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

aCtUaL rEsEaRcH or not, its weird, disgusting and deviant.

I'm still waiting for butterfly to describe the benefit to the baby.

I doubt it's crossed butterfly's mind that there should be any.

Careful, your mask is slipping.

Love the name btw.

Creepy. Unethical.

do you think people who believe in this is related to AGP are having to mask that?

Thankfully you are not in charge of NHS policy in this regard.

" I fear that suggesting we follow the actual research rather than vague fearmongering statements about 'chemicals' and 'male milk' is asking too much of many of the posters who have commented so far."

1. What's in it for the child?
2. Do YOU think it's fine for a biological male to want to "feed" a baby?
3. If it is not "male" milk, then what is it, given that the person doing the "feeding" is a male?
4. Don't you think the "chemicals" in the substance are something to be concerned about and therefore studied more extensively?

How can you be advocating for a situation where a male is allowing an infant to "feed" from him, given that there are NO studies which show a male has EVER produced enough of this substance to fully and exclusively feed an infant and fully nourish them? All the studies showed very small amounts of milk produced and supplemental feeding has to be introduced. This is experimentation on babies.
To satisfy a word that I'm not allowed to say on a women's forum for some reason.

This is absolutely mental because the NHS wouldn’t prescribe me the drug to help boost my milk supply despite the fact that my allergy baby was suffering, won’t take a bottle and I just don’t make enough milk for her. So I just have to feed a screaming hungry baby for upwards of 20 hours a day. A baby that I produced and have spent 5 months desperately attempting to feed.

Fuck NHS policy. This is unevidenced, unethical and dangerous. There is no mask to slip, let me say it clearly so you will understand, we are against this and will get it stopped and those responsible held to account.

When would it ever be necessary to induce lactation in males, though?

I'm firmly of the belief that 'fed is best' when it comes to babies. If a mother can breastfeed, and is happy to, that's great. If she is unable or doesn't want to for whatever reason, formula is available. There is simply no need to artificially induce lactation in a male for babies to ingest.

Which means it is purely being done for the male's benefit.

You mean aside from the practical benefit of having more than one person in a household able to chestfeed alongside the psychological benefits of doing so?

Who gives a flying fuck about the psychological benefits for some bloke to get validation?
We are talking about THE CHILD here, or did that slip your mind?

Oh, and you don't feed from your "chest" BTW.

I'm sorry it's so difficult 😞

Trans women aren't to blame, however.

Psychological benefits - for the baby I assume?
Like skin to skin?
Doesn't need male lactation.

It's apparent that some very dubious people are in charge of some NHS policies - Annexe B policies actively seeking to place male sex offenders claiming to be women alongside women on hospital wards, the disastrous experimentation on children at GIDS, this vile use of babies to satisfy certain men's demands.
Time for a deep dive into some hard drives and the restoration of safeguarding in all parts of the NHS.

There is no evidence that feeding this effulant to a baby isn't harmful. That is our point. And psychological benefit to who?
No resources should be spent on encouraging this.

There are no psychological benefits.

Forcing a newborn baby to drink testosterone isn't a benefit, in case it's not clear.

And, I realise you probably don't know this, but a mother's milk can be transferred to a bottle and used to feed a baby by as many people as they like.

A man doesn't have to take copious amounts of drugs, and squeeze an un-nourishing bit of liquid out of his nipple in order to do it.

Chestfeed: careful, your mask is slipping.

Codling

You are posting to a poster who cannot recognise male entitlement or the fact that content written by male people over time absolutely is very clear in that male entitlement when that content is about what that male might be excluded from.

They also don't have a concept of centring children. At all.

Yes I've also read that the high dosage men need to force the lactation can cause ill effects on baby's heart. Seems they are willing to put babies health at risk for the sake of people's feelings and personal choices they make for themselves.

AND AGAIN.

What's in it for the child? Skin to skin can be done without a nipple in the child's mouth. Breast milk can be expressed and given via bottle by any other care givers.

APART from male validation, there are absolutely ZERO benefits for the baby.

You have absolutely no understanding in this area.

Children are not 'chestfed' they are 'breastfed'. There is significant anatomical differences.

Who is deriving the psychological benefits here? It is not a benefit for any male person feeding an infant a cocktail of unknown substances that may cause significant health issues in the long term. Even a Gender Clinic Doctor has pointed out that there could be potential IQ reduction with the hormones/medication that might be coming through that substance.

ButterflyHatched

Did you read the account from the man who had forced liquid from his nipple in order to give it to his own baby where he said it was more exciting than anything a lover had ever done. And he didn't wish to be judged because of it?

Do you think that is psychologically good for the baby?

Babies are the PROP here.

Not the focus.