‘Transwomen’: Milking It for All It’s Worth

It’s funny how times change. I can remember when Michael Jackson was black, Des O’Connor was white, and a man pretending to be a woman was the subject of comedy rather than a test of one’s bona fides. Cast-iron certainties have become somewhat corroded in the age of woke, and few remnants now survive from the past 200,000 years of collective human wisdom. Nonetheless, one thing I definitely didn’t have on my 2024 Bingo card was the denial that mothers might be slightly better equipped to breastfeed than fathers.

But then, I’d merely be proving my ignorance. ’Chest’ it seems not ‘breast’ is now best, according to the geniuses at The University of Sussex Hospitals NHS Trust (USHT), whose leaked internal memo to campaigners argues that the ‘milk’ produced by transwomen (men) following a pharmaceutic cocktail is “comparable to that produced (by mothers) following the birth of a baby”.

In order for males to ‘chestfeed’ (a term incidentally first used by the Trust in question), a lengthy process of hormone therapy must be undergone. First via progestin to develop the necessary milk-producing glands, then ‘induced lactation’ is achieved by means of powerful medication such as domperidone (also known by the brand name Motilum), which the manufacturer itself (Janssen) advises against, because of its potential side effects to a baby’s heart.

In defence of its rather unorthodox approach to maternity, USHT cites as evidence five scientific papers alongside World Health Organisation guidance that ‘human milk’ is preferable to formula, while failing to acknowledge the rather obvious fact that human milk is more traditionally found in women. Even so, the NHS statement is surely the stuff of satire not science. ‘Chestfeeding’ is not breastfeeding, ‘comparable’ does not mean identical, and ‘transwomen’ no matter how inclusive you may wish to be, are not mothers.

But I digress. First and foremost, is there any truth to the claim that drug-induced milk from transwomen is as good for babies as that produced by mothers? I seriously doubt it, and so should you. I’m not basing that statement on the fact that I’m a world-renowned neonatologist (I’m not of course), nor do I doubt that science has the capacity to replicate the nutritional benefits of the colostrum. I’m basing it on the fact that USHT appears highly ideological in nature, and is therefore not approaching the matter in anything like a scientific manner.

There is, for instance, no longterm data available for this bastardised version of motherhood – essential for gauging the likelihood of any potential side effects of such treatments. According to experts, ‘there have been very few publications on the subject, and the vast majority have not looked at what’s in the milk itself’. Furthermore, medical professionals have pointed out that the result of induced lactation produces precious little milk: ‘barely enough for a single feed per day’. USHT has also behaved in a covert manner, removing the guidance from its website, and instead linking externally. Not only is the Trust a member of Stonewall’s ‘Diversity Champions’ programme, it also admits that its policy originates from ‘external organisations’, while failing to divulge exactly who this might be.

Even if it were true that drug-induced ‘chestfeeding’ is equivalent to breastfeeding and free from side effects, that’s hardly the only issue at play here – something those determined to reinvent biology would do well to acknowledge. Breastfeeding is far more than a mere question of nutrition, a fact absorbed by even the sleepiest of undergraduates (such as myself). Freud’s ‘cupboard love’ theory of infant attachment was put to bed in the 1950’s, when it was discovered that infant rhesus monkeys preferred to spend all their time with their ‘terrycloth’ surrogate mother rather than the wire surrogate which provided food. In other words, the mother-infant bond is more to do with contact than mere nourishment. Are we seriously to believe there are no ramifications to replacing mothers with fathers, as though those evolutionary bonds forged over millennia can somehow be overridden?

The NHS has form when it comes to pandering to woke ideology. It was in fact only last year that the government decided to ban trans patients from single-sex hospital wards, and indeed even male sex offenders were being placed on female wards, provided they had the wit to self-identify as female. Without the spectre of Lucy Letby stalking the wards, clearly NHS management has decided the babies are simply having too good a time of it.

Please consider the following interview conducted by the BBC with Kate Luxion, Research Fellow in ‘Creative Global Health’ and a ‘Lactation Consultant’ trainee at UCL, and decide for yourself whether the best interests of neonates or ideology is at work here (apologies it is in two parts):

https://x.com/leng_cath/status/1759690284361756978?s=20

https://x.com/leng_cath/status/1759691253493461177?s=20

Even if we were to believe that everyone involved at USHT is both willing and able to keep their ideological bias in check, scientists make mistakes. A century ago, Heroin was being marketed as a cough syrup; in the 1950’s, thalidomide was tragically used to treat nausea in pregnant women; and not quite so long ago, governments were forcing Covid vaccines on their unwitting citizens, the side effects of which we are only beginning to comprehend. Are we still expected to blindly ‘trust the science’ at this most contentious point in history, or might it be better to trust Mother Nature, who we know tends to get things right?

Perhaps the most pertinent question of all is whom are we prioritising here? I would submit in all of these ‘culture war’ battles, we are favouring the abuser over the victim: men destroying female sports on the pretext of inclusion, children being brainwashed into ‘gender transitioning’ on the pretext of acceptance, and 30-year-old migrants masquerading as school children because no one has the courage to object. What are the chances that neonates are being offered up as the latest sacrifice, just so Johnny can have his fantasy and become ‘Jeannie’?

The backlash against USHT has been severe, and rightly so. The Policy Exchange’s Lottie Moore who brought the missive to light, declared the Trust “unbalanced and naïve in its assertion that the secretions produced by a male on hormones can nourish an infant in the way a mother’s breast milk can”. Sex Matters campaigner Maya Forstater concurred: “For a chief executive and medical director of an NHS trust to prioritise trans identities over what is best for mothers and their babies is deeply disturbing.”

Indeed, the use of newborns as ideological guinea pigs is so repugnant, even those on the Labour benches have objected. Credit must go to Rosie Duffield MP, who presumably may now face deselection: “When a man has not and cannot grow a baby, why on earth are we pandering to this? Who does it benefit? Not the children. We wouldn’t do any other medical experiments on babies. Breast milk made by a baby’s biological mother is tailor-made for that baby.”

Times change it’s true, but some traditions ought to be inviolable. That parents exist to serve the needs of their children rather than the other way around, must surely remain one such tradition. We are now clearly in the realm where science allows us to play God. Perhaps the least we can demand of those determined to do so, is that they do so on their own dime and at their own risk.

Frank Haviland is the author of Banalysis: The Lie Destroying the West, and writes a Substack here.

This piece first appeared in The European Conservative, and is reproduced by kind permission.

If you enjoy The New Conservative and would like to support our work, please consider buying us a coffee – it would really help to keep us going. Thank you!