Leaked Document Reveals "Inclusive" LLLI Board Commitment to Excluding Mothers - Part 1

LLLI Cultural Sensitivity Policy is only sensitive to gender ideology, not breastfeeding mothers

In March of this year, a coalition of La Leche League Leaders concerned about the loss of language denoting women and mothers in breastfeeding support in favour of desexed and gender-neutral language, devised and distributed a survey to Leaders to sound out what they felt about this issue. Although the LLLI Board has consistently maintained that they consulted widely around this issue, many Leaders disagree, especially those whose first language is not English. The survey was available in English, Spanish and French and when the results were collated, the Confidence Index was 95%.

The results were clear: to the question, “Have you felt included in the changes in the Cultural Sensitivity in Publications policy?  The results of the survey were:

26.5% of Leaders surveyed felt included in the Cultural Sensitivities in Publications policy changes while 66.9% did not feel included in the changes.

The results can be accurately summarised as opposing the Board’s new direction.  Leaders overwhelmingly are dissatisfied with de-emphasising the essential role of women and mothers in the breastfeeding dyad. The majority revealed that they are unprepared to assist biological males to breastfeed and disagree with the new definition of breastfeeding. This new definition excludes the fact that babies breastfeed from their mothers. In addition, Leaders surveyed reported that using “a variety of terms” in place of mother is inconsistent with our Mission Statement. They are also concerned about the confusing gender-free breastfeeding information to be included in the upcoming revision of the Womanly Art of Breastfeeding, especially now that the word “womanly” has been jettisoned from the title despite the fact that two thirds of Leaders either voted to retain it or were fine with leaving this word in our flagship publication.

The Board begins by scolding Leaders for raising concerns to them instead of LLL representatives who manage Direct Connect Entities (DCE). As many of the top tiers of LLLI have been captured by gender woo fantasists, there is really nowhere to go to seek a logical discussion about the dangers of desexed language.

Those who voice concerns will be answered by being given two options: get re-educated and hop on board the gender train or resign. And both these options will be accompanied by being intimidated/harassed/banned for bringing up concerns.

The following paragraphs are some excerpts from the LLLI Board's letter written in response to the survey authors and the content of the survey itself, along with commentary.

When Leaders in the survey voiced concern about the "Inconsistency between a universal inclusivity and the distinctive mission of LLL—which is to provide support specifically from mother to mother"— the Board responded with the following:

LLL’s mission does speak of “mother to mother” support. Some people choose to consider “mother” to refer to any parent who was assigned female at birth. Others choose to consider it to refer to parents whose gender is female. Still others recognize the richness of meaning in the word “mother” while being happy for the LLLI mission to be interpreted widely enough to include anyone who wants to nurse their babies.

Rather than unpacking what people mean by “mother” in any given context or moment, let’s consider the purpose of LLL. Although most of the people served by LLL are mothers, the purpose of LLL is not to be a support club solely for mothers. The purpose of LLL is breastfeeding support. Who needs breastfeeding support?  Everyone who breastfeeds or wants to breastfeed. Are they all included in the word “mother”? No, they are not. We know that if we use only terms such as “mother” and “woman”, we will exclude some of the people who need breastfeeding support.

The LLLI perspective is that LLL is here to support anyone who wants to breastfeed/chestfeed/nurse their baby. We have decided to use a variety of terms so that it is clear to everyone who breastfeeds that they are welcome in LLL.

Since 2014, LLL has recognized that people of any gender can be Leaders, and removed policy that would disallow it. There are right now Leaders who do not identify as women and mothers. 

Sigh. Maybe the Board needs to read their own website:

“Our Mission is to help mothers worldwide to breastfeed through mother-to-mother support, encouragement, information, and education, and to promote a better understanding of breastfeeding as an important element in the healthy development of the baby and mother.” PSR: Mission Statement - La Leche League International (llli.org) 

Women sign up to volunteer their time and resources as Leaders a result of their own experiences as mothers, not to proselytise on behalf of an ideology that prioritises feelings over facts.

If “everyone” who wants to breastfeed includes some dude in a dress feeding formula through a supplemental nursing system to some baby (not his, unless he contributed a sperm), we should be good with this?

And this is not about “identity”, it’s about biology. The Board insists that Leaders may not identify as women and mothers but if they gave birth and are breastfeeding, then they have participated in a sexed activity that only female mammals can manage and what they call themselves is not the paramount issue. This is not about labeling, it’s about reality.

For the umpteenth time, no one is assigned a gender or a sex at birth. Sex is observed at birth, it is immutable, in every cell of the body and can never be changed.

It is a massive display of privilege and linguistic imperialism to use “a variety of terms” that are untranslatable. Not all languages outside of English have a generic word like “parent” at their disposal and in some languages, by using this default word, the meaning is masculine, not neutral.

There is a word that includes 99.9% of those in a group is pretty inclusionary: That word is ‘mother’. Many mothers value the status that the mothering role gives them and, in some societies, becoming a mother confers an importance for women that nothing else does.

Leaders questions regarding the limits of their work was highlighted in the survey. Should they be required to help everyone to breastfeed? With no training or scientific studies to recommend the safety of male "breastfeeding" how are Leaders supposed to ethically "help" a man to "breastfeed"? The Board responded:

LLL Leaders are not expected to have expertise beyond the normal course of breastfeeding and common topics included in the WAB and Leader accreditation resources.

Surely helping a trans man with a double mastectomy is way beyond the normal course of breastfeeding.  And I expect that all the other situations regarding transgender persons wanting to chestfeed are beyond this, too, as none of their issues or problems is a part of the normal course of breastfeeding.

Leaders in the survey struggled with the identity of the organization, once known the world over as a mother-to-mother support group which honored women and the lone voice rejecting the commercial promotion of infant formula feeding over breastfeeding. The response from the Board:

The distinctive identity of LLL is that we are a peer-to-peer organization that supports people to breastfeed. Each of our skilled Leaders shares and lives by the same philosophy of values in their LLL role. There are no other international breastfeeding organizations that do this.

Incorrect again. Please read our Mission Statement. It is very specific and unambiguous. We are not peer-to-peer, we are mother-to-mother. Words make a difference. Leaders are not qualified to monitor formula feeding, yet LLLI again tries to have it both ways. Note in the response below that the Board points out supplementation has been a practice that LLL Leaders are familiar with. Yes, but Leaders are not qualified to give information on how to manage formula feeding and mothers should be referred to a health care provider for information. The Board claims supplementation is a step in the breastfeeding relationship, but it is not a step for a male—it is the sole experience of formula feeding that "his" baby will undergo because men do not produce breast milk in anything other than trace amounts. See if you can make sense of their illogical position:

LLL supports families who breastfeed or want to breastfeed. LLL has always included families who use formula as a supplement or as a step on the way to breastfeeding. We also welcome families who simply want the information and support that LLL offers about starting solids, loving guidance, and responsive parenting, even though they have chosen not to nurse. Your comment seems to imply that you fear LLLI wants to change the organization’s scope to support infant feeding whether by breastmilk or by formula. This is not at all the case. LLL is and always will be a breastfeeding support organization. Detailed information on formula feeding is outside the scope of LLL.

If this is true, then how are Leaders supposed to help a man to "breastfeed"? Also, perhaps the Board could explain some of the posts allowed on the LLL Leaders Facebook page? The posts regarding which formula information sheets to give to mothers, although these sheets are not compliant with the International Code on the Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes published by the World Health Organization? And the discussion around just “how far” Leaders can go without breaking our obligations to the Code? Although it is true that “detailed information on formula feeding is outside the scope of LLL” this does not seem to bother some Leaders who appear to assume that using formula is normal as part of a breastfeeding journey, despite the fact that correct formula use is vital for the safety of babies.

This attitude about the interchangeability of infant formula with mother's milk also fails to recognise that there is a vast gulf between the physiological care of breastfeeding and the feeding of artificial baby milks. Research on feeding volumes, frequencies, starting solids, safety in bed sharing and sleeping are not the same for formula fed infants and babies being bottle fed are subject to health challenges not normally encountered when breastfed. The results are clear: The protection of infants, especially in the promotion of practices such as breastfeeding with HIV seropositivity or co-sleeping, which have been studied and are considered safe for the baby with only their biological mother. The Board seems to understand these concepts, but are insistent on using confusing language, excluding those who really need the information—breastfeeding mothers across the world:

Messaging about these practices needs to be clear about whether it applies to birthing or non-birthing parents; the gender of the parents is irrelevant.

Correct, the gender of parents is irrelevant, but the sex and the relationship of the breastfeeding dyad is vital to the safeguarding of babies.  Furthermore, encouraging a male to breastfeed means disrupting the mother-infant continuum, which is just the opposite of what LLL holds consistently with the current state of scientific research that is promoting the health of the dyad. While eager to mix causes with trans ideology and queer theory, the Board protests that they are holding the line on being a single purpose organization. No matter how important a cause may personally be, even one that many Board members have a passion for, it is not an excuse to mix causes. We must not pick and choose 'causes' that interfere with breastfeeding. Notice the doublespeak here:

LLL does not hold a position about adoption, fostering, surrogacy, or any other practices which involve a baby being raised or nursed by someone who did not give birth to them. These situations exist.  If we were to take such a stance, we would also need to take a stance on many other life choices and situations – smoking, alcohol, ear-piercing, sleeping in separate rooms, elective cesareans, etc. Our focus is on supporting people who want to breastfeed their baby, not on how they came to have the baby.

These “other life choices” are an irrelevant red herring here. The point from the survey creators about supporting men to “breastfeed” has not been answered. The Board has stated in writing that “more research needs to be done in male lactation”. Why? How does men lactating optimise the health and well-being of the mother/baby dyad? How does this fit with the ethos of a mother-to-mother breastfeeding support organisation?

For the previous 66 years, La Leche League has demonstrated that it is better to do one thing well than many badly. By opening up LLL to “everyone who wants to breastfeed” we are ignoring the very thing that our success is built on: the personal experience of legions of mothers. It is fraudulent to state that Leaders are trained to deal with so many of these situations that are outside of the normal course of breastfeeding. For more examples of the capture of LLLI, the next post will discuss the second half of the survey.