Evan Urquhart

But if you're unable to conjure the imagine of a trans man to your mind, because of transmasc invisibility, you make trans women the culprits (as always) and ascribe some sort of evil motives of jealousy and hatred of cis women to them.

But they are breasts? There's no logic to changing the word. It's appeasement to someone who couldn't explain why they need it and will want something else tomorrow. They are breasts and it hurts no one to say so. You can't take femaleness out of breastfeeding.

Hmm. Interesting. Let's test this. Would there be any logic to using the word for breasts in the native language of a non-English speaking patient? And, would using that word hurt English speakers in any way?

If not, explain to me the difference between using a Spanish word for a Spanish speaker's mammary organs and using the word a trans man prefers for his?

I'm too tired for your ridiculous word games. The language we speak in this country is English, in English mammary glands are called breasts, females use them to feed the babies they have given birth to. There's no sane argument to change it, it serves only to dehumanise women.

I genuinely object to being called insane for asking a question you can't answer. It's not polite, and makes me suspect you're not coming to this discussion with an open mind or a willingness to be rational about things.

You're clever word game has no relevance to the offensive nature of trying to take the female-acknowledging language out of gestating and feeding a baby, a uniquely female process. If a transman grows a baby in their actual womb and they still have functioning breasts then

well done them, for taking part in this very very female process, but changing the language of breastfeeding is a nonsense. If they are men, then it's intolerant to imply that renaming a body part makes it any more or less male. Renaming breastfeeding implies that