The ABA Abandons Women and Babies - Part 1
Feed your newborn babies experimental drugs!
What? Does that sound absurd and possibly even criminal?
Well, that was yesterday’s perspective, and today is a new day.
The Australian Breastfeeding Association reckons this is A-Okay.
There it is, in black and white; the ABA advocating for chemically induced male lactation of babies. (Further explained later in this article)
Some background information
I have previously covered the Australian Breastfeeding Association and their departure from sanity which is, in part, to blame on the ABA’s partnership with Rainbow Families. I have written about Rainbow Families before and highlighted that this once relevant group has veered away from their cause, which was, and should still be, advocating for homosexual (and bisexual) parents and their children. However, now Rainbow Families seems hell-bent on demolishing safeguards for children and teenagers, and the ABA is, seemingly, no longer fit for purpose.
The booklet
In my article about the ABA I discuss a $20,000 project of the partnered Rainbow Families and ABA; a booklet about induced lactation and chest-feeding. Well, the Breastfeeding, chest feeding and human milk feeding: Supporting LGBTQIA+ Families booklet is here.
The book is 124 pages of problems. In order to aptly address them in my own head, and for my readers, I will be breaking my thoughts up into 2 or more articles, so keep your eyes peeled for the next one.
For now, I want to focus on the chapter about “induced lactation,” because, as disturbed as I am by all of this, I think I am most angry and disturbed about the risk presented to babies, by men with selfish goals, that is being ushered in via this book.
Chapter 5 is titled “Relactation and induced lactation” and includes details for how males can chemically induce milk to feed to a baby. Before I go on, it is important to note that when the term “birthing parent” is being used throughout the book it means “mother” and the term “non-birthing parent” means “man.” Yes, a woman could have the desire to breastfeed a baby she did not give birth to making her a non-birthing parent, but that would require a much different process involving much different, and much less, prescribed interference, and that woman would still be a mother. So, these terms are being used to suit men and to tiptoe around biological and factual language in an effort to cater to everyone, however, by catering to everyone in the “rainbow family” the ABA is actually catering to no one. Worst of all? They are endangering the health of babies.
Q: What is induced lactation?
The ABA/Rainbow Families book defines “induced lactation” as “.. the process of building up a milk supply if you have never given birth or been pregnant.” I will translate and define it as “the process of taking a mix of largely untested (on two levels) prescription drugs to chemically force lactation in a male.”
The two levels on which these drugs have been largely untested, or not tested at all, are:
1) the risk to the male taking the prescribed drugs
2) the risk to a baby that is forced to ingest chemically induced “milk” from a male body.
In this case study* from 2018, purported to be the first formal report in the medical literature of induced lactation in a “transgender woman,” a male’s absurd goal of wanting to feed his adoptive baby chemically induced “milk” from his body is foolishly supported.
As the average CT reader would probably assume, this case study is riddled with bias, inconsistencies and untruths. Take this sentence from the study:
“After implementing a regimen of domperidone, estradiol, progesterone, and breast pumping, she was able to achieve sufficient breast milk volume to be the sole source of nourishment for her child for 6 weeks.”
First of all, “she” is an untruth. The case study patient is a man - a he.
“She had not had any gender-affirming surgeries such as breast augmentation, orchiectomy, or vaginoplasty.”
Secondly, in one of many contradictions, the study investigators claim:
“Three months after starting treatment…the patient was making 8 oz of breast milk per day.”
“Three and a half months after she had started the mentioned regimen, the baby was born weighing 6 lbs 13 oz. The patient breastfed exclusively for 6 weeks. During that time the child's pediatrician reported that the child's growth, feeding, and bowel habits were developmentally appropriate. At 6 weeks, the patient began supplementing breastfeedings with 4–8 oz of Similac brand formula daily due to concerns about insufficient milk volume.”
This contradicts their claim from earlier in the report that ‘[he] was able to achieve sufficient breast milk volume to be the sole source of nourishment for [his] child for 6 weeks’ because a baby that weighs 5 lbs requires 13 oz of milk, but they clearly state [he] “exclusively” breastfed for 6 weeks. The baby was born weighing over 6 lbs and a 5 lb baby needs 13 oz of milk. Someone is lying.
More of a breakdown of this study report can be found here.
A: An experiment on babies
Finally, the drugs.
The danger for the feeding and vulnerable baby in this type of scenario is completely unquantified. From not receiving colostrum to the untested prescription cocktail, our babies are being used in a live experiment and the ABA is now in cahoots with those leading the way.
The hormones and drugs that men take during “feminising processes” have not been tested in a manner of which to know if they transfer through breastmilk to a feeding baby.
….
“Her laboratory results from her initial evaluation included estradiol 119 pg/mL, progesterone 8.70 ng/mL, prolactin 9.5 ng/nL, sex hormone binding globulin 48 nmol/L, and total testosterone 256 ng/dL.”
Please remember this is a man they are referring to; he, his.
These are only the drugs this man is taking regularly to “feminise” himself. There are even more drugs needed to chemically induce “milk.”
Now, why is this particular study relevant to this CT article? Because it is the 49th reference (page 120) of the Breastfeeding, chest feeding and human milk feeding: Supporting LGBTQIA+ Families book. Yes. With all of its inaccuracies, untruths, contradictions and risks, this study is part of how that dreadful book came to be. It is also referenced in other parts of the book, one of which I previously mentioned:
There is much to address here, like the understating of female puberty and the understating of differences between male and female bodies and breasts, but I will have to cover these issues in another article.
Hypocrisy
From page 8 of the ABA book under the heading “Importance for babies"“ discussing the benefits of a mothers breastmilk to her baby.
• Human milk contains all the food and drink your baby needs for the first 6 months of their life and continues to be the most important part of their diet throughout the first year.
• The colostrum your baby receives in the first few days and the milk that follows contain anti-infective factors that protect against infection.
• The unique blend of fatty acids and other factors in human milk help ensure normal brain development. The lack of these in formula may result in lower IQ in babies fed that way.
• Babies who are not fed human milk have a lower resistance to infection (such as gastrointestinal, respiratory and ear). Overall, these babies have more doctors’ visits and spend more time in hospital with illness.
• Lack of feeding human milk is linked with a higher risk of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS).
• Babies who are not fed human milk have an increased risk of becoming overweight or obese.
Let’s set aside the use of the term “human milk” for now and focus on all of the benefits of (natural) breastmilk that both the ABA and Rainbow Families acknowledge. Colostrum, a unique blend of fatty acids, most important part of a baby’s diet, anti-infective factors, ensure normal brain development; all very important aspects of a mothers breastmilk. Well, forget about all of that now, ok? The ABA says no more! They’d rather expose babies to the risks presented by prescription cocktails to induce male lactation.
On top of that, women are directed by doctors to wean their baby off the breast in order to take medications that are proven to NOT pass through breastmilk. Let me repeat that - women are told to stop breastfeeding their baby (despite all of the benefits) in order to take medications that won’t pass to the baby through breastmilk in the first place. Yes, that is horrible, and it is also hypocritical when the ABA and Rainbow Families are evidently fully supportive of this as long as it is a man that wants to fulfill his perverted goal.
The ABA know that mothers are failed by prescribing doctors everyday. Volunteer breastfeeding counsellors with the ABA are well-versed in handling these types of issues; they affect many women. For the ABA to then pretend that it is perfectly acceptable to feed a vulnerable baby a milky prescription cocktail is appalling and a slap in the face of all women that have endured sexism and trauma throughout their birthing and breastfeeding experiences.
Furthermore, the ABA has the audacity to use this quote from their Code of Ethics within that disgraceful book:
“Breastfeeding is for the baby, not the baby for breastfeeding.”
Are they serious?
I can feel the collective rage radiating from women, particularly mothers, all over Australia and across the world. We will not stand for this. The ABA has made enemies of us all now, and this will remain until they correct their errors and clean up this mess. Mothers and babies are already vulnerable. How dare the ABA abandon them.
- Critical Thinker
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Contribute to Critical Thinking in a Passive World
!! Please send your thoughts to the ABA using this online complaint form. !!
*Case study - Reisman T, Goldstein Z (2018) Case report: induced lactation in a transgender woman, Transgender Health 3:1, 24–26, DOI: 10.1089/trgh.2017.0044.