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.
Please set out and describe the "complicated issues at play here" that justify adult males doing this to babies. Or, for that matter, adult females who are not biological mothers.
Yes, men doing this to babies "feels wrong" to me. But it's not because these men are trans-identified. It's because the stuff coming out of their nipples is not beneficial to the babies babies - and may indeed be physically harmful to them. Moreover, adults using babies as "gender affirmation" devices to prop up the adults' own sense of self - and/or adults using babies for their own sexual gratification - is downright abusive to the babies.
My view is that this form of "trans rights" for adult males is a violation of the human rights of the babies involved. Similarly, my view is that the form of "trans rights" that enables males to enter female sports and female locker rooms is a violation of the human rights of girls and women.
I would oppose any/all men doing this, regardless of how they might "identify" or what their sexual orientation is. I'd oppose it if it were being done by the father of my own children, my own father, my brothers, my son, the Pope, the Dalai Lama or any of my male friends.
I also oppose women who adopt kids using domperidone and other drugs to stimulate lactation so they can breastfeed their adoptive babies to help the women feel like "real mothers" and to give them a more "authentic bonding experience" - though fortunately, very few adoptive moms do this. Indeed, the pratice is generally frowned upon in adoptive moms and in many settings and care systems, a potential adoptive mother would be disqualified from adopting a baby or young child if she expressed a desire or plan to do this.
There are various health conditions that can cause non-lactating women to have milky-looking nipple discharge. Some women periodically have milky-looking discharge come out of our breasts during and after menopause for reasons that aren't not clear. I am against women with those conditions sticking their nipples into the mouths of newborn babies too. I would be disgusted at myself were I to do this.
This post was edited 16 minutes after it was posted.
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.
I showed you I have access to it, and you do seem to be confused.
Extraordinary claims (men's chemically induced nipple gunk should be forcefed to newborns) require extraordinary evidence. You fail again and again to provide the evidence. You have not refuted that the study simply provided a macronutrient profile of one man's 'chest milk'. This is utterly useless when determining safety. I could top up a protein shake with rat poison and it would have an excellent macronutrient profile. No evidence from you = no debate. I hereby disengage, as victor.
Most cases of male lactation involve side effects with certain drugs. Tumors can also cause lactation. Anyone taking these drugs to lactate is nuts. Perhaps the CDC will s worried that someone is ignorant enough to follow this behavior. Since it only covers a very small amount of people, one wonders why taxpayer money is spent on the subject.
Anyone actually believes it’s okay for a male to force-feed a baby his nipple should most certainly be imprisoned for life and probably sentenced to death.
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.
No, you're the one who's confused. You've flipped around the burden of proof so it's in the place opposite to where it actually belongs.
When it comes to babies and children, and to developing fetuses, erring on the side of caution is always the approach advised by medical experts who specialize in obstetrics, fetal development, neonatology and pediatrics - and by the received wisdom handed down generation to generation by mothers, grandmothers, baby nurses and nannies over the course of history.
Doctors specializing "gender medicine" who treat grown men who are "transitioning" or have "transitioned" generally have no clue about babies and what's good for them.
It is irresponsible and ridiculously naive to assume that all practices, drugs, chemicals, foodstuffs, other substances are automatically safe for babies to be fed, exposed to, or subjected to, directly or indirectly, unless there's already a pile of scientific studies that all have "arrived at the conclusion that this is intrinsically harmful."
Your assertion that
"If there is no evidence that it is harmful, medical professionals have no reason to advise against it"
is total BS. Women who are pregnant and breastfeeding are, and long have been, routinely advised by medical professionals to avoid ingesting, inhaling and having skin, hair and nail contact with a long list of prescription drugs, OTC drugs, foods, beverages, cosmetics, hair and personal care products, household and garden products, paints, chemicals and paint and chemical fumes because of the unknown but possiblly harmful effects these substances might have on the offspring we are pregnant with and the babies and young children we are breastfeeding.
Look at all the public health scandals and scares - and the deaths and lifelong disabling injuries - that have occurred over the years due to babies and young children ingesting or being exposed to things like tainted infant formula, baby food containing toxins, lead paint dust and chips, baby powder containing asbestos, and chemicals and natural pollutants in water used to mix powdered baby formulas
Generations of parents have been advised against using baby powder containing talc, sun screens and bug deterrents on babies - and against giving babies medications generally considered safe even in low-doses like baby aspirin - for fear of the harm these sorts of substances can do to babies. Harm that might not show up for years or even many decades.
Look, too, at what happened when pregnant women took Thalidomide and DES. In the case of DES, the health damage done to female offspring who were exposed to the drug prenatally when their moms took it to stave off so-called "morning sickness" sometimes showed up in so-called "DES daughters" when they were kids - but most of the health damage to "DES daughters" didn't become evident until the daughters became grown women.
This post was edited 4 minutes after it was posted.
The CDC said the jab was safe. Who would trust them?
All the talk talk talk. You don’t need that much talk. In fact I have a very simple conservative emulator you should try out. In any conflict, identify the group with that is historically the most discriminated against; that’s who conservatives are against. It really is that simple. They decide immediately who they hate, and then cherry pick studies that back their hateful views. Which, obviously, is not a sane way to use scientific research.
Also, this dummy here ^ should be their science liaison. The sophistication of his understanding is a perfect match.
The CDC said the jab was safe. Who would trust them?
All the talk talk talk. You don’t need that much talk. In fact I have a very simple conservative emulator you should try out. In any conflict, identify the group with that is historically the most discriminated against; that’s who conservatives are against. It really is that simple. They decide immediately who they hate, and then cherry pick studies that back their hateful views. Which, obviously, is not a sane way to use scientific research.
Also, this dummy here ^ should be their science liaison. The sophistication of his understanding is a perfect match.
All the talk talk talk. You don’t need that much talk. In fact I have a very simple conservative emulator you should try out. In any conflict, identify the group with that is historically the most discriminated against; that’s who conservatives are against. It really is that simple. They decide immediately who they hate, and then cherry pick studies that back their hateful views. Which, obviously, is not a sane way to use scientific research.
Also, this dummy here ^ should be their science liaison. The sophistication of his understanding is a perfect match.
^ ^ ^ sad pro-pedophilia argument.
Pro pedophilia? Like good lord people, when is this fever going to break? Can we please go back to a country where people like this live in caves and admire their magic rings?
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.
The patient in this case was acting on the advice of her primary care provider and was monitored at regular intervals.
The adult male patient in this case was not the only person involved, though. There were two other human beings involved too - the mother of the child, and the tiny, defenseless newborn baby.
The newborn baby was actually the person at greatest risk in this case because the newborn was genuinely vulnerable physically and emotionally. Moreover, the baby was far, far more vulnerable than the full-grown adult male whom you've falsely portrayed as representing the most "vulnerable people" on earth, and whom you seem to think belongs to the only group of people whose human rights matter in this kind of case.
The PCP of the grownup male was solely responsible for attending to, and monitoring, the health of the adult male. The PCP was not focused on what was best for the baby.
Chances are that the PCP monitoring the health of this adult male at regular intervals never ever saw the poor baby - and would have been unqualified to provide care for, or expert opinion about, the baby anyways.
A neonatologist, the baby's own pediatrician or a pediatrics nurse would be a far more reliable source to rely on for information about whether what the father was doing to the baby was good for baby. Tellingly, though, no one specializing in infant care and pediatric medicine is mentioned. I wonder if any were consulted.
This post was edited 4 minutes after it was posted.
Pro pedophilia? Like good lord people, when is this fever going to break? Can we please go back to a country where people like this live in caves and admire their magic rings?
As disturbing as it obviously is for you, you are NOT free to molest children or impose your perverse sexual fantasies on them, you sick fuq.
Pro pedophilia? Like good lord people, when is this fever going to break? Can we please go back to a country where people like this live in caves and admire their magic rings?
As disturbing as it obviously is for you, you are NOT free to molest children or impose your perverse sexual fantasies on them, you sick fuq.
Everyone just please notice that this is conservative “thought.” Really think about whether this is what should qualify as political discourse in the richest country in the world.
As disturbing as it obviously is for you, you are NOT free to molest children or impose your perverse sexual fantasies on them, you sick fuq.
Everyone just please notice that this is conservative “thought.” Really think about whether this is what should qualify as political discourse in the richest country in the world.
The saddest (and most revealing) part is that there’s anything debatable in the statement made. Go turn yourself in, NOW.
I showed you I have access to it, and you do seem to be confused.
Extraordinary claims (men's chemically induced nipple gunk should be forcefed to newborns) require extraordinary evidence. You fail again and again to provide the evidence. You have not refuted that the study simply provided a macronutrient profile of one man's 'chest milk'. This is utterly useless when determining safety. I could top up a protein shake with rat poison and it would have an excellent macronutrient profile. No evidence from you = no debate. I hereby disengage, as victor.
You are continuously confusing the direction of the claims being made and don't seem to understand what the burden of proof is. I have not said it "should be" done; the initial claim implied it should not be done because it is unhealthy. That claim is what I am disputing: there is no supporting evidence that it is unhealthy, and the claims that it harms the child do not reflect the findings of the case studies.
Objective: Our report describes a case of nonpuerperal induced lactation in a transgender woman. Methods: We present the relevant clinical and laboratory findings, along with a review of the relevant literature. Results: A 30...
The patient breastfed exclusively for 6 weeks. During that time the child’s pediatrician reported that the child’s growth, feeding, and bowel habits were developmentally appropriate.
Whether you like it or not, this practice is happening and will continue until there is a scientific basis for medical professionals to advise against it.
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.
No, you're the one who's confused. You've flipped around the burden of proof so it's in the place opposite to where it actually belongs.
[...]
If you do not have not evidence to support the claim that it is unhealthy and causes harm to the child, then you should not be asserting that as if it is an established fact. Medical professionals will follow the evidence, not the conjecture of laypeople who think transitioning is icky. You can disapprove as much as you want, but there is no evidence that it is unsafe or causes harm to the child, so medical professionals have no reason to advise against it.
The patient in this case was acting on the advice of her primary care provider and was monitored at regular intervals.
The adult male patient in this case was not the only person involved, though. There were two other human beings involved too - the mother of the child, and the tiny, defenseless newborn baby.
The newborn baby was actually the person at greatest risk in this case because the newborn was genuinely vulnerable physically and emotionally. Moreover, the baby was far, far more vulnerable than the full-grown adult male whom you've falsely portrayed as representing the most "vulnerable people" on earth, and whom you seem to think belongs to the only group of people whose human rights matter in this kind of case.
The PCP of the grownup male was solely responsible for attending to, and monitoring, the health of the adult male. The PCP was not focused on what was best for the baby.
Chances are that the PCP monitoring the health of this adult male at regular intervals never ever saw the poor baby - and would have been unqualified to provide care for, or expert opinion about, the baby anyways.
A neonatologist, the baby's own pediatrician or a pediatrics nurse would be a far more reliable source to rely on for information about whether what the father was doing to the baby was good for baby. Tellingly, though, no one specializing in infant care and pediatric medicine is mentioned. I wonder if any were consulted.
its very impressive how you, as a person on the internet, are so much more knowledgeable than this family's doctor
No, you're the one who's confused. You've flipped around the burden of proof so it's in the place opposite to where it actually belongs.
[...]
If you do not have not evidence to support the claim that it is unhealthy and causes harm to the child, then you should not be asserting that as if it is an established fact. Medical professionals will follow the evidence, not the conjecture of laypeople who think transitioning is icky. You can disapprove as much as you want, but there is no evidence that it is unsafe or causes harm to the child, so medical professionals have no reason to advise against it.
First, your username implies that doctors (presumably you mean MDs and not PhDs) are the only people qualified to have an opinion on this issue. Physicians actually receive relatively little training in research methods, and most do not conduct their own research. To this end, they may be less qualified to appraise the research on a particular topic than many people without MDs. Aside from all that, education and credentials do not provide special access to the truth. Anybody can make a truth claim, and we should judge that claim based on logic & evidence.
Second, there are countless examples of people arrogantly using technology to hack normal biological processes and creating harm in the process. When somebody claims to have circumvented or induced normal biological processes using technology, we should always be skeptical.
Third, you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. There is no special credential required to evaluate the safety and morality of biological males--or even women who aren't lactating for pregnancy-related reasons--encouraging babies to suck on their nipples. If a female daycare worker did this to the babies in her care, she would probably be indicted for child abuse, and rightfully so.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.
