The image of size-24 Tess Holliday was used to promote a "feminism and fat" panel discussion organized by Cherchez La Femme, an Australian feminist group.
The Tessa Holliday image Facebook didn't care for. (Credit: Cherchez La Femme)
But when the group asked for the ad promoting the event to be boosted, Facebook refused and said the image was unacceptable. The group would have to remove it and resubmit the ad for approval, it was told.
"Ads like these are not allowed since they make viewers feel bad about themselves," Facebook explained to Jessamy Gleeson, one of the producers of the event. "Instead, we recommend using an image of a relevant activity, such as running or riding a bike."
Facebook's response to the Tessa Holliday ad (source: Cherchez La Femme)
The ad, of course, was designed to do exactly the opposite.
"Facebook has ignored the fact that our event is going to be discussing body positivity (which comes in all shapes and sizes, but in the particular case of our event, fat bodies), and has instead come to the conclusion that we've set out to make women feel bad about themselves by posting an image of a wonderful plus sized woman," says Gleeson.
Facebook has since apologised, saying that the ad doesn't after all violate its policies and that it will again allow it to run.
But it's not the first time that Facebook has banned something for supposedly abusing the very community that posted it. It has suspended gay people using the term 'faggot', for example, and last year did the same to transvestite Jane County, who'd made the mistake of using the word 'tranny'.
This case, though, adds an extra twist. Whereas the objections to 'faggot' and 'tranny' rest purely on the way those words can be used in a derogatory way, objections to pictures are a whole different matter.
Facebook's policy states that 'close-ups of "muffin tops" where the overhanging fat is visible' are banned, as are 'people with clothes that are too tight'.
Also banned are 'people pinching their fat/cellulite (even with full body visible)' or portrayals of 'human medical conditions in a negative light (ex. eating disorders)'.
The company's intention, of course, is to avoid so-called 'fat-shaming'. However, the picture of Holliday is anything but shaming: she not only looks happy with her size, she looks beautiful too.
If this picture could be deemed shameful, then the same could be said of any photo of a larger woman. 'Clothes that are too tight' remain a potential cause for takedowns with, presumably, Facebook deciding how loose they should be.
Take the company's argument to its logical conclusion, and only photos of slim people (preferably running or cycling, of course) would be allowed.
Who's really doing the fat-shaming here?
