How the erosion of LGBT rights effects female sex based rights.

[needatalk]

I've been reading various discussions and articles on this topic for some time and the conclusion that keeps popping up in my mind is the worry that my female rights will be as much eroded as LGBT rights in law.

I've seen a push in America especially Florida from activists and lawmakers, combining female and LGBT rights in the same grouping. In the UK, politicians are taking American policies. They are calling for diversity and equality to be dismantled in law. It's like time is going backwards in just on LGBT rights but on female sex based rights. Where less rights will exist for us females in the future to do subjects such as STEM or be Astronaut because of the stereotyping happening from suppose feminists who's concepts are the old typical stay at home leave the male to do the dangerous or go to work mentally.

My daughter is 8 years old and and I worry for her, to not able to have the right to do express herself as bisexual or lesbian because of erosion of LGBT rights. We all know homosexuality a long time ago was illegal and that can happen again for all LGBT rights. I worry that my daughter who loves space won't able to follow Rosemary Coogan become an astronaut which is something she dreams of because in the future people will say the radiation of space is too dangerous for females as they will get deformities in that area to prevent them for having babies or healthy babies. Science has disprove this but people are dismissing science now.

As much as I care and support about sex based rights, I can't forget the thought in my mind that my and my daughter's female rights are in as much danger of being taken away not by activists but by lawmakers who enforce sex based past stereotyping and us females lose equality which has been hard to fight for in the first place.

I'm so worried for the future for us females.

As someone who claims to support women's sex based rights I'm surprised it's not obvious to you that we live in a patriarchal society that wants to control women's bodies and that's why historically abortion was completely banned. The legal limits are not enough progress. Why not decriminalise abortion up to 24 weeks? Because then all women would have the freedom to simply seek an early abortion if they needed or wanted one, and then we couldn't punish the ones who can't jump through the hoops. It's not easy to access an abortion provider to get permission from two doctors when you're being controlled by your abusive partner who won't let you leave your home. It's not reasonable that a woman who has discovered she is pregnant at the same time as learning she has cancer in her uterus needs "permission" from two doctors to have an abortion. Whether she can easily obtain that is irrelevant - it's incredibly patronising and that women cannot simply seek healthcare for their bodies without getting the opinion of two Doctors that it's in her interests.

I'm going to stop engaging with you now as I'm not personally interested in the opinions on women's sex based rights who don't support the full bodily autonomy of women in their healthcare.

I believe in bodily autonomy for women (and, indeed, men), absolutely.

Women can take testosterone in pregnancy if they can find a doctor to prescribe them. I think they are stupid and selfish and possibly delusional, assuming there is no genuine medical need for testosterone, but their body, their choice.

Men can take wrong sex hormones and lactation inducing medicines if they can find a doctor to prescribe them, but I do not believe that they should be allowed to then force another human being to drink whatever their breasts produce. What about the rights of the child?

Ok so we agree that people have the bodily autonomy and they may do things during pregnancy in particular that we.dont agree with but it is between them.and their doctor. Regarding your last question though,what do you actually think should happen? I feel uncomfortable with lots of things people do or expose their children to but I accept that the state can't be taking away children from people unless they're causing significant harm for example.

I'm sure that sounded like a uniquely clever quip in your head.

Being able to find a doctor who will perform a procedure or prescribe a medicine should never be the only criteria for whether that treatment is allowed though. Most medics act ethically but there will always be some who don't, including for ideological or financial reasons.

We have laws and standards governing medical practice, and in a democracy we get to voice an opinion on what those rules should be.

Neglect (insufficient feeding) is already grounds for social services intervention.

There is no evidence that whatever it is that men produce is of equivalent nutritional value to mothers’ milk, or to formula, and plenty of evidence of risks.

Domperidone is used off label, to increase milk supply when all other options have been exhausted, for a short period only. It is also associated with an increased risk of cardiac events when taken for its licensed indication.

Longer term use in men (as would be needed to continue the supply) increases the risk to the men themselves (his choice) and to the baby of a) side effects (it is excreted in small quantities in breast milk) and b) inadequate nutrition because of less than optimal composition and quantity.

I think it would be unethical to prescribe it anyway, and more so if the man is intending to attempt to breastfeed a child.

And don’t be cherrypicking studies that suggest the composition may be OK. They are poor quality studies and the bar should be pretty fucking high where the sole source of nutrition for a small human is concerned, don’t you think?

You seem very sure that you are right about the thoughts and motivations of some public figures: 'It's so simply obvious', 'Unless you have a better reason' etc etc. Have you ever considered that they have got their own fish to fry? That they are not primarily concerned with the internal life of people who quote them? That they are concentrating on the issue closest to their hearts, and not on making inventories of the views of people who agree with them on one issue?

As I said, purity spiral.

I think you are talking about semantics here. Women are obviously not prosecuted for seeking an abortion before 24 weeks. If they want one, they can get one.

''Housing men in women’s prisons is California’s progressive patriarchy.''
CDCR Confirms Pregnancies After Women Housed with Male Rapists
(California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation)

https://4w.pub/male-inmate-charged-with-raping-woman-inside-california-womens-prison-cdcr-confirms-pregnancy/

Yes but the medical guidelines are based on peer reviewed medical evidence and shouldn't be swayed by political opinion or "democracy".

So I'm asking you if the issues close to their heart is women's rights why does the prominent global right wing attacks on women's rights not factor into it for them? I told you why I think it is. Why do you think?

I know that but your post automatically assumes that people (whether that's trans, adoptive, or non birth parents) who induce lactation will definitely be insufficiently feeling their babies and therefore neglecting them which is a leap you didn't fill in?

We need a lot more research of course and then medical professionals to determine what is safe and ethical. Are you a prescribing physician?

Probably because JKR is a British author living in Scotland, and she's choosing to focus on women's rights which are actually under threat in the UK, i.e. single sex spaces and sports, not abortion.

Do we need a lot more research?

Formula is a perfectly safe and healthy way of feeding an infant.

I can think of bigger priorities for medical research than figuring out whether it can ever be safe for men to breastfeed.

Endometriosis and recurrent miscarriage are extremely under-researched, for example.

Except when they're not.

The cass review showed that treatments can become established without a solid basis in peer reviewed research, especially when an ideology or profit motive has distorted the decision making.

And the cass review would never have been commissioned without ordinary people realising something was wrong and kicking up a stink to their elected politicians- democracy in action.

(Loving your scare quotes around democracy though. Very telling.)

A women who wants to drive a bus is not a man, and will struggle to drive a bus designed for someone of 6ft with long legs, big feet and superior upper body strength...but a vehicle designed for people of any body type is an adaptation that benefits women.

Adjustabke seats/steering wheels and power steering have been around for quite some time now.

'prominent global right wing' just sounds like another version of 'funded by the Christian right' tbh. Women in the UK are focussing on the most pressing attacks on women's rights in the UK. That isn't much of a surprise.

I think that was the point.

As I said upthread, adoptive mothers in the UK do not induce lactation and breastfeed their adopted children. It does not happen, because adoption in the UK prioritises the child not the adults involved. Perhaps the males trying to induce lactation could do the same.

I have seen the extremely small scale studies (one individual in one I saw) on males using domperidone and other drugs, and not one of those I have seen has stated that the male produced enough 'milk' to sustain a baby. So I expect that is the insufficient feeding PP referenced.

And I agree with PP, there are other priorities for medical research than facilitating this, which is at best unnecessary and at worst the use of an unconsenting child in an adults fetish.

The evidence so far is that insufficient “milk” is produced so that’s not really a leap.

No, I am not a prescriber. That doesn’t mean I can’t have an opinion.

Well it is a leap if you're just assuming that they're not also formula feeding their child if they haven't produced a sufficient supply then. I wonder if you also assume all biological women with insufficient milk supply would also neglect to supplement their children's feeding too?

Of course you can and you're free to post it online as much as you wish to. If you feel your personal opinion should bear any weight in the actions of trained medical professional that's a different matter.

I am, however, entitled to have a professional opinion about off-label and off-protocol prescribing.

you've not really thought about this, have you?

Everyone can have an opinion about everything. You're not a prescriber so again even with off label prescriptions the medical professional prescribing them won't (and shouldn't) be swayed by your opinion and hopefully that isn't what you're advocating.