Employment law and pregnant men

Thank you, @CharlieParley. It’s not a subject I know too much about.

Women are pretty incredible, really.

SporadicSpartacus From the actual paper it's clear that the trans identified male in question did not produce sufficient milk to exclusively feed the baby.

But quantity is just one issue. A mother's body produces colostrum in the first few days which provides important protection and nutrients for the baby. This is so vital that in cases where mum is still nursing an older child and gives birth to a new baby, her body resets milk production to benefit the baby (ie labour induces a restart of lactation from colostrum onwards).

A woman's body also produces different kinds of milk in different quantities depending on the needs of the nursing baby. It's an interplay a man's body is not capable of mimicking, it simply doesn't function that way.

That being said, there are many many reasons why breastfeeding doesn't work out for mother and/or baby. I see no point in anyone beating themselves up for not being able to do this - today's baby formula is excellent and babies who are exclusively formula fed are thriving just as much as breastfed ones.

If at all possible, just the first two weeks would be highly beneficial but if it isn't, it doesn't mean you're an inadequate or bad mother. The only important thing is to ensure that the baby is properly fed, and dreams of breastfeeding sometimes have to stay dreams for the benefit of the baby. It should come first. Always.

Interesting thread.

I would like to know a bit more of the science, ie it’s been mentioned upthread that chemically-induced male lactation wouldn’t supply enough milk or would pass the drugs onto the baby - is there any research to confirm either way?

While I find it a bit depressing that this amount of complicated is the answer rather than being gender non-conforming parents (and setting a great example for the child in so doing - why not be a mother who does the ‘Dad stuff’) - I’m another one who wishes keyboard and his partner well. It must take some (metaphorical) balls to come on here and talk about something so personal and painful, given that MN is characterised as a pit of shrieking transphobe snake harpies on Twitter etc.

While I do sympathise with jellyfish I can confirm that the his is on its knees and every women who goes through the hell that is infertility is met with misognony and innuendo from so called specialists as to the cause of our infertility.

I would also like to ask jellyfish why she thinks it's a good idea to give her partner a cocktail of drugs to make them lactate, maybe, and think that the milk is safe enough, or even enough, to give to their possible future child?

I couldn't lactate and was refused drugs because they are not deemed safe especially for baby. Would it not be better bottle feed? I don't feel less of a mother because I didn't breastfeed tbh.

I also think your partner should look into the responsibility of the clinic which started them on gr drugs, seeing as they didn't pit forth the option of freezing his sperm as I do believe they are supposed to do

I'm trying really hard to understand this but i think this was nailed several posts ago.

My god, while the NHS is on its knees, there are people who not only think the NHS should supply them with hormones to make them infertile, but should then pay for fertility treatment afterwards.

Everyone has choices to make but there are also consequences.

There are many people who are infertile who struggle to get funding.

I'm sorry you are in this position OP, but I think this is an example of why the whole premise of gender is fundamentally unhelpful.

The definition of female is that of gestator of the species. The definition does not include feeling like conforming to stereotypes. It's completely illogical to say you don't identify with your biological role in the reproductive process, yet plan to fulfil that role.
People who follow this illogical view clearly have been manipulated into thinking 'woman' and 'man' means 'feeling like performing a stereotype'.
Free yourself from the shackles of this ideology! Dress how you like! Sleep with who you like!
Just don't tell the rest of us that biological descriptors now mean 'feelings' and that we are being hateful and bigoted.

Keyboard, how old are you?

I’m alarmed by your comment about your partner breastfeeding. There is no way a male, even with a cocktail of chemicals, can produce enough milk to satisfy a growing baby. There is also no need, as you will be able to feed or give formula which is proven to be safe. That one case that was touted in the media has so many holes and questions (it was based entirely on the TW’s account that they managed to feed) that it proves nothing.

I worry that you’re being encouraged to do difficult and dangerous reproductive Labour, which is not compatible with your identity or dysphoria, so your partner can fulfil a fantasy of motherhood.

I guess Eresh. But up until then ttcing is incredibly stressful and really rather pointless if they both have fertility problems.
If it is known that there is a problem with the sperm have they done all the tests on Keyboard or is Keyboard just assuming that PCOS means no babies?
If they will be using a donor anyway could that not be done at home?

I think they'd use a sperm donor, Simon.

This thread highlights the fundamental problem with gender ideology.
Feminists argue the only difference between men and women are their role in the reproductive process. Yes, women are more likely to be "feminine", but a predilection to "masculinity" does not mean you are less of a woman.
Then along comes transgender ideology. Suddenly it is horrifying to be a butch woman, you must be a man, pretend to be a man. Yet butch women have been having babies for ever...
The real problem here is subscribing to the fallacious view that what makes you a woman is ladybrain, and what makes you a man is manbrain.
Whereas actually if you define them in their real meanings as role in the reproductive process then the dysphoria goes poof!
What's needed is NOT body altering medical intervention to conform to some mystical brain soul.
What's needed is a health dose of radical feminism. Countless people on reddit gender critical have cited it as the key thing that resolved their dysphoria.

Keyboard I hope this question isn’t too personal but I have been down the infertility road and have a good knowledge of the process.

You say that your partner has been rendered infertile due to the hormones and you have PCOS and other unexplained problems. However if your partner is infertile then are you sure that you wouldn’t be able to conceive naturally anyway? Any ttcing would be effectively pointless. Have you had investigations?
This is nothing to do with being trans btw, just one infertile person to another.

Fertility issues need to be made absolutely EXPLICIT to people wanting medical transition, and where they are not provdied on NHS / not possible this also needs to be EXPLICIT

A little while ago I came across the website for a clinic in San francisco which was commendable in how it set out the implications of GRS for men. In very factual and clear words it explained how even taking a low dose of female hormones could prevent someone from fathering a child, as although in most cases normal erectile and sperm-producing functions returned after stopping hormones, in some cases they did not. So even at the initial stage patients were encouraged to consider sperm freezing. I really hope that everyone who is considering any form of intervention is given similarly clear information about the implications and their options (although that doesn't completely address the issue about younger people probably not seeing themselves wanting children)

Of course that's where the brave new world could help women wanting to be sterilised - just say you're really a man, job done.

Yet a childless 18year old can choose to be sterilised? It makes no sense.

Because that 18 year old is either male or wanting to become male.
Silly woman don’t know their own minds and are simply there to provide babies.
One of the reasons I have seen for not allowing a woman who was pleading to be sterilised is that she might divorce and remarry and her new husband might want babies.

The best thing to do re laws and regulations is to consider the impact on the whole of society and ensure they are workable and consider and balance the rights of all involved.

This ^

Fertility issues need to be made absolutely EXPLICIT to people wanting medical transition, and where they are not provdied on NHS / not possible this also needs to be EXPLICIT

YY. Though I fear this could be framed as "conversion therapy".

Jellyfish's partner has insufficient sperm after hormone treatment & will need a donor, but Jellyfish's OWN fertility is unrelated to being trans/hormone treatment (they have had none) and is due to PCOS and something as yet unidentified. This could happen to anyone and is no reason for denying fertility treatment.

I'm pretty sure this also applies in most cases to women in a couple where the male partner has had children previously. In many regions they are denied IVF I think? Agree in both cases this is wrong, whatever I think about the specific issues here.

Sardine I thought that about hysterectomy.

My friend asked for one at 26 with 5 children. She had got pregnant while on the pill, coil and implant.

It took 2 years, when she was 28, to find a doctor to agree and refer her as she was viewed as too young initially. Two years of celibacy as they didnt date take the risk with any form of protection.

Yet a childless 18year old can choose to be sterilised? It makes no sense.

HOLD ON A MINUTE

"In some areas of the UK, sperm banking is available free on the NHS. In other areas you have to pay for it. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommend that sperm storage is available to men who might become infertile because of cancer treatment. But each area can choose whether they store sperm for free or whether you need to pay.

If you do need to pay, the cost varies from area to area. Collecting and freezing the samples can cost between £200 and £400. Then you pay about £300 a year to store them."

Is this offered as a paid service to men who medically transition? IF SO then there is no discrimination here.

Clearly they SHOULD be offering it to men who medically transition, a fee seems reasonable if other men who have treatments that may render them infertile can and do pay on the NHS in some (?many) parts of the country.

On the fertility thing,

A friend had cancer in his early 20s and the NHS (I assume actually, I never asked) froze and stored sperm for him.

The fertility issue here is complicated. The point that the trans advcocates are making is that for some, medical transition is necessary for mental health, to avoid serious adverse outcomes. For those with dysphpria (and let's face it, that's a small segment of the trans umbrella) I think and would be happy to support the same approach. That the treatment for a medical (psychological) condition is necessary, affects fertility, and so sperm can be frozen.

One question though. Trans advocates are working to get trans identities seen as NOT anything psychological or medical, so I'm not sure how this will work with accessign treatment.

For becunted people, it's more complex. When women have hysterectomies, that's a "no going back" type thing. Eggs can be frozen I think BUT then you'd need a surrogate supplied on the NHS and as this is the feminism board I feel quite comfortable saying we do NOT want to go there. If anyone want to discuss surrogacy (globally) let's have a thread - let me know I can start one. My views on this have hardened over the years and I'd be happy to have a conversation around it.

Anyway for becunted people I don't see a way around it. If you opt to get it all whipped out then it's game over, surely.

Fertility issues need to be made absolutely EXPLICIT to people wanting medical transition, and where they are not provdied on NHS / not possible this also needs to be EXPLICIT. I'd be surprised if it isnt' already TBH. This is where the treatment of young people including teenagers is a problem. Interestingly adult women (like late 20s and ?older loads of threads on here) who seek sterilisation are often told no because they might change their minds, yet with medical transition much younger people are deemed to be able to decide? Is it mainly one direction this happens though, and that direction involves people whose decisions society respects and who are provdied full bodily autonomy?

Drugs used once in Canada to make a TW lactate:

here

"When a transgender woman told doctors at a hospital in New York that she wanted to breast-feed her pregnant partner’s baby, they put her on a regimen of drugs that included an anti-nausea medication licensed in Britain and Canada but banned in the United States."

If all that is required is the same hormones as women use to lactate, why multiple drugs used?

"I know surrogacy can sometimes be an option, but the road is longer and legally trickier."

Any other considerations?
"The drug that helps trans women lactate is currently not legal in the UK but is in Canada."
In this line you are talking about your partner. Most women do not need drugs to help them lactate. There are some ? around the drugs that have been used in Canada to make TW lactate.
This statement is the sort of statement that is misleading. Anyone reading it would thiknk you meant women of the type who have breasts and usually lactate automatically when they have a baby. When this isn't possible then drugs can be provided in the UK I'm sure - I've read about it on here. So if you launch a campaign to get drugs for women who can't lactate after they have a baby made legal, it will be entirely confusing. Because, words have meanings.

"No. You will be the mother. You will be the person who supplied the ovum, who grew the baby in your womb, who gave birth. That is LITERALLY the definition of mother"

OK if these people aren't mothers then what is the definition? Is it about identifying as a mother? What will that mean in practice across the board for laws etc written around children? I see that a person's ID is sacrosanct and how others view them is immaterial. But, there are times when there are facts that need to be taken into account, like who gave birth, who provided sperm etc etc that outweigh self ID, and for very good reason.

I would be extremely keen to hear your definition of "mother".

On the fertility side, your situation is unremarkable, given that (if I understand your posts correctly) you have had no surgery or hormones. It's a bad situation, but is unremarakble. Many people with your body configuration - uterus bearers (? is that an OK term?) are in the same boat as you.

Your partner's situation is different. If the NHS will not provide treatment then you have considered sperm donation. OK. But you are looking ahead and saying you are being blocked from proceeding due to a. your own fertility issues (which are what they are and from your posts seems unrelated to your trans status) and b. because your partner may not be able to access drugs to induce lactation - why is this a blocker? FF may not be ideal but is the method of feeding really a blocker to having a baby?

I can see this being a huge issue in a few years.

Most of us at age 19ish do not want children. The NHS almost always refuse to sterilise at that age as its understood people change their minds.

But if someone chooses at 19 to go on hormones which render them infertile then 10/20 years later wish to start a family, what happens?

Even freezing sperm and eggs is not really an answer if one fully transitions.