NHS trust says transgender milk just as good for babies as normal milk

"Trans women" are biologically male, and remain so notwithstanding medical interventions, surgical or otherwise. Sex differences are not something which occur only in adolescence.

You appear to be posting from an ideological standpoint rather than from one based on science.

https://www.pittparents.com/p/no-such-thing-as-the-wrong-puberty

If someone has no penis or testes, higher levels of oestrogen than testosterone and secondary sex characteristics such as breast growth, would you seriously say they're fully, biologically male? How would you define male, and how would you define female? If it's by karotype or genitalia at birth, what about intersex people? Cisgender women can have XY chromosomes - look into androgen insensitivity syndrome - and a surprising amount of people are born with ambiguous sex organs.

I can't seem to access the video or article you've linked - mind summarising the main points? As for 'ideological standpoint rather than one based off science', judging by the title, your second source appears to have come from a gender-critical parenting blog. Hardly unbiased.

Took one look at Reduxx and yikes. Yikes. If you seriously believe it's a reliable source, I don't think I can continue this debate, because nothing I say is ever going to convince you. You claim it's a 'reputable feminist news site'. What 'feminist news site' has a front page consisting exclusively of 'trans predator/child abuser' stories? Citing Reduxx for biology would be like citing Stormfront for immigration statistics.

I'd also like to add that one of the articles you've linked is based on a Reddit thread and does not cite any of its scientific sources. Truly stellar, peer-reviewed medical journalism.

Each of the predator and child abuse stories carried by Reduxx is verifiable. Most trans identifying people are no threat to others. A few are. One attack is one too many, which is why single sex spaces remain important. It may be that you don't like the the site because it conflicts with your ideological views.


You have overlooked my caveat about the other site, and have in any event ignored the message while shooting the messenger.

There is no respectable and uncontended body of medical opinion which supports the contentions that sex is a spectrum, that men can safely breastfeed, or that puberty blockers and hormone treatments are safe for children.

I again commend "Material Girls" by Kathleen Stock, "Time to Think" by Hannah Barnes, the Cass Review, and "Left is Not Woke" by Susan Neiman

Imagine a website exclusively devoted to cataloguing murders committed by Jews. What's more likely: it's an ideologically neutral resource committed to criminal justice, or it's a propaganda tool for Nazis? Considering the mods here have removed your links, I'd say they go with the latter definition.

Look: you're transphobic. I don't mean that as some kind of playground insult, I mean that as a fact. It's possible to have questions about hormone therapy and single-sex spaces without being in any way bigoted, but you're clearly not 'just asking questions'. You do not regularly consume content like Reduxx without harbouring some genuine fear or hatred towards trans women. Just look at the way their home page is arranged. Stories about trans parents breastfeeding their children (Reddit users have 'concerns'! God forbid!), sandwiched between 'Sadistic trans killer' and 'Trans child predator'... that's not a neutral formatting decision. The purpose of their website is to get you to equate those things. Neither are the images neutral. Note how almost every article goes out of its way to show the trans woman in question with a full beard, despite the fact most trans women shave. Reduxx wants you to picture trans women as hairy, masculine, hideous predators, coming for you and your children. It's propaganda. It's propaganda in its purest form.

I'm going to try and end this argument there. If you don't believe Reduxx is transphobic then I sincerely doubt you believe transphobia exists at all. One more thing: you say 'no respected and uncontended[sic] body of medical opinion supports puberty blockers or hormones for children'. I present you with the American Academy of Paediatricians, who have supported gender affirming care since 2018. Goodbye.

Biological sex (genotype) is binary. A lot of people are conflating that with gender which is a human construct. Here's a good article.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/bies.202200173

My opinion:

Sex=biological, assigned at birth and fixed (I say “my opinion” as the fact that we are trying to argue against this is crazy). Exceptions like intersex people and being able to change your legal sex exist obviously.
Gender= not biological and based on how you identify as or feel, not fixed (not that I “identify” as a woman, I simply am a woman, I ain’t tryna nor need to identify as the gender to be recognised or deemed as such, it’s simply what I am, but that’s besides the point). I don’t know how many genders there are (I wouldn’t be able to give you a clear answer) but that’s another topic.

But I’m not sure if this general debate (on whether sex is biological or not) is relevant to this topic.

I personally don’t care if babies are given breast milk that comes from transgender people, that’s probably up for the parents and/or medical professionals to decide, not me.

There’s bigger issues surrounding this type of topic in my opinion.

My opinion:

Sex=biological, assigned at birth and fixed (I say “my opinion” as the fact that we are trying to argue against this is crazy). Exceptions like intersex people and being able to change your legal sex exist obviously.
Gender= not biological and based on how you identify as or feel, not fixed (not that I “identify” as a woman, I simply am a woman, I ain’t tryna nor need to identify as the gender to be recognised or deemed as such, it’s simply what I am, but that’s besides the point). I don’t know how many genders there are (I wouldn’t be able to give you a clear answer) but that’s another topic.

But I’m not sure if this general debate (on whether sex is biological or not) is relevant to this topic.

I personally don’t care if babies are given breast milk that comes from transgender people, that’s probably up for the parents and/or medical professionals to decide, not me.

There’s bigger issues surrounding this type of topic in my opinion.

For the Moderators: Gender critical views are protected by the Equalities Act 2010. This has been made clear by the decision in the Forstater case, and several other cases since Forstater.

Censorship of such views by TSR would be unlawful, and could lead to TSR being held liable in Court to any person whose views are censored. LinkedIn and other social media organisations are currently facing law suits because they have unlawfully censored gender critical views.

A site about education should not permit false assertions based on pseudoscience such as "sex is a spectrum" to go unchallenged. Moderation should be fair, impartial, and in accordance with the law.

Does the Equality Act apply to private forums?

Sex is observed at birth, not assigned, save in the very rare cases of intersex conditions. The use of the term "assigned at birth" is a result of the capture of some institutions by gender ideology. See also terms such as "birthing parent" and "chest feeding". Attempts to influence thought through non-evolutionary changes in language are Orwellian, and should be resisted.

Actually biological sex (i.e. chromosomal) is also a human definition of the natural world. But it makes logical sense from a reproductive viewpoint. It is not always binary but the exceptions (Turner, Klinefelter, intersex) are all generally reproductive dead ends hence why biological sex is traditionally defined as binary. Sex assigned at birth is actually gender. That's a human construct. From a scientific perspective, the human genotype is XX/XY with very, very small % of non XX/XY that have no sustained inheritance in the population. Scientists that argue that sex is non binary because of all the non XX/XY individuals are being facetious as they well know such genotypes are reproductive dead ends and choosing to "misrepresent" the facts in a different way.

iT's TrAnSpHoBiA!! Reeeee!!!

Clap trap! Societ is ****ed.

To say the male body is programmed to lactate seems a grpss perversion of the facts. Equally, to say that the only difference is this biological male has been gently nudged is willfully ignoring the facts as you well know... To put it simply, these heavy duty drugs are not sold otc for a reason and their inclusion in any form of food is tightly regulated. How it can be compared to nothing more than a simple switch flip seems wantonly blase.

Leaving aside the exceptionally questionable nature of encouraging biological men to 'chestfeed' an unsuspecting babe, the main point of no self respecting parent would ever give their child the type of food loaded with hormones and drugs so why it would be okay to give it to a baby is.. disgraceful to be quite blunt.
By all means, is youre a transsexual have a child if you can. It is a human imperative after all. Inflicting chemical soup on a newborn though is questionable at best. Downright irresponsible of this particular trust to encourage for good measure. After all, children are not simply property to do as you want with.

Simply put, would you seriously, and honestly, be okay with biological male donor milk? I cant speak for many others but from a quick head count of the baby and me group out of 15 of us, all 15 were fairly horrified by the idea.