Women’s health leaders launch industry alliance to challenge social media censorship
A new cross-industry coalition has been launched to challenge the systemic censorship of medically accurate health information on social media platforms.
The Women’s Health Visibility Alliance (WHVA) brings together femtech companies, global brands, clinicians, charities, academics and investors who argue that digital moderation systems are routinely misclassifying educational women’s health content as “adult” material.
Founding members include organisations such as Essity, Clue, Hertility, Daye and Mooncup, alongside medical experts, researchers and advocacy groups working across the sector.
The launch comes as more than 600 founders, clinicians, charities, academics and investors have separately signed an open letter warning that social media platforms are restricting access to essential health information about women’s bodies.
Campaigners say the combination of automated moderation tools and opaque appeals processes is creating a structural barrier for organisations trying to provide evidence-based health education online.
“Women’s and reproductive health content is not a threat to anyone’s safety,” said Clio Wood, Co-Founder of CensHERship.
“This is about accurate, life-saving health information being treated as obscene - and about women-led innovation being blocked at scale.”
“The Alliance exists because this censorship has become a systemic barrier which is penalising the very companies, charities and experts working to improve women’s health. We need to see structural change and a fair, consistent framework for women’s health content online.”
A moderation system misclassifying health information
Members of the alliance report that posts relating to menstruation, fertility, menopause, postpartum recovery and sexual wellbeing are frequently removed, restricted or rejected by social platforms despite being medically accurate.
According to research conducted by advocacy organisation CensHERship — which convened the alliance — 95% of women’s health organisations and creators surveyed reported experiencing censorship, with four in ten saying it had happened more than ten times within a 12-month period.
Respondents cited rejected advertising campaigns, removed educational posts, reduced reach on social platforms and limited transparency around appeals processes.
Rhiannon White, CEO of the menstrual health app Clue, said the issue reflects a wider structural gap in women’s healthcare.
“Women are the world’s largest health and wellness consumers, controlling the majority of household spending in every market, yet they remain strikingly underserved relative to their economic power,” she said.
“This gap creates three systemic pain points: a profound lack of accessible female health knowledge that forces women to self-diagnose, a confusing marketplace filled with unproven products and little evidence-based guidance, and persistent barriers to accessing care.”
Rhiannon said companies attempting to close that knowledge gap often encounter unclear or inconsistent moderation decisions.
“At Clue we are thrilled to be part of the Women’s Health Visibility Alliance and joining voices together to drive the structural change needed to enable women to see the creation of a fair, consistent framework for women’s health content online that women deserve.”
A coalition spanning industry and academia
Founding members of WHVA include leaders from across the women’s health ecosystem. Participants include medical expert Dr Aziza Sesay, academics Dr Hannah Ditchfield and Dr Caroline Are, Charlotte Walshe of the Period Equity Alliance, and investor Cristina Ljungberg from The Case for Her.
Deirdre O’Neill of Hertility said the issue raises questions about how platforms evaluate scientific credibility.
“Hertility have carried out more than 29 research trials and operate within some of the strictest regulatory frameworks in healthcare,” she said.
“If a company like Hertility, built on peer reviewed science and clinical evidence, can be censored while misinformation spreads freely, then the system designed to protect people is clearly failing them.”
Dr Aziza Sesay, a medical doctor and broadcaster, said the issue risks reinforcing long-standing stigma around women’s bodies.
“Online censorship perpetuates the narrative that women’s and gynaecological health is inappropriate and should remain taboo,” she said.
“This amplifies the embarrassment that already surrounds these topics. I often say that women are dying of embarrassment because they’re not coming forward about their problems due to shame, and when they present late, outcomes are poorer. Shame and stigma are costing lives.”
Policy and platform engagement
For women’s health startups and digital health companies, members say the consequences go beyond content moderation to affect product launches, advertising strategies and investor confidence.
Companies report delayed campaigns, reduced visibility for educational content and difficulty communicating with users on platforms where many consumers first encounter health information.
The alliance plans to engage with social media platforms and policymakers in the UK and EU, calling for greater transparency around moderation systems and clearer recognition of medical context within platform policies.
The open letter signed by more than 600 sector leaders similarly urges platforms to ensure women’s health information is not automatically categorised as sexual content, and calls on policymakers to examine the public-health implications of gender bias in digital moderation systems.
Some organisations are already adapting their language to avoid triggering automated moderation tools — replacing clinical terms with euphemisms or avoiding certain topics entirely.
“Our members are tired of self-censoring,” said Clio Wood.
“Of replacing ‘vagina’ with euphemisms, of seeing menopause and fertility treated as taboo. Visibility is not a ‘nice to have’. It is fundamental to public health, innovation and gender equity.”