Breastfeeding

[SmugglersHaunt]

So my thread about the ‘transwoman’ breastfeeding has been deleted.

Apparently Mumsnet doesn’t allow discussion about this. Big surprise. I now expect my account to be deleted.

What a shitshow!

It feels like I reach an “I don’t want to live on this planet anymore” moment every few days lately. I don’t even want to imagine what’s next.

It obviously matters hugely to the baby and it's mother if this is fake (a far, far preferable scenario to it being real, of course!).

But in terms of exposing the organisations and individuals who are ok with child abuse and pseudo science simply because "trans" it is irrelevant.

I agree that in all likelihood it’s most probably fake. The baby isn’t latched in the photo or feeding, even though he says it is, for one.

As I said upthread (or maybe on the deleted thread, I can’t remember), I’d be very very surprised if any clinician in the U.K. would be willing to prescribe the required drugs to attempt what is clearly a completely unevidenced “protocol” - and most especially not if the person concerned has had or is having chemo or a stem cell transplant (for which you need to be as haemostatic as possible - I have a bit of personal experience with this so am very aware of the level of medical supervision that would be involved, and I cannot imagine any NHS consultant even remotely entertaining the idea of prescribing an experimental drug regimen for lactating to a patient taking chemo/about to have or having had a stem cell transplant).

So my conclusion is that it’s probably a bit of fantasy and role play and wishful thinking. At the very least, then, he is a liar.

The alternative, that he has somehow got hold of the relevant drugs and attempted this, is more horrendous; BUT is it great either that he’s patently lying (at the very least, that the baby is feeding when it isn’t; and more likely, making the whole thing up)?

When did we get to a place in today’s society where being a liar and a fantasist is somehow okay either? Where someone is either endangering a baby’s health in pursuit of identity validation or a fetish — or just being a common or garden fantasist telling lies about it? Isn’t the conclusion of all this that if he’s not actually trying to “feed” the baby, that he’s knowingly telling a load of arrant lies with impunity because that’s what the trans movement is?

What better evidence that the whole ideology is just pretence - a pack of absolute lies and make-believe being foist on us all.

Thank you for taking the time to answer my question, I hadn't appreciated that men possessed the parts required to produce milk (or some approximation of milk) with the added hormones so that's news to me!

Yes and in either case, whether role-playing/fetishism or feeding with untested medication it is child abuse.

How us that not sexual assault

most especially not if the person concerned has had or is having chemo or a stem cell transplant (for which you need to be as haemostatic as possible - I have a bit of personal experience with this so am very aware of the level of medical supervision that would be involved, and I cannot imagine any NHS consultant even remotely entertaining the idea of prescribing an experimental drug regimen for lactating to a patient taking chemo/about to have or having had a stem cell transplant

I'm so glad I'm not the only poster noticing the... anomalies.. in the cancer timeline, as well as the rest of this unusual case.

Going from diagnosis to SCT in three months is possible, but somewhat unlikely. Some diagnoses go straight to transplant, but it's not that common and even when it is, finding a donor and doing all the work up takes time. I can't think of a protocol which has three months of chemo followed by SCT, but I'm not a haematologist.

But the idea of a haematologist being on board with prescribing drugs to induce lactation in a male on chemo or post transplant is so laughably ridiculous I can't describe how much it would never happen. I know a lot of haematologists, not one would even keep a straight face at the idea, let alone consider it. They are balancing very complex, dangerous medication and would simply not countenance adding in anything optional.

Not that I'm suggesting that any particular person has accidentally misrepresented any aspect of a cancer journey. What sort of person would lie about cancer?

I did not realise this was a thing- can people born as males who now identify as women ever produce milk that benefits a baby? I feel really uneasy about it but would like some science to help me understand what benefit there could be. I wonder if the baby would be really frustrated if not getting the nutrients needed...

JFC

It’s not a thing and no they can’t.

See this is why it's annoying and ridiculous when entire threads are deleted that actually contained solid links to studies (not biased propaganda JUNK from anecdotal TRA accounts).

There have been NO peer reviewed scientific studies of any significance involving good populations of patients that have studied the composition, quantity, nutritional value or indeed the long term risks of a child "fed" by a male who is experiencing galactorrhoea as a result of a lactation regimen.
One can only assume that any drugs are passed into the "milk" which may include exogenous oestrogen, progesterone, testosterone blockers, and a lactation stimulant like domperidone (already known to cause arrythmia issues).
You will find a few accounts online of TW claiming to have fully nourished an infant but as I said, these accounts are anecdotal at best and outright lies and propaganda at worst.
In answer to your question, there is NO benefit to the baby. The benefit is ALL about the validation of the TW in question, after all, if they can do something as "female" as breastfeeding, they MUST be women right?
If it was a)easy b)justified c)safe d)ethical e)viable, don't people think that we would have come up YEARS ago with a regimen for men to lactate to take over the breastfeeding duties of a tired new mother?
The answer is that it's none of those things.
Not to mention the long term psychological implications when that child reaches an age where they can begin to understand and appreciate that they were a prop in the lifestyle choice of a man.

As I understand it, Domperidone was intended as an anti nausea medication for chemotherapy patients. I don’t know if it is prescribed for that purpose in the UK currently.

I have known of quite a few women (in the UK) taking it to boost milk production in cases of insufficient glandular tissue/breast hypoplasia or low supply issues with other causes. All the cases I know of have been women wanting to breastfeed babies they gave birth to.

The reason it is no longer used in the US as far as I am aware is due to problems in chemotherapy patients who were receiving much larger doses of domperidone than would be used to support lactation.

the NSPCC don't care

https://twitter.com/JamesEsses/status/1676235839016239106

I’m not a haematologist either, but my understanding is that you can go straight from short course chemo to STC for autologous transplant (using the patient’s own stem cells rather than a donor). That’s used in some cases of lymphoma and myeloma, which may be what this person had — I don’t know — but I think it’s possible. (It would be really really not likely for donor cell transplantation even with a very quick match.)

In either case, though, I cannot imagine any reputable doctor allowing an experimental male lactation regime to go ahead in that situation. For a lymphoma or blood cancer and for any chemo he’d be having constant bloods taken anyway to monitor everything in the blood — so it’s pretty unfeasible that he’d be taking large doses of domperidone and so on.

If it’s untrue, then why the need to make up silly provocative stories? Why do we all have to play along with fantasist liars who have conned everyone into letting them do whatever they want?

When my DD was about 5 years old, she would shout 'Mum, look at me. Look at me Mum! Mummy look at me! Mummy Mummy Mummy, look at me now!'

I see the subject of this thread behaving the same way.

I was assuming an allograft but I guess an auto could just possibly fit that timeline, though diagnosis (the day after the child is born, what awful timing you couldn't make it up) to being in SCT in 3 months would really be going some.

No chance a haematologist would go along with inducing lactation either way, I don't believe that for a second. And he couldn't do it by stealth, as you say bloods are done constantly. They're already balancing and fine-tuning combinations of meds, the last thing they'd do is add in inessential stuff as well.

If I were a person, hypothetically, who dissembled about their cancer journey, their parenting, their income/poverty and their sex, I don't think I'd be publicising myself. But then I'm not in the mindset of people who like to publicise their preferences to the world I suppose.

I wonder if there is any correlation between his wife getting a lot of attention for some mysterious reason, and the cancer/breastfeeding posts?

Here they are completely ignoring the elephant in the room as usual. A biological male using a defenseless baby for his own weird gratification and the NSPCC respond saying they don't interfere with a parent's feeding choice. Their response reads as if it is completely normal and they have no concerns about this child. Even this 'children's society' is prepared to put the feelings of trans above the safety of children. I will keep complaining.

I’m so baffled by this. Their response says they don’t intervene with how people feed their babies. So if I let me dog breastfeed my babies, it’d be OK? If I fed my newborn fanta instead of milk, it’d be OK? If I skipped liquids altogether and went straight to feeding them a diet of just bananas and gummy bears, it’d be OK? I’m being flippant and a bit inflammatory, but I can’t work out why this doesn’t fit into the same category.

And that’s before you get onto the point about whether the baby is actually being fed.

I would imagine it is identifying the baby and that doesn't seem appropriate.

I really don't believe the nspcc would have no opinion on a mother feeding her young baby on something other than breast milk or formula. Why do supposed experts throw safeguarding away when the magic trans word is uttered?

It is fucking worrying that they refuse to acknowledge the potential concerns both on an individual case but also as in the misleading wider message that a baby can be breastfed safely by a male. How is their response protectingchildten in any way. It is damaging as it gives Males the green light. Again in plain sight. I'm disgusted.

It's the impact of being a queer theory captured organisation. Remember how hard it was for the NSPCC to admit that an employee publicly posting photos of himself masturbating in his rubber gimp suit in workplace toilets was doing something wrong? That alone raised hundreds of safeguarding red flags, yet their initial response was to call those complaining homophobic.

The straightforward act of safeguarding babies and children will always take second place to their wish to prioritise the demands of queer theory activists - and as we see - children are less safe because of it.

Many CSA allegations are tricky to assess and concerning signs / symptoms need a level of investigation to assess what you're looking at. Some concerns turn out to be nothing worrying while others indicate more serious abuse:
Extracts from the NSPCC's definitions (edited):

They define neglect as including :
.. the ongoing failure to meet a child's basic needs ....... A child might be left hungry or dirty, or without proper clothing, shelter, supervision or health care. This can put children and young people in danger.

Their definition of sexual abuse includes:
Child sexual abuse (CSA) is when a child is forced or persuaded to take part in sexual activities. ..... Children and young people may not always understand that they are being sexually abused.
Contact abuse involves activities where an abuser makes physical contact with a child. It includes:

• forcing or encouraging a child to take part in sexual activity

https://learning.nspcc.org.uk/child-abuse-and-neglect/child-sexual-abuse

https://www.nspcc.org.uk/what-is-child-abuse/types-of-abuse/neglect/#what

Their definition of sexual abuse includes:
Child sexual abuse (CSA) is when a child is forced or persuaded to take part in sexual activities. ..... Children and young people may not always understand that they are being sexually abused.

Well, this 'breastfeeding' is clearly a sexual activity for the man involved. And the child does not understand they are being abused.

Wonder what they will do about it?