FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to The Lounge

Chest Feeding

Jump to newest
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

Obviously I am not a woman nor am I transitioning ever, so not that invested in this. However as a father and rational person I found this news regarding changing the term for breasts feeding pretty strange.

Am I correct to assume only a biological woman can breast feed or indeed give birth? Although I could be wrong.

Which leads me to my main question. Why do some nhs trusts feel the need to change the obvious name of one of the most natural acts a woman can do? Is it so not to offend a group of people who in most scenarios wouldn’t even be in the situation to be offended?

Is this insane or am I some old conservative facist?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *wist my nipplesCouple
over a year ago

North East Scotland, mostly

Nobody is changing the term breastfeeding to chestfeeding. I believe some hospital trusts are adding it, so both are included.

There are many proven benefits from skin to skin contact between babies and their caregivers, whether that be at the breast or on a chest. Babies can also suckle for comfort without any milk being involved, or a supplementary nursing system can be used.

As with many things, the media likes to spin it in a divisive way cos it makes a better story.

Mrs kf x

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *icecouple561Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

East Sussex

When I had our children I breast fed them. That is my choice of phrase to refer to it. If someone else wants to refer to it differently it's up to them but I'd ask anyone to respect my preference.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Nobody is changing the term breastfeeding to chestfeeding. I believe some hospital trusts are adding it, so both are included.

There are many proven benefits from skin to skin contact between babies and their caregivers, whether that be at the breast or on a chest. Babies can also suckle for comfort without any milk being involved, or a supplementary nursing system can be used.

As with many things, the media likes to spin it in a divisive way cos it makes a better story.

Mrs kf x"

I agree and I did the whole skin to skin with my 4 boys. But that is not feeding is it. It’s contact.

It was the Brighton and Hove NHS trust, who’s Green MP is a champion for additional NHS funding. One wonders how much this utterly pointless process has cost the trust.

But your probs right, it’s me going mad with cabin fever and acute watermelon sores reading the dail mail toooo much.

Interesting to get another perspective though

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *inranWoman
over a year ago

Dudley

Erm no technically you are wrong. I know there has been at least on woman who was ts that managed to breastfeed. (I'm pretty sure there was top up formula due to supply issues for exclusivity but they produced milk)

Its technically possible for men to lactate too I believe.

I think the point my be more common the other way around though . If a man has transitioned they may still be able to breastfeed and may consider themselves to have a chest rather than breasts.

However not an expert.

I breastfeed. I use my breasts. I am personally happy with the term but I've not been in the situation where I feel the term challenges my identity.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

As someone who feed my son for 4 years and am a huge supporter and advocate of breastfeeding I don't understand how the addition/use of a term designed to be inclusive can be offensive to anyone....no one is banning the use of the term breastfeeding (just as no one was banning merry Christmas in the US) instead expanding our language to be more inclusive!

I still naturally call it breastfeeding but as time progresses I hope my instinctual language will become more inclusive..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"As someone who feed my son for 4 years and am a huge supporter and advocate of breastfeeding I don't understand how the addition/use of a term designed to be inclusive can be offensive to anyone....no one is banning the use of the term breastfeeding (just as no one was banning merry Christmas in the US) instead expanding our language to be more inclusive!

I still naturally call it breastfeeding but as time progresses I hope my instinctual language will become more inclusive.. "

I am not offended, I am appalled by the waste of precious NHS resources.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"As someone who feed my son for 4 years and am a huge supporter and advocate of breastfeeding I don't understand how the addition/use of a term designed to be inclusive can be offensive to anyone....no one is banning the use of the term breastfeeding (just as no one was banning merry Christmas in the US) instead expanding our language to be more inclusive!

I still naturally call it breastfeeding but as time progresses I hope my instinctual language will become more inclusive..

I am not offended, I am appalled by the waste of precious NHS resources. "

I'm not in the UK and while I have read a bit on this I haven't seen what the cost is?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *rsTrellisWoman
over a year ago

Cambridge

I adopted a baby aged one.

He hadn’t been with his birth mum long enough to breastfeed because he went to foster care very young.

I held him to my bare breasts as I fed him from a bottle. His face was against my skin and, although he suckled a couple of times, he didn’t know what to do and I wasn’t lactating.

But I hope he found comfort in being against my breasts as he would have been with his birth mum if his life had been different at the start.

I think “chest feeding” would have been a really inclusive term for us. I wasn’t feeding him from my breasts, but against my chest. Any non-lactating parent could do that.

Skin to skin contact is so important for babies. Adopted babies are utterly traumatised and to lay on your skin, hearing your breathing and your heartbeat, is soothing, calming and nurturing.

So yes, “chest feeding” encourages men, women, trans people etc to hold their baby close as they feed them.

It’s a good idea and a useful term to use alongside “breastfeeding”.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I like term nursing.. it seems inclusive and nurturing, so not just feeding role of human milk transfer.

And yes, even men can induce lactation with some help.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I like term nursing.. it seems inclusive and nurturing, so not just feeding role of human milk transfer.

And yes, even men can induce lactation with some help. "

And yes I do support idea of making it inclusive. Major breastfeeding support charities are going into that direction too.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Only yesterday did I discover that trans women can breast feed. Blew my mind.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"I adopted a baby aged one.

He hadn’t been with his birth mum long enough to breastfeed because he went to foster care very young.

I held him to my bare breasts as I fed him from a bottle. His face was against my skin and, although he suckled a couple of times, he didn’t know what to do and I wasn’t lactating.

But I hope he found comfort in being against my breasts as he would have been with his birth mum if his life had been different at the start.

I think “chest feeding” would have been a really inclusive term for us. I wasn’t feeding him from my breasts, but against my chest. Any non-lactating parent could do that.

Skin to skin contact is so important for babies. Adopted babies are utterly traumatised and to lay on your skin, hearing your breathing and your heartbeat, is soothing, calming and nurturing.

So yes, “chest feeding” encourages men, women, trans people etc to hold their baby close as they feed them.

It’s a good idea and a useful term to use alongside “breastfeeding”. "

Great point regarding traumatised babies, I can’t bare the thought of that.

But skin to skin contact is not feeding, there is literally no need to refer to that as chestfeeding.

Surety this constant need to accept everything without offending completely ignoring biology is a dangerous trend.

As I’ve mentioned in another thread, just look at the gender reassignment reversal rate. It’s shocking.

You are what you are. What feel, is something different that doesn’t change biology.

I feel, and I am not calling anyone out or judging people’s views, but a certain vocal small section of society has such a large disproportionate voice it’s distorting reality in terms of accepted public oppinion. The world is turning into some kind of melting film negative showing a dystopian alt realm.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Everyone has breast tissue. Males and females can get breast cancer.

I'm all for inclusion. How about it is classed as feeding...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The world is too concerned about semantics these days...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

I’m concerned about people ignoring indisputable scientific fact.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *tew008Man
over a year ago

edinburgh

People can moan about it all they like the zeitgeist will continue on with whichever sticks. Males can produce milk and males and females have breast tissue. So I don’t personally see the issue.

Unless I upset someone I’d make an allowance for them. They’re words and intent is the main force behind them.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"People can moan about it all they like the zeitgeist will continue on with whichever sticks. Males can produce milk and males and females have breast tissue. So I don’t personally see the issue.

Unless I upset someone I’d make an allowance for them. They’re words and intent is the main force behind them."

True facts. Men can also develop breast cancer also due to this breast tissue existing in both sex

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ovebjsMan
over a year ago

Bristol


"Obviously I am not a woman nor am I transitioning ever, so not that invested in this. However as a father and rational person I found this news regarding changing the term for breasts feeding pretty strange.

Am I correct to assume only a biological woman can breast feed or indeed give birth? Although I could be wrong.

Which leads me to my main question. Why do some nhs trusts feel the need to change the obvious name of one of the most natural acts a woman can do? Is it so not to offend a group of people who in most scenarios wouldn’t even be in the situation to be offended?

Is this insane or am I some old conservative facist?"

It's yet another bloody stupid idea

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *dam1971Man
over a year ago

Bedford


"I am not offended, I am appalled by the waste of precious NHS resources. "

Yes, as I look around me and see the tattered, broken remains of this country, the one thing that comes to mind is “everything is simply fine as it is”

I’m sure nobody would argue that it’s the most important issue facing the NHS today, but I’d prefer a culture where changes can happen rather than nothing.

If the small changes get rejected then what chance do we have if making the big ones?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Surely if a transitioning or transitioned woman is feeding, then its from breasts? The hormones they're taking and potential surgery = breasts. Thats the whole point.

Such a simple term wanting to be changed but imo taking away from the slog WOMEN primarily go through to feed their babies simply to (probably not) satisfy a minority.

Yes its only a word and if its only a word then why the need for change.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Things like this give me a headache

Especially when time and resources could be put to better use.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *inky_couple2020Couple
over a year ago

North West


"I like term nursing.. it seems inclusive and nurturing, so not just feeding role of human milk transfer.

And yes, even men can induce lactation with some help.

And yes I do support idea of making it inclusive. Major breastfeeding support charities are going into that direction too. "

Well put, Rose. Induced lactation isn't easy, but do-able with the right support. Women who've never given birth (eg adoptive parent) can definitely induce lactation and it works in those with XY chromosomes sometimes too, especially a transgender person who has taken female hormones.

Then there's supplemental nutrition systems (SNS) which can be used by anyone.

Go and check out Dr Jack Newman's website folks

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *inranWoman
over a year ago

Dudley


"I adopted a baby aged one.

He hadn’t been with his birth mum long enough to breastfeed because he went to foster care very young.

I held him to my bare breasts as I fed him from a bottle. His face was against my skin and, although he suckled a couple of times, he didn’t know what to do and I wasn’t lactating.

But I hope he found comfort in being against my breasts as he would have been with his birth mum if his life had been different at the start.

I think “chest feeding” would have been a really inclusive term for us. I wasn’t feeding him from my breasts, but against my chest. Any non-lactating parent could do that.

Skin to skin contact is so important for babies. Adopted babies are utterly traumatised and to lay on your skin, hearing your breathing and your heartbeat, is soothing, calming and nurturing.

So yes, “chest feeding” encourages men, women, trans people etc to hold their baby close as they feed them.

It’s a good idea and a useful term to use alongside “breastfeeding”.

Great point regarding traumatised babies, I can’t bare the thought of that.

But skin to skin contact is not feeding, there is literally no need to refer to that as chestfeeding.

Surety this constant need to accept everything without offending completely ignoring biology is a dangerous trend.

As I’ve mentioned in another thread, just look at the gender reassignment reversal rate. It’s shocking.

You are what you are. What feel, is something different that doesn’t change biology.

I feel, and I am not calling anyone out or judging people’s views, but a certain vocal small section of society has such a large disproportionate voice it’s distorting reality in terms of accepted public oppinion. The world is turning into some kind of melting film negative showing a dystopian alt realm. "

But you seem to be ignoring the fact stated by a couple of us that men and trans women can produce milk with the right support and feed a baby...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *inranWoman
over a year ago

Dudley


"I’m concerned about people ignoring indisputable scientific fact. "

Which indisputable scientific fact?

Its possible for anyone however they identify to produce milk if they have breast tissue...

So it your 'fact' is only biological.women can breastfeed its not fact.

I am a woman. I am breastfeeding currently and I am pretty sure my baby doesn't mind what it's called so long as they get their milk.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *elethWoman
over a year ago

Gloucestershire


"I’m concerned about people ignoring indisputable scientific fact.

Which indisputable scientific fact?

Its possible for anyone however they identify to produce milk if they have breast tissue...

So it your 'fact' is only biological.women can breastfeed its not fact.

I am a woman. I am breastfeeding currently and I am pretty sure my baby doesn't mind what it's called so long as they get their milk. "

Absolutely! As an ex-breastfeeder and breastfeeding peer supporter (please feel free to message if anyone would like support and information around breastfeeding) ANYTHING that increases awareness of breastfeeding and chestfeeding is a great thing. I'm thrilled that the NHS is working towards being more inclusive.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *olly_chromaticTV/TS
over a year ago

Stockport


"I adopted a baby aged one.

He hadn’t been with his birth mum long enough to breastfeed because he went to foster care very young.

I held him to my bare breasts as I fed him from a bottle. His face was against my skin and, although he suckled a couple of times, he didn’t know what to do and I wasn’t lactating.

But I hope he found comfort in being against my breasts as he would have been with his birth mum if his life had been different at the start.

I think “chest feeding” would have been a really inclusive term for us. I wasn’t feeding him from my breasts, but against my chest. Any non-lactating parent could do that.

Skin to skin contact is so important for babies. Adopted babies are utterly traumatised and to lay on your skin, hearing your breathing and your heartbeat, is soothing, calming and nurturing.

So yes, “chest feeding” encourages men, women, trans people etc to hold their baby close as they feed them.

It’s a good idea and a useful term to use alongside “breastfeeding”.

Great point regarding traumatised babies, I can’t bare the thought of that.

But skin to skin contact is not feeding, there is literally no need to refer to that as chestfeeding.

Surety this constant need to accept everything without offending completely ignoring biology is a dangerous trend.

As I’ve mentioned in another thread, just look at the gender reassignment reversal rate. It’s shocking.

You are what you are. What feel, is something different that doesn’t change biology.

I feel, and I am not calling anyone out or judging people’s views, but a certain vocal small section of society has such a large disproportionate voice it’s distorting reality in terms of accepted public oppinion. The world is turning into some kind of melting film negative showing a dystopian alt realm. "

The gender reassignment reversal rate is tiny. The supposed epidemic of GRS reversal is purely a lie by the likes of the Mail and the Telegraph, hoping to build transphobic attitudes.

Yes it does happen occasionally. In the only cases that I am aware of, it was people that were turned down for National Health treatment because of psychological instability, who nevertheless went ahead with self administration of hormones bought from the internet and private surgery at overseas clinics. Not surprising that later they realise their problems have not been solved, when they were never really caused by their birth gender.

That said, this is just a tiny proportion of the people who undertake full transition. GRS has a lower rate of regret than almost any other type of surgery - there are a greater proportion of people that are dissatisfied with hip replacements than gender reassignment. The single greatest source of surgical regret and subsequent reversal operations is cosmetic procedures such as boob jobs and face work - I have yet to see a major newspaper campaign raising this issue.

In future please don't dress up transphobia in fake concern about non-existant problems. Just come out and say in plain language that you hate transwomen, so that everybody can see what your position is.

Best regards, Polly xx

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

I'm all for inclusion.

And if I were to breastfeed, it would also be from my chest.

Hooray for including everyone who wants to take care of their children.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

I didn’t say anything like hate. It’s interesting how supposed inclusive “liberal” people are so judgmental.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"I adopted a baby aged one.

He hadn’t been with his birth mum long enough to breastfeed because he went to foster care very young.

I held him to my bare breasts as I fed him from a bottle. His face was against my skin and, although he suckled a couple of times, he didn’t know what to do and I wasn’t lactating.

But I hope he found comfort in being against my breasts as he would have been with his birth mum if his life had been different at the start.

I think “chest feeding” would have been a really inclusive term for us. I wasn’t feeding him from my breasts, but against my chest. Any non-lactating parent could do that.

Skin to skin contact is so important for babies. Adopted babies are utterly traumatised and to lay on your skin, hearing your breathing and your heartbeat, is soothing, calming and nurturing.

So yes, “chest feeding” encourages men, women, trans people etc to hold their baby close as they feed them.

It’s a good idea and a useful term to use alongside “breastfeeding”.

Great point regarding traumatised babies, I can’t bare the thought of that.

But skin to skin contact is not feeding, there is literally no need to refer to that as chestfeeding.

Surety this constant need to accept everything without offending completely ignoring biology is a dangerous trend.

As I’ve mentioned in another thread, just look at the gender reassignment reversal rate. It’s shocking.

You are what you are. What feel, is something different that doesn’t change biology.

I feel, and I am not calling anyone out or judging people’s views, but a certain vocal small section of society has such a large disproportionate voice it’s distorting reality in terms of accepted public oppinion. The world is turning into some kind of melting film negative showing a dystopian alt realm.

But you seem to be ignoring the fact stated by a couple of us that men and trans women can produce milk with the right support and feed a baby..."

I didn’t ignore you or your point. I just other things to do.

However you want to dress it up, males do not produce the necessary hormones to natural produce milk in any useful quantities.

A man would have to seek medical intervention to do this. Being possible doesn’t make it natural and or biologically correct. It is not. A women naturally produces the required hormones and has everything in place to do so which is as evolution intended.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *inranWoman
over a year ago

Dudley


"I adopted a baby aged one.

He hadn’t been with his birth mum long enough to breastfeed because he went to foster care very young.

I held him to my bare breasts as I fed him from a bottle. His face was against my skin and, although he suckled a couple of times, he didn’t know what to do and I wasn’t lactating.

But I hope he found comfort in being against my breasts as he would have been with his birth mum if his life had been different at the start.

I think “chest feeding” would have been a really inclusive term for us. I wasn’t feeding him from my breasts, but against my chest. Any non-lactating parent could do that.

Skin to skin contact is so important for babies. Adopted babies are utterly traumatised and to lay on your skin, hearing your breathing and your heartbeat, is soothing, calming and nurturing.

So yes, “chest feeding” encourages men, women, trans people etc to hold their baby close as they feed them.

It’s a good idea and a useful term to use alongside “breastfeeding”.

Great point regarding traumatised babies, I can’t bare the thought of that.

But skin to skin contact is not feeding, there is literally no need to refer to that as chestfeeding.

Surety this constant need to accept everything without offending completely ignoring biology is a dangerous trend.

As I’ve mentioned in another thread, just look at the gender reassignment reversal rate. It’s shocking.

You are what you are. What feel, is something different that doesn’t change biology.

I feel, and I am not calling anyone out or judging people’s views, but a certain vocal small section of society has such a large disproportionate voice it’s distorting reality in terms of accepted public oppinion. The world is turning into some kind of melting film negative showing a dystopian alt realm.

But you seem to be ignoring the fact stated by a couple of us that men and trans women can produce milk with the right support and feed a baby...

I didn’t ignore you or your point. I just other things to do.

However you want to dress it up, males do not produce the necessary hormones to natural produce milk in any useful quantities.

A man would have to seek medical intervention to do this. Being possible doesn’t make it natural and or biologically correct. It is not. A women naturally produces the required hormones and has everything in place to do so which is as evolution intended.

"

As will trans men if they are not taking hormone treatments they may well still be producing estrogen as being born a women.

They however may not want to liable their anatomy according to your rules.

There are people who identify as men who can naturally make milk.

I am not discounting trans women's experience in this either.

But if your point is producing milk without medical intervention there are people that will still fit that criteria. There are transmen who have given birth.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

Some cis women can't produce milk for babies without medical intervention.

Let's not go down the route of "if it can't be done without help it shouldn't be allowed".

Let's support parents wanting to raise their children.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ex-BombsCouple
over a year ago

Flitwick

It’s called breast feeding because women’s breasts are designed to do just that feed a baby! Skin to skin contact is completely different! As long as parents and children are happy that is all that counts but people need to call a spade a spade and be done with it

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The ultimate aim is for the entire planet to be gender neutral so instead of fruitlessly searching for that mate of the opposite, or indeed the same, sex, or anywhere in between, it's just easier to go and fuck ourselves.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I think this is about trans men not trans women.

Some trans men choose to have a baby before rendering themselves unable to do so (if that’s the route the choose to go)

They tend to refer to their chest as they find the presence of beasts distressing.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"I adopted a baby aged one.

He hadn’t been with his birth mum long enough to breastfeed because he went to foster care very young.

I held him to my bare breasts as I fed him from a bottle. His face was against my skin and, although he suckled a couple of times, he didn’t know what to do and I wasn’t lactating.

But I hope he found comfort in being against my breasts as he would have been with his birth mum if his life had been different at the start.

I think “chest feeding” would have been a really inclusive term for us. I wasn’t feeding him from my breasts, but against my chest. Any non-lactating parent could do that.

Skin to skin contact is so important for babies. Adopted babies are utterly traumatised and to lay on your skin, hearing your breathing and your heartbeat, is soothing, calming and nurturing.

So yes, “chest feeding” encourages men, women, trans people etc to hold their baby close as they feed them.

It’s a good idea and a useful term to use alongside “breastfeeding”.

Great point regarding traumatised babies, I can’t bare the thought of that.

But skin to skin contact is not feeding, there is literally no need to refer to that as chestfeeding.

Surety this constant need to accept everything without offending completely ignoring biology is a dangerous trend.

As I’ve mentioned in another thread, just look at the gender reassignment reversal rate. It’s shocking.

You are what you are. What feel, is something different that doesn’t change biology.

I feel, and I am not calling anyone out or judging people’s views, but a certain vocal small section of society has such a large disproportionate voice it’s distorting reality in terms of accepted public oppinion. The world is turning into some kind of melting film negative showing a dystopian alt realm.

But you seem to be ignoring the fact stated by a couple of us that men and trans women can produce milk with the right support and feed a baby...

I didn’t ignore you or your point. I just other things to do.

However you want to dress it up, males do not produce the necessary hormones to natural produce milk in any useful quantities.

A man would have to seek medical intervention to do this. Being possible doesn’t make it natural and or biologically correct. It is not. A women naturally produces the required hormones and has everything in place to do so which is as evolution intended.

As will trans men if they are not taking hormone treatments they may well still be producing estrogen as being born a women.

They however may not want to liable their anatomy according to your rules.

There are people who identify as men who can naturally make milk.

I am not discounting trans women's experience in this either.

But if your point is producing milk without medical intervention there are people that will still fit that criteria. There are transmen who have given birth. "

A man giving birth is not a man giving birth it’s a biological woman giving birth who identifies as a man. This is insane.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

Why is it insane?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *..FirstMan
over a year ago

london

Sorry if I offend anyone (well not really) but when i heard Chest Feeding, I just thought What a load of politically correct bollocks...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *dam1971Man
over a year ago

Bedford


"A man giving birth is not a man giving birth it’s a biological woman giving birth who identifies as a man. This is insane. "

Why does it make you so angry? I’m curious to know if it’s because you’re being manipulated by a media with their own agenda or is this a rage that you’ve carried around from before?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"A man giving birth is not a man giving birth it’s a biological woman giving birth who identifies as a man. This is insane.

Why does it make you so angry? I’m curious to know if it’s because you’re being manipulated by a media with their own agenda or is this a rage that you’ve carried around from before?"

I’m not angry, nor am I shouting.

I just fail to understand. I am clearly a simpleton.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 24/02/21 22:54:26]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"A man giving birth is not a man giving birth it’s a biological woman giving birth who identifies as a man. This is insane.

Why does it make you so angry? I’m curious to know if it’s because you’re being manipulated by a media with their own agenda or is this a rage that you’ve carried around from before?

I’m not angry, nor am I shouting.

I just fail to understand. I am clearly a simpleton. "

You said it, not us.

Research and knowledge can save you coming across that way.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ssex_tomMan
over a year ago

Chelmsford

Is there such a thing as organic human milk?

I think you can buy organic cow milk but I might be wrong..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *olly_chromaticTV/TS
over a year ago

Stockport


"Is there such a thing as organic human milk?

I think you can buy organic cow milk but I might be wrong.."

If a person only eats organic food, doesn't gobble antibiotics for little reason, and doesn't spray themselves with pesticides, I'm sure that they could be certified as being organic. And then organic chest would logically produce organic milk?

You probably won't find it in cartons at tesco(*) though...

(*) Other supermarkets also available.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *dam1971Man
over a year ago

Bedford


"Is there such a thing as organic human milk?

I think you can buy organic cow milk but I might be wrong..

If a person only eats organic food, doesn't gobble antibiotics for little reason, and doesn't spray themselves with pesticides, I'm sure that they could be certified as being organic. And then organic chest would logically produce organic milk?

You probably won't find it in cartons at tesco(*) though...

(*) Other supermarkets also available."

No, it’s more a Waitrose thing

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)


"Is there such a thing as organic human milk?

I think you can buy organic cow milk but I might be wrong.."

I think there was a place in London that did breast milk ice cream

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *dam1971Man
over a year ago

Bedford


"Is there such a thing as organic human milk?

I think you can buy organic cow milk but I might be wrong..

I think there was a place in London that did breast milk ice cream"

Raspberry nipple?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ssex_tomMan
over a year ago

Chelmsford

Was it passed your eyes...

Ice cream..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Is there such a thing as organic human milk?

I think you can buy organic cow milk but I might be wrong.."

Isn't it "organic" by nature? Coming from an organ.. made of blood.

It contains 300 plus ingredients whilst formula around 40 plus. They can't be all replicated. If that's not organic then I'm not sure what is..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *inky_couple2020Couple
over a year ago

North West


"Is there such a thing as organic human milk?

I think you can buy organic cow milk but I might be wrong..

Isn't it "organic" by nature? Coming from an organ.. made of blood.

It contains 300 plus ingredients whilst formula around 40 plus. They can't be all replicated. If that's not organic then I'm not sure what is.. "

What Rose said

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ssex_tomMan
over a year ago

Chelmsford


"Is there such a thing as organic human milk?

I think you can buy organic cow milk but I might be wrong..

Isn't it "organic" by nature? Coming from an organ.. made of blood.

It contains 300 plus ingredients whilst formula around 40 plus. They can't be all replicated. If that's not organic then I'm not sure what is.. "

Well I thought that organic produce like veg was about clean soil, no pesticides or insecticides and organic meat was about pastures grown without chemicals and no hormones and anti biotics..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Is there such a thing as organic human milk?

I think you can buy organic cow milk but I might be wrong..

Isn't it "organic" by nature? Coming from an organ.. made of blood.

It contains 300 plus ingredients whilst formula around 40 plus. They can't be all replicated. If that's not organic then I'm not sure what is..

Well I thought that organic produce like veg was about clean soil, no pesticides or insecticides and organic meat was about pastures grown without chemicals and no hormones and anti biotics..

"

Yes if we are talking plants or meat. But human milk is neither.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ssex_tomMan
over a year ago

Chelmsford


"Is there such a thing as organic human milk?

I think you can buy organic cow milk but I might be wrong..

Isn't it "organic" by nature? Coming from an organ.. made of blood.

It contains 300 plus ingredients whilst formula around 40 plus. They can't be all replicated. If that's not organic then I'm not sure what is..

Well I thought that organic produce like veg was about clean soil, no pesticides or insecticides and organic meat was about pastures grown without chemicals and no hormones and anti biotics..

Yes if we are talking plants or meat. But human milk is neither. "

And if the human is pumped full of hormones to produce it ?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *olly_chromaticTV/TS
over a year ago

Stockport


"Is there such a thing as organic human milk?

I think you can buy organic cow milk but I might be wrong..

Isn't it "organic" by nature? Coming from an organ.. made of blood.

It contains 300 plus ingredients whilst formula around 40 plus. They can't be all replicated. If that's not organic then I'm not sure what is..

Well I thought that organic produce like veg was about clean soil, no pesticides or insecticides and organic meat was about pastures grown without chemicals and no hormones and anti biotics..

"

As I said Tom. If you have ambitions to get your nipples certified organic, you need to keep away from the Lynx spray can...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ssex_tomMan
over a year ago

Chelmsford


"Is there such a thing as organic human milk?

I think you can buy organic cow milk but I might be wrong..

Isn't it "organic" by nature? Coming from an organ.. made of blood.

It contains 300 plus ingredients whilst formula around 40 plus. They can't be all replicated. If that's not organic then I'm not sure what is..

Well I thought that organic produce like veg was about clean soil, no pesticides or insecticides and organic meat was about pastures grown without chemicals and no hormones and anti biotics..

As I said Tom. If you have ambitions to get your nipples certified organic, you need to keep away from the Lynx spray can..."

Have you seen they have marmite Lynx now..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Is there such a thing as organic human milk?

I think you can buy organic cow milk but I might be wrong..

Isn't it "organic" by nature? Coming from an organ.. made of blood.

It contains 300 plus ingredients whilst formula around 40 plus. They can't be all replicated. If that's not organic then I'm not sure what is..

Well I thought that organic produce like veg was about clean soil, no pesticides or insecticides and organic meat was about pastures grown without chemicals and no hormones and anti biotics..

Yes if we are talking plants or meat. But human milk is neither.

And if the human is pumped full of hormones to produce it ?"

As far as I understand building immunity component and all the other goodness could counteract that. Yes there is a tiny percentage of metals detected in breastmilk for example, environmental thing, but you could also get contaminated formula milk. Risks come with everything.

And I just don't think you can look it at the same way as you do at animal produce.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ssex_tomMan
over a year ago

Chelmsford

Well if we can be more inclusive then that's fine with me and the way to go..

I actually liked gay, bi and TV/TS before they made it compulsory...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *adyJayneWoman
over a year ago

Burnleyish (She/They)


"Sorry if I offend anyone (well not really) but when i heard Chest Feeding, I just thought What a load of politically correct bollocks..."

You know what I find really hard to understand. Why being inclusive, understanding, compassionate and caring to others around us has become 'politically correct bollocks'

Like. My first rule in life, that I try to stick to is

Don't be a dick.

For me that includes accepting people for who they are, no matter their preferences when it comes to gender, sexuality, faith etc.

I have friends of many varied faiths (or lack of),cis, none binary and trans friends, all colours of the LGBTQ+ spectrum, even opposing political views. The one thing in common with all of these people (that I can see) is that they have a similar view to me with regard to "don't be a dick"

Why is it so offensive, hard or uncomfortable to make small changes to your language to make others more comfortable?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *inky_couple2020Couple
over a year ago

North West


"Is there such a thing as organic human milk?

I think you can buy organic cow milk but I might be wrong..

Isn't it "organic" by nature? Coming from an organ.. made of blood.

It contains 300 plus ingredients whilst formula around 40 plus. They can't be all replicated. If that's not organic then I'm not sure what is..

Well I thought that organic produce like veg was about clean soil, no pesticides or insecticides and organic meat was about pastures grown without chemicals and no hormones and anti biotics..

Yes if we are talking plants or meat. But human milk is neither.

And if the human is pumped full of hormones to produce it ?"

Do you realise a woman's body must be flooded with hormones to switch on lactation? Oxytocin, prolactin etc?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Well if we can be more inclusive then that's fine with me and the way to go..

I actually liked gay, bi and TV/TS before they made it compulsory..."

Compulsory?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Regardless of what they wanna call it I wanna try suckle haha

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top