Erasing mothers from breastfeeding.

[ixqik]

One woman's experience with the Australian Breastfeeding Association: Sacked for insisting that only women breastfeed.

Make no mistake that this is also endemic in the UK charities.

If you don't have time for the video, her experiences are recounted here in a peer reviewed journal as well.

worldnutritionjournal.org/index.php/wn/article/view/802

At some point people will die because they are told over and over that TWAW and TMAM and will overlook the fact they aren’t

Biologically we cannot change our sex. Trans women and trans men are still male and female respectively.
We will have TW dying of cancer because sending them to get their prostrate checked out will be seen as transphobic.

The language used to be inclusive just ends up excluding more people than it includes. It does the exact opposite to what it says it wants to do.
I see posters advertising companies where they say that they are an inclusive and diverse company and no one is excluded

Then when you read the small print on how they hire people it says the opposite.
If you are straight and white you might as well forget it.

I had a discussion at one group who were changing to chest feeding. I pointed out I did not feed from my chest. Men have breast tissue and can get breast cancer and therefore to use term chest feeding was actually to deny this, which could make it harder for a man going through this.

I know there's been issues, but this doesn't all add up. Was she sacked before or after she went to the media?

Yes can't quite follow the timeline. We had the should birthing parent and chest feeding thing at NCT and challenged the leader who then started calling us mothers with breasts, because we were!

*terms birthing parent

there were complaints made anonymously, then an internal investigation. They were muted, banned from discussing among themselves or others, muted from closed groups. More than one went to the press anonymously and one was inadvertently identified in an article. She was sacked. Another was sacked for the suspicion of going to the press 'bringing the charity into disrepute'. Another was sacked for posting the letter the initially ABA sent her on her private social media acct. Another was forcibly 'resigned', ie sacked. Between the 7 counsellors who were under investigation, they had 130 yrs of volunteering for the ABA between them. Never had their reputations been questioned before. Anyone concerned about the Timeline, ought to read the article in the World Nutrition Journal. It is a peer reviewed journal and the ABA can have an academic discussion via the WNJ if they are disputing anything that has been written there.

Looks like suspicion was confirmed in that video. I don't of any org that would take kindly to airing internal issues like that. It doesn't all add up- a personal grudge seems in play.

@Goannaforanna

Looks like suspicion was confirmed in that video. I don't of any org that would take kindly to airing internal issues like that. It doesn't all add up- a personal grudge seems in play.

of course this is very divisive. The ABA has a right to reply in an academic journal. It can even complain to the journal and have the article retracted. That doesn't require 'airing internal issues in public'. The speaker has the right to tell her story. The ABA can also complain to Youtube and try to have the video taken down if it is defamatory. Complaining to YT or the Journal isn't hard to do.

I was talking about the media reporting. It looks to me like this woman went to the media and then got removed but that's not what she's said. The two versions of the letter in the journal is also very strange- you can read the first version in internet wayback <a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20211010040937/worldnutritionjournal.org/index.php/wn/article/view/802/684" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">web.archive.org/web/20211010040937/worldnutritionjournal.org/index.php/wn/article/view/802/684
Like I said, I'm sure there are issues but this has my spidey senses tingling.

@Goannaforanna

I was talking about the media reporting. It looks to me like this woman went to the media and then got removed but that's not what she's said. The two versions of the letter in the journal is also very strange- you can read the first version in internet wayback worldnutritionjournal.org/index.php/wn/article/view/802/684" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">web.archive.org/web/20211010040937/worldnutritionjournal.org/index.php/wn/article/view/802/684 Like I said, I'm sure there are issues but this has my spidey senses tingling.

Does the second version dispute anything in the first version? Is whistleblowing a sackable offence in Australian law? Then how does the ABA explain its moves with the other counsellors who have been censured for expecting that the ABA remains mother-centric?

Whistleblowing or revenge? Stuff does not add up. I'm sure there truth there but it's unlikely to be as plain as it is presented.

Straight in with calling the concerned and complaining women liars I see.

Straight in with calling the concerned and complaining women liars I see.

👆 This!

Well, when there are inconsistencies or things that seem to be incorrect, I wonder what else is not quite what it seems. And doing some digging raised more questions. As I said, I'm sure there's issues, so many orgs working in anything to do with women have had problems, but there's something not right here.

@Goannaforanna

Whistleblowing or revenge? Stuff does not add up. I'm sure there truth there but it's unlikely to be as plain as it is presented.

when women stand up for themselves, other women will reach up and try to drag them down. If you can prove revenge, we would like you to share details. Otherwise your claim this is slanderous.

As I've said before, the ABA has its avenues to seek redress. They have long standing connections with members of the Australian media where they can issue a press release at minimum.

@Goannaforanna

Well, when there are inconsistencies or things that seem to be incorrect, I wonder what else is not quite what it seems. And doing some digging raised more questions. As I said, I'm sure there's issues, so many orgs working in anything to do with women have had problems, but there's something not right here.

vague references to inconsistencies hold no measure with the MN posters. By all means, clarify yourself.

Why are the ABA using the word chest feeding anyway?

This was just about me seeking to understand what had happened and seeing inconsistencies. I don't care what the breastfeeding association does. I've seen similar happen in orgs where someone is not happy with how they were treated on something and goes out to cause maximum harm. It's not something that's connected to sex, men and women can do it. But it's been really clear over the last couple of months that just because someone is gender critical it doesn't mean that they're good in all respects and this smells to me.

Do you agree though that the completely inaccurate term of chest feeding has no place in ABA's work?

All GC women are trouble makers and spiteful liars, pass it on!

Also, I have no proof of anything concrete they have actually done wrong or lied about, so I will be vague as possible and make comments about things ‘smelling bad’, or just cast general doubt about their character.

@Glendaruel

I had a discussion at one group who were changing to chest feeding. I pointed out I did not feed from my chest. Men have breast tissue and can get breast cancer and therefore to use term chest feeding was actually to deny this, which could make it harder for a man going through this.

in a medical sense the chest describes everything inside the rib cage, breast is the tissue outside the rib cage.

theres a big difference in investigation if you go to a doctor with chest pain vs breast pain.

and are we to stop selling double breasted suits? double chested suits just sounds very confusing and where does this rubbish leave chicken shops?

"This was just about me seeking to understand what had happened and seeing inconsistencies... But it's been really clear over the last couple of months that just because someone is gender critical it doesn't mean that they're good in all respects and this smells to me."

So you have no evidence then.
You just want to see if someone will take your bait.
You're therefore casting aspersions and doing a bit of chaff and redirect.

I wonder what your end game is.

It's ok, I'm satisfied, I found the information I needed. I'll leave you to it now.

I wonder what your end game is

To hide the fact that the erasure of all vocabulary that could possibly link the word woman to anything to do with the female human body and reproductive system, is important to trans activists, because, if "woman" = adult human female it excludes males who identify as " women" All about the males.