Since this is about the CDC write-up, I figure it's more useful to look at that directly rather than through the Washington Time punditry lens...
View attachment 333137
While I'm often critical of some of things that have been lumped in with the LGBT movement, this one in particular isn't as off-base.
So, if the staunch conservative talking point is "There's no such thing as transmen, just a woman who's confused", then why wouldn't that person be able to breastfeed? Same goes for people who identify as non-binary (I have some larger issues with that designation, and feel is often just a "catch-all" for certain progressives who "want to be anything other than cis/straight" so they can sit at the proverbial "cool table"... but that aside), a substantial number of people who identify that way are biological females (which, again, we know can breastfeed)
So the CDC hasn't really said anything inaccurate with regards to this one.
Is the outrage purely just surrounding the nomenclature they opted to include?
...because medical publications have used "pop-culture" terms before when referring to actual things.
For instance, if there was an article about vasectomies and the author opted to include the line "or as some people call it,
getting snipped" or referred to tubal ligation as "getting your tubes tied", would it draw a huge amount of backlash?