Talk:Male lactation

It's a rare thing

Male lactation is a fairly rare thing. Maybe it happens more often now that medical treatments for things like prostate cancer may alter hormonal balances, but the patients and their doctors have an obvious explanation for what is happening and so have no reason to write about it. But for it to occur under other circumstances is uncommon -- unless one is a fruit bat. John Money has written about it from a medical standpoint, perhaps in Gay, Straight, and In-Between (he has written a great number of books and information on this subject might find its way into any one of them). I've read personal accounts written by people who say that after their wife died they let their newborn baby suck on their own breast to serve as a pacifier, and the end result was that they started lactating. When you can't get canned or dried infant formula, any amount of milk may be precious. But a man doesn't have much to offer even if he does start lactating. That kind of report gets carried in places like the tabloids -- but in the same tabloids you will see pictures of Bill Clinton talking to ET's parents in the Rose Garden, so you never quite know what to believe. I'll try to remember to keep an eye out for anything that shows up in the scientific literature and incorporate it into the article. Meanwhile, Wikipedia seems not to have lost readers in droves. Probably the people who might have been shocked by the idea of something perfectly normal but very unusual went to check out the articles on certain body parts, were turned into pillars of salt at that point, and so never made it to this article much less to its talk page. ;-)

I am guessing, but it is part of the normal process of lactation that it needs to increase as the infant increases in size. Probably suckling serves to promote secretion of hormones that promote lactation. It should be possible to find articles on this subject. Injections could supply the same hormones directly. They may be feedin some hormones to milk cows to make them lactate more. Probably there are studies on those hormones, too. P0M 07:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

"But a man doesn't have much to offer even if he does start lactating." Do you have any source to support that claim? --kissekatt 13:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

There is unlikely to be any empirical evidence for the amount of milk provided by male lactation in humans because it is such a rare occurrence and because getting scientific about it would require tracking cases down and making a series of measurements on each.

I would be surprised if there is any objection to the idea that milk produced is a function of the amount of mammary tissue involved. As far as I know, the amount of mammary tissue each human has is a "nature and nurture" question. Although malnutrition during childhood and adolescent development might limit the phenotypic characteristics of an individual, there would be no way to increase mammary tissue beyond the genotypic size. (If there were, there might be people opting for that procedure rather than surgical breast enlargements.)

The biography of one late 16th century China individual reveals that bovine milk or other natural milk may be unavailable when a mother dies in childbirth. In such cases, the availability of small quantities of human milk provided by a male might keep an infant alive until he or she developed to the point of being able to accept solid food. So the low volume of milk might not make it a meaningless amount in crucial cases.

If anyone can find evidence that some male human has produced enough milk to nurture an infant adequately without supplementation from other sources, please bring it forth. P0M 15:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

More Links

This article needs more links and more links that are authoritative. I tried to add the following, but (for some reason), UtherSRG objects to adding them to the body of the article. I cannot see why, given how lamely sourced the current version of the article is.

• Jared Diamond, "Father's milk - male mammals' potential for lactation", Discover, Feb 1995, Retrieved on 2008-05-27.
• Joanna Moorhead, "Are the men of the African Aka tribe the best fathers in the world?", The Guardian, 15 June 2005, Retrieved on 2008-05-27.
• Nikhil Swaminathan, "Strange but True: Males Can Lactate", Scientific American, 6 September 2007, Retrieved on 2008-05-27.

Poluphemos (talk) 02:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a colleciton of links. As many users are told: "Please add information and cite the verifiable and reliable sources." These are wonderful sources. Please utlize them to support the existing article or add information to the article from them. Do not just plunk them down at the end of the article and feel you've done your job. Read the sources, compare the data in the sources against the article, use <ref> tags as appropriate to support the existiing article text, or modify or add text and use these sources to support your edits. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The Nofootnotes Tag

This tag, which claims the article "lacks in-text citations", was recently added to the article. It is a little mysterious, since I count five in-text citations in the present article, and I'm positive that all five were there at the time the tag was added. Furthermore, most - if not all - of the claims in the article seem well-sourced, based on those five footnoted refs; so it seems just a mistake to add a tag that says, "its sources remain unclear". Not to mention that the addition of the tag (assuming it wasn't unintentional) is a little insulting to those contributors who took the trouble to source the claims and add the notes. Such tagging seems only to discourage well-meaning and substantive contributions to wikipedia. Poluphemos (talk) 01:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Pigmies

Checked the source on african tribes where children suck on males' nipples and didn't get how is it related to male lactation. These men don't lactate, the context of information leads to false impression that they do. Information not relevant and deleted. --24.203.221.17 (talk) 00:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Induced male lactation?

I'm sure I've encountered mention of a classical Greek tale in which an all-male band found themselves with a new-born baby. Attempting to keep the infant alive, one of the men slashed his nipples with a knife to allow the baby to suckle on blood, and after a few days the man began to lactate. The implication was that male lactation might sometimes be induceable by the mechanical stimulation of suckling. Initial googling hasn't thrown up a specific reference, but I thought I'd record the notion here in case I or someone else manage to find a useable source. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 05:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why men find this so appealing, maybe it's a gay fantasy? Anyway I doubt that it will be possible in normal men. I believe it requires -both- elevated estrogen and prolactin levels. Estrogen levels don't change easily unless by some external factor. Maybe if you have elevated estrogen levels(can happen if you play around with DHEA or high dose steroids) to begin with and then stimulate the nipples to release prolactin. It would be much easier to just take a dopamine antagonist, this will make prolactin skyrocket overnight. You will wake up with nipple discharges on your sheets!(DON'T ask how I know this ugh) Disgusting LOL It only take a few weeks to grow lactating man boops but it takes months of cabergoline-tamoxifen-AI treatment to get rid of it again. It's a humiliating handicap, NOT something you want to deliberately induce. Poor fragile men we are.... 93.161.105.17 (talk) 00:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Ragnar Bengtsson

This is of interest to this article. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 12:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Appropriate External Link?

The Milkmen: Fathers Who Breastfeed article listed in the External Links section appears to be a personal blog post that describes how the author's husband can will his breasts to swell or shrink using the power of positive thinking. I'm not an experienced Wikipedia editor, is this an appropriate link to include here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.10.87.163 (talk) 15:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Not mere stories required!

Peace be to all! Wikipedia is not about writing between facts or what u thought someone was right explaining a scientific/medical phenomenon on a BLOG! It requires better citations from reliable sources (specially from authentic sources regarding topic under discussion). Hope everybody understands. Some (not all) of the citations are mere stories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.153.134.67 (talk) 13:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Medically correct "citations" needed!

male lactation is so rare (only found in transsexuals) that even many research medical scientists yet don't know so-called male milk, as it does not exist and therefore has no relation to this topic. I read citations from scientific american and a blog,. These citations didn't mention the scientific phenomenon BUT assumptions were made. These assumptions CAN NOT EXPLAIN or DESCRIBE A FACT. Such scientifically inappropriate citations should be discouraged while explaining such medical topics. Please help WIKIPEDIA....not damage it! THANKS AND PEACE TO ALL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.153.108.236 (talk) 14:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC) ALSO transsexuals and males with sex chromosomal aneuploidy show this phenomenon, not normal males. The word "transsexuals" must not be CONFUSED with NORMAL MALES. Keep it in mind that transsexuals can also produce immature semen. This topic needs better citations, I'll try to find links from reliable medical sources if there are any. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.153.108.236 (talk) 15:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Klinefelter Syndrome

Some males appearing to be normal, may be carrying extra X chromosome as in the case of Klinefelter Syndrome. General Symptoms are: Taller than average, small testis that can produce little or no semen, gynaecomastia, males with the condition are prone for breast cancer. Treatment for such individuals is: Removal of excess breast tissue can be carried out.Testosterone therapy is usually given. Klinefelter Syndrome although very rare (1 in 1,000 LIVE BIRTHS) BUT now-a-days is becoming common due to presence of teratogenic substances in environment ("radiation pollution" to name one). Males with such syndromes do not represent Normal Male Population. The phenomenon of Male lactation was linked with "such males" in the near past and reported by medical researchers. The persons with Klinefelter Syndrome and some other Birth Defects showed such phenomenon. As they are part of Male population, they can not be distinguished easily by a "layman". Medical professionals can distinguish them and their associated disease. Therefore CAUTION should be made while comparing their cases with normal males. I don't want to hurt feelings of someone with this disease, the only reason behind this post is to clarify any misunderstandings and to develop positive approach FOR citing LINKS from other web-sites and BLOGs. If these things not considered for citing links, WIKIPEDIA would not be able to provide CORRECT and AUTHENTIC KNOWLEDGE POOL instead it would become a junk yard of inappropriate and scientifically incorrect facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.153.108.236 (talk) 15:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion that nipple stimulation, alone, in men could cause lactation

I've done this removal because (1) the first part is redundant with respect to the first line of that section that also states hormone treatment for cancer can cause galactorrhea, (2) the cited source is not authoritative, however entertaining Jared Diamond's writing may be he's not an expert on this subject, and (3) the second part about nipple stimulation causing enough prolactin secretion in men to stimulate lactation is explicitly speculation. The latter speculation is also not supported by a reliable source (PMID 16092584) that does not include mail galactorrhea even in the setting of high-level prolactin secretion (due to medications) are: "Hyperprolactinemia caused by these drugs is accompanied usually by decreased libido, erectile dysfunction in men, and galactorrhea and amenorrhea in women." Because this source does not categorically exclude this possibility I'm not going to extrapolate in our article - but I do think we need to stick to reliable sources for any such claims (positive or negative). -- Scray (talk) 21:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

To Hans Adler's Statement.

According to Hans Adler: Discover article mentions hundreds of cases in men rescued from starvation. They will hardly all have been transsexuals. And don't just remove sources because you don't like what they say.

First of all, Do we know they are all transsexuals? Have we encounter such individuals that we can say they are all not transsexuals? Have you your-self seen this problem with you or someone you know who is normal phenotypic male? The answer is NO. Then how come you say with such accuracy that They will hardly all have been transsexuals. Message behind my earlier post, namely: Klinefelter Syndrome, was to give an idea that there are many diseases and abnormalities known to so-called medical community which are the main cause of such Deviated Body Functions. These unnatural Deviations are not seen in NORMAL MALE POPULATIONS.

Second: (To And don't just remove sources because you don't like what they say.) To answer this, I like you to consider the notes 5 & 6 BOTH taken from the same article written by 'Nikhil Swaminathan'.

Nikhil has written (please note carefully): In her 1978 book The Tender Gift: Breastfeeding, medical anthropologist Dana Raphael claimed that men could induce lactation simply by stimulating their nipples. The eminent endocrinologist Robert Greenblatt of the Medical College of Georgia concurred. But Jack Newman, a Toronto-based doctor and breast-feeding expert, insists that in order to produce milk, a hormone spike must occur. "That Tolstoy quote suggests that the father just put the baby to the breast and he would produce milk; I think that's pretty unlikely," he says. "It could be that you have this man with this pituitary tumor and he produces milk once the baby starts suckling." Here only assumption has been made without proper proof and experimentation. Therefore one can not find such phenomenon in medical literature even. These assumptions CAN NOT BE A PART OF AN ENCYCLOPEDIA. These sayings or speculations or claims ( you can use any word) by some people have been disregarded before also and therefore NOT RECOGNIZED BY EMINENT PEOPLE IN MEDICAL COMMUNITY AND NEVER FOUND IN MEDICAL RESEARCH PEER_REVIEWED JOURNALS AND TEXTBOOKS. (Observe what that breast-feeding expert said about the patient. He said that the patient might be with a pituitary tumor which produced human female prolactin hormone, otherwise normal male does not have prolactin. Everybody in medical field knows this fact of great importance. one can ask his doctor if he is confused by body endocrine systems.)

I removed that link because of its unscientific nature (not because I or someone likes or dislikes it). We can not put a definition or article in an encyclopedia because we think that what we read in a news-paper or a blog was correct and such thing exists. Please refer to people of that field if you don't know! As I'll be very very busy with my steps exams, I may not be available for a month or so. BUT after-wards, I'll make an account here and mend this and other articles like this one according to Reliable and Medically important sources. This will consume a lot of my precious time, But for sake of knowledge, I'll go through it well. WIKIPEDIA is an encyclopedia which requires devotion from people of relevant field. If such behaviour of linking inappropriate unscientific sources persists, then no wonder WIKIPEDIA will lose its reputation among people. So for WIKIPEDIA's sake stop doing this, and DON'T MAKE DEFINITIONS OF YOUR OWN AND BY COPY PASTING FROM BLOGS! §kam§ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.99.172.191 (talk)

When you write on a talk page, please put ~~~~ at the end to sign properly. Also, your style of arguing is not helpful at all it because it hides your rational arguments, if there are any, behind insinuations and shouting. That's not how we generally do things here because it generally does not convince anybody.

Your claim that male lactation occurs only in transsexuals is obviously wrong. Lactation is a very well known and wide-spread phenomenon in babies of both sexes (so-called witches' milk), and it also appears to be well known in male starvation survivors. This has nothing to do with dubious claims about all men being able to lactate through manual stimulation, which I agree are probably wrong. The source reports these claims. That doesn't make the source wrong. The cultural phenomena around (real or otherwise) male lactation are just as relevant to this article as the medical aspects.

There are a lot of medically competent editors here, and I have already notified them. See WT:MED#Male lactation. Hans Adler 13:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I am not here to argue about non-issues but only to help. I am a general medicine resident. i was going through my synopsis writing and doing literature search on internet for psychological effects on breast feeding that I saw this article. I am not trying to convince anyone, only my approach is to guide this matter as it is my field. Sources when linked for an article in an encyclopedia need to be authenticated. I agree that some claims don't make a source wrong but for such areas relevant sources be cited which are of pure medical value. You won't find such sources in medical encyclopedias, ...so please if WIKIPEDIA is an encyclopedia> use authentic sources. Otherwise wiki would not be worth as you can find irrelevant speculations here.

Here I am not trying to be enemy of Scientific American. But I trying to say is for every medical/scientific phenomenon are many explanations, for everybody's goodness try to cite from reliable sources. By doing so a person doing literature search may not misguide himself by inappropriate stuff. I am engaged in healthy discussion, because related to medical profession i am sincere, but you are biased...BE NEUTRAL because by not doing so will effect everybody. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.156.42.9 (talk) 14:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I also agree but have confirm understanding that lactation occurs in some new-borns not all due to surge of female hormones of mother especially PROLACTIN. But this doesnot make all males prone to lactation. This case was not only frequent with tanssexuals but also with other males with birth-defects and syndromes (I have discussed it in an earlier post).....Here we are not talking about NORMAL MALES with functional testes and testosterone.

I am going to remove these links, if you have better then discuss them in a healthy manner not just reverting will help. ALSO see my post below. thanks §kam§119.156.42.9 (talk) 15:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

How serious is the accusation of copy and paste from a blog?

Above, you write: "Don't make definitions of your own and by copy pasting from blogs!" (bad case of SHOUTING fixed). This makes the accusation that someone ("you", in a section that addresses me explicitly, so it almost looks like an accusation specifically against me) has committed a copyright violation by pasting in text from a blog. If this is true I am very much interested in fixing it. Please provide a link to the blog. Hans Adler 15:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I used "you" not for yourself but for anyone who links inappropriate citations ( that are stories). I don't even know you, all I know is this ARTICLE and its citations which I have read very very thoroughly in regard with proper medical encyclopedias that I have access to. I started discussion here and some other persons have also removed a link or so for improving this article, and hence a constructive approach has begun. But mind it, you can't make allegations on anyone. I have been devoting my time since and helping, ...so plz don't use word SHOUTING. Its my field and I thimk I am competent in it enough. THANKS. waiting for your reply, hope you reply in better way. §kam§119.153.69.5 (talk) 09:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Linking is not the same as copy and paste. You said, explicitly, "copy and pasting from blogs". If someone uses copy and paste then we normally have a copyright violation, which is a serious matter that often entails that huge parts of the page history must be deleted. Do you have any evidence for that, yes or no? Hans Adler 11:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Inaccurate speculation by Jared Diamond

Here I'll discuss only one inaccurate assumption very far from reality (although there are many).

Jared Diamond has written in 6th paragraph: The genes on chromosome 23, acting in concert with genes on other chromosomes, ultimately determine all differences between our sexes. Those differences, of course, include not only the possession of ovaries as opposed to testes but also the postadolescent differences in beards, pitch of voice, and breast development. Blocking a single gene--say, one that normally codes for the cell receptor that binds testosterone--can make someone who genetically is otherwise a normal male develop breasts and a vagina.

ALL people of medical knowledge know that during EMBRYOGENESIS cell-migration and differentiation has occurred and organs formed. testis and ovaries (AND VAGINA too) formed during organogenesis do not disappear after birth. all major organ systems are formed during weeks of organogenesis. Even blocking a gene or so can not revert that previously formed organ nor can it from new organs (as 'vagina' in this case) after-wards....may be increase in size can occur. The only change that can occur is malfunctioning of that organ.

Practically "Mutations" (for example, from radiations etc) cause such change in gene appearance and function in adults, BUT it also does not make the effected system disappear and formation of new organ-systems as vagina does not occur (NO organogenesis after birth is possible, except in some high tech secret laboratory...lol). SUCH THINGS ONLY OCCUR IN COMIC BOOKS AND SCIENCE FICTIONS. These mutations in later life after birth cause cancers etc of the systems involved.

This writing by Jared Diamond shows how inaccurate the assumption is. He has written without scientific proof, many people write like-wise. But such assumptions need not to be a part of an encylcopedia. Encyclopedia talks about good facts not irrelevant articles having poor scientific value.

Please also refer to my previous post named as To Hans Adler's Statement. §kam§203.99.172.191 (talk) 14:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

You are obviously misreading the source. There is nothing to indicate that Jared Diamond's sentence "Blocking a single gene [...]" is referring to anything that would happen after birth. He said it in the context of the basic mechanism of male/female differences and the 23 chromosomes. He seems to have meant it as an example of what can go wrong in an embryo and can create various odd phenomena, including intersex humans. Could you please calm down further. Thank you. Hans Adler 15:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Please first read my post thoroughly and the words I highlighted...then argue. The words I highlighted very clearly mean he is talking about GROWN-UP MALES.......so how come you (please don't take this word "you" as offensive, I am friendly and just want to make this clear) say that "HE SEEMS TO HAVE MEANT....WHAT CAN GO WRONG IN AN EMBRYO". Jared Diamond is not talking about an embryo when he says a normal male. Consider with care and read again.§kam§119.153.69.5 (talk) 09:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

If your reading comprehension is so poor that even after re-reading it you insist the sentence in bold is necessarily about adult men, then I can't help you. The author doesn't say "normal male", he says "genetically [...] otherwise a normal male", i.e. someone with a normal set of chromosomes including XY, and the one blocked gene is the only thing that is unusual. The sentence refers to an embryo as if it was already a person, so it is obviously not optimised to prevent your misunderstanding and could have been phrased much better, but that happens with the best sources and is no reason to discount it completely. There is certainly no indication that this person who is genetically otherwise a normal male would ever have been phenotypically a normal male.

Please reconsider your attitude. You keep jumping to conclusions about all sorts of things, and that's not helpful at all. Hans Adler 11:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

greetings. you keep saying words to me, now that you are saying I keep jumping to conclusions about all sort of things (WHAT ARE ALL THOSE THINGS??? NAME THEM, IF YOU CAN"T PLEASE DON"T TRY TO FIGHT BETWEEN WORDS!) Jared Diamond has written in previous paragraphs all about Adult Male Lactation and in the 6th paragraph HE according to him-self tries to explain that SOMEONE CAN DEVELOP A VAGINA EVEN IF THAT "SOMEONE" IS OTHERWISE A NORMAL MALE!

You have NOT TAKEN THE CONTEXT INTO ACCOUNT. I REPEAT IF ANYONE TAKING THE WHOLE CONTEXT INTO CONSIDERATION WOULD OBVIOUSLY KNOW THAT Jared Diamond IS TAKING ABOUT NORMAL ADULT MALE LACTATION BEFORE THIS PARAGRAPH AND NOW SPECULATING THAT BLOCKING OF GENE OF TESTOSTERONE CELL RECEPTOR WOULD DEVELOP VAGINA. Please read the whole story. This is an encyclopedia,..encyclopedias don not ( I say DO NOT) talk about speculations from persons that are not experts of the field! Thanks again. Be Neutral and then read the whole story. §kam§119.153.69.5 (talk) 12:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. Paragraph 5 starts with "Let’s start with the facts." That's a complete change of context towards the underlying theory. In paragraph 5 he only talks about the genotypes: 23 chromosomes and the XX/XY matter. This has nothing to do with age whatsoever. In paragraph 6 he discusses how the genotype determines the phenotype, and how little genetic defects can make the relation more complicated than just XX=>female, XY=>male. In paragraph 7 he briefly discusses the method by which the genotype determines the phenotype, and also inter-species variation. In paragraph 8 he discusses specifically mammary glands and points to interspecies variation in that (no nipples in male rats, but nipples in male humans). He mentions that male breasts do have ducts, and that there is little difference between male and female breasts before puberty. (From all your SHOUTING I am guessing that you are very uncomfortable with these facts and would like them to be false.) Only in paragraph 9 does he begin to discuss male lactation again, and that's in the context of animal experiments.

When saying that a single gene can make an XY individual develop breasts and a vagina, the author is obviously referring to conditions such as 5-alpha-reductase deficiency. Or are you seriously arguing that the author is advocating changing adult people's genes so that they can breast-feed? Hans Adler 13:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you really don't have necessary GRIP on the subject, therefore, you are arguing too much. I, again, say I am not here to GO INTO NON_ISSUES but due to my limited time (with more than 9-10 hrs given to learning and teaching as a general-medicine resident, I don't have time to waste) only want to clarify Whats wrong. I think you should get help on this topic because What you are trying to prove...is wrong.

First of all ARD is not a sex-chromosomal disease, its an autosomal one. so there is not only difference of XY and XX, but there are also many autosomal differences that account in later development of human male and female during embryonic stages. The 5-alpha-reductase type 2 isoenzyme is expressed in external genital tissues early in gestation, making its action necessary for the development of normal male genital anatomy in the fetus. ( you yourself can do search , if you don't know the subject practically). This is reason Why Ambiguous Genitalia and Intersexuality is linked with some cases of ARD>>>its because organogenesis occurs before birth>>AFTER BIRTH only remaining growth of previously formed organ occurs>>>>In ARD ALL MEDICAL SPECIALISTS Use the word "Male pseudohermaphrodite" because such defective males have "Wolffian structures" Due TO LACK OF THEIR PROPER DEVELOPMENT AND CELL MIGRATION The Genital structures are "Rudementary" thats why EXPERTS call them: Ambiguous Genitalia. Ambiguous Genitalia are undeveloped forms of genitalia and didn't properly differentiated into male or female genitalia (Note here that origin of all sheaths is common in any species and its the differentiation that matters during fetal life). Ambiguous Genitalia are not properly differentiated (rudimentary) therefore NOT RECOGNISED BY PARENTS of the infant as male or female. But obviously every medicine man knows that these are malformed male genitalia BUT because of their Rudimentary form they are considered as ambiguous. (Here I go again wasting my time, see below so you understand better) §kam§119.153.156.129 (talk) 10:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

During the initial stages of development, the external genitalia of male and female fetuses are identical (as all other cells have been before in rudimentary stages) and include the genital tubercle (both sexes have different forms), an undifferentiated structure that will form the penis in males and the clitoris in females. In humans, this ambisexual stage lasts until the 8th–10th week of gestation. WHAT HAPPENS is that in ARD this stage remains in this undifferentiated stage. The cleavages are not proper. SO it is the male Ambiguous Genitalia that was supposed to form into male genitals, but due to ARD stopped at an earlier stage >note here it didn't form the vagina(vagina is misinterpreted in this case by non-professionals infact it is undifferentiated form of male genitalia). this is the answer to your last statement. Please don't argue when you lack sufficient knowledge of the subject...as arguing and arguing will waste time of others. (Never take it is as offense but have positive approach) Thanks a lot for allowing me to clarify this to you. §kam§119.153.156.129 (talk) 10:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Besides this male and females have many anatomical differences as well.....pelvis, tubercles in bones, Carrying angles in arms of females as sec. sexual ch., etc. etc. there are many. §kam§

Jared Diamond hypothetical in his statement surely talked about change in "testosterone binding site" could result in formation of vagina in male. From above of my statements you will notice that even ARD doesn't develop vagina INFACT it is the lack of differentiation from common genital sheath. (Now plz don't take this point as male and female humans in fetal stages are identical.......every living thing originates from identical cells that afterwards differentiate into completely different and diverse organisms) THANKS a lot again. Don't argue unnecessarily...by arguing truth doesn't change. By "superficial" knowing of the subject, one can not understand the depths regarding it. §kam§119.153.156.129 (talk) 10:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I ignored your ad hominem attack against me, but then you lost me with the next paragraph ("First of all ARD is not a sex-chromosomal disease [...]"), which is rather long and completely pointless. Who do you think you are contradicting or teaching anything? Please read our talk page guidelines. If you continue to abuse this talk page for soap boxing, I will ask an admin to remove your contributions. Hans Adler 10:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Your behaviour is also on the record. Don't comment too much and stick to the subject! You are indulging yourself in ARD and then when explained to you are trying to be offensive. If you don't know, then stop saying things and For your last sentence I myself will talk to admins around those who are related with medicine. And please stop arguing about non-issues. Thanks §kam§119.153.156.129 (talk) 10:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Lactation vs Galactorrhea

The lack of precise distinction is needlessly drawing controversy to this article. Richiez (talk) 16:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Galactorrhea is a more appropriate term, because that condition is well-established in human males with particular endocrinological abnormalities. Lactation by men, i.e. breast-feeding by men, is decidedly rare and even controversial. I think the article should be renamed "Galactorrhea in men" or "Male galactorrhea", and "Lactation" could be a sub-section. -- Scray (talk) 18:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I think there is no need for yet another article. First this article needs to start with a definition. What is male lactation, how does it differ from galactorrhea, how does it differ from male breastfeeding (this may look ridiculous but we have separate articles about lactation and breastfeeding). Once there is a working definition we can fix content. Richiez (talk) 20:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I also agree with Scary. But any changes to the article be made with extreme caution so that it does not become a FLAW. However use for appropriate MEDICAL WORDS is the path to success and indeed would help WIKIPEDIA. "Galactorrhea is the word used for abnormality in this regard....IT IS NOT A PHYSIOLOGICAL CONDITION INFACT AN ABNORMALITY. Renaming would be helpful for better explaining the article as a medical term not just a layman gossip. Thanks and peace to all. §kam§119.153.69.5 (talk) 09:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Removed material

Some snippets that did not fit into the article and may be worth merging into galactorrhea after a bit of thinking. Richiez (talk) 12:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Though the mammary glands of human males do not produce milk automatically under normal conditions, with anti-cancer chemotherapy medications—mimicking that which human females produce naturally when they become pregnant and give birth—they can.

Extreme stress combined with demanding physical activity and a shortage of food has also been known to cause male lactation. The phenomenon occurred in survivors of the liberated Nazi concentration camps after World War II. Some American POWs returning from the Korean and Vietnam Wars also experienced male lactation.

References

overaggressive gender-inclusivity

The History section has a quote "It is well known that in the males of all mammals, including [hu]man[s], ..." from Darwin. Is the editorial change of word really necessary? I work as a choir director for a fairly progressive church, and am familiar and sympathetic to the rationale for modifying historical prose to be more gender-inclusive... but the change seems out of place here, given that Darwin is clearly only talking about males in this sentence. 2601:200:C100:40A0:C1C8:143C:4FA6:3977 (talk) 06:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Whoever added "including [hu]man[s]" in place of "including man" likely wanted the text to be clearer. I wouldn't really call it gender-inclusive since it's not including females/women. It's simply using "humans" instead of "man"...since using "man" to refer to the human species is considered sexist and outdated by many today. But I don't see that the quote needed changing and wouldn't oppose it being presented in its original form. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:56, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Putting the amendments in square brackets make it clear both what Darwin said and what he meant. I wouldn't call it "changing" the quote at all. When Darwin wrote "man", it was deemed gender-inclusive. Now it isn't, and "males of ... man" looks peculiar, especially in a context where sex matters, so the clarification is useful -- Hugh7 (talk) 22:33, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Human male lactation

The section Human male lactation includes the text "Also, the male breasts lack special lobules that are anatomically present in a female's breast." As far as I can see, this information doesn't appear in the cited article and the section doesn't tell what exactly these "special lobules" are. I think the cite should be moved back to the previous sentence as that information is supported by the article, and this part either removed or marked as needing a citation and clarification.62.151.109.1 (talk) 13:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Heat of this topic

Many of the posts in this section seem quite aggressive and judgemental. Clearly something about it sets people off. The article itself seems overly defensive about putting the words "male" and "lactation" together, yet it seems the logical way to describe men producing milk from their nipples (which virtually all men, except the overly airbrushed, have). Please remember that this affects people, who have feelings. What with some babies, men with gynecomastia and various conditions mentioned here causing male lactation, and the shame associated with being "unmanly", it may be much more common than we know. Clearly, some of the commentary is influenced by the recent "culture wars" attacks on trans people and the determination by some people to force everyone into a strictly binary, male or female, no-ifs-no-buts, box. -- Hugh7 (talk) 22:49, 8 November 2023 (UTC)