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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
you stated this so eloquently. 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.
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.
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.