these risks given their expertise with breast cancer patients.
Breast Tissue Damage and Mastitis: Binding compresses the chest, causing restricted breathing, pain, bruising, and skin irritation. Prolonged pressure impairs blood flow and lymphatic drainage, leading to cysts, infections, or chronic tissue damage, cause changes to normal spine alignment, and deformity of the chest wall, potentially causing permanent damage. Binding also increases the risk of mastitis when breastfeeding which is discussed in one of our GPs letter to Wes Streeting.
Pathway to Mastectomy: Binding often precedes chest masculinisation surgery often referred to as ‘Top Surgery’. Many females that experience gender dysphoria start binding after online exposure, often progressing to surgery. This results in permanent loss of breasts and breastfeeding ability. There have been stories in social media that report detransitioners’ grief over their inability to breastfeed. Even without surgery, binding can damage milk ducts, impairing lactation. Mastectomy surgeries also carry risks of complications, chronic pain, numbness and poor aesthetic outcomes. For women whose breasts are also a sexual organ this is a huge loss of sexual function.
Macmillan regularly advises and supports breast cancer survivors at risk of serious complications. Surgeons will always try to preserve breasts where possible due to the significant physical and psychological impact of breast removal. How then can a charity dedicated to protecting breast health endorse behaviours that cause direct harm?
Gender-affirming care, including binding, is often presented as the default treatment for gender dysphoria, but the Cass Review challenges this. Many children—especially girls—grow out of gender dysphoria if supported holistically. The Review notes that 80% of children may desist by adulthood if not affirmed in their dysphoric feelings, advocating for exploratory therapy over medical interventions. Binding doesn’t relieve dysphoria and can lead to irreversible harm, including mastectomy and loss of sexual and breastfeeding function. Cass also found that among girls referred to the Tavistock Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) between 2010 and 2020, 72% had trauma histories, 35% experienced sexual abuse, and 25% had eating disorders—all factors linked to body dysmorphia. These vulnerable girls are being funnelled into harmful practices like binding instead of receiving trauma-informed care.
There is no long-term safety data proving binding is safe during adolescence or young adulthood. The Cass Review cautions against unevidenced interventions. Binding is not a harmless aid; it is a health risk.
The Rainbow Project states that its upcoming binding and bra fitting event is for individuals aged 18 and over. However, their website hosts binding guidance that is clearly aimed at minors, raising serious safeguarding questions. Are there verified protocols in place to check participants' age? Who will be conducting the fittings on vulnerable females who may have trauma histories and/or be a minor. Promoting or facilitating chest binding without proper age verification, clinical oversight, or psychological screening risks causing irreversible harm.
This echoes the controversy surrounding the charity Mermaids, which was found to have sent binders to girls as young as 13 without parental knowledge or consent. The scandal triggered a Charity Commission investigation into safeguarding failures and inappropriate medical advice. Mermaids encouraged minors to hide binding from parents and offered guidance that downplayed serious physical risks such as breathing problems, tissue damage, and long-term harm to breast development. Critics argued that Mermaids had overstepped its charitable remit, offering quasi-clinical interventions without qualifications, thereby compromising child welfare in the name of affirmation.
The Rainbow Project now risks repeating these same errors. Detransitioners have reported that when they raised concerns about pain or breathing difficulties from binding, they were told such symptoms were “normal” or signs that the process was working, a disturbing example of medical gaslighting that dismisses distress rather than addresses it. Charities must not exceed their remit by providing interventions that are clinically unregulated, medically risky, and psychologically damaging, especially to those unable to give informed consent.
We urge Macmillan to withdraw from this event and review its safeguarding and clinical standards. Donors and supporters should contact Macmillan’s leadership to demand accountability. Macmillan’s involvement in this event represents a dangerous mission drift. Chest binding is not safe, not evidence-based, and not aligned with Macmillan’s charitable aims or ethical obligations. It mirrors the harm of breast flattening abroad, a practice most rightly condemn. Girls deserve protection, not harmful ideologies disguised as care.
https://nationalfgmcentre.org.uk/breast-flattening/
https://www.met.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/caa/child-abuse/breast-ironing-flattening/
I heard Helen Joyce describe how gender ideology doesn’t just make an organization ineffective, it actually turns them 180 so they are advocating for the opposite of their original purpose. This is another perfect example
There is no way to "safely" bind your breasts. None, zero. https://lucyleader.substack.com/p/chest-binding-a-modern-day-version