Communication on new building - room available for 'chest feeding'

@Dadjoke2 didn't come back then to apologise for accusing a woman whose husband has breast cancer of being 'gloaty' about the diagnosis then?

Colour me surprised.

very valid point. When I was new to breast feeding the first time I did not want to be doing that in public and the third one had reflux and kept pulling off leaving me exposed mid feed. Second one I could feed anywhere. Only women understand these nuances. Not to mention women from other cultures where they might not feel comfortable getting their 'chest' out in the cafe. But the 99.9% of women represented in these categories don't seem to matter as much as the fraction of a fraction of a percentage of trans identifying women who might be triggered about the term breast-feeding, while simultaneaouly trying to feed their baby with one. Surely if you were that delicate you's stay at home to do it.

I remember, before the world went mad, when I had my first baby who is now a teen that big John Lewis' had large baby changing and feeding areas eg the one in Bluewater shopping centre. The main open bit had seating, toilets and baby chnaging that were unisex and you'd regulary see men and women in there with their babies feeding and changing them. There was also a sectioned off bit at the back with comfy seating, toilets, changing areas and individual cubicles which had signs explicitly staing women only. Any woman that wanted to feed or express privately or without men went in there. IKEA had similar. How the hell did we lose all common sense and respect for women and mothers?

I'm not anti-trans. I'm anti-stupidity, and pro-women. Are you?

Judging by that poster's work on several threads, it would seem not.

Re the use of 'baby feeding room' this could include men with formula bottles. I mostly wanted dedicated breastfeeding spaces to be women-only - I did breastfeed in public, and that was fine, but it was my choice when and where to do it. As for expressing milk with a pump, I did plenty of that but I really don't think I'd have done it in front of men.

@worriedrn you should go public with this when you are feeling stronger. I think you would get a lot of support nowaday. The vast majority of normal people have seen this BS for what it is now. I am incensed on your behalf. I really hope you are feeling well and getting better. I notice all the dickhead dadusernames have fucked off. I hope they feel shame for their bullying and appropriating of women's biological experiences, particularly yours, but I doubt it. These people have mothers, sisters, daughters in some case. Wtaf is wrong with them.

@worriedrn you have been treated disgracefully. You are and always be a woman, your name is your name, you don’t need a new name or a new identity.

I am so sorry you had to go through this. .

Thank you for kind messages. I do wonder whether men with testicular cancer are getting this kind of bs from mental health professionals and being asked what their gender identity is over and over again now they have one or less balls. The unacceptable answer seems to be to not have a gender identity. You have to choose one. Its like insisting an atheist choose a god even if they keep telling you they are an atheist. Why are people like this? Work's Employee Assistance Program pushed the 'you can do it, you can identify out of cancer' line with me but in the end I could only embrace the identity of being cancer-free (I explained that I had never visualised having cancer as a child or hoped I might have it at some stage) so when I said ok my gender identity is cancer-free they wanted me to pick a new name and so I said my name is Cancerfree to cement that my identity is all about not dying while my child is young. Work wouldn't let me have that name for my new identity because it was 'offensive' to people with cancer. What people like me? People being told they can identify out of it. Don't know what they are teaching counsellors and psychotherapists these days but they don't seem mentally well or stable in themselves. I had to print off emails to show my oncologist so she could understand/believe what I was telling her was true. She was pretty aghast. Macmillan have now changed their advice to highlight that identifying out of your bioligcal sex won't reduce your risk of cancer if it is related to your biological sex because it broke me speaking to them about this and getting their helpline t oacknowledge it wasn't within my grasp or ability t omagic the cancer away with just the power of my own words.

And the answer is always yes of course, people can use whatever words they want.

Apart from the fact that's not actually true in practice, the purpose of language is communication so advocating Humpty Dumptyism is foolish.
In case that's a new term for anyone reading:

idioms.thefreedictionary.com/Humpty+Dumptyism

On a completely unrelated topic, increasingly these days, I think what a wise old bird George Orwell was. He got the big things right, and crucially, more than most, he understood the importance of language. Newspeak is a brilliant concept.

@worriedrn I'm so sorry, this sounds truly awful. There's a bit of me genuinely doesn't understand how people can be so cruel. I hope you find someone kind and understanding to help you.

“You hold a baby to your chest when you feed them”

No you don’t. What absolute nonsense.

And you don’t hold a breast pump to your chest when you’re expressing breastmilk either. You hold the breast pump over your nipple and areola.

If your breastfeeding or expressing technique is to hold the baby or the pump to your chest, instead of the nipple and areola area of your breast, then your baby will starve.

Also night feeds can be done lying down with your baby lying beside you - but it’s your breast you’ll need to pop out of your nightie to stop the hunger-crying by feeding them, not your chest.

Your arguments are no more informed or convincing than DadJoke the first’s were.

So sorry for the women and men affected by breast cancer. Ridiculous how your comfort and your feelings aren't recognised, in favour of a tiny amount of confused or abused girls who will likely grow out of or move away from pretending to be men. Or will have voluntary doubt mastectomies so wouldn't be able to breast feed or express anyway.

That must have been another layer of stress that you certainly didn’t need.

Yep.

In this instance, many women find the term 'chestfeeding' offensive, as they are telling you here. So why should they bend to the will of a tiny, tiny minority who wish to use this neologism? On what basis?

'Be kind'

(or else)

Language does change of course, but I'm not sure there's evidence that top down decrees trying to force linguistic shifts onto the general populace work - at least not in the way intended.

What are the processes for neologisms becoming accepted? Is it a matter of consensus? Which groups use these words, words depend on shared meaning, and that depends on comprehension. So language is not just a matter of one person making up a word and gabbling it repeatedly - other people need to agree on its use - tacitly or explicitly. Language is about agreement, basically, it forms a kind of contract.

In this instance, many women find the term 'chestfeeding' offensive, as they are telling you here. So why should they bend to the will of a tiny, tiny minority who wish to use this neologism? On what basis?

Quite.

And there are loads of men who would love sexist words to be routinely used.

How about Babymouthnipplewank Room? Sure, nobody uses it right now. But maybe me and a group of friends want to celebrate the concept of getting physical pleasure from breastfeeding, and adding that name would make us more comfortable using the room. If enough of us start using that term for ourselves, and your stance is that "the answer is always yes of course, people can use whatever words they want", then would it matter that a few prudes clutch their pearls at it?

And yes, I'm being hyperbolic. It's unlikely that a large number of actual women would want to publicly sexualise feeding their babies. But you did say whatever words.

@Dadjoke2

I can't believe you accused a woman sharing that her husband has breast cancer of being 'gloaty'.

What an unthinkably cruel reaction from you.

Not a 'sorry to hear that', 'that must be awful', 'I hope he recovers' etc.

Literally zero empathy for her in your response. At all. Just an adversarial reply and an accusation.

Fucking hell. You owe that poster an apology.

@Dadjoke2

And the answer is always yes of course, people can use whatever words they want.

Unless TRAs disagree with those words.

Then they are transphobic and should be policed.

@Dadjoke2

Why do you want to police language?

Eh? Can you not see that what you are supporting is exactly that - policing language?

I'm so sorry.

That's unforgivable @worriedrn. Yet another example of how adherents to this bloody ideology prioritise implementing every aspect of it instead of centring the needs of people - especially women.

In a nutshell.

chest feeding is one of the most ridiculous terms I have ever heard. You can't feed a baby with your chest. And some people formula feed. This should be called a baby feeding room, end of. Although why a university needs one is a bit of a mystery if they have a cafe as all the ones I've been in do. If it's for staff and students that need to express during the day then, again, you express milk through breasts, not chests and this would still be covered by the 'infant feeding room'. And mansplaining men should stfu about something they know nothing about.

well that's a nasty thing to say

Calling a woman whose DH has breast cancer 'gloats ' is an utterly vile thing to say. Completely dismissive of the awful impact on women like @worriedrn of genderism - and apparently incapable of understanding the importance of language in all of this.