The organizing principle of contemporary mothering ideology (aka attachment parenting) is NOT nature as its proponents like to pretend.

It’s not intuition as its most stalwart ideologues insist.

And it’s certainly not science.

The organizing principle of contemporary mothering ideology is FEAR.

Every aspect, from natural childbirth to breastfeeding to baby wearing, is designed to manipulate women with the fear that their babies will be harmed and not bond to them.

There’s nothing new about controlling women through fears about their children.

As Jana Malamud Smith explains in ‘A Potent Spell: Mother Love and the Power of Fear’:

The mother’s fears of child loss and the derivative fears of harming children or caring for them inadequately have been continually manipulated, overtly and subtly, even aroused gratuitously, to pressure, control and subdue women for a very long time — possibly millennia.

Malamud Smith’s explains what many mothers feel so deeply:

We know that most mothers … feel they will sacrifice even their lives on their children’s behalf. Part of the reason is love. Part is love’s corollary: each mother knows that it would be difficult, if not unbearable, to choose otherwise. How could we live with ourselves if we believed we had not given all to save a child?

When you are willing to give your life to protect your child, how much easier is it to give your aspirations, identity and freedom? The philosophy of natural mothering seeks to deprive women of all three by making them perpetually afraid.

Understanding the depth of a mother’s feelings about child loss is central to comprehending how women who are mothers live in the world… [C]onsciously and, particularly, preconsciously, many women anticipate and fear, often with very good reason, that should they challenge their social role, should they defy the explicit or implicit rules of their environment, they might unwittingly damage their children.

The injunction of natural mothering philosophy is this: unless you do what we say your babies will be damaged: they will be sick; they will be stupid and they will not bond to you.

You must suffer the agonizing pain of labor, and must not dare to expunge it with pain relief, or your baby will be damaged and it will be your fault.

You must endure any discomforts of breastfeeding, any inconvenience and any disruption of your ability to work, or your baby will be damaged and it will be your fault.

You must carry your child constantly and sacrifice any private time, even when you are sleeping, or your baby will be damaged and it will be your fault.

You must buy the books, services and accoutrements of natural parenting (natural childbirth classes, lactation consultant services, fancy child slings and wraps) or your baby will be damaged and it will be your fault.

You must never consider your own needs, desires and ambitions or your baby will be damaged and it will be your fault.

The result is that natural mothering sucks the joy from parenting. Every moment of every day is consumed with the fear that unless a mother does exactly as she has been told, her children will be harmed.

As Malamud Smith notes in regard to parenting “experts”:

The authorities’ admonitions have often harshly and incorrectly punished mothers by suggesting that their children’s suffering or death is a consequence of their behavior — usually any behavior deemed to be ambitious, sexual or independent.

The ultimate irony is that the women who subscribe to the philosophy of natural parenting imagine themselves as independent and transgressive, bucking the hegemony of the medical profession. The reality is that they are being manipulated by fear.

The philosophy of natural mothering is not a requirement for happy, successful children — indeed it has nothing to do with happy, successful children — but the fear it generates is a requirement for making women easy to control.

One of the greatest ironies of radical feminism is that it is both disrespectful to women and harmful to the feminist project.

Consider this comment left on my Facebook page by a radical feminist:

[H]ow does anyone, not only women, make decisions in a patriarchal society that aren’t limited by patriarchal structures? Have you developed a moral paradigm that transcends social mores without breaching them?

No, I haven’t developed such a moral paradigm but professional philosophers have and it’s very compelling.

As I explained yesterday, radical feminists insist, like the commentor above, that the patriarchy is so powerful it constrains all women’s decisions whether those women are aware of the constraints or not. This is known in philosophy as “adaptive preferences.” Although women may believe they are acting on their own preferences — such as choosing to wear makeup, shave body hair or change surname upon marriage — those preferences have been constrained by the long history of patriarchal oppression and are adaptive not genuine. Women go along to get along whether they understand that or not.

Professor Rosa Terlazzo of the University of Rochester has recently published a paper that addresses this specific issue.

Terlazzo lays out the problem:

The concept of adaptive preferences is supposed to explain how and why victims of injustice might come to endorse their own oppression, and to provide political philosophers with a tool for objecting to that oppression even when its victims do not. Critics, however, argue that using the concept of adaptive preferences further harms the victims of injustice, by denying them the respect owed to moral agents …

I strongly agree. Radical feminists’ use of the concept harms the very women who have been victims of patriarchal injustice by denying them respect and by derogating their efforts to direct the course of their own lives.

Terlazzo unpacks this further:

The majority of political philosophers are presumably unified in opposing the kinds of systemic conditions that marginalize and oppress some members of the political community, leaving them less able to pursue their projects, lead good lives, or expect the kind of treatment that justice demands… [But] many political philosophers hold that using the concept [of adaptive preferences] will likely lead to further and distinct kinds of marginalization and oppression of those already harmed by unjust systems …

How?

[A] judgment that a person has an adaptive preference will of course be a judgment that her autonomy is in some way compromised. And as we know, the possession of autonomy is often taken to play an important role in granting recognition of persons’ moral equality… They are not a moral agent to the same degree that others are; their judgment cannot be taken as seriously as that of others; they do not direct the course of their own life in the way that others do…

Being viewed in this way is fundamentally disrespectful to individual women and the harm is compounded when entire groups of women — women who wear makeup, shave body hair, change their surname on marriage for example — are characterized this way.

That’s bad enough but there’s an additional factor that renders such judgments both morally suspect and deeply enraging to the women thus characterized. Almost by definition such judgments are rendered by elites over non-elites.

Those who … develop academic theories of adaptive preference, tend to be members of dominant groups – wealthy, white academics, policy makers, and development practitioners. When people in these groups are granted more authority about the good of marginalized people than those marginalized people themselves are granted, then we reinforce racist, sexist, and other kinds of objectionable power dynamics even as we aim to undermine structural injustice.

Terlazzo summarizes:

The concept of adaptive preferences, then, can be a tool against injustice when it allows criticism of unjust structures that are not protested by their victims. Without care, however – and especially in cases of disagreement about which lives count as good – the use of the concept can encourage … expressive judgments that harm precisely those who the concept was meant to champion.

The bottom line is this: radical feminists — who tend to be white, well off, well educated elites — should be very, very wary of denying both autonomy and respect to women who make choices different from theirs. Such judgments harm both women and feminism.

Over the past week or so I’ve engaged with a number of radical feminists who have a remarkably dismissive view of women.

They appear to believe that — against the background of historical and ongoing patriarchal oppression — women are incapable of making authentic choices about their own lives. Any decisions they make about makeup, about body hair, about changing their surnames upon marriage are not autonomous decisions UNLESS they are directly oppositional to patriarchal norms.

I understand the argument, but I think it is simplistic, inadequate and fundamentally disparaging of women. I want to explore the notion of autonomy by using a range of examples.

Mary consents to marry John. Is her decision autonomous?

It all depends.

Situation 1

Mary would rather marry Henry, but her father has forbidden that marriage.

I suspect most would agree that in this setting of patriarchal pressure Mary is NOT making an autonomous choice, but knuckling under to external influences.

Situation 2

Mary would rather marry Henrietta, but her society is homophobic and gay marriage is abomination.

Mary may agree to marry John, but it is not a truly autonomous decision because her actual preference is prohibited in the society in which she lives. In this case Mary (and Henrietta) are victims of a homophobic culture.

I think most people would agree.

Situation 3

Mary loves Henry, but John is rich and famous and Mary craves both wealth and fame.

Although Mary is responding to outside influences, she is nonetheless making an autonomous decision. She has weighed her options and chosen the one she thinks will make her happiest even if people older and wiser might predict that she will eventually regret it.

Again, I think most people will agree.

Situation 4

Mary loves Henry, but Henry has died and Mary would still like to get married.

Mary’s choice is constrained but it is not constrained by others, but by a sad reality. Although John is not her first choice, I think we can agree that Mary is making an autonomous choice.

What do these examples tell us about whether an individual’s choice is autonomous or not?

It is not the choice, nor the background of the choice that determines whether it is autonomous. It is the INTERACTION between the two. Specifically, for a choice to be autonomous it must comport with Mary’s own preferences and must not be constrained by others.

In a patriarchal society or a homophobic society Mary may agree to marry John, despite loving Henry or Henrietta. In either case the choice to marry John is not an autonomous choice since that is not what Mary would choose if she could follow her preference.

But no one is constraining Mary if she can’t marry Henry because he’s dead. Therefore, the exact same choice to marry John, which might have been non-autonomous in a different situation, is now an autonomous choice.

But Mary could also love Henry and still make an autonomous choice to marry John if her real preference in marriage is to find wealth and fame.

So far, so good.

Now we come to the crux of the matter.

Situation 5

Mary loves John and is thrilled to consent to the marriage.

There are radical feminists who would argue that against the background of historical patriarchal oppression it is impossible for Mary to make an autonomous choice to marry John.

I strongly disagree.

It’s not because I don’t recognize the history of patriarchal oppression. It’s not because I’m under the mistaken belief that the patriarchy no longer exists. It’s because Mary’s choice is not constrained by the patriarchy.

But wait, I hear radical feminists say, the patriarchy is so powerful that it constrains all women’s decisions about marriage whether those women are aware of the constraints or not. This is known in philosophical argument as “adaptive preferences.” Although Mary may believe she is acting on her own preferences, those preferences have been warped because of the long history of patriarchal oppression. Mary goes along to get along whether she understands that or not.

It is this argument that leads many radical feminists to tell other feminists to their faces that only transgressive choices can possibly be autonomous choices. All other women — the majority of women — are treated to their condescension.

It is this argument that leads many radical feminists to denigrate other women’s decisions to wear makeup, shave body hair or change their surnames upon marriage. It is this argument that leads many radical feminists to react in horror when little girls express preferences for princesses and the color pink.

Might Mary make a different choices if she lived in a society that didn’t have a history of patriarchal oppression? Maybe, but that is not dispositive. How do we know?

Judeo-Christian society has been overtly homophobic for at least the past several thousand years. Our society is still permeated with homophobia. But that does NOT mean that Mary would choose to marry Henrietta in a society that was free of homophobia … and I think even radical feminists would admit this.

Historical or even contemporary prejudice that might constrain some women’s choices (gay and nonbinary women) do not automatically constrain straight women’s choices.

This also applies to patriarchal societies like ours. While the patriarchy may constrain SOME women’s choices, the existence of the patriarchy does NOT mean that ALL women’s choices are inevitably non-autonomous even when those choices are “traditionally” feminine.

The existence of the patriarchy does NOT mean that women’s choices to wear makeup, shave body hair and change surname on marriage are non-autonomous or — even more absurdly — responsible for reinforcing the patriarchy.

Similarly, while the patriarchy can and does constrain the choices of some little girls, its existence does NOT mean that girls’ preferences for princesses and the color pink are inevitably non-autonomous or — even more absurdly — responsible for reinforcing the patriarchy.

The bottom line is this: the mere existence of a system of oppression does not mean that every choice a woman makes is a non-autonomous choice. If homophobia had never existed most women would still be heterosexual and if the patriarchy had never existed most women would still wear makeup and most little girls would still prefer pink.

Yesterday I critiqued Kate Cohen’s recent piece in The Washington Post, Sorry, but these choices aren’t ‘feminist.’ They’re sexist. on substantive grounds.

It isn’t specific choices that make women feminists; it is the conviction that choices should be made BY them, not FOR them. It’s anti-feminist for women to knuckle under to specific choices prescribed by patriarchal societies but it is EQUALLY anti-feminist for women to knuckle under to specific choices prescribed by other feminists.

However the fundamental ugliness of the piece isn’t that it is substantively incorrect. It’s the casual condescension of radical feminists like Kate Cohen, a condescension that grievously harms the entire feminist cause. How? By accusing women, including other feminists, of false consciousness.

False consciousness typically refers to political beliefs. According to Dictionary.com, false consciousness is:

… a Marxist theory that people are unable to see things, especially exploitation, oppression, and social relations, as they really are; the hypothesized inability of the human mind to develop a sophisticated awareness of how it is developed and shaped by circumstances.

For example, Marxists insisted that working people who opposed Communism suffered from false consciousness. That inevitably led to the conclusion that the opinions of anti-Communists could be ingnored and that Marxists’ opinions were more valuable than those of people who opposed them.

Cohen insists that women who make feminine choices are unable to see things as they really are. They lack the sophisticated awareness that Cohen flatters herself in imagining that she has but the rest of us lack.

Cohen smugly declares:

Some argue that what matters is how a woman feels, not what she does. “The non-feminist likely shaves because she feels that she has to for others,” explains one blogger, “while the feminist will shave because she wants to do it for herself.”

Goodness, no. The feminist knows that the reasons she wants to shave are deeply compromised — and that as long as men aren’t expected to do it, doing it for yourself is an illusion.

It’s hard to imagine anything more harmful to a cause than the condescension of its followers.

As political theorist Steve Cook explains in ‘Why calling “False Consciousness”’ is dangerous and unreasonable:

The moment that someone believes that another agent suffers from false consciousness, then they risk denying the equality of citizens. If someone believes that another suffers from false consciousness, then they can discount any reasons the other gives. The agent believes that they have special access to the truth, which others do not. Once you have special access to the truth … then your reasons automatically count and another’s can automatically be discounted…

Is it any wonder that many contemporary women reject feminism when radical feminists like Cohen insist that their choices — like the choices to wear makeup, shave their legs or change their surname on marriage — aren’t merely wrong, they mark the women who make those choices as both unsophisticated and easily manipulated?

And the best part for Cohen is she needn’t disdain to consider those who disagree.

As Cook notes:

The only way to prove that you don’t suffer from false consciousness is to wholeheartedly agree with the one who believes that you suffer from it. Effectively, you are regarded as fallible, and they as infallible. This kind of thinking can easily provide a justification for them to impose their will upon you…

I have a tip for radical feminists like Cohen:

If your feminism allows you to denigrate women who make choices different from yours, it’s not feminism; it’s condescension … and it’s both ugly and unjustified.

Another day, another misguided feminist who mistakenly believes she has the right to define feminism.

Writing in The Washington Post, Kate Cohen feels it necessary to tell us what she thinks about other women’s personal choices, in this case women like Jennifer Lopez who change their surname after marriage:

… some claim that changing their names is in fact a feminist choice…

Defenders of Affleck’s new name have taken a similar tack. “True feminism means each and every woman has the freedom to make her own choices, J-LO included,” tweeted one. A writer in the Irish magazine Image opined, “Feminism revolves around equality, and a woman’s freedom to make decisions as she sees fit.”

You get the idea. Feminism is about choice; therefore Affleck’s choice must be feminist.

No, sorry. It’s the opposite.

Cohen appears to have her own personal definition of feminism.

Every choice to conform to sexist social norms makes it harder for other women to choose otherwise. Every woman who has plastic surgery or Botox or gets her hair dyed or, yes, changes her name makes it harder for other women not to.

Some argue that what matters is how a woman feels, not what she does. “The non-feminist likely shaves because she feels that she has to for others,” explains one blogger, “while the feminist will shave because she wants to do it for herself.”

Goodness, no. The feminist knows that the reasons she wants to shave are deeply compromised — and that as long as men aren’t expected to do it, doing it for yourself is an illusion.

In other words, according to Cohen, “real” feminism must be transgressive.

But defying “authority” doesn’t make you more feminist; it just makes you defiant.

Cohen reminds me of anti-vaxxers. The fact that there is no scientific evidence for their claims is elided by ignoring the actual science and focusing instead on whether people agree with health professionals. Defiance is imagined to be the hallmark of independent thinking when, in truth, it is the hallmark of failure to think.

Defying health experts doesn’t make anti-vaxxers smart and defying cultural norms doesn’t make women feminist. Unreflective defiance is just the flip side of unreflective acceptance. Only teenagers think that refusing to do what authority figures recommend marks them as independent. Adults know that doing the exact opposite of what authority figures recommend is a sign of immaturity, not deliberation.

It isn’t transgressive behavior that marks some women as a feminists; it is the conviction that they are intellectually and morally equal to men and entitled to the same political and economic rights.

Cohen indulges in humble bragging:

But still, as a feminist, I faltered many times on the way toward the aisle. I lost weight for my wedding, shaved my underarms, wore heels and lipstick and virginal white.

Guess what sort of choices those were. Sexist ones. Sure, I could say I looked good in white or I liked the feel of smooth armpits. But any excuse beyond “I gave in” would disrespect the women who do stand up to patriarchal traditions, downplay the enormous power of the forces arrayed against us, and disregard the potential harm created by my sexist choices.

How adorable that Cohen believes that lipstick and underarm shaving are feminist issues!

Or it would be so long as we ignore the 47,000 women murdered each year by men or that this Supreme Court believes women do not have the right to control their own bodies. When you consider the stakes the fact that Cohen focuses on heels or surname changes as hallmarks of feminism seems absurd and even grotesque.

It isn’t specific choices that make women feminists, it is the conviction that choices should be made BY them, not FOR them. It’s anti-feminist for women to knuckle under to specific choices prescribed by patriarchal societies but it is EQUALLY anti-feminist for women to knuckle under to specific choices prescribed by other feminists.

Sorry, Kate Cohen, you’re not a better feminist for making transgressive choices. Indeed you are not a feminist at all if you believe that you have the right demonize other women’s choices as insufficiently transgressive.

Anti-choice advocates say they oppose abortion because it stops a beating heart.

They say it makes no sense to have a rape or incest exception because it’s not the fault of the beating heart that it was conceived through violence.

That’s rather difficult to believe when the exact same people also say that capital punishment — though it stops a beating heart — is an appropriate punishment.

It’s also rather difficult to believe when the exact same people also say that stopping the beating hearts of hundreds of children who were simply attending school is just the price we have to pay for gun rights.

But it’s the extreme cruelty of the refusal to make exceptions to save the life of the mother — to prevent stopping HER beating heart — that reveals what’s really going on.

When it comes to anti-abortion legislation, the cruelty is the point!

Adam Serwer, writing in The Atlantic in 2018 first articulated in print what we all know to be true:

President Trump and his supporters find community by rejoicing in the suffering of those they hate and fear.

Unpacking his assertion further:

Taking joy in that suffering is more human than most would like to admit. Somewhere on the wide spectrum between adolescent teasing and the smiling white men in the lynching photographs are the Trump supporters whose community is built by rejoicing in the anguish of those they see as unlike them, who have found in their shared cruelty an answer to the loneliness and atomization of modern life.

And they hate and fear women, particularly educated and powerful women.

That’s why when a tape surfaced immediately before the 2016 election that quoted Trump advising another man, “Grab ‘em by the pussy,” it wasn’t disqualifying. To his supporters it was fulfillment of their ugliest fantasies: to humiliate, punish, and terrorize the women they fear.

The recent spate of anti-abortion legislation is just another form of “grab ‘em by the pussy.” It is designed with the express intent of humiliating, punishing and terrorizing women.

THAT’S why such legislation often doesn’t have exceptions for rape or incest. It’s not enough imagine violated women; it is more satisfying to watch them fear an unwanted pregnancy and live a life destroyed. And it sends a message to all women — even their wives and daughters — that men are ENTITLED to control women’s lives.

THAT’S why such legislation often doesn’t have exceptions for the life of the mother. Apparently even humiliation, punishment and terror are not enough to appease the men who fear they have lost control of women. Women must die. It sends a message to everyone that men OWN women’s lives, which they can extinguish at their will.

To paraphrase Serwer:

The fundamental belief of those responsible for anti-abortion legislation is that the United States is the birthright of straight, white, Christian men. Their only real, authentic pleasure is in cruelty. The ability to execute that cruelty — anti-abortion legislation — makes them euphoric. And if women have to die, so much the better!

‘Breast is Best’ or ‘Fed is Best’? A Study of Concessive Relations in the Debate on Methods of Infant Feeding is a fascinating new paper about the rival claims of the Breast Is Best vs. Fed Is Best movements. The paper was written by linguistics professor, Giorgia Riboni.

As a linguist, she analyzes the claims for content, not scientific validity. What does each movement say about itself and its challenger?

She finds:

1. The key difference is that Breast Is Best starts with a conclusion and never questions it.
2. There is NO evidence that the formula industry is behind the Fed Is Best Foundation.
3. Contrary to lactivists’ claims, there is NO evidence that Fed Is Best promotes bottle feeding.

The author explains what she is attempting to accomplish:

The ongoing ‘Breast is best’ vs. ‘Fed is best’ dispute represents an interesting object of study: it lies at the crossroads of multiple topical discourses and provides the opportunity to explore the ways in which contrasting constructions of reality interact and compete…

…[A] dataset consisting of approximately 450 texts published in the last thirty-five years was gathered and examined through the use of automated interrogation routines (Sketch Engine). The approach adopted in the research is therefore corpus-based and enables the identification of recurrent patterns … this last step is instrumental in uncovering tacit beliefs about motherhood and breastfeeding characterizing the ‘Breast is best’ and ‘Fed is best’ approach.

The author starts by establishing that Breast Is Best is a hegemonic discourse despite weak scientific evidence:

Whereas public policies are aligned with the ‘Breast is best’ approach, the scientific community is more divided on the topic. While acknowledging that maternal milk is species-specific and therefore good and safe for babies, research on the possible health advantages associated with it has (yet?) to produce conclusive scientific evidence …

She describes the origin of the Fed Is Best movement, started in an effort to protect babies from the potentially deadly consequences of insufficient breastmilk. Contrary to the claims of lactivists there is ZERO evidence that the Fed Is Best Foundation is associated in any way with the formula industry.

Detractors of the ‘Fed is best’ approach claim that companies producing formula are behind it; while this may seem a realistic possibility, (currently) no evidence can be found to back it up. … [T]he ‘Breast is best’ approach benefits professional figures such as lactation consultants and breastfeeding counselors as well as businesses specialized in breastfeeding gear, supplies, publications etc.

The article is filled with jargon but the findings are easy to describe.

…[W]hereas the FED subcorpus focuses on the discussion of whether breast is ‘really best,’ and … is mainly aimed at debunking this belief, the BREAST subcorpus starts from this theory and never problematizes it… The ‘Fed is best’ position is instead an instance of counter-discourse, not because it promotes formula over maternal milk, but because it frames infant feeding as an open question and raises the possibility that breastfeeding may not necessarily be the optimal solution for everyone.

The key difference between the two competing claims is that Breast Is Best starts with a conclusion and never questions it, Fed Is Best considers the purported benefits of breastfeeding (and it drawbacks) to be an open question.

Both movements look at the difference between the numbers of women who start breastfeeding and the number of women who are exclusively breastfeeding weeks or months later.

The Breast Is Best movement is preoccupied with the discrepancy between what “should” be and what is. Lactivists blame the formula industry, hospitals, providers, workplaces and even women themselves, but they never consider that breast might NOT be best for some babies and their mothers.

In contrast:

… [T]he predominant topic of the FED subcorpus is the debunking of the theory that breast is always best. The analysis of the texts revealed no attempt to encourage bottle-feeding over breastfeeding, unlike what used to happen in pro-bottle-feeding topics in the historical periods prior to that considered in the study.

The bottom line is this: linguistic analysis reveals that while Breast Is Best is pro-breastfeeding, Fed Is Best is NEITHER pro-formula NOR anti-breastfeeding.

One of the most contentious aspects of the currently roiling debate about the rights of transgender persons is that both sides imagine that they are defending the principle of justice.

Trans advocates are absolutely, positively, unalterably convinced that justice REQUIRES not merely acceptance of transgender individuals, but capitulation to all their demands. Anyone who doesn’t agree is angrily labeled transphobic or worse. Women’s rights advocates are absolutely, positively, unalterably convinced that justice does NOT require acceptance of transgender demands, especially if those demands pose a threat to women. Anyone who doesn’t agree is angrily labeled delusional or worse.

Both sides often do agree that the dispute rests on the answer to a simple question, “who is a woman (or a man)?” In contrast, I am coming to believe that the dispute rests on the answer to an entirely different question about justice. The question is not simply “what does justice require?” The real question at the heart of these debates “what is justice?”

Trans advocates often hold a view of justice that resembles a moral caste system based both on group identity and history of oppression. Arguments are easily adjudicated by reference to the caste system with those in a higher caste automatically correct. We might describe this system as “justice as reparation.”

Therefore, when a woman demands something from a man (or accuses a man of assault), the moral caste system requires that we accept the woman’s demands or believe her accusation, since as a victim of misogyny she is in a higher caste. In contrast, if a trans woman demands something of a cis woman, the moral caste system REQUIRES that we accede to the trans woman’s demands since — by virtue of greater oppression — a trans woman is in an even higher moral caste.

The virtue of this system of justice is it does away with messy details like determining who might be correct or whose demands might be reasonable or unreasonable. There’s no need to treat people as individuals who could be right or wrong; the relative position of their caste determines all.

The major defect in this system of justice is … it does away with messy details like determining who might be correct or whose demands might be reasonable or unreasonable. Instead of treating people as individuals whose demands should be adjudicated on the merits, it reduces them to members of a specific group.

If you subscribe to a system of justice based on a moral caste system it is obvious that any woman who refuses to knuckle under to demands of trans women must — by the system’s definition — be wrong. Indeed, refusal to knuckle under is — by the system’s definition — unalterably transphobic and deserves every vicious slur and accusation (“your refusal to use gender neutral language to describe pregnancy will KILL trans women!!!”) you can throw at her.

I, and many millions of other like me, subscribe to a very different system of justice — justice as fairness — one based largely on that described by the great 20th Century political philosopher John Rawls. Rawls wrote that if we want to know what justice requires of us, we ought to imagine the world we would want if we didn’t know the position that we would occupy in that world. In other words, justice is what we would choose if we didn’t know if we were rich or poor, Black or white, brilliant or plodding, talented or talentless, … trans or cis. If we didn’t know our specific circumstances we wouldn’t be able to tailor our principles to benefit ourselves or our friends.

In determining whether trans women should be allowed to compete in women’s sports, the issue is not who has a history of greater oppression but how can we balance the interests of both groups. If you imagine yourself as the trans woman who wants to compete you might arrive at one conclusion. If you imagine yourself as the cis woman whose athletic career will be blighted by allowing trans women to compete you might arrive at the opposite conclusion. But what if you didn’t know which one you were? What would you decide then? You would likely aim for the fairest solution. That’s not transphobia.

In determining whether trans women should be housed in women’s prisons, the issue is not who has a history of greater oppression but how can we balance the interests of both groups. If you imagine yourself as the trans woman you might arrive at one conclusion. If you imagine yourself as the cis woman who could be raped you might arrive at the opposite conclusion. But what if you didn’t know which one you were? What would you decide then? You would likely aim for the fairest solution. That’s not transphobia.

Therefore, the fundamental question at issue is not “who is a woman?” but “what is justice?” when the interests of trans women and cis women are in conflict. If you believe in justice as reparation you must acknowledge that those who believe in justice as fairness are not transphobic. And if you believe in justice as fairness you must stop calling trans people delusional since that is fundamentally unfair and unjust.

The American Academy of Pediatrics recently released guidelines promoting breastfeeding each child for two years — despite the fact that there is NO scientific evidence for the recommendation.

How did that happen? When you let lactivist zealots make breastfeeding policy, you end up with breastfeeding policies that ignore scientific evidence in favor of lactivists’ cherished beliefs.

Case in point: the AAP’s attempt to explain the unsupported recommendations to laypeople on its website, Breastfeeding: AAP Policy Explained. It’s even worse than the execrable paper on which it is based.

The paper, Policy Statement: Breastfeeding and the Use of Human Milk, is filled with weasel words like “might,” “associated,” and “linked.” Yes, breastfeeding is “linked” with good outcomes. Better educated, wealthier women are far more likely to breastfeed. It is the higher socio-economic status, including greater access to health insurance and healthcare, that is responsible for the improved health outcomes “associated with” and “linked to” breastfeeding, NOT breastfeeding itself.

The information for laypeople replaces the weasel words — which at least acknowledge the lack of proof for causation — with words that imply causation. In other words, the AAP lies in order to manipulate women into breastfeeding or breastfeeding longer. And the lies aren’t minor; they’re egregious.

#1 The Lifesaving Lie

“Breastfeeding can reduce … up to 40% overall infant deaths.”

This is a bald-faced LIE. I don’t believe this is even true in places where access to clean water is problematic, let alone in industrialized countries. At the moment, with the exception of extremely premature babies, there is NO evidence that breastfeeding saves ANY lives in industrialized countries. Indeed, as I’ve noted in the past, the United Kingdom has literally the LOWEST breastfeeding rate IN THE WORLD, yet one of the lowest infant mortality rates in the world.

#2 The Disease Prevention Lie

“Breastfeeding can also help protect your baby against lower respiratory tract infections and severe or persistent diarrhea, asthma, eczema, Crohn’s and ulcerative colitis, obesity, type 1 and 2 diabetes, leukemia, oral malocclusion and dental caries, while increasing IQ.”

This is another bald-faced lie. Breastfeeding is ASSOCIATED with these outcomes. There is ZERO evidence that breastfeeding causes them.

#3 The Nutritionally Complete Lie

“Breastmilk has all the nutrients, calories and fluids your baby needs!”

No, it doesn’t. It lacks both iron and vitamin D. That’s why vitamin supplements have been recommended for breastfed babies.

#4 The Bonding Lie

“Breastfeeding … helps create special bonds between you and your baby.”

This isn’t just a lie, its a particularly vicious one. There is NO evidence — zip, zero, nada — that breastfeeding has ANY impact on maternal infant bonding. Lactivist zealots simply made that up.

#5 The Misogynist Lie

“ Breastmilk … is free!”

Leaving aside for the moment the expenses associated with breastfeeding — lactation consultants, extra food, special bras, etc. — breastfeeding is only “free” if a woman’s time is worthless. And only misogynists think women’s time is worthless.

Those are not the only lies on the AAP page. There are a few other whoppers, including the claim that breastfeeding releases hormones that “promote healthy parenting behavior,” but those are the most egregious.

I’d be willing to bet that most members of the AAP don’t believe most of what is on this page. So why is it there? It’s there because the AAP, like most professional medical organizations, has left breastfeeding recommendations to the lactivist zealots among its members.

I’d be happy to publicly debate (in print or in person) the author of the AAP page, Dr. Lori Feldman-Winter, on these 5 lies. I doubt that will ever happen because even the lactivist zealots are aware that they cannot possibly defend their lies against the lack of scientific evidence.

The bottom line is that the AAP has risked its credibility by giving an imprimatur to 5 particularly egregious lactivist lies. Don’t believe them. Breastfeeding is grest but its only one of two excellent ways to nourish babies. Mothers should make infant feeding decisions based on what is good for them and their babies, not the lies of lactivist zealots.

And the AAP ought to stop the lactivist zealots among its members from LYING about breastfeeding in its name!

There has been a furor over the latest American Academy of Pediatrics recommendation to breastfeed children for two years.

The paper that offers the new recommendation is Policy Statement: Breastfeeding and the Use of Human Milk written by Joan Younger Meek, MD and Lawrence Noble, MD.

Extended breastfeeding dramatically increases the physical, psychological and economic burdens on mothers. The recommendation, in addition to being utterly tone deaf in the wake of the overturning Roe v. Wade, it is NOT supported by scientific evidence. The paper is filled with weasel words like “might,” “associated,” and “linked.” Indeed extended breastfeeding has been linked to improved health outcomes for both babies and mothers but that’s because it is a proxy for something far more important: maternal education and socio-economic status.

Breastfeeding in industrialized countries like the US and the UK is highly socially patterned. Better educated, wealthier women are far more likely to breastfeed. It is the higher socio-economic status, including greater access to health insurance and healthcare, that is responsible for the improved health outcomes “associated with” and “linked to” breastfeeding. The idea that breastfeeding improves maternal and infant health is particularly absurd in the case of the UK. The United Kingdom has literally the LOWEST breastfeeding rate IN THE WORLD, yet one of the lowest infant mortality rates in the world.

How did breastfeeding guidelines become completely unmoored from reality? It has happened because we allow lactivist zealots like Dr. Younger-Meek and Dr. Noble to make policy.

This is hardly the first time that either of them have made completely unsupported, nonsensical health claims about breastfeeding.

Back in 2018 Dr. Younger Meek wrote Breastfeeding has been the best public health policy throughout history. Only a zealot would make such an absurd claim.

For most of human history breastfeeding was the standard and often the only method of feeding babies and throughout that time infant mortality rates remained astronomical.

A great public health policy saves millions or even hundreds of millions of lives. In contrast, with the exception of extremely premature infants, breastfeeding hasn’t yet been shown to save many lives at all.

To understand what I mean, lets look at some of the real greatest public health achievements.

1. Clean water
2. Sewers and sanitation
3. Antisepsis
4. Blood transfusions
5. Antibiotics
6. Vaccination
7. Anesthesia
8. Tobacco control
9. Modern obstetrics
10. Neonatology

Each of these has saved and continues to save many millions of lives every year. Breastfeeding doesn’t come anywhere close. Moreover, the purported lifesaving effect of breastfeeding would be entirely abolished if all women had access to clean water with which to prepare formula.

Dr. Noble is, if anything, more zealous and more obnoxious, in his promotion of breastfeeding. In 2015 he gave a talk entitled What’s Really Wrong with One Bottle: Microbiota & Metabolic Syndrome which advanced the scientifically false and psychologically vicious claim that “just one bottle” of formula harms babies.

He starts with this ugly cartoon:

I reviewed all 83 slides of his standard professional talk and there is NOT EVEN ONE that shows any evidence that a single bottle of formula causes any impact at all, let alone a harmful impact.

Indeed the scientific evidence strongly indicates that there is no harm from use of formula. But how deliciously humiliating and guilt producing to emotionally fragile new mothers to pretend that one bottle of formula is harmful! How delightful to pretend that new mothers should be bullied into breastfeeding for the good of their babies.

Imagine if we tried to address smoking related illness by humiliating anyone who ever had ONE cigarette. Imagine if we tried to address obesity by shaming anyone who ever ate even ONCE at McDonald’s. That’s absurd, right? But that’s the equivalent of what lactation zealots do.

It is important for mothers to understand that the recommendation to breastfeed infants for two years is yet another absurd claim about the “benefits” of breastfeeding from two people who have a history of absurd claims unsupported by scientific evidence.

Who am I to criticize the claims of Drs. Younger Meek and Noble? I’m a physician who is very familiar with the breastfeeding literature and I am more than willing to put my criticism to the test. I’d be happy to debate either (or both!), in print or in person, on their ridiculous claims.

I doubt my challenge will be accepted. Zealots never put themselves in positions where those who disagree could challenge them. Though they choose personal beliefs over facts, they are aware that they could not win a scientific debate. In addition, they fear alerting women to just how weak and specious their claims really are.

Who knows? Maybe they, unlike other professional breastfeeding zealots, have the courage of their convictions. I’ll be waiting to find out.