There is no evidence that it is intrinsically unhealthy or harmful to the child, and the studies so far have not arrived at this conclusion either.
You're basing this opinion off of one study, with one single test subject, with a baby who was primarily fed by the mother, written by a trans medical activist, which you didn't even read past the abstract. This is not anything to make a conclusion on. Also, absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence.
Even if chemically-induced, male galactorrhea milk was just as healthy, there are also ethical considerations to be made in using a child to validate and satisfy your obsession with being the opposite sex. A big problem in this trans debate is the amount of conceited trans people who want to constantly use and manipulate other people to validate their own beliefs. Not saying they're all like this, but it's definitely an issue.
This post was edited 8 minutes after it was posted.
Some posters on here have speculated that the milk produced is healthy for the child. I am not aware of studies, but it may be. The problem is the danger to the MTF person who takes the drugs. This is from a breast feeding site:
"Pills: There are two pills commonly recommended for inducing lactation, domperidone and metoclopramide; neither of which is FDA approved to be prescribed for the purpose. Domperidone is a nausea medication and while in many countries it is commonly used for lactation, it can also exacerbate heart conditions and has been known to cause cardiac arrhythmia. Reglan is used to treat gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and nausea caused by chemotherapy. For people taking it without a prescription, it can actually cause nausea as well as severe neurologic disorders including severe depression."
Only a person who has mental health issues would take these drugs.
Your claim that "there is no evidence that indicates it is harmful" is faulty on two grounds.
[...]
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.
Your comments make it very clear that you are not a woman. Like RunRagged, I am a woman, and I have gestated, birthed and breastfed three children. Had you been through pregnancy, you would understand, as RunRagged says, that the burden of proof is on the person who would feed a baby men's "milk." It's not sufficient to say there's no evidence of harm. That's not how it works with babies. Mothers suffer through all manner of discomfort and inconvenience during pregnancy and childbirth and while breastfeeding because of this burden of proof.
Honestly, I can't believe you're for real.
This post was edited 56 seconds after it was posted.
Reason provided:
Missing word
This comes from the same corrupt organization that recommended young healthy people get virtually untested mRNA shots. No surprise. These agencies all need to go. They cause way more harm than good.
This country is moving every day toward increasing levels of insanity.
Amen, and look in the mirror, bro.
The number of people this guidance applies to is basically zero. And those it does apply to are overwhelmingly good parents...
Stop pretending negligible fringe issues are a notable concern. Hillbillies with meth babies are probably outpacing any harmed kids with TG parents 100-1.
"Those it does apply to are overwhelmingly good parents"
Based on what? Hypothetical hillbillies? How does one thing relate to the other?
I'm sure there are a lot of hoodlum gangsters with kids too... This post isn't about which insane, deranged, or criminal subculture has 'good parents'. It is about the absurdity of calling women 'men' in any context (but especially in a medical context that requires the use of organs that men don't have).
Good parents? Who the hell knows?! I don't even know what sort of ranking system one would use to come up with such an evaluation.
One thing I do know is that you have to be a pretty messed up person to try to convince a young child that a woman is a man or vice versa. Like 'mommy is a guy named Paul, never mind that you came out of her vagina'. That tells the kid that either words mean nothing, or biology means nothing. Neither of which is good for the kid.
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.
You can have whatever opinion you want: there is still no evidence that it is harmful/unhealthy. There is no point in responding to me with a load of conjecture because it does not constitute evidence.
As for your comment about "women who aren't lactating for pregnancy-related reasons", induced lactation in female adoptive parents, same-sex couples and biological mothers of surrogate children has been recognized and studied for decades. Again, there is no evidence that this is harmful or unhealthy to the child.
Breastfeeding is possible in cases of adoption or surrogacy, but if this is to occur, it optimally requires advance preparation through hormonal stimulation as well as signaling of the breasts through pumping in advance of delivery.
There is really no point in responding to me with your uneducated opinions on things that you have clearly not spent any time researching.
There is no evidence that it is intrinsically unhealthy or harmful to the child, and the studies so far have not arrived at this conclusion either.
You're basing this opinion off of one study, with one single test subject, with a baby who was primarily fed by the mother, written by a trans medical activist, which you didn't even read past the abstract. This is not anything to make a conclusion on. Also, absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence.
Even if chemically-induced, male galactorrhea milk was just as healthy, there are also ethical considerations to be made in using a child to validate and satisfy your obsession with being the opposite sex. A big problem in this trans debate is the amount of conceited trans people who want to constantly use and manipulate other people to validate their own beliefs. Not saying they're all like this, but it's definitely an issue.
I'm basing this statement on the fact that there is no evidence that it is intrinsically unhealthy or harmful to the child. The statement will remain true until there is evidence that it is intrinsically unhealthy or harmful to the child.
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.
You can have whatever opinion you want: there is still no evidence that it is harmful/unhealthy. There is no point in responding to me with a load of conjecture because it does not constitute evidence.
As for your comment about "women who aren't lactating for pregnancy-related reasons", induced lactation in female adoptive parents, same-sex couples and biological mothers of surrogate children has been recognized and studied for decades. Again, there is no evidence that this is harmful or unhealthy to the child.
Breastfeeding is possible in cases of adoption or surrogacy, but if this is to occur, it optimally requires advance preparation through hormonal stimulation as well as signaling of the breasts through pumping in advance of delivery.
There is really no point in responding to me with your uneducated opinions on things that you have clearly not spent any time researching.
This guy is so right and his logic is ON POINT. There is currently NO evidence to suggest feeding goat vomit to newborn babies is harmful. There was a study written by a goat vomit activist that found that goat vomit has a GOOD BALANCE of fat and protein in it. They didn't test for anything harmful so that means goat vomit ISN'T HARMFUL. Stop complaining about parents who choose to feed their newborn babies goat vomit when there is currently ZERO evidence of harm guys
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.
Your comments make it very clear that you are not a woman. Like RunRagged, I am a woman, and I have gestated, birthed and breastfed three children. Had you been through pregnancy, you would understand, as RunRagged says, that the burden of proof is on the person who would feed a baby men's "milk." It's not sufficient to say there's no evidence of harm. That's not how it works with babies. Mothers suffer through all manner of discomfort and inconvenience during pregnancy and childbirth and while breastfeeding because of this burden of proof.
Honestly, I can't believe you're for real.
You can make certain decisions with your own children if you want, but this has nothing to do with the fact that there is no evidence that induced lactation in transgender women is harmful or unhealthy for the child. If this state of affairs is acceptable to other parents then medical professionals have no reason to intervene.
Your comments make it very clear that you are not a woman. Like RunRagged, I am a woman, and I have gestated, birthed and breastfed three children. Had you been through pregnancy, you would understand, as RunRagged says, that the burden of proof is on the person who would feed a baby men's "milk." It's not sufficient to say there's no evidence of harm. That's not how it works with babies. Mothers suffer through all manner of discomfort and inconvenience during pregnancy and childbirth and while breastfeeding because of this burden of proof.
Honestly, I can't believe you're for real.
You can make certain decisions with your own children if you want, but this has nothing to do with the fact that there is no evidence that induced lactation in transgender women is harmful or unhealthy for the child. If this state of affairs is acceptable to other parents then medical professionals have no reason to intervene.
OMG so right. Just cos nobody has tested the milk for toxic content or done any long term studies on the kids who grew up chugging down man milk doesn't mean folx should question whether it's safe or not. I'd absolutely drink it, no questions asked. Even if it did turn out to be toxic poison, the importance of affirming the transwoman's true identity is almost more important than the long term health of some random baby.
You can have whatever opinion you want: there is still no evidence that it is harmful/unhealthy. There is no point in responding to me with a load of conjecture because it does not constitute evidence.
As for your comment about "women who aren't lactating for pregnancy-related reasons", induced lactation in female adoptive parents, same-sex couples and biological mothers of surrogate children has been recognized and studied for decades. Again, there is no evidence that this is harmful or unhealthy to the child.
There is really no point in responding to me with your uneducated opinions on things that you have clearly not spent any time researching.
This guy is so right and his logic is ON POINT. There is currently NO evidence to suggest feeding goat vomit to newborn babies is harmful. There was a study written by a goat vomit activist that found that goat vomit has a GOOD BALANCE of fat and protein in it. They didn't test for anything harmful so that means goat vomit ISN'T HARMFUL. Stop complaining about parents who choose to feed their newborn babies goat vomit when there is currently ZERO evidence of harm guys
It's alarming that so many people responding to me have such poor English comprehension. I didn't assert it isn't harmful, I said there is no evidence to support the assertion that it is harmful. This scenario applies to an infinite number of things. You can personally act on this information however you want, but medical professionals have no reason to advise against it where there is no evidence that it inflicts harm on the child.
You can make certain decisions with your own children if you want, but this has nothing to do with the fact that there is no evidence that induced lactation in transgender women is harmful or unhealthy for the child. If this state of affairs is acceptable to other parents then medical professionals have no reason to intervene.
OMG so right. Just cos nobody has tested the milk for toxic content or done any long term studies on the kids who grew up chugging down man milk doesn't mean folx should question whether it's safe or not. I'd absolutely drink it, no questions asked. Even if it did turn out to be toxic poison, the importance of affirming the transwoman's true identity is almost more important than the long term health of some random baby.
You can question whatever you want, but any assertions that it is unsafe are purely conjecture and do not have any supporting evidence.
This guy is so right and his logic is ON POINT. There is currently NO evidence to suggest feeding goat vomit to newborn babies is harmful. There was a study written by a goat vomit activist that found that goat vomit has a GOOD BALANCE of fat and protein in it. They didn't test for anything harmful so that means goat vomit ISN'T HARMFUL. Stop complaining about parents who choose to feed their newborn babies goat vomit when there is currently ZERO evidence of harm guys
It's alarming that so many people responding to me have such poor English comprehension. I didn't assert it isn't harmful, I said there is no evidence to support the assertion that it is harmful. This scenario applies to an infinite number of things. You can personally act on this information however you want, but medical professionals have no reason to advise against it where there is no evidence that it inflicts harm on the child.
I agree with you mate!!! You're absolutely spot on and you're in no way obfuscating a matter of child safety through sophistry. Why should medical professionals advise ANYONE against feeding ambiguous fluids that haven't been thoroughly tested to newborn babies??
It's alarming that so many people responding to me have such poor English comprehension. I didn't assert it isn't harmful, I said there is no evidence to support the assertion that it is harmful. This scenario applies to an infinite number of things. You can personally act on this information however you want, but medical professionals have no reason to advise against it where there is no evidence that it inflicts harm on the child.
I agree with you mate!!! You're absolutely spot on and you're in no way obfuscating a matter of child safety through sophistry. Why should medical professionals advise ANYONE against feeding ambiguous fluids that haven't been thoroughly tested to newborn babies??
Not sophistry, just a very straightforward statement of fact that you've misinterpreted. The medical professional should communicate the state of evidence to the patient so they can make an informed decision. If you personally prefer to stick to substances/methods with more extensive evidence of harmlessness then feel free to make that choice. If others are content with using substances/methods on the basis that there is not any evidence of harmfulness (which, again, applies to an infinite number of things) then there is no reason to advise against it.
I agree with you mate!!! You're absolutely spot on and you're in no way obfuscating a matter of child safety through sophistry. Why should medical professionals advise ANYONE against feeding ambiguous fluids that haven't been thoroughly tested to newborn babies??
Not sophistry, just a very straightforward statement of fact that you've misinterpreted. The medical professional should communicate the state of evidence to the patient so they can make an informed decision. If you personally prefer to stick to substances/methods with more extensive evidence of harmlessness then feel free to make that choice. If others are content with using substances/methods on the basis that there is not any evidence of harmfulness (which, again, applies to an infinite number of things) then there is no reason to advise against it.
You must have misread me- I said there's no way you're using sophistry because we're totally on the same page. The beautiful thing is that noone has tested it properly, so we don't know how harmful it is and in fact- one could argue- do we even need to know? Can you even imagine how non gender-affirming for the transmother it would be if testing showed her milk was contaminated and poisoning her child? No thanks, I'm happy to make an informed decision on the basis that I am totally uninformed on any potential harms. Hippocrates was dead wrong- he should have said "First, do not know what causes harm". The best part is- it's only the babies who are affected, and they can't make an informed decision nor consent!! Keep fighting the good fight sir.
Not sophistry, just a very straightforward statement of fact that you've misinterpreted. The medical professional should communicate the state of evidence to the patient so they can make an informed decision. If you personally prefer to stick to substances/methods with more extensive evidence of harmlessness then feel free to make that choice. If others are content with using substances/methods on the basis that there is not any evidence of harmfulness (which, again, applies to an infinite number of things) then there is no reason to advise against it.
You must have misread me- I said there's no way you're using sophistry because we're totally on the same page. The beautiful thing is that noone has tested it properly, so we don't know how harmful it is and in fact- one could argue- do we even need to know? Can you even imagine how non gender-affirming for the transmother it would be if testing showed her milk was contaminated and poisoning her child? No thanks, I'm happy to make an informed decision on the basis that I am totally uninformed on any potential harms. Hippocrates was dead wrong- he should have said "First, do not know what causes harm". The best part is- it's only the babies who are affected, and they can't make an informed decision nor consent!! Keep fighting the good fight sir.
Yes, permitting something on the basis that there is no specific evidence of harmfulness is how things typically work. The air that surrounds you and the specific packages of food/drink in your house have not been tested for harmlessness, but you are content to expose yourself to them because there is no evidence of harmfulness.
You must have misread me- I said there's no way you're using sophistry because we're totally on the same page. The beautiful thing is that noone has tested it properly, so we don't know how harmful it is and in fact- one could argue- do we even need to know? Can you even imagine how non gender-affirming for the transmother it would be if testing showed her milk was contaminated and poisoning her child? No thanks, I'm happy to make an informed decision on the basis that I am totally uninformed on any potential harms. Hippocrates was dead wrong- he should have said "First, do not know what causes harm". The best part is- it's only the babies who are affected, and they can't make an informed decision nor consent!! Keep fighting the good fight sir.
Yes, permitting something on the basis that there is no specific evidence of harmfulness is how things typically work. The air that surrounds you and the specific packages of food/drink in your house have not been tested for harmlessness, but you are content to expose yourself to them because there is no evidence of harmfulness.
Funny that you focused on the 'air surrounding' the food and drink because you know the food and drink itself is extensively tested for safety standards and you'd be undermining your own point 😂😂😂. You can rest easy knowing the food in your fridge meets rigorous safety standards but you don't see why it would be important for a baby. What a clown.
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.