Mothers for Mother (MfM) was a website started by disaffected La Leche League Leaders who could see that the LLLI Board was literally killing this venerable organisation by its insistence on using “a variety of terms” in place of mother. For 65 years LLL Leaders have provided mother to mother breastfeeding support at no cost to the many thousands of women who contact them every year. LLL has literally changed the course of breastfeeding history, but is in grave danger of losing its credibility as Board members alter policies (largely without consultation) to include men and erase women.
It was necessary for Mothers for Mother to be totally anonymous as no public criticism of LLL is ever allowed by Leaders. Leaders who complain (even in private League Facebook pages) are promptly bullied by gender woo warriors and threatened with being disaccredited. In the beginning, when MfM had a comments section, every Leader who commented was sanctioned/booted off committees or otherwise punished for their ‘insubordination’. Some Leaders are still fighting for their right to remain a Leader while at the same time holding gender critical views (AKA believing in facts and biology).
Because of the level of secrecy required to operate MfM, this website has been taken down. Reprinted with permission of the Mothers for Mother authors I am republishing a series of their posts as a form of archiving them for future readers who appreciate the sanity of those who believe in biological facts, over the thoughts of those who posit that nothing is more important than what they feel or believe about a made-up world of their choosing.
This was first published on January 31, 2022
FAQs for MotherforMother.com
Many Leaders have asked why this website was started. Below, answers to this and other Frequently Asked Questions:
Q: What is the purpose of this website?
A: MothersforMother.com informs La Leche League Leaders about the importance of sex-specific language and the positive impact that this has in promoting and supporting breastfeeding.
Q. How does sex-specific language promote breastfeeding?
A. Sex-specific language acknowledges the humanity of mothers. Women have specific, sex-based physical attributes that require clear reporting in medical research. So-called “inclusive language” dilutes the efficacy of breastfeeding information by requiring confusing and made-up words that have no generally understood meaning, which leads to misinformation and possible harm to babies and to the mother-baby relationship.
Q. What are some terms being used to replace mothers?
A. Birthers, birth givers, birthing people, bodies with vaginas, caregivers, cervix-havers, childbearing people, expectant persons, gestational carriers, gestators, menstruators, people with a cervix, non-men, postnatal people, postpartum individuals, pregnant families, uterus havers and vulva owners. https://www.smh.com.au/national/inclusive-language-risks-dehumanising-women-top-researchers-argue-20220126-p59red.html
Q: Why is language being changed?
A: Words like “mother” are being replaced in an attempt to be inclusive of those who choose not to identify as women, even though these individuals are still doing things that only biological women can do—like having babies. LLL supports women who face many distinct breastfeeding challenges, yet it has never been deemed necessary to include descriptors in all articles under the umbrella of “inclusivity” for those who, for example, have twins or are survivors of domestic abuse. These topics pertain to some mothers, and LLL has created informational resources specifically written to meet their unique situations. Yet de-sexed language, which may be suited to only a small population, is now being imposed for all resources.
Q: What has caused this sudden phenomenon of women not wanting to use conventional, biology-based terminology to describe themselves?
A: Over the last 20 years, Queer Theory (a Western philosophical belief system) has taken over university academics and permeated society. Queer Theory’s foundational belief is that we can create our own reality. This ignores the science of biology and prioritizes personal feelings over sex-based facts.
Q: What is the objection to affirming however a person chooses to identify?
A: We have always affirmed others on an individual basis, and we will continue to respect individual preferences in breastfeeding support. Although it is always our intent to be kind to others, we are concerned at the harm being done under the guise of a far-from-benign social transformation and social coercion.
Q: What kind of harm are you concerned is being done?
A: There are multi-billion-dollar corporations that stand to profit from de-sexed language. For example, some infant formula companies diminish the importance of breastfeeding while marketing “human milk” that uses breastmilk from women in developing nations. Meanwhile, women's hard-won rights are being eroded, to the point where previously women-only public spaces are no longer safe from the predations of some men. As mothers and Leaders, it is of deep concern to us that young women are subjecting themselves to potentially dangerous hormone treatments and deliberately having their healthy breasts removed (“top surgery”) to avoid the gendered stereotype of what a woman is meant to be, hurting their future capacity to become mothers and to breastfeed any babies they may have.
Q: What is the objection to using de-sexed language?
A: Customized language is appropriate for individual interactions, but not for publications, websites and public health messaging intended for a global audience. Terminology needs to be internationally accepted, unambiguously understood, and sufficiently clear to allow translation into many languages. Leaders living in countries with limited financial resources cannot afford to re-write publications. Women need to retain sovereignty over their words, their sex and their spaces, and not allow words that accurately describe their reality as biological beings to be redefined in a manner that harms us all.
Q. Why is de-sexed language considered dehumanizing?
A. Replacing words dehumanizes mothers by creating a belief system that female body parts are more important than the mother-baby breastfeeding relationship. Leaders know that exclusively breastfed babies are in a category that is different from babies who receive a mother’s expressed breastmilk, donor milk, or infant formula. This new language helps open the door for infant formula companies to manufacture and market “human milk” by harvesting breast tissue from elective breast surgeries. LLL runs the risk of supporting this ethically questionable practice by using terms such as “human milk feeding” and “chestfeeding.”
Q: The LLLI Board has repeatedly asserted that they are not “erasing” words like “mother.” Why does the website persist in arguing this point?
A: The Board is hiding behind the semantics of the word “erasing,” because logical interpretation says otherwise. Every time they do not use “mother” and use a substitute word (“birthing parent,” “breastfeeding families”), they are de facto diminishing the use of “mother” and thus eliminating its normal usage. The more that alternative words are added in LLL publications and communications, the more it diminishes the visibility of women and distracts from the focus on women’s unique needs.
Q: The LLLI Board has stated that DCEs (Direct Connect Entities) can adapt language to accommodate any specific cultural needs. Isn’t this sufficient?
A: Since all training of Leader Applicants must be done with LLLI materials, it indoctrinates new Leaders to accept this harmful philosophy.
Q: Why don’t you address your concerns directly with the LLLI Board?
A: In August 2021, 267 Leaders signed a letter to the Board, articulating concerns about the language being used in LLLI publications. You can read the letter here, along with the Board’s response:
https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/la-leche-league-has-fallen/comments
Many Leaders have written individually to the Board and received responses indicating that, despite the concerns expressed, the Board remains committed to using “gender-inclusive language.”
Q: Why was this website started?
A: To give voice to what many Leaders are thinking about the language changes in LLL. This website is necessary because there are supporters of de-sexed language who insist that no one shall be allowed to disagree with them. Many Leaders have been bullied and disparagingly labeled “TERFs” (Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists) on LLL social media sites. Others have been taken off committees, silenced, de-platormed, and even threatened with disaccreditation for suggesting that words like “mother” should remain in LLL publications. This website is the answer to that treatment, and it will remain online until the Board stops allowing this type of behavior and is ready to listen with an open mind about the importance of sexed language to promote and support breastfeeding.
If you would like to read more about the use of language in birth and breastfeeding, we recommend the following sources:
“Effective Communication About Pregnancy, Birth, Lactation, Breastfeeding and Newborn Care: The Importance of Sexed Language”
Explores the unintended consequences of de-sexed language, how it decreases overall inclusivity, dehumanizes, is inaccurate and misleading, undermines breastfeeding, and fails to protect the mother-infant dyad. In the Supplementary Files, are many examples of this, including those published by LLLI.
“Effective Communication About Pregnancy, Birth, Lactation, Breastfeeding and Newborn Care: The Importance of Sexed Language,” Karleen Gribble et al, Feb 2022, Frontiers In Global Women’s Health.
"Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine Position Statement and Guideline: Infant Feeding and Lactation-Related Language and Gender"
The language used to discuss breastfeeding needs to be “comprehensible, acceptable, and permissible in all countries, in any language, and by any reader” to promote health equity in vulnerable populations:
“Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine Position Statement and Guideline: Infant Feeding and Lactation-Related Language and Gender,” Melissa Bartick et al, Breastfeeding Medicine, Volume 16, Number 8, August 2021.
https://www.bfmed.org/assets/Gender%20Neutral%20Position%20Statement.pdf
“Sex-based language: vital for women’s rights”
Why it is important to retain sex-based language in maternity and health care.
“Sex-based language: vital for women’s rights,” Kristina Turner, With Woman, Feb 2022
"Families do not Breastfeed, Mothers do...and We Need to Say So"
Use of the increasingly popular term “breastfeeding families” has the unintended consequence of undermining women’s rights and placing mothers and infants in jeopardy:
“Families do not breastfeed, mothers do ... and we need to say so,” Madeleine Munzer, With Woman, 5 October 2021.
"'Mother’ Matters: How changing language can compromise breastfeeding support”
Avoiding and replacing the word “mother” undermines the ability to provide accurate information for those seeking help with breastfeeding:
“‘Mother’ Matters: How changing language can compromise breastfeeding support,” Marie Beam, World Nutrition 2021;12(2):127-128.
https://wphna.org/worldnutritionjournal/index.php/wn/article/view/798/670
Language was meant to be descriptive, not "inclusive".