Breastfeeding is now chestfeeding, Brighton’s trans-friendly midwives are told

@Nettleskeins I agree with what you say in a specific situation. But the policy advice is for the support of the cognitive dissonance to become the "norm". Are you making an argument that motherhood is irrelevant?

There's 'chestfeeding' used as a polite euphemism for mothers who identify as trans men, and then there's 'chestfeeding' used to describe what I think is still hypothetical (but others here might correct me) - trans women being given hormones so that they can produce a milk-like substance to feed their child (who their female partner has given birth to), often with unsettling sexual overtones.

It’s dumb. End of. Anyway.

But these are women, biologically speaking. And they need support.
Which is why it is respectful, in this instance, at a moment of extreme cognitive dissonance, as someone had so rightfully said, not point out to them they are crazy and mixed up, but encourage them to be as nurturing of their babies as possible...hence chestfeeding instead of denying that particular expression of nurture. It benefits both parties, mother (transman) and baby in the interim and perhaps makes labels less important long-term for that "parent". Maybe it is healing.

The day I found out I was pregnant my life changed. 3 miscarriages later I gave birth. 20 years later my kids have been my number one priority in all decisions. Actually am just emerging enough to be able to discuss motherhood on Mumsnet. Accepting of trans people is one thing. Changing our entire understanding of motherhood is another. I don't accept that.

Men do occasionally secrete fluid from their nipples. It's usually a sign of something quite seriously wrong, and is one of the presenting symptoms of breast cancer in men.

I might be missing something major BUT surely there are going to be a LOT of hungry babies seeing as "chests" don't produce milk and breast's DO

WTAF are people thinking? Poor babies. I don't think men have milk ducts, do they?

Well, bonkers as it may be, still, there have been a couple of terrifying cases in America where medical professionals neglected to consider that their patient might be a transman - in one case, the transman (who didn't realise they were pregnant) had a stillbirth when earlier intervention might have led to a live birth; in the other case a transman neglected to mention this fact in the course of being treated for advanced kidney disease - and unfortunately blood levels which in a man indicate "keep an eye on this case, may need to progress to dialysis" indicate "about to die, look for a transplant right now" in a woman, which, biologically speaking, is what the transman was.

It is bonkers, but it's led to some dangerous cases, so I don't blame HCPs for covering their arse.

Nor is my beef with transmen who want to be referred to as "birthing individuals" or "chest-feeders" themselves. As just pointed out, it may not be the most psychologically healthy place for them to be, to live with that level of cognitive dissonance, but "not my circus, not my monkeys."

My only complaint is when that nonsense language is extended to me, against my directly expressed wishes.

[quote JoodyBlue]@notyourhandmaid it is not about how people raise their kids. It is about the kids. I have been close to several people in my life who didn't have their mum. It affects people deeply, from early childhood often over the course of a lifetime. If you have kids, your life is then about the kids. Or it should be in my opinion. Yes it is a judgement. I make no apology.[/quote]
I do understand where you're coming from. But.

These kids have their mum. How their mum identifies may be confusing and is hopefully explained in an appropriate way, just like same-sex parents explain things to their kids, but their mum is around.

The idea that your life becomes about your kids is something that only ever seems to apply to mothers, rather than fathers. This is different from the wellbeing of your kids being your top priority. Sometimes your own stuff has to come into that. If your husband hits you but not your kids, and they don't know about it, should you suck it up because he makes enough money for them to have a nice life? At what point does it hurt your kids if you, as their mum, identify as a man?

(I don't know the answer to this. I don't think it's automatically a bad or dangerous situation for kids to be in. I do agree that it could be, if a personal gender identity trumps all reality, and my reading here is that you take 'chestfeeding' as a sign that this is happening, so I do see where you're coming from.)

It's all becoming rather Orwellian and confusing. Today my DH (ordinary bog standard boring / traditional male) went for an x ray and was asked if he was pregnant.

Yes he was. Because as the nurse said "they couldn't know if he was trans man and pregnant".

Clinicians are trying to solve pyschological problems with labels, when the individuals MAY need something much more important, therapeutic help, someone listening and supporting, being included and valued. But not just because they are "trans" but because they are parenting precious newborns and then toddlers and kids.

I think language is very important.

I suppose that someone who feels so uncomfortable about themselves as to strive to be the opposite gender, or appear to live as the opposite gender DOES need support, even if it is ridiculous on one level to change the language, does it do anyone any harm to go along with their wishes briefly...but definitely keep an eye on the developing situation, as the support might extend to dealing with other mental health issues in that vulnerable woman. Language is not the most important issue but support for someone feeling isolated or perhaps suicidal, and a new mother IS.

@JoodyBlue they'll probably change the name Mumsnet too 🤦🏼‍♀️

Men can nurture and love babies in the same way that women can, I genuinely believe there is no difference in "parenting" skills. But when you are talking about a lived physical experience of pregnancy, birth and lactation, how can that not be biological fact, or biological essentials. It doesn't make you a better parent, no, but it cannot be denied as a female gendered experience, not to say a biologically essential fact.

I do get someone feeling like a man the rest of the time, happier as a father than a mother (whatever that means, although it is debatable that it has any meaning except biological fact) but if you are going through the physical hormonal experiences of a woman, surely your transness expires for that period of time???

@DisgustedofManchester agree, adding terms is the way forward.

Women and birthing parents is a way of being inclusive for transmen, while including a term that is clear enough for those who don't speak much English.

We need to include transmen in antenatal, perinatal and postnatal care. Anyone who is female, especially if there's intersectional issues with inclusion, needs barriers removing in so many areas of life.

I am so fed up of reading articles like this. They are trying to change the way we view our own bodies just to suit them. If you speak up you get in trouble.

Strange, the article says at the end obviously once you have gooten past the anti-trans click bait rhetoric...

"Staff will be asked to use language that reflects people’s “own identities and preferences” when talking to patients. "

So basically use language appropriate the patients. Sort of like not calling the lesbian partner of a mother 'dad'... Its easy to be respectful

this site is called mumsnet for a reason

@notyourhandmaid it is not about how people raise their kids. It is about the kids. I have been close to several people in my life who didn't have their mum. It affects people deeply, from early childhood often over the course of a lifetime. If you have kids, your life is then about the kids. Or it should be in my opinion. Yes it is a judgement. I make no apology.

Judging how other people raise their kids... let's not.

SapphosRock, this is one of those 'thin end of the wedge' issues. It begins with tailoring language for specific individuals and it ends with this language being made the standard, with ostracising and punishing women who don't go along with it or dare to raise questions about it. We've seen it happen with transwomen in sports, which IIRC was an issue that made you go 'hold on...' - I'm not saying this is exactly the same but there are very valid reasons people are upset over it, why it is 'a big deal'.

and men don't birth babies

You're right Austriana

It is why it is so important to separate out: what is inclusion, what is inclusive language, and where is the line with gynephobia and enabling another agenda altogether. As the SNP are now demonstrating: one agenda often provides a Trojan horse for another and there are real dangers in this for female people. When female people merely saying 'hang on a minute, we need our words included too ' and it's called 'baying' and 'hate' and 'transphobia' - no, that's gynephobia, and that is not inclusion. It's not ok.