"chest feeding" men should not be put above women and babies by La Leche League. Reasonable?

[GenerativeAIBot]

How many women will self exclude based on this outcome? How many children will suffer because of it? Anything more than zero is unacceptable

This is the direct and foreseeable outcome of ever allowing the word woman to be mutable. This is the ultimate outcome of all these progressive policies, generally well meaning, with terrible outcomes

https://archive.ph/NsquC

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/society/article/breastfeeding-charity-chief-quits-over-transgender-policy-zhvhl8nps

Identity politics should be dead and we need to bury it.

Surely if you identify as a man, you don't put your body through the uniquely female pregnancy and birth.

The opposite of a woman is a man, so I'm not sure that this language is as helpful as some people think in convincing us all that a trans woman is a woman.

If you are using the words "man" and "woman" in accordance with their original meanings, the way they have been used consistently for about a thousand years, a man is a male person and a woman is a female person. So a trans man would be a biologically male person who is trans, and a trans woman would be a biologically female person who is trans.

The word "cis" is completely meaningless to the vast majority of the population, who don't need it in their vocabulary. Stop trying to make "cis" happen.

Bet if they had chapped bleeding nipples or mastitis they wouldn’t want to do it.

If only there were ways a ‘trans man’ could prevent themselves from undergoing such a “distressing” event 🙄

Don't they hate being women so bind or get rid of breasts. Having a baby is a very female thing to do for someone who thinks they are now male. Obviously we all know you can't actually change sex.

You're highly highly unlikely to come across anyone abusing a child at a café.
Not being able to enjoy a latte in peace is not the reason I raise awareness about child abuse.
Sometimes other people may as well be martians for all I can figure out what goes on in their heads.

"He didn't bruise her where anyone can see so why are you all making such a fuss?"

Point at the transphobia please

men aren’t women

men can’t breast feed

women deserve their own spaces not invaded by predatory men

Women like you are destroying the concept of women by putting men above you

So as long as it doesn’t exist at the local cafe it’s ok for babies to be subject to this?

You’re a pervert apologist.

I hope some Australian people are reading and sharing this then...

The word cis is a real word that has a meaning. Just because you don't like it doesn't it isn't a thing.

I stand by the fact trans man/woman is a simple self obvious term and the only peouwho don't understand it are either stupid and can't understand the semantics of the English language or are misunderstanding on purposes to make a point, like you have done in your post. Your prejudice is showing.

What the fuck has meeting a transwoman got to do with anything? Why do you think his desire to breastfeeding feed a baby should come before that baby's health? Are you so lost in your perceived righteousness that willing to sacrifice children to the alter of trans?

It's a recorded fact that most people don't understand which definition is which. Politely you may be so incredible clever and evolved, but half the population has an IQ less than 100.

It's a major issue with any polls or surveys, as people genuinely are not sure if "trans woman" means they are really a man, or a woman, who wants to be a man.

100 percent would self exclude from a breast feeding group that allowed in fetishism and child abuse. This is sickening on so many levels.

1. What is its meaning? When would I need to use it in a sentence?
2. We know that many people don't understand what a trans woman is and what a trans man is, and get them the wrong way round. Just because you think it's easy for people to understand doesn't mean it is. Of course, if we were allowed to say, "a trans woman is a man who wants to be a woman and a trans man is a woman who wants to be a man", people would find that explanation easier to understand, but we're not even allowed to use plain English to explain what these terms mean, because plain English is transphobic.

Be careful how you through language around.
Rejecting identity politics means you cannot insist on protecting the right to breastfeed in public ("exposing yourself") because you are a breastfeeding mother

Why?

Bollocks. The right for WOMEN to breastfeed in public must continue to be protected. Women and women alone.

The term 'cis' is meaningless because, as I pointed out, in the discussions around the two male boxers, the term includes any male person who has a DSD yet has a body that is **formed around the production of small gametes, ie. a male person with a difference of sex development that have testes or testes tissue. Such as Caster Semenya.

There is no word left for female people. Because even male people are now saying they are also ‘female’. When ^^ female means only a person of the sex category where that person's body has been formed around the production of large gametes, regardless of whether the body does, has or ever will produce those large gametes. ie that requires the presence of ovaries or ovarian tissue - never testes.

In fact, we now have examples of many male people declaring that they are female people. So even the word for female has become meaningless in that sense.

But back to the word 'cis'. A word that was repurposed from its original usage and is meaningless for the purpose of discussing female people in its current usage. It has been used in academic papers as well in an attempt at using inclusive language which then renders the papers meaningless because the term is not describing a unique grouping of human bodies, even when it claims to be doing just that.

To see how this works, we have been told that 'girl' and 'woman' both now include:

1 Male person who has been incorrectly registered as a female at birth, but has a male body **.
2 Any male person has now claimed a transgender identity using those labels.
3 And any person who has a female body ^^.

Under the label of 'girl' and 'woman', extreme transgender activists have been telling us for years that those labels break down into two types of girls or women:

Cis and Transwomen/transgirls.

These terms mean:

Cis
= (1) Male person who has been incorrectly registered as a female at birth, but has a male body **

and

= (3) Any person who has a female body^^

Trans
= (2) Any male person has now claimed a transgender identity using those labels.

Therefore there is no unique word to mean female people who have a body ^^ formed around the production of large gametes.

Cis is meaningless as a unique description for female people and it always was. It is also misogynistic because it leaves female people with no unique word for their needs.

It is not prejudiced to point this out.

I'm wondering how/why we became so afraid to call out perversion? A man wanting access to a woman's breastfeeding group and/or a man who who wants to 'breastfeed' a baby is a pervert.

It is important to be able to say this so that we can take steps to protect the vulnerable babies and women involved.

What a load of rubbish.

Just because males have no place excreting chemicals into babies mouths in order to act out their fetish doesn't mean that women should lose the right to feed their babies.

Are you so sexist that you think if men can't do something women shouldn't be able to?

What a bizarre argument.

there is no justification for a baby ever being fed chemically induced secretions from a male nipple. There is no way that is ever beneficial for the baby. So it should never, ever happen.

we’re against child abuse all the time, not matter how rare or frequent.

Just posting this here so @izimbra doesn’t miss it. Because they missed similar questions on another thread where they used the exact same shaming technique.

So just to pull out the most important question :

How many women do you feel is acceptable to you to be harmed by self excluding because policy allowed a male to join a breastfeeding group?

Exactly. It just shows how nonsensical this whole ideology is, if a trans man chooses to get pregnant, give birth and breastfeed. If they were truly a man, and they expected everyone to believe they were a man too, the whole experience would surely be abhorrent to them, no?