CDC issues 'chestfeeding' guidelines for biological males 'lactating'

I think what RunRagged is trying to say - guys, don't go around feeding newborns your milk-like galactorrhea sludge because you read an abstract, written by a transgender medical activist, about 1 single test subject.

But at an even deeper level, what he’s trying to say is what he always says: that trans people should always be shamed relentlessly. It’s what it means to be a Republican. If you’re, gay, non-white, poor, trans, etc. you should be treated with total contempt.

Mate, you've "misgendered" me.

If you'd read my posts, you'd know that I am a woman and a mum.

Please link to posts of mine that prove your claim that by providing some information about breastfeeding and the needs of newborns on this thread, what I am really doing is

trying to say is what he always says: that trans people should always be shamed relentlessly.

I don't think I've ever said anything of the sort on LRC or anywhere else.

As for your claim that I belive "if you're gay, non-white, poor, trans, etc you should be treated with total contempt," that's just a bunch of ridiculous malarkey you made up purely out of the fantasies you entertain in your own head.

Lots of people who are left-leaning or centrist, gay, lesbian, bi, non-white, non-Western, poor, trans-identified, "gender non-conforming" and different to the norn and marginalized in myriad ways are opposed to gender identity being used as an excuse for adults to commit new kinds of child abuse of infants.

Many people who are not male, Republican, white, heterosexual, middle-class and so on are very much opposed to men and boys being allowed to use gender identity claims to mistreat newborn babies - and to deprive girls and women of our hard-won rights by horning in on female sports.

Rushing to snap judgments about other people and stereotyping total strangers the way you've done with me is the sign of a small mind, very limited life experience and a narrow social circle.

Monstering women for knowing about matters like breastfeeding, the nutritional needs of newborn babies, and the physical differences between male and female humans is misogyny.

Demonizing people for having different views to your own is a sign of bigotry

1) No, that isn't the question. Breastfeeding "best meets" the child's needs, yet formula milk is still available despite being known to be suboptimal. There is no evidence that induced lactation in natal or transgender women can't meet the child's needs adequately.

2) The advisory is primarily due to the rare risk of adverse cardiac effects for the adult (there is mixed evidence of this), not about any adverse effects on the child. It's worth noting that domperidone is one of the most common drugs used to induce lactation in general.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Domperidone

Domperidone is not approved for marketing in the United States by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), but is available in other countries. Domperidone may also be available from some compounding pharmacies in the US....

Open link

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Use of domperidone as a galactagogue drug: a systematic review of the benefit-risk ratio - PubMed

Breastfeeding is the optimal method for feeding a newborn. However, some mothers may have difficulties lactating. Domperidone is widely used as a galactagogue but to the best of our knowledge has not been approved by any heal...

Open link

nhs.uk

Pregnancy, breastfeeding and fertility while taking domperidone

https://www.facebook.com/nhswebsite/

NHS medicines information on domperidone and whether you can take it while pregnant or breastfeeding.

Open link

I do, which is why I said, "the abstract reflects the contents of the study and states its conclusions." I just don't care whether or not kiltedrunner on letsrun.com personally believes the medical literature. Professionals do and there is no evidence that it is harmful.

You don't. Otherwise you'd relish in proving me wrong, and you'd also have some insight into the study beyond the abstract, which you clearly don't.

It’s not “malarkey,” it’s a pattern that’s easy to see for anyone who’s not actively trying not to see it. I don’t much care what your gender is. If you, as a layperson, are suddenly concerned about some obscure medical position that considers this practice dangerous, but don’t give two sh$ts about the medical literature as a whole, you have some soul searching to do. Believe me, there are non-scientific reasons that this caught your attention.

The abstract reflects the contents of the study and states its conclusions.

https://imgur.com/a/kj6u5pZ

I think you're confused. What needs to be proven is that induced lactation in trans women is intrinsically harmful to an infant, which means the burden of proof is on you. The studies on this topic have not arrived at the conclusion that it is intrinsically harmful. Do you have evidence to the contrary? If not, why are you confidently asserting that it is harmful? If there is no evidence that it is harmful, medical professionals have no reason to advise against it.

By your poor logic it could reasonably be surmised that you have alterior motives for defending predatory men who put vulnerable women and children in dangerous situations.

The patient in this case was acting on the advice of her primary care provider and was monitored at regular intervals.

So stupid. Yes exactly, my ulterior (not alterior, by the way) motive is to not to jump to conclusions that demonize especially vulnerable people! You got me.

I very much doubt that Run Ragged is a republican but I could be completely wrong.

I also doubt that it is anything about 'shaming'.

No, not confused. You promised a study full of evidence but you haven't got access to it, and therefore you haven't read it. Unless you post the full content of the paper, there's nothing else to say.

Hey, maybe she isn’t. If not, she should try it… she’d be good at it!

Yet you're quick to jump to conclusions to demonize women like me.

Also, you're very mixed up about who constitute the "especially vulnerable people" in the scenarios under discussion here.

In the situations you're championing where grown men are stimulating the production of nipple discharge to give them an excuse to stick their nipples in the mouths of defenseless newborns in order to validate and affirm their opposite-sex gender identies, to enact their pornography-fed and anime-inspired fantasies of having "mommy milkers," and to give themselves the special male sexual thrills known they call "gender euphoria" and "trans joy," the "especially vulnerable people" are the newborn babies - not the adult males who are abusing the babies.

I mean… just read the words you wrote. It just drips with hatred and disgust. It all comes from a gut-level reaction to a behavior that feels wrong to you. There are complicated issues at play here. But not to you, because your desire to demonize already made up your mind.

Yes, there are non-scientific reasons this caught my attention. I am sick to the back teeth of gender ideology, queer theory and the so-called "trans rights" movement being used to excuse and justify male human beings engaging in whatever selfish behaviors they want to - no matter how unfair and abusive to others, destructive to society and just plain depraved - so long as it "affirms" and "validates" their opposite-sex "identities," makes them feel good personally, and gives them the special male sexual thrills they've code-named "gender euphoria" and "trans joy."

Also, I'm not suddenly concerned about this. I've been interested in child welfare my whole life - and I've actively opposed ideologies, social hierarchies, legal systems and codes of behavior that give men men and boys free rein to commit physical and sexual abuse of babies, children, women and other males since I was a girl.

I've been interested in the trans issue since I was a kid and read about Christine Jorgensen, and especially since the 1970s when Jan Morris and Renee Richards were both heralded for their very public "transitions." That's also when a grown man I knew very well - the middle-aged father of 5, and a Republican and John Birch Society member too - announced that he was a woman and now expected his kids to call him "mom" and demanded that he be allowed to insinuate himself into lesbian groups.

Yes, I am a layperson in the areas of lactation and newborn medicine. But that doesn't mean I'm an uninformed ninny who has no idea what she's talking about. I happen to know a fair bit about breastfeeding and newborn babies in part because I've had children whom I breastfed, and I've been involved in breastfeeding support for other mums.

My hunch is that I am probably a lot more knowledgable about, and experienced at, breastfeeding and what's best for newborns than you are.

I showed you I have access to it, and you do seem to be confused. The person I respond to said, "do you not think that it'll be unhealthy to consume milk that's filled with unnatural chemicals to make a biological male 'lactate'?"

I responded with, "the evidence doesn't show it is unhealthy." This paper and the other studies on this topic have not reached the conclusion that it is unhealthy, hence the abstract stating, "these findings provide reassurance about the adequacy of nutrition from human milk produced by nongestational transgender female and nonbinary parents on estrogen-based, gender-affirming hormone therapy."

Despite the remonstrations of many people in this thread, not a single person has shown scientific evidence that supports the statement that it is unhealthy. Since medical professionals operate on the scientific evidence and not their personal opinions and unproven conjecture, there is no reason for them to advise against this practice.

Hah loser