No, that British hospital didn’t ban the word "breastfeeding": The ultra-viral story is an outright fabrication made by the institutionally transphobic British press. It worked.

My interpretation of what appears to be the actual document involved does not match either this post or the American article they link to. While there are certainly problems with the conservative coverage, and there are what appear to be misrepresentations motivated by a desire to create outrage, it does not seem appropriate to call the story an "outright fabrication", unless I am misinterpreting the document.

The post is correct in pointing out that the guidelines are not meant to apply "when discussing or caring for individuals in a one-on-one capacity where language and documentation should reflect the gender identity of the individual".

However, saying that the "additive" language recommended, because it is "additive", is "not a replacement for traditional terms", appears to misinterpret the document's use of that term. The document states "a gender-additive approach means using gender-neutral language alongside the language of womanhood, in order to ensure that everyone is represented and included." This does not mean that the guidelines do not involve replacing and removing some specific terms.

Rather, in my interpretation of what they mean in a technical sense (rather than the rather vague abstract goals they describe) is that their conception of gender-additive language changes are generally changes that add words or components to gender-specific terms, rather than replacing them with an entirely new term: thus, using "he or she" rather than "he" or "she" would be gender-additive, but using "they" would not be. However, this is still replacement: it is simply a replacement where the new term contains the old term, or portions of the old term, within it.

In fact, when the post author quoted that the language is "not a replacement for traditional terms", they did so from section 7, titled "Specific language replacements". It gives replacements for terms "for the production of documents, protocols and communications. It should also be used when discussing pregnancy, birth and parenting at a population level (for example,at meetings, study days or antenatal parent education)." The guidance does replace the terms that the conservative press claims are being replaced, though not in quite the way they claim. Specifically, for example, the guidance does replace the term "breastfeeding", not with "chestfeeding", but with "breast/chestfeeding". It similarly replaces "mother" with "mother or birthing parent" and "maternal" with "maternal or parental", and "woman" with "woman or person".

So, for situations outside of one-on-one care, the guidance does appear to proscribe the use of word "breastfeeding", except as a component of a larger term.

To be honest, while I had not heard of this story before seeing this article, I actually find these changes frustrating for another reason. I worry that gender-additive approaches like these attempt compromise in solving problems of gender inclusive language by creating problems of language use instead, often inflating the number of syllables in a term enormously, and sometimes making unpronounceable terms that create frustrating discrepancies between written and spoken language. This is particularly problematic because the terms being replaced are often quite simple, short, and efficient.

While speakers might grow to accept new terms despite initial disagreement, compound behemoths will never stop being frustrating. Inclusive language through additive language risks creating protracted resentment from people who would otherwise be supportive of inclusion, because the terms are actively burdensome to use. Using "person" instead of "woman" is not burdensome. Using "woman or person" is, more than doubling the syllables and characters. Replacing "breastmilk" with "milk from the feeding mother or parent" is outright ridiculous (unless there is a reason to use the latter (ie, specifying the source of the milk), in which case it is not simply a replacement), and I am not sure why it is there at all. For that, at least, there is the far more reasonable "human milk" recommended as well, and the authors prudently use this in their example, but, of course, in being reasonable, it isn't gender additive. Replacing "breastfeeding" with "breast/chestfeeding", rather than simply going with "chestfeeding", creates a term that must differ between written and spoken language.

And what is gained by constructing these burdensome terms, rather than changing terms in an efficient way? As the post author decries, the conservative press generates outrage regardless, and people who dislike gender-inclusive terms will likely dislike these compromises. People who simply want to speak reasonably can now see gender inclusion as a source of added frustrations. And people who would like to be included in language can be included as a tacked-on other: why use "woman or person" rather than "person", except to imply that that "person" is somehow an outlier?