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

I have not shamed people for not agreeing.

I simply don't believe that people can't understand the terminology. I believe it is either willful ignorance or people trying to make a point about it all being too confusing because these people are so strange and otherworldly we couldn't possibly have any hope of understanding them.

If you think calling people out on their behaviour towards people who are different to them is shaming them then we have different definitions of shaming.

I think we have a poster who needs to shame people for not agreeing with them, but who might not agree with male people feeding their secretions from their nipples to infants.

However, the actions of shaming women for discussing the issue because those women are not discussing it in a way acceptable for that poster is an act of silencing. Whether it is intended to be or not. And it is a common tactic as we have experienced and seen in action many times.

The end result is that women stop discussing it and the awareness that it is indeed happening starts to lower. Who does that benefit? I think we are well aware it is not the infants in these cases.

Please show where I have done this.

They asked you if you understood what supporting male people feeding secretions from their nipples meant? That is the topic of the thread that you are here shaming people on.

You ARE supporting child abuse however. So can you explain your rationale for that?

Right. So, you just choose to shame others who don't share your opinion and have actually found where it is a very weak and inaccurate descriptor and philosophically, who feel that the term does indeed force them into being described as believing something they don't.

You just choose to shame people who don't agree fully with you.

I think we worked that out. Thanks for answering.

They literally accused me of supporting child abuse which is a disgusting accusation to make. Not many people take that accusation politely. Some would call it abusive.

In chemistry and geography it is a valid word as people on this thread have already said.

It is not an accurate term, therefore not a meaningful term, to categorise humans, even though it only in reality applies to those human's philosophical belief. For that purpose, the word 'cis' was never accurate nor meaningful.

Because, it means that female people do not have a term that uniquely describes them. Here is the link to the post on page 5, but I have also included a handy graphic just in case.

www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5209721-chest-feeding-men-should-not-be-put-above-women-and-babies-by-la-leche-league-reasonable?page=5

I would never introduce myself to someone as a cis woman or define myself as a cis woman but if someone used the term to describe me I would not be offended and would call it an accurate description.

The cis is unnecessary but not offensive. It's no more offensive to me than a gay person calling me a straight woman. I don't see the problem with it, it's just a descriptive term it's not an insult.

How about you tell us whether you accept the categorisation of yourself as either trans or cis as I asked up thread?

I don't mean for you to tell us which you would accept, just if you, personally, accept this categorisation standard to include yourself.

Please define abusive then with your mastery of the English language you claim to have.

I am accusing you of being abusive yes. I have not accused you of being an extreme activist. I have stated that you are using the tactics that extreme activists use - that being shaming others who have valid and legitimate concerns.

Maybe though, we have different meanings of 'shaming', 'valid and legitimate concerns'.And perhaps 'planet' . That is very possible these days.

Edited to add this was one of your posts to another poster: You're being a cunt. I don't think your claim that you are not abusive on this thread really stands up to scrutiny.

And I've only just noticed that SIX PERCENT of voters on this thread are fighting for the rights of men to involve newborns in their fetish play.

Staggering

I find it offensive and I don't refer to myself as cis and don't want to be referred as cis. I hope you respect everyone's feelings.

No it doesn't. It's teaching children an ideology that is akin to a religious belief is real. It doesn't just mean same.

It's is extremely offensive to those of us who believe that gender ideology is harmful and regressive.

I don't think any child should be taught it. Trans women are male and have nothing in common with women, they are definitely NOT the same as women in any single respect. Cis simply is superfluous. Not needed.

Cis just means same. Children learn it in chemistry and in geography. It's not a difficult word to understand or offensive.

You're seriously accusing me of being an extreme activist and an abuser?

You really are on a other planet.

The doctor you refer to did an analysis on a study and declared that they would never do this to their child, and that doctor had the chance to do so. It was Madeleine Duetsch.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5209721-chest-feeding-men-should-not-be-put-above-women-and-babies-by-la-leche-league-reasonable?page=1

‘we are going to invent a nonsensical and non scientifically accurate term for breastfeeding in order to pretend that it has nothing to do with being female, why have we not also invented nonsensical and non scientifically accurate terms for menstruation, cervix and other female body parts?

I expect it’s just around the corner. The Right Honourable David Lammy , Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, has stated ‘a cervix, I understand, is something that you can have, following various procedures and hormone treatment and all the rest of it.’

So I suppose that in the brave new world of medicine, I am the proud possessor of a ‘cis-cervix’.

WHAT good does this do the baby, and what benefit do they get from it?
PLEASE answer that if you are on this thread defending this practice.

There is NO benefit for the child, no male has, even with chemical assistance, breast fed an infant exclusively without the need for supplemental formula, because the quantities produced are tiny compared to the actual needs of the baby.
So if there is no benefit on the INFANT'S side, that means the benefit is on the side of the "mother". Can we dare to ask what kind of benefit they might be receiving?
It's 100% about validation.
The baby is a PROP, part of the role play, nothing more.

I'm pretty sure that a trans-woman doctor did a study on this themselves and concluded that it was not beneficial to the infant, not sure if anyone on the thread has already linked to this.

Where are the studies showing a) chemically induced liquid from a man is safe b) that puberty blockers / cross sex hormones / testosterone blockers do not pass into the secretions, and if they do, what the long term effects of this might be, c) the psychological implications for a child and long-term adult, when they learn that they were subjected to this as an infant.

Clue - you won't find those studies because they have not been done.
There IS no long term data.

For those screeching "transphobia", have a look at what you're advocating for.
Ask why it even needs to be a thing when there are so many other options available (formula, donor milk, allowing the real mother to feed the baby).

If Tom down the road decided he wanted to stick his nipple into a baby's mouth and allow it to nurse from him, would you think this is okay? If not, why not?

What difference does it make that Tom now calls himself Betty and wear a dress and makeup? A feeling in a man's head does not excuse what we all know this is.

"Research has found that 35 per cent wrongly believed that a transgender woman was someone born female, or they were unsure. Apparently, they're even more confused about the term “trans woman”, with 40 per cent either being unsure or believing it meant someone who was registered female at birth."

What is really interesting about this discussion on language is that when someone declares that the majority of people believe that transwomen are women, that claim takes on a completely different perspective! It was never true, in any case. However, it really can be shown to be a false claim with that survey's findings.