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 there is a great deal of weight being carried by this supposed single study that we cannot access to see what was tested for and what was not.

And this over reliance on one single case is being spread as misinformation. Because it is one case study being reported as robust fact while potentially not measuring all components and certainly not long term.

I too am suspicious about this BBC interview. It is clear that some groups will now be pushing this society must accept this. And male people will do this simply to push the boundaries as even more ‘stunning and brave’. Under the guise of supposedly being good for the infant.

Do other non-birthing parents (male or female) get NHS support to breastfeed?

Or just transwomen?

Why not?

Why do males NEED to breastfeed?

If you are a woman, and you can do it it is the best thing for the baby.

If you are a man, why would you take the risk in terms of this not being an area of robust study?It's not the same as hormones given to women who don't produce milk. It's not just the lactation hormones. It's all the other hormones you take. And we don't know the long term risks to men who do this. What if it had risks that risked premature death? One study is not enough.

Women generally will do the best thing for their child overall and put their child before them. They question every tiny thing they do with their child. And the guilt? Yeah...

Men breastfeeding strikes me as just being about male egos and fuck all to do with the child who is just a prop to their validation.

Please can someone share a link showing any male has had NHS support to breastfeed? I can't believe it's true.

Based on the research out there, i suspect the whole "males can lactate" thing is similar to the menstrual cramps fantasy (or the womb transplant fantasy) and a product of extreme wishful thinking. There is a lot of difference between being able to produce some fluid through lactation, and being able to actually breastfeed a baby as lots of new mums know.

I too am suspicious about this BBC interview. It is clear that some groups will now be pushing this society must accept this. And male people will do this simply to push the boundaries as even more ‘stunning and brave’. Under the guise of supposedly being good for the infant.

This. They are deliberately pushing this hard through the captured media, because they know most people find it repulsive. If they can get past that, they imagine that society will view these males as more like actual women. And it threatens children's safeguarding practices which benefits the trans lobby in a number of ways.

We can expect all these same sort of arguments when modern-day Mengeles figure out how to implant a woman's stolen uterus in a man's body without it killing him.

GB News did a later segment with Kellie Jay Keen and an American woman who was enthusiastically pro. KJK was unequivocal that she saw it as child abuse. I'm posting it mainly to demonstrate the kind of arguments being made by the other woman.

x.com/theposieparker/status/1759700865055650264?s=46&t=SPorwN-mokktL467rcZ57g

Once moobfeeding has been normalised by compliant media to a generation of gender-ideological sheep, this will be the next boundary they transgress.

Are you asking that we confirm
that people like Mika Minio-Paluello received the drugs on the NHS? Or are you denying that male people are actually doing this and that they are all lying?

Because the fact is that even if Mika Minio-Paluello went private, there will be male people approaching the NHS for this. And particularly now the BBC has done such an unbalanced interview on this topic.

Why do males NEED to breastfeed?
Exactly. If a mother is unable to breastfeed, or simply needs a break from it, then expressing and / or formula already exist as alternatives, used around the world for decades (at the very least). I can see absolutely no medical need to take such a risk, so what, precisely is going on?

Yes, the former.
I think its more likely that person 1) didn't do any lactating and fantasised it or 2) did her own medicating using OTC Medications or 3) got it privately prescribed by someone like webberley.

Therefore a lot of this story (NHS approve TW feeding chemical ridden milk to babies) is exaggerated. Its kind of a dystopia internet nightmare scenario rather than any reflection of a reality where TW are actually breastfeeding babies.

I'm sure TW want to do that. It doesn't mean they can

Are you missing the point deliberately? The NHS has published guidance that it is A OK for men to feed babies with chemically induced effluent. No research into the impact on the baby. The fact that you seek to minimise this and aren't morally repulsed tells us all we need to know about the direction of travel under a Labour government.

I thought this was a leaked letter rather than guidance? And that noone has seen the actual letter?

I'm not sure what Labour has got to do with it either

As the Trust has openly responded to the media stating that they "stand by" the contents of the letter from their medical director (link upthread) I'm not sure why anyone's claiming fake news. It can be guaranteed that if the letter did not exist and all those who've said they've seen it (CoTs, the media etc) were lying, the Trust would be shouting that from the rooftops.

Such a poor attempt to derail

Indeed.

If formula milk is good enough for women, why isn't it good enough for men?

Why go to extremes to do god knows what to your body? What level of benefit is there for that? And who benefits?

But they CAN produce a substance they declare is milk.

Now that we have that settled. It is appropriate that the NHS has a policy around this that states clearly that it is not appropriate for male people to do this. Even if they have one per x years. It now needs to be stated clearly for those that enquire so a doctor has a reference.

It has been happening in Australia through endocrinologists. We know that this is happening.

Whether they do it via the NHS or privately, there now needs to be clear guidance because there will enquiries, whether we like it or not, whether we agree or not, the NHS now is being forced to do something.

yes.

And if they 'stand by' their letter, they now need to get the NHS (not just Brighton trust) to start publishing some evidenced guidance to deal with the flood of enquiries. Or the governing body needs to say 'on the basis of this single case study, there is simply not enough evidence for use'.

That BBC interview has forced the NHS's hand I would suggest.

Yes the double standards are OFF THE FUCKING CHARTS.

If it wasn't immediately obvious who the toxic narcissistic men were, then the difference in treatment would make it clear. Let's not forget the scandals where babies have died due to inadequate practice in maternity units, but no, let's piss away money on this.

I was told to stop breastfeeding for a week to take an antibiotic given to really poorly newborns. Because they didn't have sufficient data that it's safe (there was some date - they knew it could pass into breastmilk, the levels measured in the very small numbers of women where it had been studied were not of concern but the judgement was the evidence base was inadequate to take the risk).

https://www.theparadoxinstitute.com/read/the-ugly-truth-of-male-breastfeeding

This has a quick and very brief run down on that 2023 study that I cannot access.

Study One

The first study cited in this section involves measuring the nutrients from a 47 year old transwoman who wished to support breastfeeding of their child in addition to the mother's breastfeeding. Similar to the previous cases, this transwoman was only able to produce approximately 150 mL or about 5 oz per day. The expressed milk was analyzed for four nutrients: protein, lactose, fat, and calories. These values were then compared to average values of breastfeeding women between 2 and 3 months after birth.

The results of the analysis were that the milk produced was within a reasonable range of the standard numbers with the exception of one: fat. The average fat for breastfeeding women was 3.4 g/dL. The amounts collected from the transwoman's samples ranged from 4.1-6.2 g/dL. The amount of fat in milk that the infant receives is important for the growth and development of the infant, however too much fat can also result in health problems early in life including obesity and diabetes.

It should be noted that the mother in this case also breast-fed the infant in question, so despite the poor volume, the infant was never malnourished.

In addition, the study states its own limitations that the nutrient measurements may be over or under represented as the collection was over an estimated 24 hour period.

Perhaps the most concerning part of the study is that it included a statement from the transwoman about how affirming the act of breastfeeding was and the emotional and bonding benefits for the transwoman. While bonding to the infant is important, such bonds can be achieved through skin to skin contact and does not require breastfeeding.

So, have they analysed it for all the other compounds? Or is this a repeat of just the nutrition values, yet again. It seems that this was in line with what the person interviewed on the BBC said last night. That person stated that the substance was 'richer' than breast milk produced by the mother, or was 'more nutritious' used? I can't remember. The gist was that that person discussed 'nutrition' and not any other compounds.

And this is the second or third study into the 'nutrition value' of male lactation substances.... yet if there is still not study of other compounds, that seems to be completely unbalanced in the story they are trying to spin here.

Also people need to be clear that it is male breastfeeding. Not any kind of women. Calling it "transgender women" is obfuscation. Many people will think they mean a biological female who identifies as a man.

It's fucking unbelievable the NHS trust has come out with this tripe without being sure there was a full hormonal analysis of the tw excretion. It is already known that high levels of hormones can be very damaging to babies and can cause serious health impacts.

I cannot believe the safety of babies is being disregarded for the fantasy of men by this NHS trust. Who can we complain to? I am NOT ok with my taxpayer money being used to fund experimentation on babies which is likely to cause harm (high levels of hormones that are not normal in human development WILL harm these babies). Where are the bloody endocrinologists speaking out? Fucks sake, so pissed off.

Here's a paper about the harms of exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals found in the environment. If these environmental chemicals - which babies and children will be exposed to in much lower quantities- can disrupt development, then direct exposure to massive doses of hormones will no doubt be far far worse for damaging the child's normal hormonal development. What happened to 'first do no harm'??

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5322271/

I have just tried to find out more but realised that LaScap had also added to her analysis which I had not caught up on.

https://lascapigliata.com/2023/07/03/case-study-2-experiment-of-induced-lactation-in-a-trans-identifying-male-excerpt-from-born-in-the-right-body/

Incomplete analysis of male nipple discharge: presence of medications including Domperidone, cross-sex hormones or antibodies in the male breast fluid not measured; sodium not measured (it was low-ish in another study); other nutrients “at the same level or HIGHER” (not necessarily a good thing); comparison with mature mother’s milk (70-94 days after delivery) not with colostrum or transitional milk appropriate for a newborn.

So. No. They STILL have not analysed that substance even adequately.

Is this going to be another 'telling a pregnant mother they cannot take testosterone because it might harm the child' being presented as ableist and hateful to children with disabilities and that this should not be used to prevent a special group doing what they want? But this time it is due to deliberate narrowing of studies to not find and publish that information .... because it would be very negative to the political cause pushing these studies to be even done.

Isn't it fascinating that the first thing these medics and activists pushing for tw to "feed" babies should have done was to thoroughly research the content of male nipple secretions with breast milk - comprehensive studies - analyse, compare, assess advantages and risks for babies.

Two reasons it hasn't happened - one because the safety and welfare of babies and children is never on the agenda. And secondly because they've been so spectacularly successful at appropriating women's health issues and turning parts of the NHS into a hostile environment for women that it's just a continuation of the juggernaut that continues to roll over the rights of others.

Too true Mrs O