"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.

Helleofabore · Today 11:34

The other significant issue with ‘cis’ is that its very usage forcibly categorises someone into having a philosophical belief that they may or may not have.

That bears repeating and often.

"So apparently daring to defend trans women gets your account banned on here, so be careful to anyone that isn't a bigot.
The petty side of me wants to keep making more and more accounts just to say my piece, but I don't think it's worth my stress levels trying to breakthrough this level of discrimination.
So I'll say this and be done, but only on here, not behind the scenes where I will be gathering more.
Also, to Mumsnet. I have many more screenshots and I will be enjoying taking this further.
Absolutely disgusting display of transphobia from both the users and people that run this website."

I suspect it has a lot more to do with personal attack and labelling posts, posters and threads as being transphobic when they are not than you being punished for 'daring to defend trans women'.

However, why do you wish to defend a male person's demands to feed a substance, untested for chemical interaction, to a new born infant?

Why do you wish to defend a male person's demands when they have been documented as getting sexual arousal from having an infant 'suckle'?

Why do you wish to defend a male person's demand to feed an infant when it is known that they cannot produce enough supply, that supply is not staged in any way and it removes the interaction between the mother's body's reactions to the child either through the mother's hormonal cycle after birth or through the receptors that female people have that it seems that male people lack? Seriously, why are you advocating for this as an option that you support?

And yet, you are calling people questioning why any part of society should be allowing this bigoted? You seem to have significantly low boundaries around the safeguarding of infants in these cases. You are here now actively advocating for abuse of these infants, whether that is your intention or not. That is the result of what you are advocating for.

By all means.... take your posting deletions further. Take them out into the public sphere.

Maybe if you are not operating under the prejudice that MNers are transphobic and other people who have also seen the research start pointing out the very same safeguarding failures, maybe you will listen.

Quite apart from anything else, metabolites from Domperidone are classed as dangerous for babies. Mothers who are given it are advised to take it for the shortest period possible, in the UK. In other countries, it is contraindicated, because of cardiotoxicity in babies; the FDA in the USA recommends against it.

Men who have been given it, in order to simulate (not stimulate) lactation have to take vastly higher doses for the duration. That alone should make people realise that it's not something which should be done.

Analysis of male secretions has been analysed for bare nutritional value - fat, protein, lactose and total calories. Men produced about 50% more fat, which can cause health problems, including obesity when older. No analysis, of which I'm aware, has analysed the wider nutritional value, i.e. vitamins and minerals.

All other issues aside, anybody knowing this must surely not support men feeding babies a simulacrum of actual breastmilk.

This. 💯

Indeed so we now have to accommodate pervert trans women, who are biological men so that they can stick their nipple in the mouth of a baby and force secretions into baby.

Sick, disgusting abuse. A baby is not a toy or for use by a man with a fetish. Unbelievably sick.

What the fuck are you on about? I don't need to "accept the terms". They are literally in the dictionary. Trans - opposite cis -same. It's not a personally constructed reality they're just words that have simple meanings.

Children literally learn these terms at school, they are simple terms and not solely applied to the never ending gender argument everyone seems to be obsessed with. I stand by people who can't understand such simple self explanatory terms are stupid or delicately misunderstanding to make a point.

I couldn't care less if you want to refer to yourself or anyone else as a cis woman or not or are offended by the term. It's just a word. A word people are claiming to be confusing despite being simple. If you weren't so outraged you would have noticed I didn't condone or condemn the words. I just said they are simple and easy to understand.

You need to get a grip, not everything is about control or some agenda.

Interestingly that’s one of the big problems with trans language. Most people are not sure if a “trans woman” is male to female or female to male. The office of national statistics even screwed it up

IMO this obfuscation of language is a feature, not a bug...

Trans - opposite cis -same. It's not a personally constructed reality they're just words that have simple meanings.

Cis means geographically on the same side as, not "same." I mean, I have a 1967 Oxford English Dictionary with the "N" word in it. Does that make it correct? Or acceptable? Should Black people just shut up if it's used towards them?

I’m not in the UK, but both my husband and I attended a LLL group in the country where we live as we BOTH needed support. I was struggling with feeding and he was struggling to help me. I don’t think all males should automatically be excluded from LLL meetings. ALL members of society should be educated about breastfeeding and it won’t stop being seen as taboo if men are excluded.

More projection I see.

The word you dismiss as 'just a word', is not 'just a word'. All words have meanings and to have clear communication it is important to have words that have meanings.

The term 'cis' is meaningless making it useless. It is also factually incorrect.

This is just applying basic logic beyond simply reading a word in a dictionary and repeating it as per your post.

Yet, you really seem to be the one who cannot accept other's points of view without abusively saying directly or indirectly that they are 'stupid', 'prejudiced', with a reference of ablism.

Also “ the fact trans man/woman is a simple self obvious term" is not true either. Research has found that 35 per cent wrongly believed that a transgender woman was someone born female, or they were unsure. Apparently, they're even more confused about the term “trans woman”, with 40 per cent either being unsure or believing it meant someone who was registered female at birth.

And then there was the huge fail that was the census questions.

You really don't seem to be all that well informed.

There should be designated meetings where supportive others should be able to come as clearly there is huge value in having loved ones know how to help. The default should be men can't just "drop in" though otherwise not all women are included at the expense of some women who bring their husbands.

Would you and your husband have been comfortable if Transwomen were in the group wanting to feed babies?

Was it a mixed sex group, or did you receive a separate session?

Would you have cared if one woman in a group with your husband attending, felt uncomfortable and then that woman self-excluded because of your husband's attendance?

Do you see the issues? There can be sessions that include husbands and sessions that don't. What has happened though, is the LLL has declared that all male people should be included in any group they demand access to.

AND that there are male people who will be able to access breastfeeding help for THEM to feed the infant - which is a major part of the article posted in the OP.

So tell us @BalletCat - do you categorise yourself as either 'cis' or 'trans'? To be clear, I am not asking which you might use, I am asking whether you accept those categories as a description of yourself?

No one is saying that men should be excluded from groups that cater to both parents. They are saying that men should be excluded from groups for women only.

Not hard to grasp the difference

I do hope children are NOT being taught the meaning of the word cis in schools. I didn't think they were supposed to teach ideology as fact.

I have some bad news for you.

(though to be clear I’d never heard of it in this use case until 5 years ago and nor had anyone else)

"Research has found that 35 per cent wrongly believed that a transgender woman was someone born female, or they were unsure. Apparently, they're even more confused about the term “trans woman”, with 40 per cent either being unsure or believing it meant someone who was registered female at birth."

What is really interesting about this discussion on language is that when someone declares that the majority of people believe that transwomen are women, that claim takes on a completely different perspective! It was never true, in any case. However, it really can be shown to be a false claim with that survey's findings.

WHAT good does this do the baby, and what benefit do they get from it?
PLEASE answer that if you are on this thread defending this practice.

There is NO benefit for the child, no male has, even with chemical assistance, breast fed an infant exclusively without the need for supplemental formula, because the quantities produced are tiny compared to the actual needs of the baby.
So if there is no benefit on the INFANT'S side, that means the benefit is on the side of the "mother". Can we dare to ask what kind of benefit they might be receiving?
It's 100% about validation.
The baby is a PROP, part of the role play, nothing more.

I'm pretty sure that a trans-woman doctor did a study on this themselves and concluded that it was not beneficial to the infant, not sure if anyone on the thread has already linked to this.

Where are the studies showing a) chemically induced liquid from a man is safe b) that puberty blockers / cross sex hormones / testosterone blockers do not pass into the secretions, and if they do, what the long term effects of this might be, c) the psychological implications for a child and long-term adult, when they learn that they were subjected to this as an infant.

Clue - you won't find those studies because they have not been done.
There IS no long term data.

For those screeching "transphobia", have a look at what you're advocating for.
Ask why it even needs to be a thing when there are so many other options available (formula, donor milk, allowing the real mother to feed the baby).

If Tom down the road decided he wanted to stick his nipple into a baby's mouth and allow it to nurse from him, would you think this is okay? If not, why not?

What difference does it make that Tom now calls himself Betty and wear a dress and makeup? A feeling in a man's head does not excuse what we all know this is.

‘we are going to invent a nonsensical and non scientifically accurate term for breastfeeding in order to pretend that it has nothing to do with being female, why have we not also invented nonsensical and non scientifically accurate terms for menstruation, cervix and other female body parts?

I expect it’s just around the corner. The Right Honourable David Lammy , Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, has stated ‘a cervix, I understand, is something that you can have, following various procedures and hormone treatment and all the rest of it.’

So I suppose that in the brave new world of medicine, I am the proud possessor of a ‘cis-cervix’.

The doctor you refer to did an analysis on a study and declared that they would never do this to their child, and that doctor had the chance to do so. It was Madeleine Duetsch.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5209721-chest-feeding-men-should-not-be-put-above-women-and-babies-by-la-leche-league-reasonable?page=1

You're seriously accusing me of being an extreme activist and an abuser?

You really are on a other planet.

Cis just means same. Children learn it in chemistry and in geography. It's not a difficult word to understand or offensive.