Tiff over trans breastfeeding

Tweet take-down ‘censorship’ claim

The Australian government has requested Twitter remove posts complaining that men can’t breastfeed, with critics saying the decision is “reminiscent of the censorship we see in totalitarian regimes”.

The online posts by mum and breastfeeding advocate Jasmine Sussex are now available to see overseas but not in Australia.

Ms Sussex, who has spent decades helping mums breastfeed, was told her tweets this month raising concerns about a biological man inducing breastfeeding “violated Australian laws”, with Twitter removing them locally.

She said she was surprised the federal government would censor debate about the topic she believes is an “unethical medical experiment” on newborns.

Ms Sussex has now put in a Freedom of Information request to the Australian eSafety Commissioner over the decision, saying she believes it was the government agency behind the take-down order.

She said it was “disgraceful” that the eSafety Commissioner was targeting her for raising concerns. “I will not be intimidated,” she said.

Twitter sent a legal notice to Ms Sussex on May 16 and 17 saying an “Australian Government Entity or Law Enforcement Agency” had claimed the account holder had violated Australian law.

In her tweets, Ms Sussex criticised a media article about a transgender woman’s attempt to induce lactation.

In another tweet she stated: “Baby’s (sic) can smell their mother’s milk and turn towards it … #OnlyMothersBreastfeed.”

Women’s Forum Australia’s Rachael Wong said it was only a few days ago that the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women and Girls condemned intimidation or “silencing” of women who express concerns relating to sex and gender identity.

“The Australian government’s policing of opinions on social media is extremely concerning and is disturbingly reminiscent of the censorship we see in totalitarian regimes,” she said.

When asked who was behind the direction to Twitter, an eSafety Commissioner spokeswoman said that it does not comment on individual cases “to protect the privacy of complainants”.