Leaked Document Reveals "Inclusive" LLLI Board Commitment to Excluding Mothers - Part 2

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

How are Leaders supposed to support this woman to breastfeed?

The last post discussed the response of the LLLI Board to the presentation of the results of a survey conducted earlier this year.

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

This post continues with the Board response to this survey.

Men contacting Leaders for sexual stimulation under the guise of ‘breastfeeding support for my partner’ have been a feature for decades. How to handle these overtures safely used to be part of the Leader accreditation training. By inviting “everyone” to approach Leaders for help, the Board opened the door for anyone to gain access to women's safe spaces. It would seem that the Board is promoting the desire of adult males to have access to breastfeeding mothers over the safety of mothers, babies and Leaders. Though the Board denies that this is a threat, there are reports from Leaders of men infiltrating online meetings and using these as a forum for verbally denigrating and dominating the women who have logged on looking for breastfeeding support. How has La Leche League fallen so far from its mission?  Defending this policy only goes to show the depth of the organisation's capture:

The LLLI Board has received several letters concerned that a policy of gender inclusion may lead to an increase in sexual harassment. Although we understand that individual Leaders are genuinely concerned, this is both alarmist and offensive. Transgender individuals are much more likely to be victims of sexual harassment, abuse, and violence than to be perpetrators. Clearly, no Leader should have to put up with harassment of any kind in a meeting or any kind of contact, regardless of the gender of the person doing the harassment. It is important, though, not to disseminate needless fear about particular groups of people. 

Your point here suggests that your concern is not with actual transgender people, but with people who pretend to be transgender in order to infiltrate a meeting. You fear that a male sexual predator will not even need to change his appearance, but can simply claim to be a transgender woman and thus gain access to a meeting filled with women and breasts. Your solution is to exclude transgender people so that pretenders will also be excluded. In other words, to exclude people who genuinely need help and support in order to exclude people who pretend to need help. This is not a valid solution.

Another potential effect of excluding transgender and nonbinary people could be that meeting participants would be asked about their gender or their sex assigned at birth. It is hard to envisage this being asked of all attendees at an LLL meeting, or even of  those who do not meet the Leader’s usual expectations of gendered appearance. 

In the five years since the LLLI Inclusivity Statement has explicitly said that LLL welcomes all genders, LLLI has not received any reports or even heard any anecdotes about meetings being invaded by sexual predators who use being transgender as an excuse to be present. The only situations of sexual harassment of Leaders or in LLL meetings of which any LLLI Board member is aware involve cis men. Although unpleasant and potentially dangerous, these situations are not affected by the change in language used by LLLI.

If someone comes to a LLL meeting or contacts a Leader asking for help with breastfeeding and does not harass or threaten anyone, then the Leader should offer them the same information and support that would be offered to anyone else, regardless of their appearance or their stated gender.

To repeat information which we have given previously: the change in language policy has NOT changed who can come to LLL meetings, which have never been universally reserved for women. Many LLL meetings are open to male partners and support people. There is no evidence of any increase in risk of harassment from predators to Leaders from opening our arms – and language – wider to include everyone who is nursing. There is ample evidence of the harm that is done by adopting a discriminatory and exclusionary approach to breastfeeding support. 

There is no evidence for any statement that declares that transgender individuals are more likely to be victims. It's really women who are at risk, not those who identify as transgender. The following United Nations study reports that 137 women are killed every day. 

This is how many women are killed by a partner or family member each year | World Economic Forum (weforum.org) 

Also tragic, and in the same year, 44 trans people were killed -- for the entire year.

 Fatal Violence Against the Transgender and Gender Non-Conforming Community in 2021 - Human Rights Campaign (hrc.org)

From the beginning of the organisation, Leaders have had to deal with men behaving badly. The concern now is that it is more difficult to tell when a contact is a man with a paraphilia or just a man wanting information around breastfeeding to help out a baby’s mother. LLL Leaders Facebook page offers up many examples with warnings to other Leaders about individuals who are clearly just talking about breasts as an aid to their own pleasure. Recently a Leader complained about a man masturbating on camera during a zoom meeting, which rather gives a lie to the Board’s contention that there is no increase in risk to Leaders or mothers.

When the definition of woman becomes ‘anyone who says they are one’, how are Leaders meant to safeguard themselves and vulnerable new mothers? Yes, men have come to meetings, but rarely to all meetings and only to meetings that have been advertised as including them. New mothers, shy about breastfeeding in public may not want to come to meetings where men are present. In some religions, women cannot breastfeed in front of unrelated men. Other women who have been sexually abused may not find meetings safe.

Some Leaders enjoy doing home visits, but may not be happy to find the “parent” requesting help is a male. What is “alarmist and offensive” is the LLLI Board abdicating any safeguarding role by its implementation of policies that don’t allow Leaders to easily discriminate between those who are seeking genuine breastfeeding support and those who use ‘breastfeeding’ as an aid to their sexual fantasies or in their performance as a ‘woman’.

The Board is concerned that “Leaders who do not identify as mothers expressed their hurt at feeling invisible in LLLI publications”, but as the survey creators pointed out:

“When LLL Leaders applicants join our organization, they know they are participating in a mother-to-mother support organization. How could it have been possible for a Leader who has accepted LLL's mission and philosophy not to identify as a mother? If she did not identify herself as a mother, she would have committed fraud by becoming a Leader –signing her Statement of Commitment– of an organization with a mission based on mother-to-mother support. LLLI's Mission Statement is explicit and unambiguous.”

The Response to the statement above from the LLLI Board was:

Since 2014, LLL has recognised 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. 

Unlike the situation in 2014 (when a woman who identified as a man was accredited as a Leader), there are now many groups that cater specifically to gender nonconforming individuals, including many supporting those who wish to “human milk feed” their babies. There is no reason why a group cannot state its purpose and stick to it; this has not prevented the formation of alternative organisations that cater to those who don’t see themselves as mothers. Breastfeeding is a sexed activity that not everyone can do. By attempting to be all things to all people, LLLI it disadvantages the very cohort of the population it was formed to support.

Leaders from non-English speaking regions of the world, as well as those living in societies where same sex relationships are illegal have pointed out the difficulties they will face in promoting LLL policies as they are written. Language is a powerful tool. The Board policies reflect a cultural imperialism. Continuing to demand Leaders follow the language changes will make it difficult to help mothers using language that is at odds with their cultures.

The Board goes on the explain how Leader Applicants are trained:

Leaders are expected to be inclusive, and to respect the identities of people whose cultures may be different from their own. Messaging aimed at Applicants reflects this. This is different from messaging directed at the public in local communities.

There are two problems here. One is that as all Leader Applicants are trained using LLLI materials, they are being socialised into a gender-neutral mindset. And second, for some Leaders possessing and using LLLI materials could put them in legal peril, depending on where they live. This point has been made to the Board, but as with other problems they refuse to consider valid arguments and seem to only offer denials and rebukes to those who question the policies.

The survey discovered that 61% of the participants believe it is not feasible for them to support a biologically born male to breastfeed. The Board’s answer is that Leaders can help with latching and positioning, skin to skin, feeding frequency and night waking, which ignores the fact that men cannot breastfeed. There is no “normal course of breastfeeding” for male bodied individuals. Or for female bodied individuals who have elected to amputate their breasts. The Board acknowledges this truth:

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.

Breastfeeding is not a gender-specific activity. This is why we are using a variety of terms that describe gender. For a small number of people, it is not a sex-specific activity either. We want to ensure everyone who breastfeeds is included. 

This is incorrect. Conception, gestation, labour and birth and breastfeeding are ALWAYS sexed activities for every mammal on the planet. Changing the language does not affect physiology at all, but it may prove confusing for some women who may not realise that this “variety of terms” applies to them.

The survey creators expressed concerns over the term “chestfeeding”, which has no universally understood meaning and is anatomically incorrect.

Yes, it is a relatively recent term.  Quite like terms such as “breastsleeping”, or “laidback breastfeeding”, or “phlegmon”. Globally, it is not well-defined, but neither is “breastfeeding”, which has various meanings as expressed in our recent document. For example, in the International Code, “exclusive breastfeeding” is defined as breastmilk delivered by any method. This is at odds with the normal practice within LLL, where “exclusive breastfeeding” usually means only breastmilk delivered at the breast. Many evidence-based organizations use the word “chestfeeding”, including UNICEF, ILCA, and the Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine. LLLI uses “chestfeeding” as a synonym for “breastfeeding” and “nursing”.

LLLI may consider “chestfeeding” as a synonym for breastfeeding, but many others don’t. Reading through the literature, “chestfeeding” has been used for feeding methods as disparate as exclusive breastfeeding (baby suckling directly from a mother’s breast) to male bodied persons feeding formula through a supplemental nursing system while latched to surgically enhanced “breast” tissue. In other words, there is no universally understood definition for what constitutes “chestfeeding”.

I disagree that breastfeeding is a fungible term; there may be some dickering over the finer points of more precise measures, but as a general rule, everyone knows what breastfeeding is (and what it isn’t).

Additionally, breastfeeding describes a relationship as well as an infant feeding method. “Chestfeeding” does not.

Using unsexed language for a sexed activity is profoundly dehumanising. This dehumanises 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 physiologically different from babies who receive a mother’s expressed breast milk, donor milk, or infant formula. Comparison of gut microbiota in exclusively breast-fed and formula-fed babies: a study of 91 term infants | Scientific Reports (nature.com)

This sort of new language helps open the door for infant formula companies to manufacture and market “human milk” that can be purchased and “chestfed” by anyone. LLLI should be avoiding doing the work of formula advertisers.

Using the generic “parent” and “chestfeeding” terminology obscures what is happening.  It is dangerous when situations are described so poorly that they can’t be understood.  Mistakes can be made.  

One situation where babies’ lives are imperiled by misunderstood terminology is safe sleeping.

Bed sharing/co-sleeping is a risk for SUDI (Sudden Unexplained Deaths in Infants) unless certain criteria are met. The Safe Sleep Seven - La Leche League International (llli.org) A baby who has had no smoking exposure (either during the mother’s pregnancy or after being born), and who is exclusively breastfeeding is actually protected from dying if they are sleeping with their mother, not their parent. JOGNN, 35, 684-691; 2006. DOI: 10.1111/J.1552-6909.2006.00099.x

Preventing transmission of HIV from mother to baby is also dependent on clearly understanding the importance of exclusive breastfeeding from a baby’s mother. There is no room for error when a lethal disease is present. HIV and Breastfeeding: the untold story - Pinter & Martin Publishers (pinterandmartin.com)

Chestfeeding is not an evidenced based term and has no place in global health messaging.

This is the new description of breastfeeding from LLLI:

“Some people are never able to latch their baby to their breast directly and some babies are unable to suckle milk from the breast/nipple.” Some people feed their baby their milk at their breast/chest, and they also use supplemental expressed milk, donor milk or formula from the time of their baby’s birth, or for many months of their baby’s life. These supplements can be given to the baby using cups, bottles or an at-breast supplementer.” Mothers and parents who feed their baby their own human milk fully through a cup, a feeding line, or a bottle may also describe their experience as breastfeeding.”

Did a gender free robot write this? What a discouraging message to new mothers about their prospects for breastfeeding. When the survey writers requested that this be written to be in accordance with the mission and philosophy of LLL this was the response from the Board:

LLL resources are clear about how direct feeding of the baby at the breast confers the most benefits. We do not plan to rewrite our statement to focus only on female bodies without special challenges. One of the aims of our statement is to assure people that LLL offers support and information to everyone who wants to feed their baby with their own milk, regardless of whether they face challenges or not, as LLL has done now for 65 years.

At this point, just focusing on “female bodies” would be an improvement. Since they are the only bodies that can nourish a new human being using only themselves. ‘Wanting’ to do something and having the capacity to do something can be two different things. Despite the statements from the LLLI Board, it is not true that “everyone” can breastfeed a baby and no amount of help, information, or encouragement is going to change this.

The Board ended its reply with a statement around its dissatisfaction with the anonymous stance of the creators of the survey and urged them to go public and engage with “the Board or to follow any of the other LLL pathways of communication and complaint.” Leaders know why the survey creators are ‘hiding’; because once identified, they would soon be ex-Leaders as no dissent or debate is allowed around the policies of LLLI.

La Leche League was founded as a safe haven for women to find their own way to motherhood. It has become home to those who are more interested in promoting ideological issues that disrupt the foundation of society: the mother/baby dyad.