"chest feeding" men should not be put above women and babies by La Leche League. Reasonable?

What an eye opening picture….

Just because people say something doesn't mean that's reality. Hitler was in the National Socialist party but he wasn't left wing. Russia calls itself a democracy.

People can say whatever they like. The reality is that this has been a show of dominance where safeguarding and duty of care has gone out of the window.

Some people have lost their jobs, been vilified, cancelled, attacked, threatened and worst of all, vulnerable people have been predated upon.

I don't call abuse 'kind' and I don't call people who collude in abuse kind either. It's all just window dressing and a complete lack of common sense and in some cases professionalism.

I attended a breastfeeding group 20 plus years ago. It was a fantastic resource led by two very skilled midwives who had breastfeeding support training. Several of the women who attended the group went on to train as peer supporters, in some cases successfully helping women who were very demoralised and on the verge of switching to bottle feeding.

If a man had attended this group he would have been politely asked to leave. If he had removed his top and put a baby onto his nipple with the misguided/ fetishistic intention of getting the baby to suckle it, I have no doubt the police would have been called and social services informed.

I am also really repulsed and horrified at what’s happening here and am sad for new mothers who as a result of the LLL’s absurd policy will miss out on crucial support and advice in doing the most basic yet essential thing for her newborn - feeding him or her.

Thank you gender ideologues 😡😡😡😡😡

Giving birth is apparently something men can do if they have the right body parts.

This is theory, isn’t it?

A group who fights against being dehumanised, dehumanises society at large to suit their purpose.

And having a family is a human right. So therefore, it isn’t being a mother. It is having a family that is important, any way that is possible. And this is a world that has accepted and celebrates the campaign for ‘fertility equality’ to allow homosexual male people to exploit female human bodies to produce a child on demand.

I don’t know if Freddy has been part of the move to remove the guidance against taking testosterone while pregnant. But to me, that movement is fucked up. Imagine advocating that a mother should be encouraged to take a drug that is known to produce a child with disabilities? It is advocating to allow a child to be harmed with in the uterus. All for rhe sake of a philosophical belief. Not a medical condition.

When this was mentioned, that poster declared that over half the population understood so declared it was not a problem.

The inconsistency in those types of answers are very clear once you see them. It is all ok if nearly the population are disadvantaged by a change demanded by less than 1% of the population and that nearly half is expected to be resilient and cope. But it is apparently imperative that those 1% are never expected to be resilient and cope.

And it is even worse that in that nearly half are the people who are truly the most marginalised in the UK. Including those with language difficulties (through learning issues and not knowing English well, or then through poor translation into the language they know).

But hey! If it makes the group that Balletcat centres feel better, that is all that matters. Because that group exists as one simultaneously that is:

so very tiny yet has changed the meaning of so many words to suit their specific needs….

have rates of sex crime that is at least the same rate of offending as all other UK male people, yet should be welcomed into female single sex spaces….

But yes… half of the population understanding the language was enough for that poster.

The world has gone absolutely insane. If you told me 20 years ago that people would be actually going along with this nonsense one day I’d have been laughing my head off. And yet here we are. And m not laughing. I’m fucking terrified of what is going on.

Yep, obtaining a GRC swearing that you’ll live your life ‘as a man’ then bearing two children, twice, surely renders this GRC null and void, and shows what a mockery it is.

If memory serves correctly, didn’t Freddy chastise a healthcare professional for calling Freddy ‘she’. Like that professional didn’t have better things to do, like safely delivering a baby.

Operation Let Them Speak going well, I see! A third of the general public are stupid. Wonderful PR for your movement.

https://murrayblackburnmackenzie.org/2023/08/07/clarity-matters-how-placating-lobbyists-obscures-public-understanding-of-sex-and-gender/

You'd think not, and yet the egregious Freddy McConnell has not only done this twice but had the gall to try to change the law so that Freddy would be shown on the babies' birth certificates as their father instead of their mother. Fortunately this attempt failed. Freddy has also claimed that nobody pointed out to Freddy that having a double mastectomy would mean not being able to breastfeed if Freddy became pregnant. Perhaps the health care staff were naive enough to think that a female who identifies as a man would not want to become pregnant, give birth and feed a baby. More fool them! Freddy got a Gender Recognition Certificate, enabling Freddy to get a new birth certificate saying that Freddy is male, not female, by swearing an oath that Freddy intended to live as a man for the rest of Freddy's life, and within days was down at the fertility clinic arranging treatment to become pregnant.

Freddy has a bushy moustache in all the pictures I've seen. This implies that Freddy is on testosterone. I would hope that Freddy stopped taking that during the pregnancies but because many of the bodily changes a female experiences from taking high doses of testosterone are permanent I wonder how well understood the risks to a developing foetus are when such a female becomes pregnant.

It won't happen, but the Gender Recognition Act should be repealed. It isn't fit for purpose. Nobody can change sex and the law should not be involved in pretending they can.

How do LLL get investigated - surely the bullying in that last link would be enough to get them to be looked at by the charity commission here?

"On one occasion, a leader opposed to our position said that they hoped all those who disagreed with their view on inclusion would “hurry up and die”. There has been schoolyard-level bullying, name-calling and ad hominem attacks across social media. This is something I endured for months and that other trustees are still enduring." www.thetimes.com/article/dbc0da0f-9255-47d9-8819-f407afeb233c?shareToken=0104affbaef0be8bc38b6f33d859c0aa

All this abuse on women so that men can get their nipples sucked by babies

I started another thread on this which I've asked to take down as it replicates.

www.thetimes.com/article/dbc0da0f-9255-47d9-8819-f407afeb233c?shareToken=0104affbaef0be8bc38b6f33d859c0aa

The bullying described here is shocking - LLL must be investigated. This cannot be allowed to continue.

(Actually we all know that some men are unable to cope with not being the centre of attention after a baby is born. That probably has a lot to do with this.)

Oh, I think it can, because none of those people matter as much as the very special male people who deserve kindness more than anyone else, including newborn babies and their mothers.

The men who want to suckle babies are fetishists. The men who attend breastfeeding classes for the purpose of suckling babies are either fetishists or mentally ill. Healthy people know that men shouldn't be breastfeeding.

Irrespective of their reasons, we've come full circle. Why are people allowing this to happen and caving under pressure to pander to perverts?

The only conclusion I can come to is that they gain a kind of vicarious pleasure from seeing these men intimidate women and get off on their fantasies. Abusers collude with abusers.

I think the point of the male people who claim to be women are the ones who are seeking treatments to induce the secretions. Whereas male people who are not inducing secretions might just access the group for the transgression of female people's boundaries and using those female people for their own motivations.

Neither is appropriate. But the added concern of feeding infants is why the focus is on those male people in particular.

I'm not sure why people are focusing solely on TW when any man can declare themselves a woman for the sole reason of predation.

We've seen this in prisons where authorities lost their minds and put dangerous sex offenders in with female prisoners.

I would agree with whomever talks about authentic TW being a tiny percentage of the population. In fact before this craze took off, I don't think I'd ever met a single genuine TW.

Now however, any man can simply declare himself a woman and can access women's spaces. There are men walking around naked in front of children in changing rooms.

Men are trying on bras in John Lewis and in changing rooms in shops where teenagers may be getting changed. Boys are allowed in girl's changing rooms at school and in their toilets.

Untrained men are sitting in on women's therapy sessions asking them inappropriate questions about rape and denying them male free groups. Men are in nurse's changing rooms at work making them feel unsafe.

I'm suspicious of anyone advocating for that.

I honestly don't think it does bother people like @BalletCat .

Women being collateral damage just doesn't seem to be a concern for the TRAs. 🤷‍♀️

Have a look at this and see if you still honestly believe that they're the most marginalised group in the UK:

https://transcrimeuk.com/

It would seem that TW are far and away more likely to be perpetrators, rather than victims.

Using the word cis is a bit like, as an analogy, the words haram and halal.

For example it's in the dictionary. I know what it means. Many people believe in it. But I personally don't, for example I eat pork.

I'd be eyebrow-raising if official things like the NHS or the civil service gave out information that eating pork is haram, or I got sanctioned at work for saying that I eat pork sometimes. Or if I was pressured to wear a lanyard or name badge with the word halal written on it or something.

Nb this is an analogy. I've no problem with people's beliefs as long as they don't control my behaviour or speech.

BalletCat · Yesterday 18:48

Why does some trans people committing crimes makes all trans people dangerous?

Nobody is saying that all transw are dangerous, however, they retain male pattern offending, no matter what they wear, or whether they take oestrogen. In UK prisons, trans identifying - TW - represent 3 times the background number of other male prisoners, when it comes to crimes of sex and violence against women and children.

Does that not bother you?

Coming back to ‘these aren’t my terms’ and the point about them being in the dictionary.

The word infidel is in the dictionary too. Do you allow someone to categorise you as an infidel if you don’t believe in their religion? It too is widely used.

There are lots of terms just like this.

BalletCat

Bloody hell. They aren't my terms! They are widely known terms that are part of our language!

It's a widely rejected term.

Indeed Keating.

The ability to moralise on language while not being able to understand what the impact is when women are silenced because they are not using language acceptable to those who dismiss the issue in any way is one we see all too often, isn't it? It is like the discussion about being 'untoward about paedophiles'.

Seriously though. It is an interesting distractive technique that reveals a lot about the person. It is like we keep pointing out.

The escalation:

'It is not happening, you are all just bigots'

'Oh, that example! That was just the one. It is not happening'

'What do you mean there are all these others! It is not happening that much. Why are you frothing so hard about it. Who cares that a child/children/women are being harmed, it is just not that many'.

'Of course it is happening but stop pointing out this behaviour that portrays this group in such poor light!' BIGOTS!

Those who take any of these approaches never answer a direct question about how many children or female people they feel is acceptable before they themselves stop censuring those who are discussing it? Well there was that one who declared they wouldn't care unless it was about 30 women/children harmed. And that male poster with a transgender identity who declared that unless over 100 women and girls were harmed each year they would not consider that there was any issue at all with male people with transgender identities accessing single sex spaces.

Apart from those two, any person asked to quantify their belief that this is not happening or their censuring just disappear.