Thanks for helping to clarify some of the references to infighting I've seen mentioned as increasing within the gender-critical world, but which didn't know the origins of. I have to say that as a retired clinical social worker (2014) I'm appalled by what has unfolded over even these last several years - and a bit embarrassed that I had been so unaware of what was happening. Some 30 books read on the topic, and endless blog posts and panel discussions viewed over the last two years have left me with some basic grounding in all of this - and also with a rather unshakeable sense of mission that does not in any way include a desire - "to play nice." Stopping the psychological and physical damage to all children of both sexes, and to adult women comes first, second, and third as priorities - anyone's "feelings" can be considered after the damage has been stopped and the appropriate people and organizations held accountable. I'm embarrassed that my profession of social work is playing an active role in promoting the gender-ideology madness.
I hatted social workers when I was young. To get benefits I had to deal with them often. I’ve had several as friends as an adult thought. But it always takes a minute to get over my public housing social worker dislike.
"Stopping the psychological and physical damage to all children of both sexes, and to adult women comes first, second, and third as priorities - anyone's "feelings" can be considered after the damage has been stopped and the appropriate people and organizations held accountable."
Thanks for this, I hadn't realized the lactation fracas started with Julia M. People trying to fight against gender nonsense need to accept that all trans-identified people have a conflict of interest and should be listened to with skepticism, not fawned over.
Thanks again for a great article. I'm always pleased when GC people like you are proved 100 % correct about these guys. They would do well to pay more attention to women like you, Kit and Jennifer Bilek but god forbid some of the GC boys and girls have to acknowledge your work. I'm a social worker and fighting this every inch of the way in a captured Scotland. We aren't all terrible, although I've worked with enough bad SW's to know where your aversion comes from. Keep up the good work 👏 x
Bang on the money, Edie; brilliantly argued. You would think that the danger to women and children posed by AGPs would be self-evident; apparently not so to centrist who won’t even hold the line on frigging pronouns. Thank you so much. Will post on X to @pittparents, the jester & other interested parties.
Yes! "A special fire when feminists are being roasted" would be a big draw just as witch burnings have been since forever. Interesting how the ancient hatreds, against Jews and women, are reigniting, fanned by the market forces of media clickbait. Very insightful post, thank you.
The vast majority of people who are attempting a reasonable "middle ground" solution to this cultural conflict are doing it without awareness of the authentic medical backstory to the trans phenomenon - Blanchardian model of AGP & HSTS behaviour. Once you become aware the prime mover is pathological rather than some liberation struggle of an oppressed minority it completely changes what approach is reasonable. IE instead of trying to find some balance between rights of different groups it becomes apparent the fight is to preserve women's rights against them being given away so a group can practice their sex fetish. So what is reasonable isn't middle ground compromise but a "hard no". The evidence is unquestionable in your last example that men trying to "breastfeed" is actually just a form of sexual paraphilia. Once society is sufficiently informed re Blanchard the hard no will come very quickly.
Too many people are trying to win this battle with ideological means, treating this as just another battleground of the culture war. This fight can actually be won convincingly with facts rather than rhetoric and affinity allegiances, ie whether one is the correct variant of feminist.
You're putting the dots on the (i)s again Edie, the I of GI, and turning the I's into upside down exclamation marks, to emphasize your clear headed analyses and insights. Your written work is remarkable. Your spoken word in the doll house too. I'm so grateful for your voice and points of view.
An analysis of the root cause of GI which doesn't involve feminism is utterly useless. Try again. And take some responsibility for your actions this time. Last time I looked Judith Butler and Donna Hathaway were still women to name only two of many prominent feminists who pushed gender ideology and wokeism for decades. It seems the TERFs still have a bit of homework to do.
Women like Butler and Hathaway are really not feminists. They do not center the needs and wellbeing of the sex class female, which is what feminism should be all about.
This may be a bit tangential to your main points, but this is the third substack article I've seen on this topic in the last day, and I have some thoughts I'd like to throw out there for feedback. I think, in any debate, false positions containing a grain of truth are the most dangerous. So, I think what gives me pause on this topic-even though I fully believe that feeding babies should be about, you know, feeding babies-is two things: one is that JM does have something of a point in saying that women make all kinds of less-than-totally-healthy choices when breastfeeding and are allowed to do so. I think there are major health concerns for the baby (and to a lesser extent for the man) when drugs are used to induce lactation. But, women breastfeed while taking all kinds of substances (meds, nicotine, caffeine and so forth) that do pass through breast milk to the baby. No one, including those up in arms about the potential danger to the baby in induced male lactation, talks in the same way about the potential risks of other chemicals being passed to the baby. The truth is, because research on babies is a political hot potato, we actually don't know much about the long term effect of most chemicals on babies who ingest it in breast milk. For example, many medications and substances like caffeine cause dependence. And there is a growing body of theories and fledgling research studying that psychiatric medications taken over months or years may change brain chemistry in such a way as to permanently alter mood-and not in a positive way-as well as causing severe protected withdrawal in some individuals. It is reasonable to think that such effects may be experienced by babies exposed through breast milk, but we simply don't know because no one wants to actually run research on babies. So, that statement from JM actually came off as somewhat sensible.
The other point is that many in the gender critical community speak out vehemently against "ftm top surgery," especially in young people, in part because they say that the young woman may regret not being able to breastfeed some day. While that's a valid argument, the way it is often presented seems to put heavy emphasis on the woman/ftm missing out on an experience of bonding and wonderful emotions. I know that's absolutely a benefit of breastfeeding, and that it is a precious experience for many women. But, it seems a slippery slope to put such emphasis on the importance of the experience of the adult, while ignoring the baby as anything other than a vehicle for these wonderful experiences for the mother. I'm not saying that's what these GC feminists actually believe, but their statements give that impression. It would seem more consistent with the views expressed here about mtf "chest feeding" if these GC individuals focused, at least in part, on the loss of the ability to provide nutrition, immune support, and bonding to the infant, instead of just emphasizing that the adult will miss out on this amazing experience.
Again, I think inducing lactation with drugs and calling it equal to naturally produced breast milk is quite ridiculous on its face. But I also think inconsistencies like this give the other side a veneer of legitimacy it doesn't deserve.
I just don’t see how this guy can seem reasonable saying these things. I think he sounds like a lunatic. We just need to break the spell by telling the truth.
"We just need to break the spell by telling the truth". Absolutely! I guess I was trying to explain how someone might see his arguments as valid if they are only seeing the sound bites in the media, but apparently I didn't do a very good job of it. Thank you for being civil in your comments.
But then again, radfems aren't who you're trying to convince, because they're already convinced. I said there was a grain of truth to what was said... One grain can be all it takes for a casual listener to assume the speaker has a point, or to assume the other side is hypocritical.
And just a note, again I don't think there is any place for drug induced lactation in feeding babies, but what I was trying to say was that we actually don't have any real evidence or case studies that one is more dangerous or causes more long term effects than the other. One cup of coffee a day is different than drinking energy drinks at every meal, and there are moms on both ends of the spectrum. Caffeine can be deadly for people with heart problems (and undiagnosed cardiac issues are sadly not all that uncommon in infants). So it's not something to just dismiss outright, when again we have no actual studies of the effects of dromperidone induced milk on infants. Of course, it's a totally unnecessary risk as there are plenty of other ways for these men to feed and to bond with their babies, and those should be the goals. But, again, there was a grain of truth to the statement that we tolerate various behaviors with different levels of risk from breastfeeding moms. Your comment kind of proves my point.
“Convince”? The public is sickened by this when they hear about it. We are not on the back foot when it comes to public understanding of the merits of chemical gloop from male fetishists being fed to helpless babies. The BBC is showing the extent to which it has been captured by airing gross nonsense but on this issue our side does not have a public persuasion problem.
IMO "these men" shouldn't be anywhere near babies. A narcissist can't bond with a baby and isn't really interested in that anyway. But why not do more studies with such men to see what happens, to H with the effect of the study on the babies. We need more data... No, we do not, as far too many babies have probably already been subjected to these narcissists and their toxic secretions. As Kathleen Lowrey already posted, comparing mothers who drink caffeine to male fetishists who want to "breast feed" babies for sexual gratification is not a valid comparison, so just stop making it. Edie's post doesn't have a grain of truth in it, it's got the truth of someone who's actually considered all the ethical issues here and knows the difference between right and wrong. That's all the truth you need. Thanks, Edie!
And by the way, your argument about the studies is exactly why we have almost no data on the effect of ANY medications a nursing mother may be taking on her infant. No one wants to expose babies to potentially harmful substances for a study, despite the fact that babies are being exposed to a variety of drugs every single day even without being involved in studies. We don't need to give anything to babies that wouldn't be exposed anyway to begin collecting data, we just need to monitor those who are already being exposed in an organized manner.
You don't need many studies on vulnerable infants to know when something isn't good for them or is just plain abusive. It's been known for years that what a nursing mother (i.e. female) ingests will also be ingested by her infant, for good or ill. But fetishistic "lactating" men trying to nurse infants for their own sexual gratification, why would you need to study them first to decide it's wrong?
But, babies ARE being exposed to this induced "milk," so until-if-that gets banned, we should be collecting data on it. That's my opinion. (I also believe we should have a database of pregnant and nursing women taking any medication, and follow the health of the babies, since almost no meds are studied in pregnant women or breastfeeding infants, but that's another story.). Or, we I guess we could do it your way and just ignore what's happening because we don't like it, and miss the opportunity to get some actual data to back up our opinions. But according to Kathleen, we really don't need it because apparently the entire world except me, JM and the BBC are already firmly decided on that issue. Oddly enough, it seems the medical system, the education system (k-12 and higher), the mainstream media, and so forth haven't yet gotten the message that they are completely against this whole issue.
I never said anything about ignoring anything or just because I personally don't like it. It makes no sense to me to accept that this is already happening as a reason to collect data on whether the "breast milk" of fetishistic men is nutritious in any way. Better to put the same energy into trying to end the abuse altogether, make it illegal for men to do this in the first place, and that would include making forcing helpless babies into studies of male "breast milk" illegal too. It's not the nutritional value of the "milk" that's the issue, it's the abuse of an infant by some pervert claiming "parental rights." Of course you're entitled to your opinion and others are entitled to disagree with it.
Jumping off tall buildings causes visible trauma to the body-lacerations, fractures, bruises, bleeding. These can be observed immediately after seeing a person do so. So, Luiz, what harmful effects have you, personally, observed in infants who have been fed this way? It obviously causes all sorts of consternation in adults, but you claim that you're really concerned about the children here, so do enlightened us simpletons: what physical effects have you seen in these infants? What psychological effects have you noticed immediatly after, as well as say 5-20 years down the line? And please don't list off your own hypotheses about what would happen or tell me its common sense. I really want to know what you've observed that informs your point of view?
And right there, you've proven my point again. Because you've just thrown out a comparison that seems right in your head but that actually falls apart when someone who doesn't already share your viewpoint tries to fit it together. So, all you're doing is saying things that make it sound like all you have to back up your point is your own ideology. Which is exactly what TRAs are doing. But, heaven forbid we try to collect objective data so we have something more concrete to say! Nope, if it is clear to Luiz then that should be good enough for anyone, and anyone who dares to ask if those opinions have been tested must simply be evil and stupid.
People can die if they drink too much water. That does not mean that we should not say that people need to drink water and stay hydrated. Anyone can drop a grain of truth into any argument. There is no substitute for critical thinking, which is sorely lacking in many to most people, although in its place common sense often has as good a result as critical thinking.
Everyone has the right to their own opinion. Thank you for sharing yours in a civil way. While you might be able to handle the grain of truth in the lie, people who may currently support trans ideology without knowing the harms (but aren't connected personally; I'm talking about the general public who wants to be kind and accepting and don't know all the ins and outs) may find it distracting, and also may see ignoring it or dismissing it outright as evidence that the TRAs are right when they say that GC folks are bigots and so on. If we're just trying to take a victory lap with those who already agree with us, then this stuff is fine. But if we're trying to help educate the "be kind and accepting" folks, things like this can actually be counterproductive. I can say this for sure as before I read up on the topic I was one of those who wanted to be kind, so I can still identify the things that used to convince me that the GC side were the ideologues. I also know from personal experience what helped me better understand the topic and change my views on what public policy should be, and what drove me-and many of the people in my social circle-in the opposite direction.
You may read that and think that I'm still deluded, and you're entitled to that opinion. But I'm simply trying to explain that in order to effect societal change we need to make the GC tent larger, which involves convincing the people in the middle of the issue-including the "be kind" folks. And in order to do that, we need to understand what they see when they read stories on this topic. We also need to avoid jumping down people's throats with insults, calling them willfully stupid and some of the other things that I've been called on this thread in ways that are obviously personal attacks as opposed to simple disagreement. Imo such behavior is not going to help actually change where our society and public policy stand, except to possibly actually swing things more in favor of the TRAs.
I may be wrong, but I don't think I'm "politically naive". I actually have ample experience on the political side of which I speak, both personally and through friends and colleagues, and I'm trying (and perhaps I'm not doing a good job) to show people who haven't run in those circles how the people in them think and what it will take to win those whose opinions can be changed-which I believe is a large enough number that they shouldn't be ignored. Currently, it appears that there are not enough people who see through the TRAs to change public policy and opinion in very large swathes of Western society. I don't see any way that that's going to change, without being more open to speaking to people who are currently tilted towards the TRAS but are toward the middle of that spectrum and would be amenable to more information if it's presented without appearing to be ideologically slanted.
To put it another way, preaching to the choir may get some loud "amens" but isn't going to fill any more seats in the church. In order to change public policy we (and really anyone on any side of any issue) need to fill as many seats as possible. Which includes working with people who may disagree on certain smaller details but are willing to work together on the larger issue.
I feel that this comment typifies what's wrong with so much of this debate, which requires that we jettison all common sense, instinct and experience and act like we were born yesterday.
1. Paragraph 1: 'What about...?' A completely self-serving attempt to conflate the issue of contaminants in women's breast milk with a supposed desire of AGPs to bond with their babies. In plain words, JM's argument amounts to: 'Because a certain bad thing already exists in the world, why not open the floodgates on a much worse thing.' Does Jen see through JM's BS. No, Jen does not! Jen concludes that 'JM actually came off as somewhat sensible.' Good grief.
2. Paragraph 2: 'The gender critical community speak out vehemently against "ftm top surgery,"... in part because they say that the young woman may regret not being able to breastfeed some day.' Straw man par excellence. The gender critical community speak out vehemently against 'top surgery' because the mutilation of healthy tissue is not and never has been a good way to treat mental issues. In other words, child bonding or no child bonding, 'top surgery' is bad in and of itself.
C'mon, Jen, think. Does all of human history count for nothing? Has there ever been a time that the things you are trying to find excuses for were considered good? Do you think that you got out of bed this morning with genius thoughts that have somehow eluded all of mankind? Would you yourself rather have suckled at the teat of an AGP who wanted to bond with you than your own mother?
You complain that 'false positions containing a grain of truth are the most dangerous'. Is there even a grain of truth in anything you have written?
"The gender critical community speak out vehemently against 'top surgery' because the mutilation of healthy tissue is not and never has been a good way to treat mental issues". I agree. So, then just say that! It's a perfectly valid argument. Why add in the impassioned pleas that " you'll wish you had the wonderful experience of having nursed your baby..."?
" Has there ever been a time that the things you are trying to find excuses for were considered good?". I'm not trying to find excuses for anything, actually. I'm trying to point out some arguments that, IMHO, confuse the issue for those who don't follow this debate quite so closely. And, to answer your question, we seem to be living in that time right now where there is a not-insignificant portion of the population of developed countries who do, indeed, think this is good.
"Do you think that you got out of bed this morning with genius thoughts that have somehow eluded all of mankind?". Lol. You would have no way of knowing this but your comment is pretty ironic as I actually am a real live card-carrying member of MENSA. That aside, actually my whole point is not that these "genius thoughts" are my own unique creation, but rather that a minority of our fellow citizens have already come up with them and they are spreading. Which brings me to...
"I feel that this comment typifies what's wrong with so much of this debate, which requires that we jettison all common sense, instinct and experience and act like we were born yesterday". Nothing changes if nothing changes, Luiz. At least you acknowledge that this is in fact a debate, unlike Kathleen who apparently thinks this has been won and there are no MTFs out there right now "feeding" babies induced "milk" and no institutions out there promoting it. But, I'm trying to point out a way the other side might be making inroads, even tiny ones, and gaining or holding onto a modicum of credibility. Not with you or most of those who read this blog. You're already on one side of the debate, you know quite a bit about it and your mind is made up. Of course you think the opposite side is wrong! But there is a large portion of the general pubic that doesn't have the time or interest to pay much attention here beyond what they see in the media from time to time, and those folks in the middle often end up being the ones who will give one side or the other political wins that eventually change laws and policies. So, it is vital that anyone who wants to win these kind of modern social debates aim their messaging at the middle-not at those who are already on your side! And, in doing so, it is also vital to consider why someone in the middle might find any one or more of the other side's points to have some merit. Simply saying "it's obvious they're completely wrong" is being willfully blind to the fact that it's actually NOT obvious to enough of the population to have made a big enough difference in public policy yet. These are the people who say, for example, that we should allow men in women's shelters to be kind and tolerant, and who believe the narrative that MTFs never commit violent crimes against women and children, and so forth. Again, nothing changes if nothing changes. The fact that there is still a debate, and that it is still legal and acceptable medical practice to support and even encourage these men to "breastfeed" means that those who don't support that practice need to modify our arguments somehow. I'm simply suggesting a couple ways that that might be accomplished.
I acknowledge your attempt to play devil's advocate, Jen, but I don't think you really achieved anything by it. You seem to be acting under the assumption that there are people who in good faith propose:
1.) that we should allow AGPs to breastfeed because female breastmilk is already contaminated.
2.) a powerful GC argument against 'top surgery' is that women who undergo it may one day regret missing out on the bonding experience of breastfeeding.
Even as a thought experiment by someone playing devil's advocate, it is screamingly obvious that these are distractions and bad faith positions obfuscating more sinister realities. These arguments are easily demolished and scarcely worthy of anybody's attention. They are not making inroads anywhere among honest and reasonable people of good faith. However, they are deployed by people of bad faith to confuse the issue on something we are literally born knowing---that breastmilk is to be imbibed from our mothers. As I said originally, to accept any of what you claimed could be constructed as counterarguments requires one thing: willful stupidity.
"They are not making inroads anywhere among honest and reasonable people of good faith."
And this right here is exactly the problem. Once you assume that anyone who doesn't think like you is" sinister," you've shut the door on gaining any insight into why some people-indeed, some people who might actually be pretty intelligent and generally reasonable-might think differently than you. When you assume everyone who doesn't share your viewpoint must be lying and trying to decieve, because of course everyone MUST see things the way you do, all you are going to accomplish is making the debate that much more hostile, and therefore helping the other side become more entrenched in their opinions that YOU aren't worth listening to because you're obviously just out to disparage them. And no one is going to get anywhere. Which, hey, if you really think that the whole of society sees the truth here, then I guess you can just rest on your laurels and continue telling anyone who tries to explain a different point of view that they're "willfully stupid". But if you're trying to change minds and hearts, you're going to have to try to make a good faith effort to understand why they think the way they do.
And by the way, if you honestly think I just came up with those arguments on my own and I'm the only one who thinks that way, you're sadly out of touch. Particularly the second; I've read dozens-at least-of comments from clinicians, detransitioners, parents and others who have expressed that exact sentiment. If you think all of those people, who are some of the most dedicated and vocal GC voices out there, are willfully stupid and acting in bad faith, maybe you need to listen to their stories a little more carefully. Your inability to believe that anyone could actually think in ways that you personally find hard to understand is not going to get you very far with anything except building yourself a nice echo chamber.
What planet do you live on where you've gotten the impression that "No one, including those up in arms about the potential danger to the baby in induced male lactation, talks in the same way about the potential risks of other chemicals being passed to the baby" by mothers during breastfeeding and pregnancy?
My whole life of nearly 70 years, there's always been lots of talk amongst women and HCPs expressing worry about fetuses and babies suffering all sorts of harms - both in the near term and over the long term of their lives - due to the substances that mothers might pass on to them over the course of pregnancy, during labor and childbirth, and later on through breastfeeding.
In the parts of planet earth where I've spent my life, it's common and very much the norm for women to take special care not to pass on harmful substances to our fetuses, babies and young children. Women do this by watching what we eat, drink, touch, inhale, put on our skin when TTC, pregnant and breastfeeding.
During pregnancy and when we are breastfeeding, legions of women routinely avoid certain foods, beverages, prescription medications, OTC medications, recreational drugs, supplments, herbs, artificial sweetners, smoking, vaping, skin creams, cleaning products, perfumes, hair dyes, fingernail polish, pesticides, paints, solvents, flame retardants, glues, industrial chemicals, and the chemicals, fumes and toxins we might encounter when engaging in certain endeavors such as using printers, working in a print shop, welding
To eliminate all possible harms, many women get the tap water in our homes & workplaces tested too, FFS. If we live in old houses dating to the era of lead paints, we also take care to test the layers of paint on the woodwork from decades or centuries past too.
For the period in the 1980s and early 1990s before US blood supplies could be trusted to have been reliably screened for all types of HIV, quite a few women of my generation who nearly bled to death during/after childbirth eschewed blood transfusions and blood products too. For fear of contracting a deadly disease we could pass on to our babies through breastfeeding.
I also take umbrage at your contention that GC feminists object to teenage girls & young women with "gender identity" issues getting their breasts cut off not principally because of concern for the health & wellbeing of babies, but mainly or solely because we supposedly regard breastfeeding as "a precious experience for many women" that provides mothers with "bonding and wonderful emotions."
Very few women with actual experience of breastfeeding, or attempting to breastfeed, would describe breastfeeding in the sappy, sentimental, unrealistic, ridiculously rosy, pie-in-the-sky, saccharine way you've done here. Maybe for you personally breastfeeding was "this amazing experience" that caused you to feel ecstasies of bliss and a stream of other "wonderful emotions" - and that's why you did it. But it sure wasn't and isn't like that for whole loads of women.
For most of us, breastfeeding is a mixed bag at best - and sometimes it's downright painful as well as a pain in the arse. Most women who breastfeed do so because it benefits our babies, not because we're selfish sensation-seekers in out for the stream of warm fuzzy feelings and "wonderful emotions" you seem to think breastfeeding brings to moms. It's your prerogative to view breasfeeding as a romantic experience that's fulfilling, thrilling and richly pleasureable for women, and to believe that women do it mainly to satisfy our own desires. But please don't project those ideas about breastfeedings onto GC feminists.
Whether you believe it or not, I've seen those "saccharine" arguments. Repeatedly. One that hit my inbox last week from another blog is discussing how young adults who believe they are ftm should wait before getting top surgery because "nursing was one of the most amazing experiences of my entire life". The only other thing mentioned is the potential complications of the surgery (which is important to mention to young people). But, no mention whatsoever of wanting to breastfeed, or bring grateful for the ability, because of the benefit to the baby. That's just one example of many I've personally read or heard. Another would be a detransitioner who, when testifying for bills banning medical transition for minors, stated that she deeply regrets her double mastectomy because she's realized she wants children and it's painful to know she "will never get to experience breastfeeding". Now, she's entitled to her feelings and to tell her story. But, please don't think everyone agrees with your point of view. (For the record, my child is adopted so I have no personal experience to draw from, but I'm inclined to think I would agree with you; I personally am not at all sorry to have missed out on pregnancy, labor and delivery, and breastfeeding for myself. I do worry that my child may have psychological difficulties later in life due to having been neglected by and removed from his birth mother's custody and missing out on a number of positive and healthy experiences, breastfeeding being only one. In any case, I'm not "projecting" my feelings onto anyone, just observing what others have said.)
I can see the points you're making, Jen. A frustration I have with what we might call the anon GC feminists online (of which I am one) is that I often see arguments in which the GC is ultimately correct in their position, but isn't arguing it well, or isn't able to properly rebut the other side. I internally wince and wonder who might see this and come to the conclusion that the other side have the more reasonable arguments.
While I do think most sane people instinctively feel that this is wrong, a lot of young, hip, educated people in particular can be convinced to accept things like this. Society has been conditioned to accept increasingly more boundary crossing. We can't rely on most people being completely rational about this topic, just because we've peaked, or because it was always obvious to us personally.
E.g. I watch JM's videos now and have a crawling feeling in my gut that he's just a mentally ill man intentionally trying to emotionally manipulate people, but I think a couple of years ago I would've been a lot more receptive to his "reasoning".
You are absolutely correct to notice "boundary crossing" as a phenomenon. Not just in the gender war but more widely in all fields that touch on anything related to identity. This is not accidental, it is explicitly intended, even has a name - "queering". The whole concept of liberation from notional oppression aims at erasing any boundaries at all - since if none exist nobody can end up on the wrong/minority side and be "oppressed".
Thank you! "Society has been conditioned to accept increasingly more boundary crossing. We can't rely on most people being completely rational about this topic, just because we've peaked, or because it was always obvious to us personally." Yes. This. The most frustrating thing to me is when people complain about various segments of society being "captured," but then when anyone tries to explain why that might be, or why they personally see things differently, people pile on and tell them they must be stupid, and they're the only ones who think this way because everyone with a brain obviously knows it's wrong, and so on... But, obviously there ARE in fact others who think about it differently, and telling them they're stupid and so forth is highly unlikely to convince them of anything except that everything they've heard about TERFs being evil must be true.
It would be great if we could just keep repeating the truth as we see it, and the whole rest of the world would just magically see the light. But, imo, we must listen to the other side and try to see why/how they think the way they do, and we must be open to changing the way we express our message in order to help others see OUR points. If we just keep insisting that we're right, repeating the same things in the same way, and refusing to accept even the tiniest shred of compromise, we're not going to get anywhere. (For exhibit A on this, please see our current US Congress. For those across the pond, a quick summary is that it is about as evenly divided as it could possibly be, and yet one chamber in particular is adamantly refusing to compromise at all, insisting they must get everything they want and the other side must get nothing they want, and simply repeating the same talking points over and over, louder and with more insults to the other side, and wondering how it is possible that they aren't convincing anyone of anything new. Since no legislation can pass without some support from both sides, that has meant that the only thing this Congress has actually accomplished is that they are historically unproductive.)
I guess the bottom line is, when you have a large chunk of society that thinks one way, and a chunk that thinks differently, there has to be some effort made to actually understand where each other are coming from if you're going to move forward with solutions. Otherwise, you're just going to see two sides becoming more entrenched in their respective views, as well as becoming more and more convinced that the other side is not worth listening to, and the only thing that changes is that people become more hostile to each other.
Thanks for helping to clarify some of the references to infighting I've seen mentioned as increasing within the gender-critical world, but which didn't know the origins of. I have to say that as a retired clinical social worker (2014) I'm appalled by what has unfolded over even these last several years - and a bit embarrassed that I had been so unaware of what was happening. Some 30 books read on the topic, and endless blog posts and panel discussions viewed over the last two years have left me with some basic grounding in all of this - and also with a rather unshakeable sense of mission that does not in any way include a desire - "to play nice." Stopping the psychological and physical damage to all children of both sexes, and to adult women comes first, second, and third as priorities - anyone's "feelings" can be considered after the damage has been stopped and the appropriate people and organizations held accountable. I'm embarrassed that my profession of social work is playing an active role in promoting the gender-ideology madness.
I hatted social workers when I was young. To get benefits I had to deal with them often. I’ve had several as friends as an adult thought. But it always takes a minute to get over my public housing social worker dislike.
I totally get that Edie. : )
"Stopping the psychological and physical damage to all children of both sexes, and to adult women comes first, second, and third as priorities - anyone's "feelings" can be considered after the damage has been stopped and the appropriate people and organizations held accountable."
Yup. That sums it up
Thanks for this, I hadn't realized the lactation fracas started with Julia M. People trying to fight against gender nonsense need to accept that all trans-identified people have a conflict of interest and should be listened to with skepticism, not fawned over.
"Feminism, unsurprising enough, remains unpopular with men." Must be quote of the week. Great piece.
lol yes
Thanks again for a great article. I'm always pleased when GC people like you are proved 100 % correct about these guys. They would do well to pay more attention to women like you, Kit and Jennifer Bilek but god forbid some of the GC boys and girls have to acknowledge your work. I'm a social worker and fighting this every inch of the way in a captured Scotland. We aren't all terrible, although I've worked with enough bad SW's to know where your aversion comes from. Keep up the good work 👏 x
Spot on,Edie! Great post, thank you! XX
Bang on the money, Edie; brilliantly argued. You would think that the danger to women and children posed by AGPs would be self-evident; apparently not so to centrist who won’t even hold the line on frigging pronouns. Thank you so much. Will post on X to @pittparents, the jester & other interested parties.
We feminist Terfs hold the line while the centrists embolden these men to cross the line.
Yes! "A special fire when feminists are being roasted" would be a big draw just as witch burnings have been since forever. Interesting how the ancient hatreds, against Jews and women, are reigniting, fanned by the market forces of media clickbait. Very insightful post, thank you.
The vast majority of people who are attempting a reasonable "middle ground" solution to this cultural conflict are doing it without awareness of the authentic medical backstory to the trans phenomenon - Blanchardian model of AGP & HSTS behaviour. Once you become aware the prime mover is pathological rather than some liberation struggle of an oppressed minority it completely changes what approach is reasonable. IE instead of trying to find some balance between rights of different groups it becomes apparent the fight is to preserve women's rights against them being given away so a group can practice their sex fetish. So what is reasonable isn't middle ground compromise but a "hard no". The evidence is unquestionable in your last example that men trying to "breastfeed" is actually just a form of sexual paraphilia. Once society is sufficiently informed re Blanchard the hard no will come very quickly.
Too many people are trying to win this battle with ideological means, treating this as just another battleground of the culture war. This fight can actually be won convincingly with facts rather than rhetoric and affinity allegiances, ie whether one is the correct variant of feminist.
you stated this so eloquently. thank you.
You're putting the dots on the (i)s again Edie, the I of GI, and turning the I's into upside down exclamation marks, to emphasize your clear headed analyses and insights. Your written work is remarkable. Your spoken word in the doll house too. I'm so grateful for your voice and points of view.
Thank you 🩷
What is the real name of this man Mallot? I can't find it, all the search engines are censored now, it's like Communist China.
An analysis of the root cause of GI which doesn't involve feminism is utterly useless. Try again. And take some responsibility for your actions this time. Last time I looked Judith Butler and Donna Hathaway were still women to name only two of many prominent feminists who pushed gender ideology and wokeism for decades. It seems the TERFs still have a bit of homework to do.
What’s your problem, Dave?
Too much James Lindsay and not enough intelligence
Let's see. Preposterous colonizers? Self righteous idiots? Charlatans disguised as academics? The list is long..
Women like Butler and Hathaway are really not feminists. They do not center the needs and wellbeing of the sex class female, which is what feminism should be all about.
I see. #Notallwomen I suppose.
This may be a bit tangential to your main points, but this is the third substack article I've seen on this topic in the last day, and I have some thoughts I'd like to throw out there for feedback. I think, in any debate, false positions containing a grain of truth are the most dangerous. So, I think what gives me pause on this topic-even though I fully believe that feeding babies should be about, you know, feeding babies-is two things: one is that JM does have something of a point in saying that women make all kinds of less-than-totally-healthy choices when breastfeeding and are allowed to do so. I think there are major health concerns for the baby (and to a lesser extent for the man) when drugs are used to induce lactation. But, women breastfeed while taking all kinds of substances (meds, nicotine, caffeine and so forth) that do pass through breast milk to the baby. No one, including those up in arms about the potential danger to the baby in induced male lactation, talks in the same way about the potential risks of other chemicals being passed to the baby. The truth is, because research on babies is a political hot potato, we actually don't know much about the long term effect of most chemicals on babies who ingest it in breast milk. For example, many medications and substances like caffeine cause dependence. And there is a growing body of theories and fledgling research studying that psychiatric medications taken over months or years may change brain chemistry in such a way as to permanently alter mood-and not in a positive way-as well as causing severe protected withdrawal in some individuals. It is reasonable to think that such effects may be experienced by babies exposed through breast milk, but we simply don't know because no one wants to actually run research on babies. So, that statement from JM actually came off as somewhat sensible.
The other point is that many in the gender critical community speak out vehemently against "ftm top surgery," especially in young people, in part because they say that the young woman may regret not being able to breastfeed some day. While that's a valid argument, the way it is often presented seems to put heavy emphasis on the woman/ftm missing out on an experience of bonding and wonderful emotions. I know that's absolutely a benefit of breastfeeding, and that it is a precious experience for many women. But, it seems a slippery slope to put such emphasis on the importance of the experience of the adult, while ignoring the baby as anything other than a vehicle for these wonderful experiences for the mother. I'm not saying that's what these GC feminists actually believe, but their statements give that impression. It would seem more consistent with the views expressed here about mtf "chest feeding" if these GC individuals focused, at least in part, on the loss of the ability to provide nutrition, immune support, and bonding to the infant, instead of just emphasizing that the adult will miss out on this amazing experience.
Again, I think inducing lactation with drugs and calling it equal to naturally produced breast milk is quite ridiculous on its face. But I also think inconsistencies like this give the other side a veneer of legitimacy it doesn't deserve.
I just don’t see how this guy can seem reasonable saying these things. I think he sounds like a lunatic. We just need to break the spell by telling the truth.
"We just need to break the spell by telling the truth". Absolutely! I guess I was trying to explain how someone might see his arguments as valid if they are only seeing the sound bites in the media, but apparently I didn't do a very good job of it. Thank you for being civil in your comments.
If you think a breast feeding mom who drinks coffee has any equivalency to a fetishistic man who feeds a baby chemically induced goop
…. I am not sure it means *radfems* are the ones with a rational argumentation problem.
But then again, radfems aren't who you're trying to convince, because they're already convinced. I said there was a grain of truth to what was said... One grain can be all it takes for a casual listener to assume the speaker has a point, or to assume the other side is hypocritical.
And just a note, again I don't think there is any place for drug induced lactation in feeding babies, but what I was trying to say was that we actually don't have any real evidence or case studies that one is more dangerous or causes more long term effects than the other. One cup of coffee a day is different than drinking energy drinks at every meal, and there are moms on both ends of the spectrum. Caffeine can be deadly for people with heart problems (and undiagnosed cardiac issues are sadly not all that uncommon in infants). So it's not something to just dismiss outright, when again we have no actual studies of the effects of dromperidone induced milk on infants. Of course, it's a totally unnecessary risk as there are plenty of other ways for these men to feed and to bond with their babies, and those should be the goals. But, again, there was a grain of truth to the statement that we tolerate various behaviors with different levels of risk from breastfeeding moms. Your comment kind of proves my point.
“Convince”? The public is sickened by this when they hear about it. We are not on the back foot when it comes to public understanding of the merits of chemical gloop from male fetishists being fed to helpless babies. The BBC is showing the extent to which it has been captured by airing gross nonsense but on this issue our side does not have a public persuasion problem.
IMO "these men" shouldn't be anywhere near babies. A narcissist can't bond with a baby and isn't really interested in that anyway. But why not do more studies with such men to see what happens, to H with the effect of the study on the babies. We need more data... No, we do not, as far too many babies have probably already been subjected to these narcissists and their toxic secretions. As Kathleen Lowrey already posted, comparing mothers who drink caffeine to male fetishists who want to "breast feed" babies for sexual gratification is not a valid comparison, so just stop making it. Edie's post doesn't have a grain of truth in it, it's got the truth of someone who's actually considered all the ethical issues here and knows the difference between right and wrong. That's all the truth you need. Thanks, Edie!
And by the way, your argument about the studies is exactly why we have almost no data on the effect of ANY medications a nursing mother may be taking on her infant. No one wants to expose babies to potentially harmful substances for a study, despite the fact that babies are being exposed to a variety of drugs every single day even without being involved in studies. We don't need to give anything to babies that wouldn't be exposed anyway to begin collecting data, we just need to monitor those who are already being exposed in an organized manner.
You don't need many studies on vulnerable infants to know when something isn't good for them or is just plain abusive. It's been known for years that what a nursing mother (i.e. female) ingests will also be ingested by her infant, for good or ill. But fetishistic "lactating" men trying to nurse infants for their own sexual gratification, why would you need to study them first to decide it's wrong?
But, babies ARE being exposed to this induced "milk," so until-if-that gets banned, we should be collecting data on it. That's my opinion. (I also believe we should have a database of pregnant and nursing women taking any medication, and follow the health of the babies, since almost no meds are studied in pregnant women or breastfeeding infants, but that's another story.). Or, we I guess we could do it your way and just ignore what's happening because we don't like it, and miss the opportunity to get some actual data to back up our opinions. But according to Kathleen, we really don't need it because apparently the entire world except me, JM and the BBC are already firmly decided on that issue. Oddly enough, it seems the medical system, the education system (k-12 and higher), the mainstream media, and so forth haven't yet gotten the message that they are completely against this whole issue.
I never said anything about ignoring anything or just because I personally don't like it. It makes no sense to me to accept that this is already happening as a reason to collect data on whether the "breast milk" of fetishistic men is nutritious in any way. Better to put the same energy into trying to end the abuse altogether, make it illegal for men to do this in the first place, and that would include making forcing helpless babies into studies of male "breast milk" illegal too. It's not the nutritional value of the "milk" that's the issue, it's the abuse of an infant by some pervert claiming "parental rights." Of course you're entitled to your opinion and others are entitled to disagree with it.
While we're at it, Jen, maybe we need to do some studies on whether jumping off a tall building is harmful?
Jumping off tall buildings causes visible trauma to the body-lacerations, fractures, bruises, bleeding. These can be observed immediately after seeing a person do so. So, Luiz, what harmful effects have you, personally, observed in infants who have been fed this way? It obviously causes all sorts of consternation in adults, but you claim that you're really concerned about the children here, so do enlightened us simpletons: what physical effects have you seen in these infants? What psychological effects have you noticed immediatly after, as well as say 5-20 years down the line? And please don't list off your own hypotheses about what would happen or tell me its common sense. I really want to know what you've observed that informs your point of view?
And right there, you've proven my point again. Because you've just thrown out a comparison that seems right in your head but that actually falls apart when someone who doesn't already share your viewpoint tries to fit it together. So, all you're doing is saying things that make it sound like all you have to back up your point is your own ideology. Which is exactly what TRAs are doing. But, heaven forbid we try to collect objective data so we have something more concrete to say! Nope, if it is clear to Luiz then that should be good enough for anyone, and anyone who dares to ask if those opinions have been tested must simply be evil and stupid.
People can die if they drink too much water. That does not mean that we should not say that people need to drink water and stay hydrated. Anyone can drop a grain of truth into any argument. There is no substitute for critical thinking, which is sorely lacking in many to most people, although in its place common sense often has as good a result as critical thinking.
Everyone has the right to their own opinion. Thank you for sharing yours in a civil way. While you might be able to handle the grain of truth in the lie, people who may currently support trans ideology without knowing the harms (but aren't connected personally; I'm talking about the general public who wants to be kind and accepting and don't know all the ins and outs) may find it distracting, and also may see ignoring it or dismissing it outright as evidence that the TRAs are right when they say that GC folks are bigots and so on. If we're just trying to take a victory lap with those who already agree with us, then this stuff is fine. But if we're trying to help educate the "be kind and accepting" folks, things like this can actually be counterproductive. I can say this for sure as before I read up on the topic I was one of those who wanted to be kind, so I can still identify the things that used to convince me that the GC side were the ideologues. I also know from personal experience what helped me better understand the topic and change my views on what public policy should be, and what drove me-and many of the people in my social circle-in the opposite direction.
You may read that and think that I'm still deluded, and you're entitled to that opinion. But I'm simply trying to explain that in order to effect societal change we need to make the GC tent larger, which involves convincing the people in the middle of the issue-including the "be kind" folks. And in order to do that, we need to understand what they see when they read stories on this topic. We also need to avoid jumping down people's throats with insults, calling them willfully stupid and some of the other things that I've been called on this thread in ways that are obviously personal attacks as opposed to simple disagreement. Imo such behavior is not going to help actually change where our society and public policy stand, except to possibly actually swing things more in favor of the TRAs.
I may be wrong, but I don't think I'm "politically naive". I actually have ample experience on the political side of which I speak, both personally and through friends and colleagues, and I'm trying (and perhaps I'm not doing a good job) to show people who haven't run in those circles how the people in them think and what it will take to win those whose opinions can be changed-which I believe is a large enough number that they shouldn't be ignored. Currently, it appears that there are not enough people who see through the TRAs to change public policy and opinion in very large swathes of Western society. I don't see any way that that's going to change, without being more open to speaking to people who are currently tilted towards the TRAS but are toward the middle of that spectrum and would be amenable to more information if it's presented without appearing to be ideologically slanted.
To put it another way, preaching to the choir may get some loud "amens" but isn't going to fill any more seats in the church. In order to change public policy we (and really anyone on any side of any issue) need to fill as many seats as possible. Which includes working with people who may disagree on certain smaller details but are willing to work together on the larger issue.
I feel that this comment typifies what's wrong with so much of this debate, which requires that we jettison all common sense, instinct and experience and act like we were born yesterday.
1. Paragraph 1: 'What about...?' A completely self-serving attempt to conflate the issue of contaminants in women's breast milk with a supposed desire of AGPs to bond with their babies. In plain words, JM's argument amounts to: 'Because a certain bad thing already exists in the world, why not open the floodgates on a much worse thing.' Does Jen see through JM's BS. No, Jen does not! Jen concludes that 'JM actually came off as somewhat sensible.' Good grief.
2. Paragraph 2: 'The gender critical community speak out vehemently against "ftm top surgery,"... in part because they say that the young woman may regret not being able to breastfeed some day.' Straw man par excellence. The gender critical community speak out vehemently against 'top surgery' because the mutilation of healthy tissue is not and never has been a good way to treat mental issues. In other words, child bonding or no child bonding, 'top surgery' is bad in and of itself.
C'mon, Jen, think. Does all of human history count for nothing? Has there ever been a time that the things you are trying to find excuses for were considered good? Do you think that you got out of bed this morning with genius thoughts that have somehow eluded all of mankind? Would you yourself rather have suckled at the teat of an AGP who wanted to bond with you than your own mother?
You complain that 'false positions containing a grain of truth are the most dangerous'. Is there even a grain of truth in anything you have written?
"The gender critical community speak out vehemently against 'top surgery' because the mutilation of healthy tissue is not and never has been a good way to treat mental issues". I agree. So, then just say that! It's a perfectly valid argument. Why add in the impassioned pleas that " you'll wish you had the wonderful experience of having nursed your baby..."?
" Has there ever been a time that the things you are trying to find excuses for were considered good?". I'm not trying to find excuses for anything, actually. I'm trying to point out some arguments that, IMHO, confuse the issue for those who don't follow this debate quite so closely. And, to answer your question, we seem to be living in that time right now where there is a not-insignificant portion of the population of developed countries who do, indeed, think this is good.
"Do you think that you got out of bed this morning with genius thoughts that have somehow eluded all of mankind?". Lol. You would have no way of knowing this but your comment is pretty ironic as I actually am a real live card-carrying member of MENSA. That aside, actually my whole point is not that these "genius thoughts" are my own unique creation, but rather that a minority of our fellow citizens have already come up with them and they are spreading. Which brings me to...
"I feel that this comment typifies what's wrong with so much of this debate, which requires that we jettison all common sense, instinct and experience and act like we were born yesterday". Nothing changes if nothing changes, Luiz. At least you acknowledge that this is in fact a debate, unlike Kathleen who apparently thinks this has been won and there are no MTFs out there right now "feeding" babies induced "milk" and no institutions out there promoting it. But, I'm trying to point out a way the other side might be making inroads, even tiny ones, and gaining or holding onto a modicum of credibility. Not with you or most of those who read this blog. You're already on one side of the debate, you know quite a bit about it and your mind is made up. Of course you think the opposite side is wrong! But there is a large portion of the general pubic that doesn't have the time or interest to pay much attention here beyond what they see in the media from time to time, and those folks in the middle often end up being the ones who will give one side or the other political wins that eventually change laws and policies. So, it is vital that anyone who wants to win these kind of modern social debates aim their messaging at the middle-not at those who are already on your side! And, in doing so, it is also vital to consider why someone in the middle might find any one or more of the other side's points to have some merit. Simply saying "it's obvious they're completely wrong" is being willfully blind to the fact that it's actually NOT obvious to enough of the population to have made a big enough difference in public policy yet. These are the people who say, for example, that we should allow men in women's shelters to be kind and tolerant, and who believe the narrative that MTFs never commit violent crimes against women and children, and so forth. Again, nothing changes if nothing changes. The fact that there is still a debate, and that it is still legal and acceptable medical practice to support and even encourage these men to "breastfeed" means that those who don't support that practice need to modify our arguments somehow. I'm simply suggesting a couple ways that that might be accomplished.
I acknowledge your attempt to play devil's advocate, Jen, but I don't think you really achieved anything by it. You seem to be acting under the assumption that there are people who in good faith propose:
1.) that we should allow AGPs to breastfeed because female breastmilk is already contaminated.
2.) a powerful GC argument against 'top surgery' is that women who undergo it may one day regret missing out on the bonding experience of breastfeeding.
Even as a thought experiment by someone playing devil's advocate, it is screamingly obvious that these are distractions and bad faith positions obfuscating more sinister realities. These arguments are easily demolished and scarcely worthy of anybody's attention. They are not making inroads anywhere among honest and reasonable people of good faith. However, they are deployed by people of bad faith to confuse the issue on something we are literally born knowing---that breastmilk is to be imbibed from our mothers. As I said originally, to accept any of what you claimed could be constructed as counterarguments requires one thing: willful stupidity.
"They are not making inroads anywhere among honest and reasonable people of good faith."
And this right here is exactly the problem. Once you assume that anyone who doesn't think like you is" sinister," you've shut the door on gaining any insight into why some people-indeed, some people who might actually be pretty intelligent and generally reasonable-might think differently than you. When you assume everyone who doesn't share your viewpoint must be lying and trying to decieve, because of course everyone MUST see things the way you do, all you are going to accomplish is making the debate that much more hostile, and therefore helping the other side become more entrenched in their opinions that YOU aren't worth listening to because you're obviously just out to disparage them. And no one is going to get anywhere. Which, hey, if you really think that the whole of society sees the truth here, then I guess you can just rest on your laurels and continue telling anyone who tries to explain a different point of view that they're "willfully stupid". But if you're trying to change minds and hearts, you're going to have to try to make a good faith effort to understand why they think the way they do.
And by the way, if you honestly think I just came up with those arguments on my own and I'm the only one who thinks that way, you're sadly out of touch. Particularly the second; I've read dozens-at least-of comments from clinicians, detransitioners, parents and others who have expressed that exact sentiment. If you think all of those people, who are some of the most dedicated and vocal GC voices out there, are willfully stupid and acting in bad faith, maybe you need to listen to their stories a little more carefully. Your inability to believe that anyone could actually think in ways that you personally find hard to understand is not going to get you very far with anything except building yourself a nice echo chamber.
There are no good arguments for why men should breastfeed. Let's not act like we were born yesterday.
What planet do you live on where you've gotten the impression that "No one, including those up in arms about the potential danger to the baby in induced male lactation, talks in the same way about the potential risks of other chemicals being passed to the baby" by mothers during breastfeeding and pregnancy?
My whole life of nearly 70 years, there's always been lots of talk amongst women and HCPs expressing worry about fetuses and babies suffering all sorts of harms - both in the near term and over the long term of their lives - due to the substances that mothers might pass on to them over the course of pregnancy, during labor and childbirth, and later on through breastfeeding.
In the parts of planet earth where I've spent my life, it's common and very much the norm for women to take special care not to pass on harmful substances to our fetuses, babies and young children. Women do this by watching what we eat, drink, touch, inhale, put on our skin when TTC, pregnant and breastfeeding.
During pregnancy and when we are breastfeeding, legions of women routinely avoid certain foods, beverages, prescription medications, OTC medications, recreational drugs, supplments, herbs, artificial sweetners, smoking, vaping, skin creams, cleaning products, perfumes, hair dyes, fingernail polish, pesticides, paints, solvents, flame retardants, glues, industrial chemicals, and the chemicals, fumes and toxins we might encounter when engaging in certain endeavors such as using printers, working in a print shop, welding
To eliminate all possible harms, many women get the tap water in our homes & workplaces tested too, FFS. If we live in old houses dating to the era of lead paints, we also take care to test the layers of paint on the woodwork from decades or centuries past too.
For the period in the 1980s and early 1990s before US blood supplies could be trusted to have been reliably screened for all types of HIV, quite a few women of my generation who nearly bled to death during/after childbirth eschewed blood transfusions and blood products too. For fear of contracting a deadly disease we could pass on to our babies through breastfeeding.
I also take umbrage at your contention that GC feminists object to teenage girls & young women with "gender identity" issues getting their breasts cut off not principally because of concern for the health & wellbeing of babies, but mainly or solely because we supposedly regard breastfeeding as "a precious experience for many women" that provides mothers with "bonding and wonderful emotions."
Very few women with actual experience of breastfeeding, or attempting to breastfeed, would describe breastfeeding in the sappy, sentimental, unrealistic, ridiculously rosy, pie-in-the-sky, saccharine way you've done here. Maybe for you personally breastfeeding was "this amazing experience" that caused you to feel ecstasies of bliss and a stream of other "wonderful emotions" - and that's why you did it. But it sure wasn't and isn't like that for whole loads of women.
For most of us, breastfeeding is a mixed bag at best - and sometimes it's downright painful as well as a pain in the arse. Most women who breastfeed do so because it benefits our babies, not because we're selfish sensation-seekers in out for the stream of warm fuzzy feelings and "wonderful emotions" you seem to think breastfeeding brings to moms. It's your prerogative to view breasfeeding as a romantic experience that's fulfilling, thrilling and richly pleasureable for women, and to believe that women do it mainly to satisfy our own desires. But please don't project those ideas about breastfeedings onto GC feminists.
Whether you believe it or not, I've seen those "saccharine" arguments. Repeatedly. One that hit my inbox last week from another blog is discussing how young adults who believe they are ftm should wait before getting top surgery because "nursing was one of the most amazing experiences of my entire life". The only other thing mentioned is the potential complications of the surgery (which is important to mention to young people). But, no mention whatsoever of wanting to breastfeed, or bring grateful for the ability, because of the benefit to the baby. That's just one example of many I've personally read or heard. Another would be a detransitioner who, when testifying for bills banning medical transition for minors, stated that she deeply regrets her double mastectomy because she's realized she wants children and it's painful to know she "will never get to experience breastfeeding". Now, she's entitled to her feelings and to tell her story. But, please don't think everyone agrees with your point of view. (For the record, my child is adopted so I have no personal experience to draw from, but I'm inclined to think I would agree with you; I personally am not at all sorry to have missed out on pregnancy, labor and delivery, and breastfeeding for myself. I do worry that my child may have psychological difficulties later in life due to having been neglected by and removed from his birth mother's custody and missing out on a number of positive and healthy experiences, breastfeeding being only one. In any case, I'm not "projecting" my feelings onto anyone, just observing what others have said.)
I can see the points you're making, Jen. A frustration I have with what we might call the anon GC feminists online (of which I am one) is that I often see arguments in which the GC is ultimately correct in their position, but isn't arguing it well, or isn't able to properly rebut the other side. I internally wince and wonder who might see this and come to the conclusion that the other side have the more reasonable arguments.
While I do think most sane people instinctively feel that this is wrong, a lot of young, hip, educated people in particular can be convinced to accept things like this. Society has been conditioned to accept increasingly more boundary crossing. We can't rely on most people being completely rational about this topic, just because we've peaked, or because it was always obvious to us personally.
E.g. I watch JM's videos now and have a crawling feeling in my gut that he's just a mentally ill man intentionally trying to emotionally manipulate people, but I think a couple of years ago I would've been a lot more receptive to his "reasoning".
You are absolutely correct to notice "boundary crossing" as a phenomenon. Not just in the gender war but more widely in all fields that touch on anything related to identity. This is not accidental, it is explicitly intended, even has a name - "queering". The whole concept of liberation from notional oppression aims at erasing any boundaries at all - since if none exist nobody can end up on the wrong/minority side and be "oppressed".
Thank you! "Society has been conditioned to accept increasingly more boundary crossing. We can't rely on most people being completely rational about this topic, just because we've peaked, or because it was always obvious to us personally." Yes. This. The most frustrating thing to me is when people complain about various segments of society being "captured," but then when anyone tries to explain why that might be, or why they personally see things differently, people pile on and tell them they must be stupid, and they're the only ones who think this way because everyone with a brain obviously knows it's wrong, and so on... But, obviously there ARE in fact others who think about it differently, and telling them they're stupid and so forth is highly unlikely to convince them of anything except that everything they've heard about TERFs being evil must be true.
It would be great if we could just keep repeating the truth as we see it, and the whole rest of the world would just magically see the light. But, imo, we must listen to the other side and try to see why/how they think the way they do, and we must be open to changing the way we express our message in order to help others see OUR points. If we just keep insisting that we're right, repeating the same things in the same way, and refusing to accept even the tiniest shred of compromise, we're not going to get anywhere. (For exhibit A on this, please see our current US Congress. For those across the pond, a quick summary is that it is about as evenly divided as it could possibly be, and yet one chamber in particular is adamantly refusing to compromise at all, insisting they must get everything they want and the other side must get nothing they want, and simply repeating the same talking points over and over, louder and with more insults to the other side, and wondering how it is possible that they aren't convincing anyone of anything new. Since no legislation can pass without some support from both sides, that has meant that the only thing this Congress has actually accomplished is that they are historically unproductive.)
I guess the bottom line is, when you have a large chunk of society that thinks one way, and a chunk that thinks differently, there has to be some effort made to actually understand where each other are coming from if you're going to move forward with solutions. Otherwise, you're just going to see two sides becoming more entrenched in their respective views, as well as becoming more and more convinced that the other side is not worth listening to, and the only thing that changes is that people become more hostile to each other.