The Womanly Art of What?
A guest post from Mothers for Mother
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 organization 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 was taken down to protect the Leaders behind it. 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 February 8, 2022
The Womanly Art of What?
Every female mammal has mammary glands. Every adult human, male or female, has breasts, which are positioned on the body anterior to the chest wall. The unisex nature of breasts is reflected in the word’s inclusion in many terms that apply to male and female alike: for example, breaststroke, double-breasted, and breast cancer.
Lately, the recently minted word “chestfeeding” has been showing up in the world of childbirth and lactation, either replacing or being coupled with the universally understood word breastfeeding. For those embracing its usage, “chestfeeding” is generally perceived as a means to exhibit sensitivity toward gender dysphoric (1) women who have undergone an elective double mastectomy.
Of course, all mothers seeking support with birth and breastfeeding should be shown sensitivity and accommodated by using terms that they are comfortable with. However, the expanding use of the word "chestfeeding" is creating its own set of problems.
How is chestfeeding defined?
The actual meaning of this new word is unclear. Is it a synonym for breastfeeding, or is it only for those who have little or no breast tissue and are using tubing taped to the nipple to feed a baby? Does it always involve human milk, or can infant formula be used? Can both females and males chestfeed?
Here are some of the many other questions that use of the word “chestfeeding” raises:
Does research validate routine usage of the word “chestfeeding” in breastfeeding support resources?
In the one small, yet frequently cited, 2016 study about lactating women who identify as men, (2) only 16 of the 22 participants chose to attempt to breastfeed their babies, and of those 16, only three preferred the term “chestfeeding.” The majority preferred either “breastfeeding” or “nursing.” The preferences of three individuals hardly justifies a universal shift in terminology.
Should the term “chestfeeding” be used broadly, or only one-on-one with the rare individual who prefers this term?
A basic precept of health messaging is to speak to the rule, and address exceptions individually. Changing universal health messaging to accommodate less than 1% of the birthing population who do not identify as women violates this basic rule. No one expects all information to be tailored to other, much more common situations, such as breastfeeding twins, premature babies or dealing with other congenital conditions. Mothers who need specialized support to feed their babies can—and should—expect to be treated with care and respect, but it is inherently unjust to accommodate one group to the detriment of others.
How is breastfeeding research affected by the addition of “chestfeeding?”
Unclear terminology creates the risk that results from studies will be misinterpreted. For example, studies have shown heightened sensitivity among breastfeeding mothers sleeping with their babies; yet there is no evidence that a parent feeding via a tube taped to the nipple would have the same sensitivity, and therefore having a baby in the bed could be dangerous. Whenever studies can be misinterpreted because of unclear terminology, it risks possible harm to mothers and babies.
Are there problems in encouraging individuals to “chestfeed”?
Referencing anatomy accurately is essential to facilitate breastfeeding success. Advising a mother to simply put her baby to her chest omits important information. There are specific techniques for latching a newborn which require accurate explanation: “tummy-to-tummy, baby’s mouth wide open, pull the baby close, latch onto the nipple and areola.” The baby must latch onto and feed from the breast, not the ribcage or sternum.
What are the implications for global public health messaging when “chestfeeding” is routinely included?
Breastfeeding support already faces many barriers. Women who are impoverished or struggling with low literacy may already have difficulty accessing the support they need to optimally feed their babies. Use of the confusing term “chestfeeding” adds to their difficulties. Consider, for example, the sentence below which explains the important role that exclusive breastfeeding plays in combating Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV):
"For most of the developing world, the health and survival benefits of breastfeeding exceed the risks of HIV transmission, especially when antiretroviral interventions are provided." (3)
If this sentence used the word "chestfeeding" rather than (or in addition to) breastfeeding, one might conclude that supplementing with infant formula ("chestfeeding") would be an acceptable alternative to exclusive breastfeeding—and equally effective in preventing HIV. The lack of clarity could pose a significant danger for babies.
Hundreds of La Leche League Leaders have written to the LLLI Board, objecting to usage of the word “chestfeeding,” yet it is being added to LLLI policies:
“La Leche League is committed to respect and support the diversity of Leaders, mothers and families who participate in our events or seek information about breastfeeding, chest feeding, or human milk feeding.”(4)
“A potential Applicant . . . has breastfed, nursed, chestfed or suckled a child for 12 months or more.” (5)
Words should aim for accuracy and clarity, not promote a political ideology that inadvertently risks potential harm to mothers and babies. Mothers deserve to have a clear explanation of what breastfeeding is, along with the corresponding risks of introducing supplementation.
These questions still need to be answered:
How is chestfeeding defined?
How does chestfeeding affect the mother-baby dyad?
What is the evidence that using “chestfeeding” in LLLI policies, publications, and website materials will have a positive effect on maternal and infant health and not cause any harm?
Lucy here again: in a recent New York Times opinion poll, 85% of the 4,423 respondents would use the word “breastfeeding” and 90% would not use the word “chestfeeding” to describe the act of mothers caring for their babies at the breast.
References
(1) Gender dysphoria is defined "as a concept designated in the DSM-5 as clinically significant distress or impairment related to a strong desire to be of another gender, which may include desire to change primary and/or secondary sex characteristics..." American Psychiatric Association, Nov. 2020.
(2) Macdonald, Trevor et al, Transmasculine Individuals’ Experiences with Lactation, Chestfeeding, and Gender Identity: A Qualitative Study, BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth; 2016. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4867534/
(3) Survival and Health Benefits of Breastfeeding Versus Artificial Feeding in Infants of HIV-Infected Women: Developing Versus Developed World, Clin Perinatol, Dec. 2010.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3008406/
(4) Accessibility and Cultural Sensitivity, LLLI, Jan. 2022
https://www.llli.org/about/policies-standing-rules/psr-accessibility-and-cultural-sensitivity/
(5) Applying for Leadership, LLLI, Jan. 2022.
https://www.llli.org/about/policies-standing-rules/psr-applying-for-leadership/
chest feeding!! arrrghhhh. honestly. breast feeding, like pregnancy and birth itself, is the most ordinary miracle. but miraculous nonetheless. that's why jealous men and ignorant women are so determined to trash it all. because at a really fundamental level they know. mothers are bloody miraculous.
There is nothing but misunderstandings and disengagement ahead if we continue to use language that is not immediately understandable. Some people say that younger people will understand it, but unless they're well educated in 'newspeak', I'm not so sure. Either way, there is a lot of disassociation in newspeak language - it doesn't connect with us in nearly the same manner as women-centred language does.