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?

Why would I Google when I have a bona fide research scientist on hand to tell me everything I need to know? Why don't we all just Google and save you the trouble of casting your pearls?

In the interests of scientific advancement, I can tell you now that making accusations against someone's character because they asked you to clarify an important term most definitely comes across as going on the aggressive, and not being very objective. Professor.

In the meantime, I promise that I'm very, very interested in any robust study that shows no suggestion that natal females have a natural advantage when it comes to lactation.

Professor.

Most women do try to initiate breastfeeding, so most babies must be getting some colostrum.

However that’s kind of a moot point anyway since obviously babies do not die if they don’t get colostrum. I’m not a sheep and my baby is not a lamb. I didn’t know this fact about sheep, but it would have had no bearing on my decisions anyway. Since I’m not one.

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

Yes I did bring it up. Because I have seen posters use this as an excuse why studies should not go ahead before.

I am comfortable if you are that they live with their disappointment if they are able to be reliably restricted from feeding any infant before, during and after the trial.

As long as they don’t do that, then as I said, I am all for robust data and studies that are properly reviewed and if after publishing they are disputed, that children are again prioritized and more trials are done without any child receiving the product of the trial.

@ReneBumsWombats

I don't understand your posts

They're just dripping with sarcasm and laden with all sorts of implications

Obviously "natal women" "have an advantage" when it comes to producing milk (understatement of the year). No one needs to study that because it's obvious. TW can produce milk with lots of intevention, but there huge questions around amount, safety and nutritional content.

Oooh.

So like other posters, you are just tone policing then?

You and I agree that if robust research where those males are in no way feeding infants the substance that is under investigation, it should go and ahead?

And if any expert disputes the findings, more research should be done before this becomes any way available in the UK? (Because we can only make guidance relevant to this country).

And until that time, males should not be feeding infants from their breasts?

@Helleofabore

It's not "tone policing" to point out that you brought up faux concern for TW feelings as an argument against research. I pointed out this isn't an argument against research.

You then went on the aggressive about me bringing TW feelings into, when clearly I hadn't, I was just responding to your post.

I've already said all of that @Helleofabore

You seem determined to have an argument

The Professor has just said that it's so obvious that females are better at lactating that it requires no research to state it, and that there are currently many questions around the quality and quantity of any milk produced by a transwoman.And yet, when she thought I was implying exactly this by asking how a woman and transwoman might be considered "comparable" for a lactation study, she accused me of not understanding, being argumentative and - the best part - "want[ing] any differences in the milk to be explained by the fact it's from a transwoman than a woman, rather than because of their age or ethnicity etc".Even though she's just stated herself that that's actually a fact. Regardless of what she imagines I "want".I think that's enough rational, objective science for one evening. I'm going to go polish my crystals.

The first scientific question to answer now is why the fuck my paragraphs didn't work. I promise I had some.

I shall look for some comparable HTML.

@ReneBumsWombats I don't get what the professor ostrich has done to annoy you. I think she's just saying what such a study would look like. You would have to test: volume and nutritional value of the milk; how the babies were growing and developing; their later immunity; chemically analyse the samples. And you would have to do this against a control group of (natal) women of same income, background, habits, access to bf care, to make sure that other variables weren't skewing results. I don't think she meant to cast aspersions on your character.

Idk this stuff is a catch 22. Unethical to do the study as can't give babies potentially harmful substances for research, unethical to give it until it's been researched. Strong reason why no one should ever induce lactation in TW.

She mentioned studying "comparable" lactating women and transwomen.

I immediately thought: "How the heck can they be comparable for this purpose?"

So I asked.

I was told that I didn't understand (clearly, that's why I asked), that I was looking for an argument and that I "wanted" any difference to be down to their natal sexes. Then I got told I should have just Googled the answer.

And now, it seems the Professor actually does say that women lactate better than transwomen, so I don't know why it would be an issue if this is indeed what I "want".

But like I said...enough rational science for one evening.

Actually I am not ‘determined to have an argument’. However, I am trying to ascertain your motivations in your own ‘aggressive’ posting behaviour.

And yes, I consider it tone policing that you focused on one part of my post, that I have since explained, to call me out on. I do consider that tone policing. If you don’t, then we agree to disagree.

Maybe you could answer my other questions though?

Should I or should I not have to centre male’s wants and feelings above an infant’s in this issue?

And what is the benefit to the child in a male breastfeeding considering we know already that no male body will react to create especially tailored milk for that infant? Even if the quantity was enough, and there was absolutely no harm in the natural hormones, artificial hormones and other medication and body interactions to that substance produced?

What is the benefit to the child to do this when formula and donated breastmilk from lactating females producing milk for an infant at the same developmental stage?

I would also like you to point to the post where I ‘get angry’?

Plus where I have answered you aggressively whereas I did see a ‘ridiculous’ and that I am ‘banging on’ levied at me as well. As well as ‘faux concern’ several times. (And I think that it is cruel to allow a male to go through the process of this research. Just like I think it is cruel for the rhetoric about uterine implants at the moment. )

Ah ok, humans aren’t like other mammalian young. I’ll be sure to tell my vet. She’ll disagree, but you’re obviously cleverer than her 🤷🏻‍♀️

Will your vet be able to provide evidence that babies who are given formula rather than colostrum are dying in droves?

@BobbinHood
weird that you would expect a vet to provide that evidence, but ok

and death isn’t the only adverse outcome we should worry about

as the body of evidence around gut health grows, it’s becoming increasingly clear that those early days have a huge bearing on health in later life, and also the connection between gut health and a huge range of illnesses from autoimmune conditions to dementia

It’s weird that a vet was being mentioned at all in a conversation about babies. Don’t you realise that this is my point? And yes death is not the only negative outcome. But death is what the post I was responding to was going on about. All these ignorant mothers not breastfeeding their babies, when everyone knows lambs die if they don’t get colostrum. It’s hyperbole and irrelevant. Also there’s no strong evidence of difference in long term outcomes for babies receiving colostrum after birth vs being supplemented by formula. Which is something I wish I’d known before spending the last 2 weeks of my maternity leave before baby trying to harvest the fucking stuff.

Why would we design a study to compare breast milk and male nipple secretions?

Who does it benefit?

No is a full sentence.

“No one needs to study that because it’s obvious”…..

There are currently a lot of things in this world that I would never have thought needed to be empirically/scientifically studied because they are “obvious”: the inability of human beings to change sex is the first one that comes to mind and yet, here we are!

Why were you trying to 'harvest ' colostrum before you'd given birth @BobbinHood?

Because I’d had it drummed into me at an NHS antenatal breastfeeding class that it was “liquid gold” and life changing, and that I might struggle to bf because I had gestational diabetes and PCOS so it was really important to bring it with me in little syringes, because god forbid my baby might be given a perfectly adequate alternative like formula if it was required. So I spent ages crying over the fucking few millilitres of colostrum that was all I could get out.

As has already been laboured, if it was found that hormones/domperidone were present in high quantities, or that the nutritional quality of the milk (or "nipple secretions" as you insist on calling it) was low, that would be valuable information.

It could be used to inform stronger guidance - i.e., transwomen should never attempt to breastfeed, transwomen should not be donating their milk.

Personally I think knowledge (from well conducted research), is power, and don't think research should ever be shut down because someone doesn't like the subject area. As has already been said, funding would likely come from charities, not taxpayers.

What an enormous amount of pressure you were put under.

God I'm sorry @BobbinHood - that's horrendous