Jūnija nogalē kanāla itv ziņu sižetā par to kā cilvēki cīnās ar pieaugošajiem ūdens rēķiniem, par dzīves dārdzību runāja arī 'struggling mother' - kas šajā gadījumā bija vīrietis svārkos un auskaros. Kā vēlāk norādīja politiķe Rosie Duffield: šī persona varbūt ir jauks cilvēks, bet nav māte. Tālak, protams, sākās šūmēšanās soctīklos vai šī persona var vai nevar būt māte, kā rezultātā šis vīrietis ielika attēlu, kurā redzams kā viņš zīda bērnu. Ja man kādreiz likās, ka medikamentu kokteiļa lietošana, lai izraisītu laktāciju vīrieša ķermenī bērna zīdīšanai varētu būt tā sarkanā līnija par kuru sabiedrība vairāk vai mazāk spētu vienoties, tad izrādījās, ka es kļūdījos. Ne tikai random cilvēki soctīkos to aizstāv, bet ir arī peer-reviewed pētījumi, kas aicina cilvēkus padomāt par to, ko vispār nozīmē veiksmīga zīdīšana, ka barošanai ar krūti nav obligāti jābūt saistītai ar barošanu:

https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/106/5/e2047/6123860

citēšu dažas vietas no šī pētījuma

"..it is important to counsel patients regarding the potential impact on sexual differentiation of a newborn with the use of antiandrogen therapy given the lack of evidence available, while balancing its role in minimizing gender dysphoria in the breastfeeding trans woman."

"The volume of breast milk produced by both of the trans women in these case studies would not sustain a growing infant without supplementation."

"In summary, lactation induction is likely beneficial for gender identity, irrespective of milk production outcomes. There is enormous potential for ongoing research in this area."

Tātad - lai gan nav zināms, cik droši šie medikamenti ir zīdainim un ir zināms, ka ar to viņa uzturs nav pietiekams, ir jāatgādina, ka šis process nāk par labu vīrieša sievišķās dzimtes identitātes validācijai un tā jau pati par sevi ir vērtība ar lielu potenciālu.

"The use of heteronormative and cisnormative language in breastfeeding literature and language further reduces the ability of transgender persons, particularly trans women from accessing support leading to marginalization and social exclusion."

---

Nesen lasīju pediatres Erica Li rakstu par to, ka rietumu medicīna tiek 'postmodernizēta'. Viņa apraksta trīs medicīnas posmus: pirms-moderno, moderno un postmoderno:

"Examples of Premodern medicine would encompass practices such as attributing illnesses to witchcraft, consuming tiger penises to increase virility, or cannibalizing albino people’s body parts to gain health and good fortune. These practices, rooted in superstition rather than empirical evidence, were once common worldwide, including in the Western world, and they still exist in various forms today. On the other hand, Modern medicine, typically practiced at your local hospital or clinic, is a product of the Enlightenment, prioritizing reason, science, and individual sovereignty. It transcends geographical boundaries and ethnic divides, benefiting humanity globally."

"When I attended the 2023 gender symposium co-sponsored by Seattle Children’s Hospital and Swedish, I listened to 7 hours of content dedicated to treatment options, with no time allocated for discussing diagnostic criteria, classifications, or confirmatory testing. In Postmodern medicine, doctors accept a child’s self-diagnosis that provides no insight into cause and prognosis and cannot be disconfirmed, and yet, they still somehow prescribe a high-risk treatment."

"Modern medicine differentiates between false positives and false negatives (Type I and Type II errors), considering false positives far more detrimental because they can lead to harmful interventions. In normal medicine, we consider certain mistakes “never events,” like amputating the wrong limb. Such an error is totally unacceptable, regardless of how infrequently it occurs. When such an event does occur, every step of the care delivery system is meticulously reviewed to ensure patient safety. This is not an infringement on the rights of amputees. We are not committing a “genocide” against disabled people. It’s simply a necessary precaution to ensure only the correct procedures are carried out on the right patients.

If we could definitively identify those who would undoubtedly benefit from medical transition and exclude those who wouldn’t, medical transition could be a reasonable course of action. However, considering the severe risks of treatment, even the existence of a single detransitioner should sound alarm bells about the current diagnostic criteria producing too many false positives. These false positives arise due to the artificially inflated prevalence through social contagion and the non-specific nature of the diagnostic criteria. We must reevaluate these criteria to eliminate false positives, even if it risks producing some false negatives. This is the essence of the “do no harm” principle. It’s a deontological imperative that applies to individuals, not groups. For treatments with high risks of morbidity, we must avoid treating a minority of false positives even if it means we treat fewer true positives."

Varu tikai piebilst - postmodernajā medicīnā peer-reviewed pētijumam manās acīs nav autoritātes, ja tie vēsta par lielu potenciālu zīdīšanā, lai apstiprinātu kāda dzimtes identitāti, tad šādi pētījumi var 'pierādīt' jebko un, attiecīgi, tie nenozīmē neko.