I haven't expressed an opinion on what I want people to do; I said there is no evidence to support the claim that doing it is unsafe to the infant.
Your opinion on what people should do is implicitly communicated by you arguing against those who oppose transgender women breastfeeding. What else would compel you to argue so aggressively about this? I highly doubt it's purely just for factual accuracy.
This is neither here nor there on the issue, but the discussion here conjures memory of Flóamanna saga, penned on Iceland sometime around 1300. There, one Þorgils returns from a western expedition to discover that his wife had given birth to a baby boy, yet died in childbirth. Seeing the child struggle to feed from his mother's breast, Þorgils cuts off his own nipple, first producing blood and, eventually, milk, which he gives the child to save him. Although the saga is sprinkled with historical elements, that specific aspect of the story is clearly a literary Wandermotiv with little historical value (maybe it represents a historical figure's struggle to raise a son on his own).
It doesn't matter what I would do personally. I am simply stating the fact that there is no evidence of harmfulness (or strong evidence of harmlessness). As long as they are informed about it, whether or not the lack of certainty either way is acceptable to the patient is at their discretion.
"As long as they are informed about it," can confirm- babies aren't informed
"whether or not the lack of certainty either way" English not your strong suit?
"acceptable to the patient" babies aren't patients
"at their discretion" babies can't use discretion
It goes without saying that decision-making on behalf of the baby is delegated to the parent/guardian. It is obviously not possible for a baby to personally consent to anything.
I haven't expressed an opinion on what I want people to do; I said there is no evidence to support the claim that doing it is unsafe to the infant.
In the evidence-based medicine model, if there is a dearth of research on a topic, the clinician is supposed to draw upon other forms of knowledge. One valuable piece of information is the observation that normal, healthy adults do not use infants as a prop in their identity work. There's plenty of evidence that narcissistic parents harm their children. Another valuable form of information is our knowlege about child sexual abuse; perpetrators often manipulate healthy forms of bodily and emotional intimacy to access victims. If you cannot see that a male's desire to nurse an infant is far more likely to stem from a paraphilia or severe mental health problems than a wholesome motivation to be a good mother, you're judgement is warped. Nobody should be condoning or promoting these interventions and behaviors.
This is more baseless conjecture and has nothing to do with the topic, which is the fact that there is no evidence that induced lactation in transgender women is harmful to the infant.
I haven't expressed an opinion on what I want people to do; I said there is no evidence to support the claim that doing it is unsafe to the infant.
Your opinion on what people should do is implicitly communicated by you arguing against those who oppose transgender women breastfeeding. What else would compel you to argue so aggressively about this? I highly doubt it's purely just for factual accuracy.
It's possible to correct what is objectively misinformation and inform people that their beliefs are not grounded in the scientific evidence without having a personal agenda. There is no evidence that this method is harmful to the infant. You may personally reject it for whatever reason, but the idea that it should be banned for everyone "because it is harmful" is unsupported by the evidence. The idea that it should be banned for everyone "because there is insufficient evidence to prove harmlessness" is a specious argument that fails to recognize that most things fall under this scenario.
This database shows the relationship between various drugs, breastmilk and infant health. The overwhelming majority of them have either not been tested, have not been extensively tested, or generally have no evidence of being harmful to infants:
The LactMed® database contains information on drugs and other chemicals to which breastfeeding mothers may be exposed. It includes information on the levels of such substances in breast milk and infant blood, and the possible...
This situation is normal, and unless there is specific evidence showing a substance or method is harmful, medical professionals have no reason to advise against it.
This database shows the relationship between various drugs, breastmilk and infant health. The overwhelming majority of them have either not been tested, have not been extensively tested, or generally have no evidence of being harmful to infants:
This situation is normal, and unless there is specific evidence showing a substance or method is harmful, medical professionals have no reason to advise against it.
Not sure if you're being deliberately disingenuous here or if you really are that stupid. The reason most drugs aren't extensively tested by breastfeeding mothers with newborn babies is because it would be an ethical nightmare. Think thalidomide. FIRST DO NO HARM, DUMMY. After a caesarean section, mothers are advised not to have anything stronger than a paracetamol for pain relief if they are breastfeeding so that inadvertent harm isn't caused to the child. Why do you think men with autogynephilia should get a pass? Because you're an ideologically captured fool playing the part of a useful idiot for a cause that is, thank god, rapidly unravelling. Or more likely, you're an AGP too.
This database shows the relationship between various drugs, breastmilk and infant health. The overwhelming majority of them have either not been tested, have not been extensively tested, or generally have no evidence of being harmful to infants:
This situation is normal, and unless there is specific evidence showing a substance or method is harmful, medical professionals have no reason to advise against it.
Not sure if you're being deliberately disingenuous here or if you really are that stupid. The reason most drugs aren't extensively tested by breastfeeding mothers with newborn babies is because it would be an ethical nightmare. Think thalidomide. FIRST DO NO HARM, DUMMY. After a caesarean section, mothers are advised not to have anything stronger than a paracetamol for pain relief if they are breastfeeding so that inadvertent harm isn't caused to the child. Why do you think men with autogynephilia should get a pass? Because you're an ideologically captured fool playing the part of a useful idiot for a cause that is, thank god, rapidly unravelling. Or more likely, you're an AGP too.
The argument about insufficient testing was made in this post:
I am reiterating the point that insufficient testing to prove harmlessness is the norm, and unless there is evidence of harmfulness, use of the substance is at the patient's discretion.
Not sure if you're being deliberately disingenuous here or if you really are that stupid. The reason most drugs aren't extensively tested by breastfeeding mothers with newborn babies is because it would be an ethical nightmare. Think thalidomide. FIRST DO NO HARM, DUMMY. After a caesarean section, mothers are advised not to have anything stronger than a paracetamol for pain relief if they are breastfeeding so that inadvertent harm isn't caused to the child. Why do you think men with autogynephilia should get a pass? Because you're an ideologically captured fool playing the part of a useful idiot for a cause that is, thank god, rapidly unravelling. Or more likely, you're an AGP too.
The argument about insufficient testing was made in this post:
I am reiterating the point that insufficient testing to prove harmlessness is the norm, and unless there is evidence of harmfulness, use of the substance is at the patient's discretion.
We have no evidence that ingesting ejaculate is harmful for children. Should we all just loosen up and stop being so judgemental about kids performing oral sex on adults? It's really just conjecture that that these practices are harmful, maybe even a sign of our bigotry towards pedophiles.
I've seen certain politicians in certain states try to lessen the "stigma for minor attracted people" by reducing the penalties for such crimes. I wish I was joking.
