LGBT group that promotes ‘chestfeeding’ receives taxpayer money from Scottish gov’t

EDINBURGH, Scotland (LifeSiteNews) — The Scottish government is providing taxpayer funds to an activist group that offers weekly sessions to assist “chestfeeding,” in which gender-confused men attempt to replicate the biological process of breastfeeding.

GB News reports that LGBT Health and Wellbeing is holding weekly “Queer Milk” sessions in the Scottish capital, billed as offering space for people “breastfeeding, chestfeeding or giving human milk to their baby in any amount … no matter what your feeding journey looks like.”

Despite boasting a reported income last year of £1.15 million ($1.52 million), the activist group “was handed £262,000 ($348,000) by the SNP Government and a further £252,000 ($335,000) by NHS Lothian,” GB News reports. “It also received £230,000 ($305,000) from the Glasgow Health and Social Care Partnership and Edinburgh Integration Joint Board.”

A spokesman for the Scottish government denied the funds were for this specific activity, stating that “funding provided to organisations through the Equality and Human Rights Fund is for specific, agreed activities. We do not provide funding for lactation services through this fund.” Most of the money reportedly went to salaries and pensions.

The practice dubbed “chestfeeding” consists of men who identify as women attempting to replicate a woman’s natural milk production using a combination of drugs, including domperidone and the hormone progestin.

LGBT activists insist the process yields milk as safe and beneficial for babies as a woman’s natural breast milk, but numerous sources disagree, including domperidone’s own manufacturer, Janssen Pharmaceutica. The drug is intended to treat nausea and vomiting and is discouraged from use during breastfeeding, absent medical necessity and a doctor’s assessment due to risks of causing heart issues for babies who feed from a mother taking it.

“Men can produce a little bit of chest secretions or nipple secretions. I think the most that’s ever been recorded is about 30 millilitres, so a thimble full,” said Dr. Alice Hodkinson, co-founder of the Women’s Rights Network’s Biology in Medicine blog. “Women can produce pints of milk, and that’s what the baby is going to need, depending on the age of the baby.”

“This is not for the baby. This does not benefit the baby,” she stressed. “And we have to be very clear about this, that there’s something else going on that a man should want to do this.”

“Whatever hormone-induced gloop their bodies might be chemically engineered to produce, it is not human milk. It is high time that the SNP Government, NHS and Scottish councils stopped lavishing these activist groups with millions of pounds to promote such perverse ideas,” declared For Women Scotland Director Susan Smith. “Defenceless and innocent babies are not props to be used to affirm delusional men, and the fact that public money is being used to promote the notion that they are is nauseating.”

It is an article of progressive faith that gender is no more than a matter of self-perception which individuals are free to change at will, with no correlation to biological sex, which in reality is rooted in an individual’s chromosomes and reflected by hundreds of genetic characteristics.

Only females are physically capable of bearing children, though pro-LGBT activists who assert otherwise would like to reorient society’s understanding of gender to refer exclusively to perception. To that end, the media frequently promotes stories about “pregnant trans men” (who are actually women suffering from gender dysphoria) and research about transplanting wombs into men who “identify” as women. 

Absent such semantic maneuvers or artificial machinations, however, all “birthing persons” or “birthing parents” are in fact mothers, and the insistence that society act otherwise has been linked to an array of medical and social ills.

In 2024, NHS England’s landmark Cass Review found that “gender medicine” is “built on shaky foundations” and that while such interventions require a great deal of caution, “quite the reverse happened in the field of [so-called] gender care for children.”

“While a considerable amount of research has been published in this field,” the report states, “systematic evidence reviews demonstrated the poor quality of the published studies, meaning there is not a reliable evidence base upon which to make clinical decisions, or for children and their families to make informed choices.”