To think that the NHS had lost the plot over breastfeeding?

[WandaWomblesaurus]

www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-10892531/NHS-accused-putting-babies-harm-advice-trans-women-wanting-breastfeed.html

It feels like some kind of bizarre experiment - except it's babies who are being used for affirmation.

Am I being gaslit here?

I've worked in NICU and this is very much an issue, but domperidone is never prescribed because of the effects on the baby.

How long ago did you have a child in NICU? Because either they aren't following best practice or it was before they knew better...

This article is sickening. That poor baby. Imagine growing up and finding out your first weeks/months you were fed by your biological dad. It’s just so unnecessary and wrong. Absolute child abuse.

I mean you would imagine it would be in the best interests of the transwoman in the story and of the supervising paediatrician to have carried out an analysis of the liquid produced by the transwoman. It's odd they didn't. I mean surely that's the first thing you'd do if you wanted to show it was nutritionally equivalent.

Thank you, Professor. Was that so hard?

I suppose my next question would be why asking for a definition of "comparable" in this context offended you so and drew baseless accusations against my character, but let's not go there. I don't want to know how we'd devise a clinical study to answer that one.

I'd be very interested in a study that found that, say, a white woman produced more and better milk than an Asian transwoman, and that the difference was down to their ethnicities. Let me know if there is one.

I'd be very interested in a study that found that, say, a white woman produced more and better milk than an Asian transwoman, and that the difference was down to their ethnicities. Let me know if there is one.

Again you seem uncessarily combative on this - SES, ethnicity, weight and I'm sure many other things will be confounders. I'm not definitively stating anything about what demographic groups produce "better milk".

You want scientific evidence to be robust so that criticisms can't be used to invalidate it.

If you found that milk from TW was unsafe, you want to be sure that it couldn't potentially explained by other things (i.e., confounding or bias), so that it could be used to inform policy- for example legisaltion against TW donating milk or whatever.

I suppose my next question would be why asking for a definition of "comparable" in this context offended you so

It didn't offend me @ReneBumsWombats , but you could've spent a second googling what comparable means in terms of scientific research, instead of immediately assuming going on the agressive because you thought I was implying things about women & TW.

I mean, you don't seem to be too considered with the feelings of transwomen, but sure.

Why should I be ‘considered’ of a male’s feelings about treatments to enable them to feed an infant when no one has yet explained the benefit to the child of a male being able to do so?

And yes, every potential compound should be tested for in the secretions from a male, not just nutritional value, amount, consistency etc. I am sure there will be able to be already a long list of substances tested for that female breastmilk is tested for. Including sex hormones and their artificial versions too.

Nothing should be assumed to be at similar level to female breastmilk.

But surely then you would have to know the full composition of breast milk which they don’t know.

I think you are massively simplifying this. Breast milk isn’t just volume, calories, hormones and a bit of water.

Perhaps you could measure whether it’s a safe comparative to formula.

But until we fully understand breast milk in all its rich varying complexity (changing as babe grows, changing through time of day, reacting to babes illness etc.) then I don’t think it’s possible to even attempt to compare whether it’s the same.

I made that comment because one of your arguments against scientific research was concern that it was "cruel" to transwomen, which seemed at odds with the rest of your posts.

You've just said again here you don't need to be considerate of their feeling, so just reinforcing my point, no?

I was agreeing with you @LemonSwan

Definitively proving safety (like with many other things) would be be near impossible.

If you found that milk from TW was unsafe, you want to be sure that it couldn't potentially explained by other things (i.e., confounding or bias), so that it could be used to inform policy- for example legisaltion against TW donating milk or whatever.

I am all for robust data.

As long as no male fed an infant or donated the milk until that research was done, peer reviewed and even repeated if necessary. Not even on the sly.

Well, surely, any parent should be most invested in the best interests of their child, what is optimal for their child - particularly in terms of nutrition, which is one of the most fundamental building blocks for an individual's entire life?

A child shouldn't be a political statement, or a vanity piece.

Has anyone got a link to the studies, because I’m sure there must be plenty of them, that detail the quality of the colostrum made by transwomen? I’m a sheep farmer and I have to ensure that our lambs get enough colostrum in the first hour of life. If they don’t, their health is invariably compromised, even to the point of death. I’m looking forward to reading the studies so please don’t hold back with the ‘proof’!

As far as I'm aware there are only very low quality case studies (i.e., n=1), and none with a control group.

To be clear - I'm just answering the questions posed, as a research scientist.

🙄 research scientist, is it? Do they employ you at the business factory?

the study linked was presumably this one.

You've just said again here you don't need to be considerate of their feeling, so just reinforcing my point, no?

No doubt. What of it?

Why should I consider a male’s feelings in this at this time? Why would you centre a male’s needs here?

Do you have an answer to what the benefits are in males breastfeeding infants in the first place knowing there is already some common sense logic issues.

Such as the inability for any male to tailor the feed to that child and replicate the interaction with the child and a mother breastfeeding her own infant ?

You may choose to centre a male’s needs in this example, but I choose not to. I have been quite clear in my statements as to why too.

I’m a sheep farmer and I have to ensure that our lambs get enough colostrum in the first hour of life. If they don’t, their health is invariably compromised, even to the point of death.

I always find it interesting that this is pretty standard/well known in farming, whether calves or lambs, the colostrum they get has massive health implications..... yet millions of women don't feed their baby any colostrum at all.

You may choose to centre a male’s needs in this example

Erm, no. This is about a male's wants, not their needs.

The infant is the one in this scenario that has 'needs'. They need to be fed, as optimally as possible, and that should be the primary consideration. They are the individual that should be centred.

Because you were the one who brought up transwomen's feelings in the first place? You used them as argument for research to not be done?

Is it ethical to induce lactation and then tell that male that they absolutely should not be feeding any infant? Isn't that cruel?

My reply:

I mean, you don't seem to be too considered with the feelings of transwomen, but sure.

There are plenty of trials & research studies that could be considered "cruel" because they raise hopes which may be dashed. All studies go through an ethics board & stringent checks to make sure harms to participants are minimised and not unacceptable. A study won't be approved if it is deemed unethical.

It seems ridiculous to bring up TW feelings as argument and then start banging on about how they don't matter.

To be clear @Helleofabore - I did not mention hurt feelings or cruelty to transwomen, you did, as a faux concern against research.

In the next breath you get angry that feelings have been brought up.

This is the only reason it was referenced in my reply to you.

Not sure what you mean by that, but I'm assuming you're implying I'm an idiot or some such.

mbosnz

yes. You are quite correct. It is a ‘want’. It is not even comparative to a female’s needs because a pregnant female lactates as part of the infant and mother relationship. If a female is not lactating as they are expected, it may need to be addressed. That is part of the ‘needs’ for female health.

And many females have to live with the fact they then cannot successfully establish breastfeeding.

There are no ‘need’ for a male that has to be considered here. It is about wants. I stand corrected.

Yes. That is what is important and must be kept front and centre.

Babies die without adequate nutrition. These people chose to forego giving their baby optimal nutrition in order to fulfil a want from the baby's father.

Their child belongs in care.

A very high percentage of women breastfeed in the early days. Can't recall exact figure, but I think it's over 80% even in the UK, that has some of the lowest breastfeeding rates in the world.