Biological Terminology and Changing Sensitivities?

The Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals Trust has adopted a 'gender inclusive language policy', requiring its midwives to refer to 'chest (rather than breast) feeding' and to call the resulting liquid 'human (again, rather than breast) milk' (https://metro.co.uk/2021/02/10/brighton-midwives-told-to-say-chestfeeding-to-be-more-inclusive-14055419/). The Trust state they are making this change, because they want to "rapidly address the historic exclusion of trans and non=binary service users, whilst honouring and representing all who use our services". I can perfectly well understand the desire to make all users (irrespective of where they are on the straight or the LGBT continuum) comfortable, when they attend the hospitals but it does raise questions about biological terminology. Humans belong to the Class Mammalia (the term is derived from mammae defined as 'a milk-secreting organ of female mammals [in humans, the breast]'). All female Mammals, from the egg-laying Duck-billed platypus, through kangaroos, shrews, mice, rats, horses, deer, elephants, pangolins, wolves, tigers, bears and bats, to the Blue whale, nurture their young with milk. I am aware that gynecomastia (breast enlargement) has been noted in males since ancient times and that milk can be produced. Lactation is, however, a relatively unusual occurrence in males. Is Mammalia an inappropriate gender-laiden name for our Class? I really don't think so, because most biological terminology simply tries to capture the usual state of affairs (e.g. most, but not all, Mammals have variably-shaped teeth). There might also be downsides if midwives use terminology like 'chest feeding'. 'Breast feeding' might be more effective, if you are trying to encourage women to suckle their babies to expose them to protective antibodies in the milk?