Trans women feeding chemical ridden milk to babies - approved by NHS

[Heylo]

Are people aware of this?
This has gone too far. Throwing women and children under a bus is one thing. Now babies.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13095965/Row-hospitals-say-hormone-filled-milk-trans-women-born-male-just-good-baby-real-thing.html?ito=native_share_article-top

I think that's gone now?

Just adding this because it seems relevant to this discussion.

Further proof that there is lactation fetishists out there.

Page 46 of the WPATH leaked files report.

'In fact, within all the files, the sole instance where WPATH members express concern regarding the potential dangers and adverse effects of a medical procedure is found in a conversation involving a trans-identified natal male interested in hormone-induced lactation purely for the sake of experiencing it, with no intention of nursing an infant. From the information given, the patient appears to be otherwise mentally well, but his doctor described having ethical issues with this request, as it was not without some risk.'

'The replies echoed the doctor’s concerns, with one doctor calling the request unethical because it was a “medical intervention that is not necessary” and a San Francisco ethicist calling the reason for the intervention “questionable.”'

At least some medical professionals are recognising that there is 'some risk' involved with this treatment which is in NO way life saving and purely about satisfying a male's demand.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/56a45d683b0be33df885def6/t/65e64b9e5cbd756da9fbbdfa/1709591479160/Final+WPATH+Report.pdf

The milk in question is neither "hormone filled, or "chemical ridden." It's been anaylsed for macronutrient content, and is induced using similar methods used for non-transgender women.

If I were you dadjoke, I would read more of the numerous threads on this topic. You seem under informed to say the least.

WE KNOW that the substance has been analysed ONLY for nutrition. It has not been even basically, let alone adequately analysed, for any drug or hormone interaction that is directly based on being a secretion from a male person.

The drug used to induce this state has also been banned in some countries and is now very little used in the UK, and certainly not for long. No where near the duration that these male people are using it.

So, please stop spreading misinformation about male people inducing lactation. It is quite obvious that you have little understanding of the topic.

WPATH themselves were saying there was a problem.

But nope. You know better. As usual.

Never mind the ethics. Dadjoke knows best.

Indeed, Red, it seems that dadjoke knows even more than the male medical doctor Dr Deutsch who raised significant concerns about the interactions and who decided that even though they, a gender clinician who was male but on female hormones etc, could have done this for their own child, decided they did not want to risk that child's future by doing so.

Strange that a male poster who is always keen to jump in with an uninformed opinion would feel they knew more than a gender clinician who is trans and researched it thoroughly before deciding the risk was too great for their own child.... But then again...

Dadjoke may need to look up the word 'macronutrients'.

Oh please be quiet, you obviously didn't read what others have posted and said , nor what was said about the moob juice, I refuse to call it milk! It's too high in fat and these men will never produce enough to satisfy a growing baby. So it is hormone filled, chemical ridden moob juice as far as i'm concerned! I have included a picture to help you understand the difference between men and womens breast tissue HTH.

This repellent story has done more to educate the general public about the fetishist aspect of this ideology. Apart from dadjoke and one other poster on here I've not come across anyone advocating for babies to be experimented on in this vile way.

Responsible adults have been universally horrified and are questioning why the hospital has not had a serious safeguarding review if any of their staff are promoting this.

Completely agreed, there's so much evidence now that it really should be undeniable at this point.

I'll rephrase
This vile incident has shown a horrified public just how readily some people are to condone experimenting on babies for reasons that have already been expressed in this thread. With a couple of exceptions (who I won't name - posters can see who they are) I've not come across anyone who thinks this is OK in any form.
The publicity has shed a light on some some very murky behaviour that has no place in a civilised society and babies deserve protecting from it.

Really well put. This has exposed trans - ideology. Infact with each new group affected by this agenda, more and more people are waking up to the risks associated with joining in the fiction these men want society to participate in.

Hopefully a couple more scandals (we saw WPATH today, mainstream news reporting on it thank goodness) and some sensible conversation can take place eg give them a third space, stop them affecting so many other groups (children, women in general, lesbians and bi women, now neonates, sportswomen).

And I thought no one knew where the milk came from anyway? I thought he didn't express it in front of the doctors? I wonder why.

Could be cows milk.

Well this is true for that 6 week feeding, which was not analysed at all (or at least was not published that it was) AND for the study which was released with only the nutritional value. I don't think they were the same male, I could be wrong though.

I always expressed doubts about the acceptance of that male supposedly exclusively feeding for 6 weeks, with the knowledge that within days the infant would require more than that male was producing AND the doctor declaring that child was very healthy and thriving. Something very much seemed to be not consistent at all.

"I always expressed doubts about the acceptance of that male supposedly exclusively feeding for 6 weeks, with the knowledge that within days the infant would require more than that male was producing AND the doctor declaring that child was very healthy and thriving. Something very much seemed to be not consistent at all."

I have never believed this.

I don't know why, just because a "study" has been published everyone assumes it must be true. Research fraud is common and often frankly outrageously unlikely to be true.

I give you the case of Malcolm Pearce, an obstetrician who claimed to have successfully removed and ectopic pregnancy from the fallopian tube and relocated it to the uterus. Among other things.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2541615/pdf/bmj00468-0011.pdf

He also produced a totally fictitious three year double blind randomised trial.

"Mr Pearce also claimed to have conducted a three year, double blind, randomised trial in which 191 women prone to miscarriage were treated with human chorionic gonadotrophin and placebos. He wrote a paper based on this research, in which he concluded that human chorionic gonadotrophin improved the outcome of pregnancy in women with recurrent miscarriage and the polycystic ovary syndrome......

Suspicions were aroused at first by the large number of women prone to miscarriages whom Mr Pearce claimed to have recruited for his study. He was unable to produce notes, consent forms, patients, or any other corroboration. No other doctors had heard of the research while it was supposedly in progress......

Meanwhile Mr Pearce had further altered records of real patients to manufacture a suitable patient Y. One woman whose details were changed had in fact been born in 1910 and was dead at the time of her supposed pregnancy."

www.bmj.com/content/310/6994/1554.2

*One woman whose details were changed had in fact been born in 1910 and was dead at the time of her supposed pregnancy."

ffs !

A recent case study.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13006-024-00624-1

Case presentation
In this case a 37-year-old transgender woman, who was under the care of the centre of expertise on gender dysphoria in Amsterdam, and in 2020 started lactation induction because she had the wish to breastfeed her future infant. She was in a relationship with a cisgender woman and had been using gender affirming hormone therapy for 13 years. Prior to initiating gender affirming hormone therapy she had cryopreserved her semen. Her partner conceived through Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection, using our patient’s cryopreserved sperm.

To induce lactation, we implemented a hormone-regimen to mimic pregnancy, using estradiol and progesterone, and a galactogogue; domperidone. Our patient started pumping during treatment. Dosage of progesterone and estradiol were significantly decreased approximately one month before childbirth to mimic delivery and pumping was increased. Our patient started lactating and although the production of milk was low, it was sufficient for supplementary feeding and a positive experience for our patient.

Two weeks after birth, lactation induction was discontinued due to suckling problems of the infant and low milk production.

Conclusions

This case report underlined that lactation induction protocols commonly used for cisgender women are also effective in transgender women. However, the amount of milk produced may not be sufficient for exclusive nursing.

Nevertheless, success of induced lactation may be attributed to its importance for parent-infant bonding, rather than the possibility of exclusive chestfeeding.

And while the father of the child gained the desired experience and 'bonding', were the child's 'suckling problems' anything to do with the child's feeding from their mother being interrupted and confused/time being spent providing the father with an emotional experience? And/or due to the the child not actually gaining enough food? (Even at newborn amounts?) Or did the mother agree not to feed her child so that the father could? Any mention anywhere of the impact on the child absorbing drugs so that the father could gain this experience?

How many members of that family sacrificed to provide the father with this?

Yep

Very good points, Frood.

although the production of milk was low, it was sufficient for supplementary feeding and a positive experience for our patient.

I bet.

The baby, on the other hand lactation induction was discontinued due to suckling problems of the infant and low milk production.

Still, as long as the bloke with the possible lactation fetish was ok.

Two weeks after birth, lactation induction was discontinued due to suckling problems of the infant and low milk production.

I suspect the "sucking problems" were an angry refusal to latch onto a hairy nipple that didn't provide a satisfying spurt of milk.

Babies aren't stupid.

Poor baby.
The male must smell different too.

7ml

That was the maximum amount produced. 7ml. That's per day in 4hrly point drains, just over 1ml per session.

A ton of chemicals, hormones, possibly disrupting breastfeeding with mum and 5 MONTHS plus of the trans parent manually and then using a pump expressing, for 7ml a day.

Trans parent stopped because it was tiring 😂
And because it wasn't enough milk.
And because baby didn't latch well on moobs.