"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.

No it doesn't. It's teaching children an ideology that is akin to a religious belief is real. It doesn't just mean same.

It's is extremely offensive to those of us who believe that gender ideology is harmful and regressive.

I don't think any child should be taught it. Trans women are male and have nothing in common with women, they are definitely NOT the same as women in any single respect. Cis simply is superfluous. Not needed.

I find it offensive and I don't refer to myself as cis and don't want to be referred as cis. I hope you respect everyone's feelings.

And I've only just noticed that SIX PERCENT of voters on this thread are fighting for the rights of men to involve newborns in their fetish play.

Staggering

I am accusing you of being abusive yes. I have not accused you of being an extreme activist. I have stated that you are using the tactics that extreme activists use - that being shaming others who have valid and legitimate concerns.

Maybe though, we have different meanings of 'shaming', 'valid and legitimate concerns'.And perhaps 'planet' . That is very possible these days.

Edited to add this was one of your posts to another poster: You're being a cunt. I don't think your claim that you are not abusive on this thread really stands up to scrutiny.

Please define abusive then with your mastery of the English language you claim to have.

How about you tell us whether you accept the categorisation of yourself as either trans or cis as I asked up thread?

I don't mean for you to tell us which you would accept, just if you, personally, accept this categorisation standard to include yourself.

I would never introduce myself to someone as a cis woman or define myself as a cis woman but if someone used the term to describe me I would not be offended and would call it an accurate description.

The cis is unnecessary but not offensive. It's no more offensive to me than a gay person calling me a straight woman. I don't see the problem with it, it's just a descriptive term it's not an insult.

In chemistry and geography it is a valid word as people on this thread have already said.

It is not an accurate term, therefore not a meaningful term, to categorise humans, even though it only in reality applies to those human's philosophical belief. For that purpose, the word 'cis' was never accurate nor meaningful.

Because, it means that female people do not have a term that uniquely describes them. Here is the link to the post on page 5, but I have also included a handy graphic just in case.

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=5

They literally accused me of supporting child abuse which is a disgusting accusation to make. Not many people take that accusation politely. Some would call it abusive.

Right. So, you just choose to shame others who don't share your opinion and have actually found where it is a very weak and inaccurate descriptor and philosophically, who feel that the term does indeed force them into being described as believing something they don't.

You just choose to shame people who don't agree fully with you.

I think we worked that out. Thanks for answering.

You ARE supporting child abuse however. So can you explain your rationale for that?

They asked you if you understood what supporting male people feeding secretions from their nipples meant? That is the topic of the thread that you are here shaming people on.

Please show where I have done this.

I think we have a poster who needs to shame people for not agreeing with them, but who might not agree with male people feeding their secretions from their nipples to infants.

However, the actions of shaming women for discussing the issue because those women are not discussing it in a way acceptable for that poster is an act of silencing. Whether it is intended to be or not. And it is a common tactic as we have experienced and seen in action many times.

The end result is that women stop discussing it and the awareness that it is indeed happening starts to lower. Who does that benefit? I think we are well aware it is not the infants in these cases.

I have not shamed people for not agreeing.

I simply don't believe that people can't understand the terminology. I believe it is either willful ignorance or people trying to make a point about it all being too confusing because these people are so strange and otherworldly we couldn't possibly have any hope of understanding them.

If you think calling people out on their behaviour towards people who are different to them is shaming them then we have different definitions of shaming.

This thread is starting to resemble Swiss cheese : (

If you are standing up for men's rights to 'breastfeed' children then you are. If not, apologies for mixing you up with another poster.

Let me ask outright Balletcat - do you think it is okay for a man to put his nipple into a baby's mouth and let it consume secretions that are untested and do not contribute to any meaningful feeding of a newborn?

So if "cis women" are the same as each other and trans women are the opposite to "cis women", what is the logic for us sharing the same spaces?

Isn't the opposite of a "cis woman" a...well...a man?

And if you are against men abusing infants, why isn't your focus shouting this from the rooftops? Instead of scolding women for not accepting your terms.

You don't think referring to people as stupid, prejudiced and quite a few other things is 'shaming' behaviour? Because you believe it is righteously deserved?

Again, please do keep going because the more people see why you are posting your posts the better understanding that some of those will have of those extreme activist tactics that you deny that you are using, even if you didn't intend to. And you seem to be doing it based on language.

Just because you, personally, believe your shaming is warranted, doesn't mean that it is.

I too, would like to see this answer.