A transwoman feeding their new born baby with their own milk..

I'm assuming WPATH support the domperidone protocol for TW btw, I'm not 100% sure. Given their stance on eunuchs and links to That Website I'm just assuming. Can anyone enlighten?

Deleting posts where posters have used the wrong terminology is like shooting fish in the dark now tbh.

Pertinent recent conversation with Gluck Re WPATH.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=mS8ZfFZ-Bc0

Ok so I'm going to go a step further.

Within a family where all parents see it as entirely acceptable for the TW parent to give breast excretions to a newborn, and invest huge amount of drugs, time an effort in this.

I'm wondering what else they see as acceptable?

What boundaries do they have?

Given Gluck's most recent articles around the links to a eunuch archives website and WPATH stating in draft guidelines that eunuch is an acceptable gender identity, by turning a blind eye or even pom pom waving, aren't we enabling that child to grow in an environment where trans identities are not just accepted (fine-ish) but are celebrated and promoted? Leading that child to seek puberty blockers Aka chemical castration? And the associated health risks etc.

I'm really struggling to see why anyone supports any of this and do they know what they're supporting from a wider perspective?

This is why in a way this is a moot point - it's all the other factors we need to consider that red flag their way to this being risks for narcissistic attitudes around having and caring for a vulnerable baby. That baby's needs are being put second.

I started a low dose of transdermal hrt while feeding my then toddler and it did reduce my supply a little. It's not advised to use cop or hrt when est bf. However I did read that transdermal hrt has been used to help with pnd. (I'm extremely annoyed that there was actually more info on males lactating than there was on whether I could use natural transdermal hrt when still bfing on various bf support websites )

So I imagine it's one of the reasons why they find it difficult. (Apart from being a different sex obvs.)

Male detransitioners describe struggling to gain moobs with high amounts of oestrogen and needing testosterone blockers on top.

Given they would only "naturally" lactate with a pituitary tumour, messing about with various hormones including prolactin, the domperidone must mess about with that.

I'd appreciate someone more knowledgeable, but it sounds like this is the reason why it's phenomenally difficult and thus a selfish waste of time when you've a new born and a tired new mother. Plus what ever the hell additional medication they're on. I'd also query the medical impact of cross sex hormones plus these other drugs on the health of the male too.

I'm aware that a number of male detransitioners are struggling with severe health issue including osteoporosis due to lack of testosterone.

I just don’t like inconsistent arguments, is all.

As you phrased it there, that's not an inconsistent argument - whatever number of external drugs they're taking, they still wouldn't be mimicking a woman's endocrine system.

I doubt anyone was meaning "they should be taking more than just oestrogen".

Also, how much estrogen are these males taking? Considering their dose is 3-4 times HRT?

I shall go and have a look about that. I do remember there is a surge of hormones (estrogen?) to heal the body so that might not be as relevant.

Can I just reiterate that my original point was about consistency of argument. I’ve seen plenty of posts here over the years articulating the point that it takes more than oestrogen shots to mimic a woman’s endocrine system - for example when referring to TW claiming period symptoms - which implies that TW are only taking oestrogen. Now the argument is that they’re taking far more than that including drugs which could be harmful to a baby.

Whatever they’re taking, I’m opposed to them trying to bf because they’re doing it for themselves not the good of the child (and I made that quite clear in my first post). I just don’t like inconsistent arguments, is all.

And I am talking only about this experiment and not a medically necessary treatment.

This treatment is solely for the adult. Not one poster has produced a benefit to the infant. Not one

This baby is being used as a guinea pig to feed the mental issues of some person. How has it come to this?

Those supporting this seem to be hoping nobody notices that they've not looked into this.

yes exactly.

And we need to keep repeating the call for this proof. Because it seems there are some people in the world who think that a few infants being experimented on is ok if the parents agree.

That doesn’t surprise me. And TBH even if there were test results which showed all was fine and dandy and safe, I’m so jaded and cynical these days that I wouldn’t trust the results until they’d been peer-reviewed to fuck by the most GC scientists working in the field that I could find.

That ‘if all’ is doing a lot of work in ’But OTOH, if all a TW trying to lactate is taking is oestrogen and domperidone, then there’s not a huge amount of difference there - in terms of chemical composition of output’

That assumes that the male has had their testes removed for a start. Otherwise they may have testosterone suppression drugs.

Also, Testosterone itself. It has been said by endocrinologists that a male body, even after transitioning, still requires some T. Hence the maximum was set at 10 nml for sports participation. And athletes with male differences of sex development have argued it is medically unsafe to lower their T to anything near the maximum T a woman produces - even those with supposedly high T (note, females with high T do not have levels that high except, I believe in cases of some cancers. I am very happy to be corrected until I go to find the numbers ).

What drugs have they taken to mature the breast enough to produce anything in any case?

The post linked up thread from lascapigliata is a good one to read.

Also, it needs to be remembered that the female breast produces milk that the infant needs depending on age, and other factors in an interchange with that infant.

This cannot be replicated at all.

So again, what benefit is the child getting from this?

Do we know if tests have been carried out on the two liquids to assess their respective chemical compositions?

Such tests seem mainly notable by their absence. You get the sense no-one has dared do the test in case they get the wrong answer.

Those supporting this seem to be hoping nobody notices that they've not looked into this.

Men can get breast cancer so there are obviously some similarities in the breast tissue, but IANAB (I am not a biologist).

That's actually a good example, in that cancer is "easy". All it takes is some runaway cell growth, so it's entirely plausible that whatever vestigial structures exist in the male breast are capable of starting down that path (even if it's less common).

But that's a long way away from actually producing milk.

With my maths hat on - cancer is "low entropy". It's chaos. Its a system falling out of order. If the organism is not in control, any random result is basically cancer.

Breast milk is "high entropy" - you're looking for something quite specific, and the complete system needs to be working well to get it. You're not going to get it by chance.

And if that system isn't already there and ready to go in a male, a mere crudge "nudge" from a couple of hormones isn't going to get the result you want.

Pressed enter too soon…my point was more that the “cocktail of drugs” argument doesn’t hold up IF the artificial chemicals in the male output are essentially the same as those produced naturally in breast milk by the female body, in so far as risk to the baby is concerned. And I appreciate there’s a lot riding on that “if”. Do we know if tests have been carried out on the two liquids to assess their respective chemical compositions?

Exactly @NecessaryScene. That image is actually from a medical article about men with breast cancer. That's what normal healthy male breast structure looks like. A male nipple producing liquid means there is something wrong and he needs urgent medical treatment.

Happy to be corrected TBH, as I said I don’t agree with males trying to breast feed for their own validation or worse. Men can get breast cancer so there are obviously some similarities in the breast tissue, but IANAB (I am not a biologist).

Just posting this image of the difference between mens and womens breast tissue again

Right, which was my point about comparisons other female mammals - they're going to have something far closer to the image on the right than the image on the left is.

I'd swear some people have a very fuzzy concept of what drugs can do.

Yes, you can give cross-sex hormones, and they can produce very simple effects like "engorge clitoris so it looks vaguely like a small penis" or "expand breast tissue to produce rather tubular breasts" or "increase hair growth" or "thicken vocal cord".

None of those are remotely in the realm of precision we're looking for with "start producing something actually good for babies to feed on".

We can slightly bend the body's behaviour - effectively inducing a disease. But we can't make it just do something new that it fundamentally doesn't already have the capability to do.

A drug to make a male produce milk at the minute seems as far-fetched as a drug to make a male grow an extra arm.

Sure, you can make a male produce some liquid, as I'm sure you could make a male grow some extra tissue. But we need something a bit more specific than "something coming out of the nipples".

Now, maybe it is possible, and there's a complete hidden milk production factory in there, but if so, I would have expected someone to have actually demonstrated it by now. But all I'm seeing is attempted diversions.

Scuse many grammar issues, didn't have my specs on and cba

Yet we have seen some posters attempt to justify it on this thread.

It's clearly phenomenally difficult to do properly and for any length of time. So its performative and affirmative and a few other things we aren't allowed to mention but is Gluck's specialist subject.

Ergo benefits only the male attempting.

So WHY, for the love of god WHY do women spend so much time justifying it? They need to really think about this. I'm seriously concerned about many women's boundaries within this context.

Just posting this image of the difference between mens and womens breast tissue again

But OTOH, if all a TW trying to lactate is taking is oestrogen and domperidone, then there’s not a huge amount of difference there - in terms of chemical composition of output - between that and a bf women needing assistance to stimulate supply.

Hang on, did I miss the bit where we established that males could produce milk at all?

From your same argument you could conclude that a woman's sperm was just as good as a man's, as long as she was taking the same medication as a man with fertility problems.

I'll concede that the necessary equipment for sperm is more clearly absent from a female than the necessary equipment for milk in a male, but you seem to be taking it as read as "absolutely all the equipment for milk is present in the male and just needs the same drugs as a female to stimulate it".

The fact that a male has vestigial nipple is not evidence of a complete functional latent milk production system that's just like a woman's needing a little bit of assistance.