Abstract
On 16 May, 2025, Breastfeeding Medicine published the results of a research pilot survey 1 that appears to propose that natal women and their infants have an obligation to support the aspirations of men who want to breastfeed infants as part of a protocol for gender-affirming care.
Of course, there was no reference to “men,” as those completing the survey were identified as “transfeminine individuals.” But the very definition of “transfeminine” is biological male. 2 So the individuals who were offered the opportunity to participate in this survey were men identifying as women, who had not and never would be giving birth or lactating naturally, since lactation is not part of the male reproductive cycle. Furthermore, at the time of the study, 85% of participants had no children, no participants were actually lactating, and five were unsure whether they had ever lactated in the past.
The tone is set by an abstract that utilizes the Queer Theory 3 viewpoint of bodies as verbs, not nouns, which leads them to make assumptions that cannot be sustained. For example, assuming that form and function are identical, the researchers posit that “Transfeminine individuals are capable of developing breast tissue that is indistinguishable from cis-females, allowing them to breastfeed effectively” but provide no evidence to validate this.
This is followed up by the unsubstantiated claim that, in the case of male lactation, “Breastfeeding affords known health benefits for both members of a lactating individual–infant dyad.” An earlier article published in 2021 in Breastfeeding Medicine 4 makes it clear that this is both confusing and inaccurate: “In clinical settings, health effects seen in mother–infant breastfeeding dyads cannot be generalized to other dyads due to lack of data and known or predictable differences with other dyads based on chromosomal, hormonal, and anatomical factors. Thus, substituting ‘parents’ for ‘mothers’ may be factually inaccurate.”
The authors’ definition of “reproductive equity” appears to mean that everyone should get whatever they want from the health system, as if sex is irrelevant to reproduction. Reproductive equity does not mean that, in the area of birth and breastfeeding, equal resources should be dedicated to meeting men’s wants and desires as are devoted to women’s health needs.
Totally missing from this article are the mothers of the babies to be used in the gender-affirming care protocols proposed here. There is no acknowledgment that the only way to procure a baby is through the body of a natal female. There is no recognition that the expected benefits of “parent-child bonding” come at the expense of the mother–baby dyad, which, when disrupted, causes trauma 5 for both babies and their mothers.
In the extremely limited literature on male lactation, none of the existing case studies have demonstrated that men are capable of producing milk in sufficient quantity to meet the volumes required to adequately nourish infants. It is fair to assume that infants breastfed by “transfeminine individuals” will be supplemented with formula, if not (in the end) be entirely formula-fed. Even in the case of co-feeding with the infant’s mother, sharing breastfeeding leads to a shorter duration of maternal breastfeeding if women have been unable to exclusively breastfeed during the period that is critical for establishing their long-term supply capacity.
In short, can the authors justify how infants being used by “transfeminine individuals” for gender affirmation purposes are not being used as unconsenting participants in medical experimentation? And why has Breastfeeding Medicine endorsed this, given its self-description that reads, “Providing unparalleled peer-reviewed research, protocols, and clinical applications to ensure optimal care for mother and infant.”?