Talk:Gynecomastia/Archive 1

Archive 1

rBGH

I'm sure this surge in absurd gynecomastia rates amongst boys for the past 50 years only coincides coincidentally with the period that the milk producers injected cows with rBGH (Recombenant Bovine Growth Hormone). Of course such information is verbotten on Wikipedia. Europes rates are much lower and they don't put hormones in their cows. With forced circumcision and chemical contamination by America's ruthless industries, one wonders if America is nothing more than a large guinea pig factory.

The (preventative) solutions for Gynecomastia (i.e. how to prevent it in your child):
1) Your wife should only drink rBGH free milk or goats milk
2) Reduce the meat and animal fat intake (Fish products are highly recommended but not shellfish or crustacean).
3) Don't eat grains baked softly. Always burn/toast your bread before eating. Make sure it is rock hard. The goal is to slow the rate of carbohydrate absorption by the body while keeping the feeling of fullness. Eat (al dente) pastas often.
4) Excercise.

Look at old people who were born before the medical industrial complex started mutilating and dosing children en masse. You don't see them walking around with double d's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.222.245 (talk) 13:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Unsigned seems pretty confident in his/her advice, but where are the references? Who says eating burnt toast is good for you? And does he have any evidence that there are male children with "double d's?" The ones on this page seemed a bit more...subtle. Circumcision is totally off topic. Savonnn (talk) 20:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that references are needed.. the claim that "absurd" (I assume this is meaning "severe") gynecomastia rates are lower in Europe than the US would be interesting and merit inclusion.. If indeed someone has done such a comparison and published it, possibly even if it were only a speculative conclusion published in "possible psudo-journals" such as Medical Hypotheses or Environmental Health Perspectives.. More interesting still would be if anyone has looked at rates against the usage of rBGH in different countries and against milk consumption, and cow versus other milk consumption data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.9.142.231 (talk) 17:04, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Bench press

Does bench press help distinguish gynecomastia? Ripper404 (talk) 03:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

I don't think Gilbert's Syndrome is a cause of gynecomastia. Does anyone have a reference for this? Cybergoth

We'll settle the issue later. At the moment the text was a copy & paste from here, and hence a copyvio. JFW | T@lk 23:26, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Feh. Looks like when I wrote the initial article I used that as my main source, but I rewrote it. It looks like 65.247.35.18 put in the copyvio a month later and I didn't notice, probably because the similarities between the versions made it look like it was just a very extensive copyedit [1]. Looking back at the diffs, though, even my original version may have too substantial a similarity in the opening paragraph to simply revert to that. Should've added an external link from the beginning, sorry about that. Bryan 23:57, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I've been working on a major edit of this article, with references. I can re-write it some more and post it in the temp page later. Cyberoth 22:41 (EST), 11 August 2005

I've just posted the re-written article! Cybergoth 23:08 (EST), 11 August 2005

Beautiful! Could you expand the references to include authors, article name and PMID code. Just type PMID 12345678 and the Wiki will turn it into a link to PubMed. JFW | T@lk 07:30, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I had done the research a while ago, so I don't have the details handy. I'll have to look them up later. Cybergoth 17:09, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

When is the subpage going to replace the old article? 216.218.44.237 17:54, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Does fat in the area stimulate growth of glandular tissue as well? I think I read somewhere that it does, meaning if you get fat, grow 'fat breasts', then lose weight, the breasts tend to remain.. or even that growing muscular pecs and letting them atrophy results in larger breast tissue.. as if anything even being 'in the area' stimulates growth. Can we find any sources for this? I know I read it somewhere. User:216.49.220.19

AFAIK - but I am no doctor - it is not fat in that area that stimulates this growth, but fat in general - testosterone is changed into estrogen far more in fat than in other tissue; hence, more fat, more estrogen, more growth of glandular tissue. And glandular tissue is indeed hard to loose again. -- AlexR 17:04, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Do post-adolescent men who decide to become eunuchs need to worry about developing gynecomastia? 208.188.2.101 19:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Mcd

Living with Gynecomastia

Is anyone going to add anything on Living with this condition? All I see is a need for medical intervention. What about accepting it and supporting it? Kit Triforce

Supporting them? JFW | T@lk 23:29, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Bad jokes like that just amplify the suffering.

Since this is almost always a purely cosmetic problem, what specifically did you have in mind in the way of "acceptance and support"? Believe me, all doctors would prefer that guys with this could see it this way. alteripse 00:49, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

It was not meant as a bad joke but as an ironic observation. If people elect not to have surgery this is "acceptance". Support, I agree, is difficult. It is not exactly a disability. JFW | T@lk 19:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I was just "appreciating" your wit. I know this sounds callous, but I am curious what the inquirer had in mind besides looking earnestly and sympathetically at the patient and saying, "Deal." Somehow I can't see support groups... alteripse 01:28, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Guess I should take credit for starting this. I feel like I'm the poster boy for "Living with Gynecomastia", as I have given multiple interviews on the subject. If anyone has seen the Channel 4 "Boys With Breasts" or the American version "Men With Breasts" on TLC/Discovery, I'm one of the guys who choose to live with the condition. I regularly wear a bra (50DD in US measurements) as it has made a world of difference in reducing back pain. I have come to "embrace" my condition (I love these puns, I find the "support" gag hysterical), as does my wife. As for support groups, one already exists via the link already posted in the main article. As to what I had in mind, I was thinking along the lines of explaining the commonality of this condition (I'm aware that my DD figure is way outside the norm) means that people experiencing this don't need to feel alone, or that surgery is the only option. As a strongly heterosexual male, I have come to accept and enjoy having breasts, feel they are a part of who I am, and am greatful for the strengths I have gained as a result of having them. I have a different perspective than most men my age, and that has changed me into the man I am today. I guess the gist of what I'm trying to add to this is that it's okay to be different, and that society needs a better understanding of this condition. Kit Triforce 17:49, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you modify that a little bit and add it intto the article? I was not aware of those tv shows (dont watch much) or any support groups. I still have trouble imagining a way to put a positive spin on your story for a distressed teenage boy. Very few show signs of being able to laugh about it if they have come to the doctor about it. I am very in favor of encouraging people to be less bothered by a difference like this but find it difficult to help someone else see it that way unless they already do. Jokes aside, this is clearly an emotionally distressing issue for many young men, especially those not able to afford mammoplasties, and maybe it would be worthwhile to have a non-porn website that offers positive perspectives on it. Do you know of any? How about putting one together? alteripse 18:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

---

I'm living with Gynecomastia myself, I started to develop it around the age 10. Kids teased me, both guys and girls, one girl said to me in gym class as we were jogging around "you have bigger breasts than I do" of course it took the rest of the day for me to come up with a wise remark for it like "everyone does" which I never was able to fire back with. My cousins even noticed them and teased, I am now 22 years old and I have never had a girl friend, 99.9% of the time I stay inside the house, which yes.. I live with "mommy" I have no job/income and can't see any future for myself as long as I am unable to find support from someone/anyone who can see this goes beyond the classification of being purely cosmetic. I know that for myself, any psychological attempt to make me "deal with it" will fail, because I have tried such attempts and that is how I obtained my G.E.D in college. It worked, but only for a limited time... eventually the stability of my mind shattered again and without giving reason, without showing up I simply stopped going to college. I cut off all contact with any friends or cousins and just sit here wasting away. As I look back at the start of my message "I'm living with Gynecomastia myself" I stop of think "am I really living?" I can't stand it when someone tries to tell me that the problem is not the gynecomastia but it is my view of the gynecomastia, or when they try to push drugs onto me telling me it's just depression. This is all false, gynecomastia is a disorder (Order being males having masculine chests, disorder being males having feminine chests) it is not always just cosmetic. If one person is able to live a normal life with gynecomastia that's great! More power to them, but there are some who just cannot, myself included. I have tried to force myself into the public, I always go into hiding. I have tried to "trick" myself and say "no one notices" and that too fails miserably, I try to act like I don't care what others think but the fact is that I do and I can't help that. I am unable to find any way for me to gain the funding necessary for surgery without the requirement to be around people, I have tried sites for government grants, I have written to the gov. and numerous surgeons who all say "we can't help you" I am afraid that if one day I finally do have the funding and get the surgery done that I will not know how to take care of myself in the real world because I have never known anything different than these walls which hide me. Will I know how to behave like a normal person? Forkingspoons

---

Forkinspoonds, I am deeply touched by your story! I used to be in the same boat. However, I got my breast removed by lipo... not cheap $1,200 on top of my government funded insurance. It does relief a lot of stress! I wish some day I can start a foundation to fund operation for people like you. For now, my pray goes out to you! Best Wishes and Happy New Year!

Charles Huang, Documentary Producer "Me vs. My Breast"ifireworks

I hate to be a party pooper, but it's starting to look like this talk page is turning into a general discussion forum. That's not what talk pages are for; see Wikipedia:Talk pages. We should stick to discussion of the article itself here. Does anyone have ideas for specific changes to the text they want to talk about? Bryan 02:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Forkinspoonds, I read your story. And I am really emphatic to your state of mind. I m having gynecomastia since I was 13 year old. The reason why I said that I understand your state of mind is not only because even I m suffering through the same condition but also the kind of thinking that u posses right now. Now read me carefully, U have to take life very seriously. First thing for u to do is find a well experienced surgeon or cosmotologist who would operate and remove those tissues because of which it has happened. Second thing, u have to pull yourself for a rigorous workout. Keep skipping for 20 mins three times a day in your own bedroom and sweat as much as possible. Later on get the surgery done as per the guidance of the surgeon. Make sure u talk to him very carefully about the tissues to be removed. And hey, u'll be a new person altogether. I m 26 year old, I had been researching on this since last 2 years with both aides of internet and books. After thorough study,research and meetings with numerous surgeons I manifested that its just an ABNORMAL EXPANSION OF GRANDULAR TISSUES WHICH ARE BETTER CALLED AS MALE-BREAST. Just loose as much as fats possible and prepare yourself mentally to go under the knife. Remember the verbiage "NO PAIN NO GAIN". There are thousands of people with such disorder, Forkinspoonds, so don't be scared to exhibit to any certified surgeon. I didn't remove my T-shirt or vest since the time I was 13 year old. I am getting under the knife in recent future with lot of positive attitude. And quite positive that things would turn for me now.--Kalex007 (talk) 05:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I am disappointed that almost four years have elapsed with nothing more said on the subject of "Living with Gynecomastia". Having visited the article somewhat late in the day, it seems to me that there is an unfair bias toward treating gynecomastia as if it was always and inevitably an affliction for which males ought to always seek a remedy, whether it be surgical or otherwise.

From my own experience, and that of others whom I have encountered at various locations on the web - including comments above - there are males who not only do not view gynecomastia as an ailment but accept it as a desirable, albeit different, feature of their physique. And I do not believe that a male who does so must be somehow strange.
I am not sure how to include a mention in the article of this approach to gynecomastia, but it ought to be there in any case, if only to acknowledge the fact that not all males who have it feel that they suffer from it or the "stigma" that is put forward as the only reaction of others to men who have it. Acceptance of gynecomastia is, after all, a very healthy and grounded approach to it. But perhaps I am biased because I am happy to have gynecomastia.
I'd like to hear from others who feel likewise and have suggestions how to make the article less subjective in this regard. 184.41.4.6 (talk) 06:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Example Picture Added

Hello - Just thought I'd add a picture of myself, as I am a Teeanger and I suffer from relatively severe Gynecomastia bought on from a combination of puberty and obesity (clinically diagnosed). Drop me a line im my talk if u wish to comment, or on this article. - Boochan 13:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC) - Boochan 13:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for adding your picture. - Cybergoth 03:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

No Problem - I've got a relatively unique body type and size... don't mind using pictures of it to help good causes such as this article. - Boochan 03:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Where is the picture, can u repost it?

"Manboobs" and other redirects

"Manboobs" redirects here. While I guess the term may be fitting for gynecomastia (if a little too derogatory for that context), I believe "manboobs" more often refers to what develops simply from too much fat. I have "manboobs" in that sense (I'm pretty sure I don't have gynecomastia) and I've been trying to work them off... Perhaps a separate article should be created? - furrykef (Talk at me) 20:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Manboobs are a mild form of gynecomastia. Face it. JFW | T@lk 20:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Pseudogynecomastia and gynecomastia are not the same thing. "Man boobs" are not a mild form of gynecomastia. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 23:46, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I was looking up "Moobs" as a joke and came across this page. While someone who is diagnosed with gynecomastia might be considered as having moobs (aka Man Boobs), someone can have moobs and not have gynecomastia. I think the article should be seperated since having moobs is not a medical condition.

That should be stated in the article, then. Disavian 19:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks like some contributor is a Fight Club fan, "bitch tits" redirects here.

This article seems to get vandalized regularly. I wonder if the various redirects from slang (eg. Moobs, Manboobs, etc) should be deleted? - Cybergoth 20:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the "Moobs" thing should re-direct here...it should have a seperate article, perhaps, discussing the fact that it is a deragatory term for this condition or obesity...it should be understood that it is a medical condition, and that it should not be referred to in any way that is considered offensive...Twitterpated. (talk) 01:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

If "man boobs" are to be discussed on Wikipedia at all (I believe the subject matter is too small and will not fill out an entire article), it should definitely be on a different page. Until then, there should be no redirects of man boobs to here and possibly just a fleeting mention of it here, such as, "It is important to note that gynecomastia is not the same as the enlarged breasts seen by men who have experienced weight gain, derogatively known as 'man boobs.'" JDCAce (talk) 05:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Lavender Oil and Tea Tree Oil

Why doesn't someone update the article to give the cause of the hormone imbalance in young children? A list of the products that should be regulated or outlawed should be included also. I would suspect that there are dozens of offending products. For details, check Lavender Oil or Tea Tree Oil in Wikipedia. . Somitcw 02:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

2006-07-01 Science News article:

Full article is only available to subscribers: http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20060701/fob8.asp

Non-subscribers can get to the table of contents: http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20060701/toc.asp

Non-subscribers can also see the references and sources: http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20060701/fob8ref.asp . Somitcw 07:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Add Alternate Terms?

Should we add the alternative terms to the article?

i.e. "Man-Boobies"

I realize that the terms may be humourous to some readers, but should we add them?

72.82.176.221 08:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Right now, there are redirects to this article from the various slang/alternate terms. I fear that adding them into the article will make it a magnet for vandalism. - Cybergoth 15:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

A redrect is best. Iolakana•T 20:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I added them to the article without seeing this discussion but I do feel that the colloquial names should at least be mentioned somewhere - if only to give a bit of context for the people that found the article by searching for 'bitch tits' or 'manboobs', etc. These terms are in very common use, after all. The fact that it *may* attract vandals shouldn't prevent the article from containing relevent information - vandalism can easily be dealt with. --Kurt Shaped Box 23:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I cannot think of/find another medical article which adds such so-called "alternate" terms in the main paragraph or introduction. Forget "may attract vandals" - this article *does* attract vandals. I really don't want to see this article locked down like the mental retardation article. - Cybergoth 04:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Heh, I found one with a couple of clicks. Have a look at Genu valgum. The Fatty liver article is named after the common term and has the medical name in the intro. My rationale for adding the slang terms (no vandalism/disruption intended) is that perhaps someone who has 'bitch tits' may actually look up the term, concerned about it - and may find it helpful to see the term down in black and white, linking it directly with their own medical condition. --Kurt Shaped Box 08:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but "knock knees" is arguably less derogatory than bitch tits. (A case can be made for renaming the fatty liver article too.) The penis article doesn't include the numerous slang words either. Also, I think there are too many slang terms for gynecomastia (moobs, bitch tits, man-boobs, man-boobies, gyno, etc.) - to include them all would detract from the main article. - Cybergoth 18:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Today a friend told me that having "bitch tits" was actually a medical condition. Since he didn't recall the official name for it, the only way I could find "gynecomastia" was to enter "bitch tits" into a search engine. As someone who used to be self-conscious about having what I considered a flabby chest, I'm glad people are mindful of the emotional harm inflicted by such phrases as "bitch tits" or "man boobs". But while I do not endorse the use of these terms, neither can I wish them away. Not only do they exist, but they may be the primary context through which certain segments of the population know about gynecomastia. For this reason, please retain the "redirects" and consider mentioning the various colloquial slurs, at least briefly, in the article. In addition to educating the public, making note of these derogatory terms might help some physicians, whose "bedside manner" may improve once they understand the specific ways a medical condition is likely to be stigmatized in the public realm.M. Frederick 21:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at the "Man-boobs redirect" section...Twitterpated. (talk) 01:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems the redirects referred to in one of the first comments in this section have been removed. That's a good thing.

Compare this article with the one on "Breast", which is wholly about the female human breast. The wikisaurus section of Wiktionary gives more than 30 synonyms for "breast". But none of them is mentioned in that article aside from the single redirect (from "Boobs"). Note that the Breast article is edit protected, too. This one is not (yet).

• If there is a place for all the alternative words, it's in the wikisaurus section of Wikipedia. Don't overburden this article with redirects.

2602:306:2422:89:6D64:3C43:7C97:B0E1 (talk) 01:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Before & after images

Aside from fact that images are placed at wrong location (under Causes rather than Treatment), it does not appear obvious that the "after" image is of the same patient. Both images are tagged as self-made, but do not seem to be of User:Paskari given the images of himself on his userpage. I think further information on the source of the images therefore needs to be given - see User talk:Paskari#Gynecomastia. David Ruben ^Talk 12:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Paskari has now removed the second image - Thank you David Ruben ^Talk 13:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Marijuana reference

"Marijuana use is also thought by some to be a possible cause."

Thought? Without reason? Is there a study that can be cited? NjtoTX 17:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

There were a couple of case reports in the medical literature in the 1970s (obviously without conclusive proof of a causal relationship) but I don't there has been any stronger evidence since then and most doctors today (many of whom inhaled in the 1970s) discount the possibility. I consider it an interesting example of distortion of critical analysis by too much social desire to have a substance blamed or exculpated (both directions). alteripse 18:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I too take SERIOUS exception to this CLAIM and other sources that indicate alchohol, steroids, obesity, etc as causes... all of these are results of the condition and trying to cope or self medicate- NOT causes. As if I dont have enough to worry about, without people judging me and accusing me of negative things as if this is somehow my own fault. Is everybody who researches this going to label me as a pot smoker and steroid user?

No one who researches gynecomastia thinks most young men with it are either one. Just check "gynecomastia" in pubmed and you will find no one has been publishing research on the old marijuana connection. Anabolic steroids account for a tiny percentage of gynecomastia in young men, and few are researching it because you can't easily do research on people doing illegal or foolish things. alteripse 21:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

If published data is contradictory to the idea that marijuana is a caus for gynecomastia, why is that idea included in Wikipedia? If Wikipedia wishes to be considered as a serious, reputable reference, shouldn't it be in conformance with all published data? 24.136.6.189 10:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)SammyG

muscle growth

I'm an 18 year old football player at the college level. I'm 6'2 and i weigh 250 lbs. I've been dealing with "man boobs" since I was probally 10 years old. No matter how much weight I lose or how hard I work out in the weight room, I have not been able to get rid of them. I've learned to deal with them basically by hiding them. I don't think that I've gone swimming in years just because I hate people asking me why I don't take my shirt off. My question is, does gynecomastia alter your muscle growth. Like I mentioned earlier, I am a football player and I have been lifting weights very hard for the past 5 years. I excelled in every area except one, my chest area. It's embarrasing because I barely bench. I'm putting up very low amounts despite the fact that I have worked and worked and worked to get stronger in my chest area. Whenever I lift upper body, my cheast hurts to the point where it's hard to eat but I gain nothing. Sometimes I think "they" have gotten bigger.If it does alter muscle growth, is there any way around it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.231.160.6 (talk) 17:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

Pseudogynecomastia

The picture in the article is not true gynecomastia, when males appear to have breasts because of excess fat it is called Pseudogynecomastia[[2]] 24.175.111.135 17:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

This was made clear firstly in the picture description, and secondly unless my doctor is a quack, I have been diagnosed with slightly less then heavy gynecomastia, and my obesity adds onto what is already there in the first place which is why mine in the picture are so large. Besides, I am sure all but the most skinniest of males that have gynecomastia have a bit of pseudo on the top. This was what I was advised anyway. Boochan 00:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Despite the latest IP who reverted this actually comes from a Learning Institution, I find it quite ridiculous he is willing to make a judgment on a single picture, on wikipedia. I certainly hope its not a doctor, because a diagnosis from one picture of their been zero hypertrophy (that I have the underlying problem is proved since I developed it before I got as obese as I am, when I was around 11 and slightly overweight only) is just poor practice. - Boochan 12:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, wiki gets alot of this nonsense. Its probably former US senator Bill Frist, the doctor that can diagnose patients via video. He's gotten so good now I hear he can diagnose cancer via your email. Its amazing. --Art8641 19:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Added resources about Living with Gynecomastia, Stress of Dealing with Gynecomastia, Puffy Nipple Lay terms, and image galleries

I am a plastic surgeon and treat up to 8 gynecomastia patients a day from around the world. I have been dealing with helping the public learn about this condition for now more than 30 years.

Dealing with so many gynecomastia patients, it is hard to express their frustration with the public just not understanding the problem. The anger is intense and most cannot express themselves why they feel so stressed out about their problem. I put a video of a particularly eloquent patient describing his living with gynecomastia up to help family and others understand the Emotion Behind Gynecomastia. Unfortunately there is noting like hearing the stress in the human voice to emphasize the emotional component, it would have been nice to show the face, but then I would not have been permitted to share his experience. I added it as a reference as I thought it was the best way to show that such details were available to those trying to deal with this problem.

Public phrases like those listed puffy nips also include "bitch tits" but I did not know if that was permitted here. So many just do not recognize gynecomastia but the lay phases added.

Non-surgical compression garments have been a major source of stress relief for those waiting to see if their gynecomastia would resolve on its own, or were dealing with losing weight, or just could not afford surgery. This link is to examples of how effective / not effective garments can be for real life sufferers of gynecomastia. Fat people still look fat but the bouncing is stabilized. Many have told me of the differences the garments have made their lives. The parents of one 14 year old child from Trinidad told me he was a different person just from use of the garment while waiting the year his endocrinologist wanted for his medical condition to stabilize. The actual surgery made a greater difference.

Gynecomastia comes in so many differnt forms that the limited pictures just does not tell the story well at all. The Gynecomastia Gallery link is a much more comprehensive method of demonstrating the problem.

Hope the additions were according to form.

DrBermant 10:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Restored deleted resource previously reviewed by many here deleted by Gc2: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gynecomastia&diff=prev&oldid=120635418--Plastic Surgeon 11:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Thats fine, as its defintely not operating as a free plug for your services from what I can see. - Boochan 11:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

From my interpretation of Wikipedia:Attribution, it seems like these links should be replaced with free or verifiable alternatives as soon as possible. In the case of images, I should note that I am organizing an effort to provide similar images on the Commons. In the case under discussion, while it's notable that Dr. Bermant is obviously a "recognized expert", the self-linking falls, in my interpretation, in grey areas covered by the Using questionable or self-published sources section of WP:A. In other discussions (which I can't now seem to find - I thought they were either in the Klinfelter's syndrome discussion archive or in one of User:Alteripse's discussion archives), Plastic Surgeon has asserted that his site is peer reviewed to some extent, but it is not a journal or other official recognized verifiable source (according to Wikipedia policy/guidelines - like a journal article or newspaper article). Note that we're out of the realm of guidelines and into the realm of policy.

Since this linking Plastic Surgeon is something he is repeatedly doing (look at his contributions), and other editors have objected (see his Talk page), and this linking lies, I think, in the grey area of Wikipedia:Attribution, WP:SPAM, and possibly other guidelines/policies, I'd advise User:Plastic Surgeon desist until an opinion is reached, rather than continue the practice of apparently considering his self-produced links most authoritative. I think it's pretty obvious from the policies that his self-produced links should be used only if there is no better alternative. --MalcolmGin 12:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. The reason for adding it back in was for viewer experience to learn about gynecomastia. Check out what images are available

http://medicine.ucsd.edu/Clinicalimg/Thorax-gynecomastia.jpg - 1 image

http://images.webmd.com/images/hw/media69/medical/hw/n5551142.jpg - 1 image

http://www.seykota.com/tribe/FAQ/2006_Apr/21/gynecomastia.jpg - 1 image

http://www.plasticsurgery4u.com/gynecomastia_gallery/index.html - organized access to several thousand images of gynecomastia before and after surgery classified to the many different forms that gynecomastia can take. To my knowledge it is the biggest resource of images of gynecomastia in the literature or world published in any form accessible to the public for free.--Plastic Surgeon 12:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Bitch Tits

There are many phrases my patients use to describe their gynecomastia. The most common are puffy nipples, puffed nips, gyno, and man boobs. Another one is "bitch tits." It is used mostly among my bodybuilder patients. It has been amusing watching that term appear and disappear with different editors adding it and other removing it as "spam." I suggest adding it and leaving it.--Plastic Surgeon 10:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Its a reference from the movie Fight Club, which would be obscure on a worldwide basis. Its also so we don't end up getting a mass amount of everyones favorite name for gyne. I'll keep them this time since its been done by someone reputable and not a random IP who has probably heard the reference and put it there without intent of actually informing people. - Boochan 12:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It might be good to have these terms, but don't say something like "this condition is also known as...", but rather something like "this condition is sometimes called...". Just to avoid any offensiveness or bias. That's all. Twitterpated. (talk) 01:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Advertising

Per WP:ADVERT, I have removed what is a thinly digisued advertisement for Compression Vests. Maybe if you can re-write it without plugging your website or been a POV Pusher for your production, I will leave it. User:Plastic Surgeon's edits are justified because he is not trying to plug his website or Pushing a specific Point of View across. I Myself will be patrolling this page and removing all advertising thats attempted to be put through from now, because its just not acceptable - Boochan 07:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Would be extremely interested to hear your opinion of the two remaining references in this article that point to User:DrBermant's (notice the redirect) site, numbers 4 and 12. WP:ADVERT or not? This has direct bearing on other similar edits that have been made to topics that are related to User:DrBermant's line of business. I have encountered similar edits on Klinefelter's syndrome and argued for their removal (past versions of the page included many links to User:DrBermant's business web site). Informational pages or not, should these pages be used as references when they are not officially, obviously refereed? --MalcolmGin 01:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

You have already asked my opinion about this and I will give it again publicly. Until we have an equivalent noncommercial source, the usefulness of the material overrides the disadvantage of a commercial source. Period. Let's put it in External links with a full description, including that it is a commercial site. Please put as much energy into adding good material to the articles than you have been putting into removing it. If you really think you are expressing community consensus on these two articles, please request community comment. Thanks. alteripse 14:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I was not asking your opinion, Alteripse, but Boochan's. Please do not presume to answer for Boochan unless he says so. Thanks. --MalcolmGin 14:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Looking at WP:RFC it seems to me that requesting for comment on either User:Plastic Surgeon's methods or on Gynecomastia, Klinefelter's syndrome or other articles where User:Plastic Surgeon has contributed and been called out for spamming may be too early, as I feel, as you apparently did at one time, that we could discuss this and find other alternatives. If you do not feel this is so, perhaps you should file for comment. --MalcolmGin 14:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I have, however, just posted this article (along with others with a similar editing profile by User:Plastic Surgeon) to Wikiquette alerts, a place where editors can go to request more informal opinions by other editors about issues just like the one we're discussing here. I've tried to present as balanced a view as I'm constitutionally capable of doing. Please pardon the extremely circuitous language about identity. That's part of the page's policy, as is the unnamed signature there.--MalcolmGin 21:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding this, would it be possible to remove the address information from the author of the 'before and after surgery' images, as it seems like showing someone's condition before and then after cosmetic surgery and then supplying the surgeon's contact details thereafter is blatant self-advertising? In this context I would have thought that only the 'before' images are necessary. especially when such surgery is unnecessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.108.77.37 (talk) 23:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

first hand experience

i am not fat at all, however, i have breasts that protrude about 2cm forward of me. its terrible. i really want to have surgery, i have read that people suffer this for years before it goes down. i have suffered for about 4 - 5 months, i can't wait any longer. is there ANY kind of treatment????????? :( —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.44.158.81 (talk) 10:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

Check the External Links. - Boochan 13:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Alternative reactions to Gynecomastia

Although the most prevalent published reactions to gyno seem to be negative and driven by the experience of social reaction rather than one's own personal sense of well-being. It is clear that some gyno cases are iatrogentic, that is the consequence of medical treatment. Bodybuilders can easily develop gyno by improperly or deliberately manipulating their hormonal supplements (primarily through unopposed exogenous injection of Testosterone and Human Chorionic Gonadotropin (HCG) or Human Menopausal Hormones (HMH=LH+FSH)). One might call this auto-iatrogenic gynecomastia since it results from self-prescribed medical intervention. Competitive bodybuilders and those concerned about displaying a hyper-masculine body image try to avoid this form of gyno by limiting cycles and using a large array of anti-estrogens, anti-aromatases, SERMs, etc. both on and off cycle. Others more focused on their own perceptions of their body have discovered that a great increase in erotic nipple and breast sensitivity accompanies this type of gyno, especially if allowed free development. They have learned that the developed male nipple is an important male sex organ. There is a significant community of men with moderate to extreme gyno who will experience ejaculatory orgasm under nipple/breast stimulation. Still more will experience a non-ejaculatory "chest orgasm" that often extends to the pectoral muscles, which seem to receive some sort of stimulation through the nipple. These men enjoy their gynecomastia to a great degree and would never consider any sort of surgical intervention that would affect this acquired sensitivity.

Evidence for this abounds on the areas of the web devoted to bodybuilding and erotica if one makes a little effort. I have no idea if gyno caused by an actual medical (defect of hormone secretion or clearance) or behavioral (overeating?) condition produces similar effects. It would be reasonable to expect that gyno originating from hormones would yield enhanced sensitivity and response, although there could easily be a large genetic predisposition as well. Since gyno almost naturally develops in elderly men, is there a possibility that this should actually be viewed as a final stage of sexual maturation, finally giving access to the erotic potential of the nipple? Or is the sex drive in the elderly too weak to realize this?

I am interested if anyone would agree with me that something along these lines should be at least mentioned in the main article. At present, the tone of the article reads like hype from the medical community, unattenuated by reality. Even though the article's statements are mostly supported by evidence, there is plenty of additional evidence from outside the medical community that shows that the medical view is rather narrow and (dare I say?) Calvinistic. Ldmjr (talk) 01:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

beta hCG and Gynecomastia

Hi gyus, I've tried all day long to find out how beta-hCG, produced by some special subtypes of testical cancer cells can make Gynecomastia. What I found was that beta-hCG binds to the same receptors than LH. Somehow it has to increase Estrogen, but I have no idea. Some help would be great. Thanks

hCG binds to LH receptors. That is how it works in both women and men. In the testes, LH stimulates testosterone production and FSH stimulates sperm production, to make it simple. Excess testosterone aromatizes to excess estrogen (which normally shuts down pituitary LH secretion until T levels fall). Exogenous hCG triggers gyno through this pathway. Although hCG has been used to improve male fertility, it is generally accepted that HMG (Repronex) is much more effective because it also stimuates spermatogenesis. FSH without high intratesticular T (induced by LH or hCG) does not induce sperm formation. Ldmjr (talk) 01:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Image

Can we make it so the image doesn't show up on the page straight away? Like a link to click on instead. - The Daddy 11:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Only wikipedia's own stored images are appropriate to link to (ie confirmed fair use etc), so we should not have links to images off-site. Exception perhaps in External Links section if a good source to point to, but that should be for information which is beyond teh scope of what should be included if an article were to be at Featured Article status.

Given the image store is for use within articles, it is not general policy to provide the link to images vs the images themselves, instead they are translocated and incorporated into relevant articles by the standard image display markup.

What is the reason for your suggestion - if it is that the image seems a little too large, this can be reduced from within the infobox. If though the objection is that the image is distasteful, then this would be the same issue as previous discussions held about images of say breasts on breast page, or pathology images on other disease topics. As I understand things, generally wikipedia does not follow "prudish" self-censoring and it has been thought appropriate to illustrate conditions if suitable clear (and GNU free licence) images are available. David Ruben ^Talk 12:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not sure how many the article needs, but Image:Overweight biker.jpg is another image that could be used. GregManninLB (talk) 01:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Treating gynecomastia

It's a good idea to get your hormone and prolactin levels tested. It can be caused by prolactin, estrogen and progesterone. Eliminate any steroid or estrogenic intake, including steroidal aromatase inhibitors such as formestane. All steroids contribute to gyno more or less. Eliminate any drugs that deplete dopamine such as antipsychotics. Use cabergoline 0.5-1 mg/week to reduce prolactin and shrink the nipple area. Use an AI such as arimidex to decrease estrogen and restore test/est balance. Add tamoxifen if necessary to block estrogen and boost testosterone. Cabergoline will show visible shrinkage within a week of the nipple area, the others takes months to get an effect. Do not stop the drugs without monitoring for rebound spikes in prolacting or estrogen. Use a topical fat burner such as TD theophylline on the breast tissue. Topical dihydrotestosterone may be tried but be careful as it could worsen it. Treatment takes up to 1-2 years. 93.161.104.154 (talk) 13:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Please note that there are no FDA approved treatments/medications for breast tissue in men. See your primary care physician if you believe your hormones are not in balance, and you will be referred to an endocrinologist for proper evaluation and testing. Do not use topical creams on your chest, as they are not FDA approved to treat Gynecomastia. As always, do not follow random advice from people on the web. --Cakesmack (talk) 14:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Is it ethical to use photos that show possibly identify tattoos?

Two of the photos in this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gynecomastia_in_Bodybuilder.jpg & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Asymmetric_Gynecomastia.jpg) show men with tattoos. The second photo especially shows the tattoo in good detail and the individual may be identifiable to a known party. Is the presence of these images ethical? 129.67.122.25 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC).

Copyediting

I fixed a few problems with the article, particuarly large images without thumbnails and captions. Less bold text and incorporating it into paragraphs, added a break into the lead as it just reads better this way. I also added a gallery, to avoid stacking, due to the high number of images in this article. I believe a gallery is permitted under the gallery policy, especially since a point of contrast or comparison is being made (various types of gynecomastia, subtly different). KiloT 12:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

World's largest

Perhaps this would be worth mentioning? Difluoroethene (talk) 01:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Gallery

The gallery in this article looks like an advertising brochure for a cosmetic surgery company. By only using before and after images, we seem to be implying that gynecomastia requires surgery, which is usually not the case. One of the images even shows liposuction combined with breast reduction. I don't think it's appropriate for us to be promoting cosmetic surgery in this fashion. The article is supposed to be about gynecomastia, not breast reduction surgery. If the images had the "after" part removed, I think that would be more appropriate. Otherwise, I would suggest reducing or eliminating the gallery. Kaldari (talk) 09:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree.--Taylornate (talk) 03:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

If You Edit The Known Causes...

Please do not delete the causes, as those are factually known and proven causes of this and other male feminization issues. If you edit it to be less biased and/or include sources, retain the causes. They are the actual causes. It's known. It's proven. Any effort to delete such information is propagandous and indicates an agenda of protecting those contaminating food and water, or effort to protect so-called doctors who like to label symptoms as causes to keep patients ignorant to keep problems persisting to keep selling drugs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.22.251.138 (talk) 14:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

" severe gynecomastia and pseudogynecomastia"

I'm talking about the first image in this article, the one that's there to illustrate the condition. Image is File:Gynecomastia_001.jpg.

Without trying to show false sensitivity - are we sure that's not just a fatty? Is there proper diagnosis that that image is actually Gynecomastia? Actually I'm going to ask Reference Desk to contribute, presumably a doctor will see it.. Egg Centric 21:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Gallery

Can anyone justify the image gallery in its current state? It seems pretty repetitive, with all of the pictures looking pretty much the same.--Taylornate (talk) 01:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

NPOV: Gynecomastia acceptance

I've read in two sections - Living with Gynecomastia and Alternative reactions to Gynecomastia - how there are people who suffer from gynecomastia but accept it without wishing to "cure" it, or who (as Kit Triforce put it) 'embrace' their condition or even (Ldmjr) see it as a stage in sexual maturity to be relished. There are mentions of different responses in other sections, too, as well as descriptions of how negativity from others about someone's gynecomastia can make the condition extremely and psychologically harmful to the person.

I agree that the article itself is heavily biased. It represents only one point of view: that gynecomastia should be treated "as if it was always and inevitably an affliction" that must be cured.

It doesn't help that the comments are in two places on this page at present. Without being sure how to combine the two, I hope this new section will focus things toward revising the article to include a more balanced approach.

I strongly believe that it must reflect all responses by those men with gynecomastia, from viewing it as a curse, a blessing, or not worthy of concern. So, with that in mind, I am considering edits but invite comments and suggestions below because I am relatively new to editing. Hazel's Lumps (talk) 08:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments

Here are some things I noticed while taking a look:

• The WP:LEAD cites things, which isn't prohibited, but the preferred method is to cite things in the body of the article and then leave the citations in the body.
• "breast glandular tissue" sounds too jargony. Can we shorten it to breast tissue?
• File:Gynecomastia001.jpg, the "Japanese" picture at the bottom of the gallery looks like a female breasts. And that's how it is classified at the Japanese Wikipedia http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E4%B9%B3%E6%88%BF I'll guess I'll remove that.

Best. Biosthmors (talk) 08:13, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Causes Section Needs Revision

A large portion of the Causes section appears to be taken almost word-for-word from the Mayo Clinic webpage on causes of gynecomastia seen here: http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/gynecomastia/DS00850/DSECTION=causes I think this section could do with some reorganization and should not be so closely paraphrased to this webpage. Other thoughts?TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments about the lead

• The lead says "up to" 60%, but can we give a range or some indication of uncertainty? It currently reads like a cherry-picked high number, instead of offering a simple definition per WP:First sentence.
• Can we use to put the etymology in a footnote? I don't see a reason for it to be in the WP:LEAD.
• At first inspection I don't see why "received female hormones from the mother" is hyperlinked to galactorrhea.
• "in most cases ... the condition may disappear" isn't a helpful sentence. Is the use of "may" required here?

I hope these comments were helpful! Biosthmors (talk) 01:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't even see that bit about the galactorrhea. I have no idea why that's linked to galactorrhea either. As for the 60%, that's really what the papers say but it's repeated in the epidemiology section anyway so I can remove it from the lead. The papers don't seem to get more specific than that regarding incidence. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by a cherry-picked high number. I don't know what is. I cleaned up the sentence about may disappear-that actually was necessary since not all cases of pubertal gynecomastia resolve on their own, but I rephrased it. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 02:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Etiology in neonates

I would consider gynecomastia in neonates closely related to the witch's milk phenomenon and the explanation (maternal estrogen) wrong or strognly oversimplified at the very least. It does not appear anyone did much research on this since 30 years.. PMID 7305415, PMID 2403240, PMID 6427529 --Richiez (talk) 13:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

The research you're citing is far too old for inclusion in the article and is composed primarily of primary research studies. Newer peer-reviewed review articles suggest that maternal hormone transfer is the etiology of gynecomastia in neonates. That being said, I really don't know how much research has gone into investigating the etiology of it since it is a self-limiting phenomenon.TylerDurden8823 (talk) 17:08, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Can you see from where the "new peer-reviewed" articles get this information from? Beeing review articles I hope this was not just an uneducated guess but it contradicts everything that I could find in literature. Richiez (talk) 23:21, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I guess I'm not clear on what your assertion is. Are you saying that you think the maternal transfer of estrogens is not the etiology of neonatal gynecomastia in most cases? If so, that I might be able to find regarding where review articles got their information from. The papers I would look at are all cited on this wikipedia article though so have a look if you haven't already.TylerDurden8823 (talk) 23:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I am saying that maternal, especially placental transfer of estrogens is not the etiology of neonatal gynecomastia. It is (probably) one of the necessary preconditions but not the "real" or most important cause. The relative lack of testosteron has been more conclusively shown as well as some relation to prolactin. Also given that none of the hormones has a significant bioactivity beyond 24 hours effect of placental hormones will cease very shortly after birth. Richiez (talk) 12:41, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Do you have recent peer-review medical journal review articles or textbook references to support this claim? Because it refutes everything I've seen so far including Harrison's Textbook of Internal Medicine, which is a highly reliable resource. In fact, Harrison's explicitly says that gynecomastia is a normal physiological occurrence in newborns due to transplacental transfer of maternal and placental estrogens and that gynecomastia stems from an increased estrogen/androgen ratio.TylerDurden8823 (talk) 15:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

So does Harrison say that it is the estrogen/androgen ratio actually? That could be, does he cite his sources? I am sceptical that it is solely transplacental transfer of hormones because neonatal lactation is clearly maintained either by hormones passed through breast milk or has endogenous causes as it can easilly persist 2 months or longer after birth.-- Richiez (talk) 20:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Harrison's specifically says the estrogen/androgen ratio and specifies that the gynecomastia in neonates is the result of the transfer of maternal hormones (estrogens, etc.) across the placenta to the fetus. Harrison's probably gets its information from several sources but Harrison's itself is considered a very trustworthy and vetted source. I hear your point though that perhaps this is not the ENTIRE story behind neonatal gynecomastia. I could definitely see how other factors being involved is a possibility; there is much about gynecomastia the medical community is still investigating as evidenced by the fact that a significant portion of gynecomastia is classified as "idiopathic". I'm not certain why the witch's milk phenomenon persists for a little while but that is a different phenomenon from neonatal gynecomastia, it's just a condition that may accompany it. I don't know how hot a topic neonatal gynecomastia is in terms of research since it is such a benign, common, and most importantly, self-limited occurrence. Perhaps new research on the witch's milk phenomenon will come out exploring additional hormonal, environmental, or other mechanisms driving it. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The article currently wrt neonats does only mention "due to transfer of maternal or placental estrogens from the mother" and fails to mention the androgen/estrogen ratio. But unless we agree on something better I would remove the explanation altogether rather than have a wrong one. Witch's milk is a different phenomenon but one thing is sure - you need gynecomastia as necessary precondition for it to occur. I have not found a single review handling this, the sources are somewhat scattered. In addittion to the sources above I also found this sources which might be of some interest for various aspects of neonatal gynecomastia: PMID 22254003 (soy milk formula feeding causing gynecomastia, details here PMID 18223379), http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2770912/ (60-90% prevalence in neonates), PMID 12409513 (In girls, the estradiol level was positively (p < 0.03) correlated to breast quartile. In boys, no correlations were found.), PMID 20493740 (Palpable breast tissue was still present in 45.2% of male and 61.6% of female visits after 10 months of age. At age 18 months, 5% of girls had a breast size unit greater than 2.88 cm(2) and 5% of boys had a breast size unit greater than 1.00 cm(2).), PMID 3348660 (Newborn breast development did not regress rapidly after birth and secretory activity continued for many months in both sexes. This study shows that the human mammary gland remains active for many months after birth and may continue to grow and secrete. The findings are not consistent with the current view that breast development in infancy results from stimulation from 'pregnancy hormones.' It is more likely that the infant's own gonadal secretions are responsible.), PMID 6508344 (It is concluded that the pituitary-gonadal axis of preterm infants is active in the months after birth and that in preterm infants there is a definite phase of breast growth in early postnatal life.) Richiez (talk) 14:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The explanation is not incorrect. It is perhaps incomplete (which is different from being incorrect) and that is the limitation of how much research has been done on the phenomenon as I mentioned earlier. The androgen/estrogen ratio is mentioned in the article as the suspected cause of gynecomastia in this article (it is not specific only to neonatal gynecomastia). It seems like you may be talking about two different things. Are you talking about the Witch's Milk? Or are you talking about neonatal gynecomastia? I am becoming confused on what you are talking about because the article currently says that gynecomastia is thought to stem from an increased estrogen/androgen ratio. If you're talking just about the Witch's milk part, I have no problem removing that until more research has been done and the mechanism is better understood.TylerDurden8823 (talk) 15:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I have done the change to make clear what I was talking about. With the current level of evidence it might be best not to attempt an explanation. Richiez (talk) 19:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with your edit. This information comes from highly reliable sources and I have yet to see any reliable sources indicate otherwise. If you have evidence for this, please present it here so we can verify it.TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Your only reference is a textbook on a wholy different subject which does not cite its references. I have seen many textbooks and a whole lot of them are less then reliable on matters that are not of central importance for their main subject. Richiez (talk) 21:49, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

You are incorrect Richie, there are other sources that substantiate that maternal transfer of hormones is responsible for neonatal gynecomastia and I posted them to your own talk page! Please see here: http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC2276281 Also, how was what was written misrepresented? You need to be specific Richie. The fact remains that neonatal gynecomastia is caused by the transfer of maternal hormones to the fetus. That's what I said. Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine is not dealing with a "wholly different subject" this is related to endocrinology which is a part of internal medicine. Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine, as I stated before, is widely considered to be a highly-reliable and thoroughly vetted source. I have already shown you other reputable review article sources that further verify what I have said. If you are not willing to accept this, I'm afraid I will have to get other editors involved. I am still waiting to see you present some evidence for your side that refutes that neonatal gynecomastia is from the maternal transfer of hormones from reliable recent sources. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Can you please complete the list of your sources. I see the Harrison and some link that you have pasted on my talk page. Please no europmc or whatever links if there is a pubmed alternative. Richiez (talk) 22:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Recent review articles that say neonatal gynecomastia caused by maternal transfer of placental estrogens: Harrison's 17th edition Page 2318, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmid/18369226/, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22534349, http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/gynecomastia/DS00850/DSECTION=causes (not a review article but Mayo Clinic is usually trustworthy), this review article says it as well: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19408804

Even if we would accept this source, it has been misrepresented in the version that I have reverted - judging by your statements. Richiez (talk) 22:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Interesting customs.. http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2805%2970479-7/fulltext -- Richiez (talk) 14:11, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

This talk page is not really the place for this. It's really meant for discussion about the content of the actual article.TylerDurden8823 (talk) 17:08, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I consider it pretty interesting for the contents of the article and given that it isn't directly medically relevant it might be even a good enough source. Richiez (talk) 23:21, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I added it. I'm not sure if it is proper to associate the two. I didn't really say that, but it is kind of implied. Biosthmors (talk) 23:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I have recently recreated the neonatal milk article, although PMID 3946357 is very old I consider it reliable and found neither any better source nor anything to suggest that it was unreliable. The Lancet article is for me more interesting to illustrate the cultural belief that gynecomastia can be induced and controlled by mechanical stimulation. Richiez (talk) 12:41, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

According to this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Use_up-to-date_evidence) Wikipedia prefers secondary sources (admittedly it is not a pure rule, but a guideline) and one mark of a reliable medical source is that it is recent (hopefully published in the last 5 years or so).TylerDurden8823 (talk) 15:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't even know if that would be considered a proper reference given that it's from 1997 and isn't really a journal article but looks like a written letter.TylerDurden8823 (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

This textbooks states that neonatal gynecomastia is due to in utero exposure to high concentrations of maternal estrogen. [3]. Many other texts state the same. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Richiez' citations are far better than Harrison's. Most pediatricians and family doctors know that neonatal breast development is benign and transient and normal, just like mild gynecomastia in pubertal boys. It occurs in both male and female infants. Most do not have galactorrhea, and as in adolescent males, I would consider galactorrhea and gynecomastia completely distinct phenomena causally and medically. However, almost no doctors spend much time thinking about the source of the estrogens that cause neonatal breast development, and nearly all will give the same answer: maternal or placental estrogen. However, newborns after a few days experience activation of the reproductive system, commonly termed a "mini-puberty", that lasts several months. Hormone levels can briefly reach midpubertal levels. So those 1980s articles were interesting and may be correct-- that the infant him- or herself makes the estrogens that cause neonatal breast development. In some newborns the breasts are more developed at 1 month than at birth, which would support this. Neonatal breast development can be distinguished from "toddler thelarche", benign transient breast development that occurs in girls between 10 and 30 mos and remains completely unexplained. Anyway, perhaps the source of the estrogens that cause neonatal breast development need not be specified here. And the last doctor i would ask for reliable information about neonatal breast development is an internist, and both Harrison's and the BMJ article are written by and for internists, who neither know nor care about the mechanism, and are simply repeating the same speculation. The kind of doctor who gets these babies referred if someone is concerned is a pediatric endocrinologist. alteripse (talk) 13:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, his citations are not better than Harrison's at all. Most are primary studies (often small ones) published 20 years ago that are only tangentially related if at all and are not superior to the peer-reviewed review articles from the last 5 years as well as Harrison's and the Mayo Clinic that were cited from the last 5 years as well as the recent texts Jmh649 found. The mini-puberty you spoke of, from what I saw from papers, does not kick in after a few days as you claim. From what I recall, it took a few weeks (somewhere around the 2-3 month mark if I remember correctly). Those 1980s articles are of insufficient quality, number, relevance (for example, some are discussing female neonates which is not even gynecomastia) and these articles were likely taken into account by more recent reviews which do not seem to agree with those findings and attribute neonatal gynecomastia due the transfer of estrogens. I think it's necessary to mention neonatal gynecomastia and its mechanism as it is frequently mentioned in the gynecomastia literature. Saying that internal medicine physicians do not care or know about the mechanism is inaccurate. What are you basing that on? Endocrinologists train in an internal medicine residency before specializing in endocrinology itself and are a type of internal medicine physician. Additionally, I cited other review articles that repeated those findings. It sounds like you've done some speculating here, not them. Oh, and Harrison's has an endocrinologist (not a pediatric one but an endocrinologist nonetheless) as a coauthor. Just saying.TylerDurden8823 (talk) 15:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Up-To-Date also repeats the idea that the placental transfer of estrogens to the fetal circulation results in transient neonatal gynecomastia here. From them: "It is estimated that between 60 to 90 percent of infants have transient gynecomastia due to the high estrogenic milieu of pregnancy" http://www.uptodate.com/contents/epidemiology-and-pathogenesis-of-gynecomastia TylerDurden8823 (talk) 15:39, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

From page 584, Breast Disorders, Simmons PS, chap 37 in Sanfillipo JS, ed. Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology, Philadelphia:Saunders, 1994: "The presence of palpable and often visible breast tissue in the term newborn infant is normal and expected.... The amount of breast tissue presentin the normal newborn varies and may be associated with milk production ("witches milk"). The presence of breast tissue in the newborn has been attributed to maternal hormones but there is reason to believe that another mechanism may be involved, as breast buds may persist for months, long after the direct effect of maternal hormones should be gone (McKiernan '81). In fact the natural history of neonatal breast development is incompletely understood. Persistence of neonatal breast buds through 10 mos of age has been documented by McKiernan and Hull." Does that help? Get rid of Harrison's. Avoid explicitly saying "male" in that sentence because the phenomenon occurs in both sexes. There has been no more recent research that I have seen, though I would not be surprised if non-specialist medical sources and review articles on gynecomastia continue to parrot "maternal sources". If you want a secondary source (textbook) on this topic that considers the McKiernan paper authoritative use the one I just cited, not Harrison's. (PS, I learned internal medicine from Harrisons-- it would be the first place i would look for vetted opinion on adult medicine, and the very last place i would look for info on neonatal endocrinology). alteripse (talk) 13:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

The textbook I referenced above is an endocrinology textbook from 2011. Do you have anything from the last 5 years? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

This is good for the discussion, but I don't believe it to be conclusive given my findings as well as Jmh649's. Why would this textbook, which was published about 20 years ago, supercede the word of a 2008 edition of Harrison's and the various textbooks that Jmh649 found that support the maternal hormone transfer bit? I think you were a little quick to the trigger Alteripse and that the case for the change has not yet been made. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 15:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• This ref gives the mechanism of the milk in a newborn http://books.google.ca/books?id=4g5Wgc3Bh18C&pg=PA604

• This ref discusses breast enlargement in both genders http://books.google.ca/books?id=a7CqcE1ZrFkC&pg=RA1-PA731

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, from the well-respected Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism and well-respected authors in January 2011: "Gynecomastia is common in newborn boys due to exposure to their mother’s estrogen." http://jcem.endojournals.org/content/96/1/0.2.full TylerDurden8823 (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Those are persuasive only if they cite a study. I think they are just repeating conventional wisdom. Evidence trumps tradition-- and this is NOT original research. 159.14.241.235 (talk) 16:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

159, can you be more specific? What do you mean by "those"? To what are you referring? Textbooks? The journal papers that have been mentioned? And I don't really understand your point about original research...TylerDurden8823 (talk) 16:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Please see WP:MEDRS with respect to sourcing. I doubt every major textbook out there somehow got it wrong. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Seems to me that the majority view of recent literature and textbooks says transfer of placental estrogens. I still have yet to see a single new review that says otherwise (some have used less strong language for the idea of placental estrogen transfer such as saying it is the probable mechanism, and that's still a pretty strong statement, but I haven't seen any refute this). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 16:37, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Let me spell it out. Those references are crap. All of the articles written by internists about neonatal breast development simply repeat the same speculation that dates back decades to before we could even measure those hormones in children and were never based on research. None of them knows anything about neonatal breast development nor do they care, nor are they writing for doctors who care. And conversely the doctors interested in this topic pay no attention to what internists toss away in a one sentence disposal of the issue. We couldnt measure those hormones before the late 1970s and the significance of neonatal sex hormones was just beginning to be understood. So McKiernan et al did the only research that anyone cites on this topic and discovered that there was a stronger relationship with neonatal hormone production than placental or maternal. Anyone interested enough to search the literature finds McKiernan's research the only thing that has been done. I found it persuasive as did the authors of subsequent review articles where they took the trouble to do some more than parrot the decades old speculation by internists. You now have primary research, secondary textbook acknowledgement, and if you need a more recent one check out

J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 2010 Oct;23(5):305-11. doi: 10.1016/j.jpag.2010.03.002. Epub 2010 May 21. Establishment of normative data for the amount of breast tissue present in healthy children up to two years of age. Jayasinghe Y, Cha R, Horn-Ommen J, O'Brien P, Simmons PS. Department of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota 55905, USA.

"Most term newborns have breast tissue, which has been attributed to pregnancy hormone stimulation, with regression of breast tissue occurring at 3 months of age in both genders.10 Subsequent studies have demonstrated that breast tissue in infants persists beyond 3 months and is physiological, most likely due to secretion of gonadotropins and estrogens in infancy."

"This study demonstrates that median breast unit size is similar for newborn males and females and is inversely related to age for both genders, steadily declining after birth. In females, palpable breast tissue remains larger and persists for longer than in males, consistent with other studies.4,7 This became apparent by 3 months of age and continued until 10 months of age, when breast unit size temporarily increased in boys, particularly for those in the upper range of breast size. After 24 months, female infants again had significantly larger breast unit size. A study of 282 term and preterm infants,4 and another of 144 healthy term infants16 showed that breast diameter within 48 hours of birth was larger in female than male infants but by 14 days no difference was seen. However a study of serial breast measurements in 21 term infants up to 10 months demonstrated no difference in breast nodule diameter between the sexes within the first 48 hours [9mm, (range 4e13 mm)], with gender differences emerging by 4 months and becoming more apparent by 10 months.4 Schmidt et al, in a cross-sectional study of 1126 healthy term infants at 3 months found palpable breast tissue over 3mm in diameter in 78.9% of children, which was more frequent and larger in girls than boys [5.7 mm, 95% CI 1.0e11.4 vs 4.9 mm, 95% CI 1.0e 9.5 mm, respectively; P ! 0.001].7 Hormonal studies in neonates and infants have established the concept of a neonatal ‘minipuberty’ occurring in both boys and girls7,17 and the changes in breast unit size with age seen in this study may correlate with the pattern of endogenous secretion of gonadotropins and sex steroids during early infancy. Estrogen concentrations fall soon after birth, before rising again. In the newborn male it has been shown that secretion of LH, FSH, estradiol, and testosterone increase to a peak at 3 months of age, when gonadotrophins reach the adult range.17 Levels then fall, with testosterone and estradiol levels becoming undetectable from 6 months of age, and gonadotrophins declining to prepubertal values by 9 months of age. In boys, no correlations between estradiol or testosterone levels and breast size have been found in some studies,7 while other studies have demonstrated higher testosterone levels being associated with a smaller mean breast size,16 suggesting an inhibitory role in neonatal breast development. In our study we saw a transient increase in breast unit size percentiles in males after 13 months of age, well after testosterone withdrawal, suggesting it does not play a role in this phenomenon; however, rate of reduction of breast unit size began to plateau more significantly after 6 months of age, and a potential relationship is worthy of further study. In female infants, serum LH remains low throughout, although serum FSH becomes elevated to the ‘later childhood range’ by 3 months18 and remains so for 3e4 years14 accounting for longer persistence of breast tissue in girls compared to boys. In girls estradiol concentrations stay higher for longer and fall to prepubertal levels at about 1 year,19 and levels have been found to be positively correlated with breast size quartile at 3 months.7"

Now, tyler and docjames, this is your decision point. You can say "thanks richiez for raising a question and providing an article that improved the accuracy of this article, and thanks alteripse for confirming and explaining the source of disagreement and providing the secondary source confirmation that the point is valid, complete with both old and new references" or you can dig your heels in because it doesnt matter that neither of you know anything about this topic and wikipedia oneupmanship is more important than accuracy. These were the kind of wikipedia obstruction games that drove me away a few years ago. I was trying to be helpful because you asked for help and because I make my living giving an opinion on exactly this type of medical issue. But I am not touching the f___g article further so you can do what you want to it. alteripse (talk) 21:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

First, you need to adjust your tone and act in a more collaborative manner Alteripse. Second, thank you for finally presenting some valid and recent evidence for this though it does have limitations. This work does not invalidate all of the other recent reviews (and I find it a bit of an absurd assumption to say that all of those review sources I referenced conveniently ignored this data and just parroted conventional wisdom, I think that it is unlikely that not one of these authors was aware of these papers and/or ignored them) and does not support Richiez's assertion that the current explanation on the page is incorrect. I said many times that there was room for it to be an incomplete explanation, but he removed the material anyway yesterday. That aside, what are you basing your assumptions on that these internists who wrote these papers don't know anything and don't care about neonatal gynecomastia? Do you know them personally and what they were thinking when they wrote the papers? I happened to just look up the authors from one of the reviews I cited and they are all endocrinologists, so what you said is not true. Granted, you provided a recent paper suggesting that the transplacental transfer of hormones is not the sole mechanism through which gynecomastia in neonates may occur and that the persistence of breast tissue after the first few weeks may be attributable to the infant's own endocrine system, but the study was an original research paper (not a review as requested), examined only Caucasian infants, and lumped males and females together studying "palpable breast tissue" (unclear if this is term is defined as actual glandular tissue or adipose tissue or both) and gynecomastia is solely a male phenomenon by definition even though breast prominence may occur in male and in female infants. You are right that I asked for more opinions in resolving this issue, but the implication is that what is being asked for is fellow Wikipedians who will help to resolve the issue in a collaborative and respectful manner. This is not "Wikipedia oneupmanship" as you claim it to be, but adherence to reliable medical sources guidelines as defined by Wikipedia. Also, from what I see, a neonate is usually defined as a newborn infant less than four weeks old so I'm not even certain that the study you're citing, if you could call it gynecomastia in the older infants, would meet the criteria of neonatal gynecomastia though that's really more a matter of semantics. I am convinced that there may be validity to the argument that the transplacental transfer of hormones is not the sole mechanism responsible for neonatal gynecomastia, but I think the evidence you have presented is not sufficient to uproot all of the other evidence. And P.S. I already addressed the problem with the textbook you cited-it's from 1994 and there are newer authoritative texts that say otherwise.TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, just FYI, I looked up many of the authors of Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine and I don't know where you got this idea, but the majority of them are not simply internal medicine physicians but specialists such as neurologists, cardiologists, immunologists, etc. many of whom do research. J. Larry Jameson M.D./Ph.D.specializes in molecular endocrinology according to this: (http://alumni.med.upenn.edu/jljbio.php). And I just checked and the most recent edition, the 18th, of Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine which was released after the study you cited, maintains its original stance (and the section was authored by Dr. Jameson and Dr. Shalendar Bhasin who specializes in male reproductive endocrinology).TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Larry Jameson is the new dean of our medical school, so he doesnt come to our endocrine division meetings--- but if he does i shall ask him to send you a personal note. Yes, I know some of the endocrinologists. Not one of them would claim expertise in neonatal endocrinology. I promise. DocJames, i am not arguing further with WP:Randy from Boise. I gave you old, i gave you new, i gave you primary and i gave you secondary sources, and i explained why the original version was nothing but repeated unsourced speculation. Can you explain to Tyler why multiple referenced papers from pediatric gynecologists and endocrinologists trump uncited one-liners by adult internists in articles not focused on this topic? alteripse (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Sure please just provide me a single link to a review article or major textbook from the last 5 years. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:36, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

That was very rude Alteripse. I am not uninformed. Speaking of what you have said, you seem to have conveniently ignored what I said, which is that many of the authors in the reviews I cited are endocrinologists. Please stop implying that they do not have expertise in endocrinology, that is simply false. By all means, have Dr. Jameson write me a note that refutes what is said in the textbook or acknowledges that they omitted these details when he coauthored this section in multiple recent editions. I will no longer argue with you about the validity of the credentials of many of the authors of the papers I cited. Many are endocrinology experts and some specialize specifically in male endocrinology and what you're saying is absurd (and to reiterate-rude).TylerDurden8823 (talk) 23:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

docjames, i just gave you a link to the best review article published on the topic EVER. I cited paragraphs and everything. Shall i send you the pdf, or is actual content beside the point here?alteripse (talk) 00:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

If you could just provide the link that would be great. If you are referring to [4] not sure if it addresses the issue at hand and it is not a review. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

If so, I looked at that paper (and it is not a review according to PubMed) and while it is a compelling paper, it has limitations as I mentioned and on its own it is insufficient to oppose the perspective espoused by all of the other reviews and textbooks. The assumption that all of the authors ignored the McKiernan data from the 1980s and 1990s seems improbable. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 00:19, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

The other author of the Harrison's section that includes gynecomastia: http://www.bumc.bu.edu/endo/faculty/bhasin/ TylerDurden8823 (talk) 00:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

docjames, you clearly have not even read the article: it contains research on breast measurements but also the best review I have seen, with references, on the source of the hormones in infants. I gave you a textbook-- if i give you another i suspect you will then say you need one with a red cover instead of a green. Do YOU really not understand why 50 internists echoing a one line speculation that dates back 60 years and referencing nothing or another version of the same one-line speculation is not a reliable source for proving anything except what those who havent bothered to check the extant research think? Can either of you find a single primary source for those 50 internists that isnt a single sentence of speculative presumption? alteripse (talk) 00:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I do not see in the ref you mention where is refutes that neonatal gynecomastia is cause by maternal estrogen. What it does state is "Most term newborns have breast tissue, which has been attributed to pregnancy hormone stimulation, with regression of breast tissue occurring at 3 months of age in both genders." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:56, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Schwartz's Principles of Surgery states "Gynecomastia refers to an enlarged breast in the male.19 Physiologic gynecomastia usually occurs during three phases of life: the neonatal period, adolescence, and senescence. Common to each of these phases is an excess of circulating estrogens in relation to circulating testosterone. Neonatal gynecomastia is caused by the action of placental estrogens on neonatal breast tissues, whereas in adolescence, there is an excess of estradiol relative to testosterone, and with senescence, the circulating testosterone level falls, which results in relative hyperestrinism." Chapter 17, 2009

So yes maybe all these endocrinologists, pediatricians, surgeons, and internists are wrong. Before we claim that however I would like to have some fairly definitive proof and probably a few more eyes on the issue. And if they where you think there would at least be a decent review article on the topic. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:19, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Anyway the wording has been changed to "maybe due to maternal estrogen". Not sure if the proposal was to change it to something else? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Docjames, you removed my clearer acknowledgement of both the traditional explanation and the best current evidence. alteripse (talk) 15:38, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Tyler, I am sorry I lost my temper. Let me see if I can explain what was so aggravating about your arguments. Articles about gynecomastia are typically written by doctors who see and are interested in gynecomastia, typically internist endocrinologists. An internist is a specialist in adult medicine. He has no training in pediatrics and never sees infants or children. The general articles about gynecomastia are always written for the guidance of doctors seeing adolescents and adults with the condition. For completeness there is often a one line mention of neonatal breast hyperrophy as an example of physiologic (as opposed to pathologic) gynecomastia. The presumption-- perfectly plausible-- that neonatal breast development results from maternal estrogen dates back to the first half the last century, when we thought the gonads of infants and children were completely nonfunctional, and long before we could measure steroids in their blood. I found one of your typical chapters on gynecomastia in a general endocrine text (Bondy and Rosenberg, Saunders) from 1980, written by typical well-known internist endocrinologists (James Griffin and Jean Wilson-- well known for pioneering research in testosterone effects). They provide the same perfunctory one sentence line with the usual "In the newborn transient enlargement of the breast probably results from the action of maternal or placental estrogens." Nothing remarkable except that these guys WERE conscientious enough to try to provide a real reference for it: "Bronstein IP, Cassorla E. Breast enlargement in pediatric practice. Med Clin N Am 1946: 30:121-132." I can tell you several things about this article that you would not have any reason to know: (1) no one could measure hormones very accurately even in adults, let alone infants, back then. (2) Most practicing physicians were generalists, and it was much less unusual for such an article about children to be published in MCNA-- you would have trouble finding such an article now because in the 1950s, Saunders spun off Ped Clin N Am, where you can still find such review articles today. (3) The journal and the title of the article tells us exactly what it is: a clinically oriented practical guide for practicing doctors, exactly the type of secondary source that mske good references for wikipedia articles. By the year, the journal, and the title we can tell it was not laboratory research. (4) We can also infer exactly what it said: that infant breast development is common, nonpathological, and presumably due to maternal and/or placental estrogen. Unlike wikipedia, when doctors write review or overview articles or textbook chapters for other doctors, they prefer the references that most authoritatively support their assertions, usually the primary research that established the fact. Not always, though and sometimes doctors will be lazy about referencing points that are unimportant or uncontroversial or peripheral to the main topic and will either not bother to reference it, or simply put a reference that is someone else saying the same thing. So unless you or docjames can come up with primary research from the first half of the 20th century that supports maternal/placental estrogens as the cause of neonatal breast hypertrophy-- and i am fairly certain there is none-- this is strong evidence that the genealogy of all those single sentence mentions of neonatal breast development in every review and chapter on gynecomastia for the last 60 years simply go back to the medical knowledge in the 1940s and earlier that it existed and was assumed due to maternal hormones. We couldnt even measure steroid hormones in the blood until the 1950s, there was no such thing as pediatric endocrinology or gynecology until the 1950s, and until the 1970s doctors assumed the neonatal testes and ovaries were inactive, so it wasnt until the late 1970s that a doctor like McKiernan could even ask the question of the source of the hormones and try to get an answer. Because neonatal breast hypertrophy is benign and known to every pediatrician and not considered a significant medical problem, very few researchers have even tried to investigate it. What is clear to me after reviewing this topic is that there has been little research on it and what little there is points to a signficant hormone contribution from the infants. Your assumption that internist endocrinolgists would routinely take the trouble to have investigated all of the literature on the really obscurre topic of neonatal breast hypertrophy is naive. Nearly all the ones that bothered to provide a reference simply cited some previous adult endocrinologist who said the same thing-- the 1980s chapter that referenced the 1946 article was the oldest of the endocrine texts on my shelves that bothered to provide a reference and i have no intention of spending an afternoon in a medical library looking for older ones. And it didnt matter because they were not writing for pediatricians who take care of newborns nor the pediatric endocrinolgists who are asked to see infants with unusual breast problems. Your arguments tell me you really dont know how doctors write these chapters, nor what kind of doctors have what kind of expertise, nor how to distinguish primary and secondary sources, and there is no reason you should. Academic endocrinologists have conferences (journal clubs and fellows' case presentations) where topics just like this are presented and debated. I absolutely promise you that if we pediatric endocrinologists presented the McKiernan and Jayasinghe papers to a joint audience of pediatric and adult endocrinologsts -- even including one who had written a chapter on gynecomastia for a general endocrine text and included the usual sentence--- the adult endocrinologists would not argue with the pediatric endocrinologists if we said this was convincing. I realize you do not have the experience to confirm the truth of this assertion, though that didnt stop you wielding your ignorance with certainty. The "experts" you are relying on would defer to the opinions of doctors like me and the the "experts" I am citing on THIS topic. On another topic, especially one related to some obscure endocrine issue in old people I wouild be just as willing to defer to them if they told me I had a misconception. You had no reason to know this background, but I assume Docjames knows what kind of doctors have expertise in this area, and how a concept like maternal estrogen source can get carried for generations through the medical lore. I assumed, perhaps wrongly, that he was actually interested in having our article reflect best current knowledge, and I assumed, perhaps wrongly, that I could persuade him with the same evidence I would present to a colleague. I actually appreciated the chance to investigate this obscure topic, because I learned something, though the frustration of trying to argue evidence with someone too unequipped to actually debate the evidence is the biggest unpleasantness about writing on wikipedia. alteripse (talk) 15:38, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Wow, that was perhaps the most long-winded, condescending, tactless attempt at an apology I've ever seen. You really need to work on your people skills, especially if you are as experienced as you claim to be. Calling people ignorant during an "apology" is not really appropriate (or true in this case) and you really need to remain professional and not attempt to make personal attacks (which you've done). I understood all your arguments and still find them to be a stretch. Here is a pediatric endocrinologist Alicia Belgorosky (seen here:http://www.endopedonline.com.ar/nuevo_sitio/comite-editorial/dra-alicia-belgorosky/) who coauthored a paper that attributes neonatal gynecomastia to hormones secreted from the "feto-placental unit during pregnancy" http://www.endopedonline.com.ar/img/n3/GYNECOMASTIA.pdf To address the original problem, since you asked Jmh649, was this: (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gynecomastia&diff=542643903&oldid=542285234) the complete removal of the maternal estrogen concept without adequate discussion. I never said anything about refusing to include a bit about the activity of infant gonads playing a role, but the complete removal of this part was unacceptably hasty and was questionable overall. Additionally, Page 349 of this 2004 endocrinology textbook with this section written by Dr. Edward O Reiter (a pediatric endocrinologist) (see here: http://www.healthgrades.com/physician/dr-edward-reiter-2cbfk) and Dr. Glenn Braunstein (knowledgeable adult endocrinologist) says "transplacental transfer of estrogens" and cites McKiernan from 1981. (http://books.google.com/books?id=9gvBlktAT6YC&pg=PA358&lpg=PA358&dq=McKiernan+1980+endocrinology&source=bl&ots=L29cVWsfMO&sig=zn1uJnGoQYM5zLMpgdDWlIgcH20&hl=en&sa=X&ei=MXw7Uc3ZPMX2qwGAiYG4BA&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false) This reference even mentions the persistence of breast tissue in female infants during the first 2 years and suggests that this particular phenomenon is attributable to the endogenous hormonal factors rather than estrogens from the mother, but it sounds like a separate phenomenon than neonatal gynecomastia. This reference can also be used for the Witch's milk bit since it mentions that. As for Jmh649 not being satisfied with your references, that seems like the pot calling the kettle black since you always have an issue with what's presented too. Just saying. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

If "neonatal gynecomastia" is not caused by maternal or placental estrogen publish a review / research paper on the topic and I am sure that you could potentially get a lot of press. This "fact" is literally in hundreds of textbooks, other review articles and paper and around the web thus stating "believed to be cause by maternal or placental estrogen" is not a stretch. Are other hormones sure potentially, progesterone.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed.TylerDurden8823 (talk) 09:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

My synopsis that you guys found so objectionable was: "Neonatal breast development: Many newborn infants of both sexes show breast development at birth or in the first weeks of life. This has been attributed speculatively to maternal or placental estrogens, but may be a response to the infant's own steroid hormones." This recognized both explanations, designating one as the traditional atribution. It reflects the only thinge published in the last 50 years by anyone who has done anything except repeat speculaton from the 1940s. If you had actually bothered to read the reference you just provided-- the 1981 McKiernan that Reiter and Braunstein referenced you would have seen that it says the opposite: "Clearly the growth and activity of the neonatal breast cannot be explained solely in terms of the influence of maternal hormones towards the end of gestation." right in the abstract. And ignorance is not an insult; it was a statement of fact based on everything you have written about this. But I am done with this. It's quite obvious you will have your own way and that is far more important than an accurate, up to date article, isnt it? alteripse (talk) 04:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Good, be done with it. You don't seem to be capable of working in a collaborative, civil manner and cannot even acknowledge that you attempted to insult others (even doing so during that abysmal apology). Learn to keep your opinion about other editors to yourself if you have nothing constructive to say and stick to the content-very unacceptable for an experienced editor and a violation of Wikipedia:etiquette. Speaking of the content, I have no objection to stating that maternal or placental estrogens are believed to be the cause of neonatal gynecomastia while acknowledging that the infant's own steroid hormone response may play a role though I do not quite agree with your wording and there are no recent review articles to provide a reference for the role of the endogenous infant steroid hormone response (though perhaps in the future). Yes, based on the quote you just said-cannot be explained solely by maternal hormone influence. I acknowledged that possibility many times much earlier (clearly you do not read carefully) and the point was that a pediatric endocrinology text cited that paper at all (for one) and that it did so while still attributing neonatal gynecomastia to maternal estrogens, etc. I did read the 1981 paper now (which, as you say, proposes that the infant's own endogenous steroid hormone response is the mechanism responsible). So, did the authors of the pediatric endocrinology textbook mess up? Possibly, but you asked for pediatric endocrinologists and that's who said it. Your claims of all endocrinologists, (pediatric or otherwise), internal medicine physicians, and textbooks discussing this issue ignoring this series of papers from McKiernan seem like utter nonsense. I don't think those works went unseen and ignored for the last 25 years but believe what you want. I shall not be discussing this matter with you further. I am satisfied with the way the article currently stands and it is clear that you cannot be persuaded to work collaboratively or to accept any evidence presented to you from any source other than the ones you favor. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 09:14, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes was looking for a published source which states "This has been attributed speculatively to" What we have here is an attempt at WP:OR. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Mechanical irritation or stimulation as cause of gynecomastia

http://www.egms.de/static/de/journals/iprs/2012-1/iprs000003.shtml -- Richiez (talk) 14:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

This is an interesting paper, but it is a primary study and secondary sources such as reviews are preferred for inclusion in wikipedia articles. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 17:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Images

One might play around with the image templates Template:Multiple_image#See_also there to see if they can be presented more professionally. Also, maybe we could omit some. Biosthmors (talk) 23:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Obesity as a cause of gynecomastia

Fat cells convert testosterone to estradiol and thus if there are lots of them it leads to gynecomastia.[5] One image in the lead is enough. Before and after picture is not appropriate IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

How many before after pictures of gynecomastia do we need? IMO more than one is more or less advertising. Thoughts Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

steroid abuse?

Seems like the issue of illegal steroid use causing condition should be mentioned more. (Maybe it is buried in the list of medicines, but that's buried).

Legal steroid use also causes. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

man boobs

Recently, "man boobs" was added as a commonly used alternate term[6]. Then, it was reverted[7], with the edit summary Colloquialisms are strongly discouraged for inclusion in encyclopedia pages. Articles are to be written with a formal tone. Please see WP: COLLOQUIAL. I just wanted to note that I don't think WP:COLLOQUIAL applies here, as it seems to be about general writing style rather than about whether or not to include an alternate term for the subject. The reason I didn't revert the revert is because I think it is inappropriate for a different reason: The term doesn't refer specifically to gynecomastia, rather it refers to the subjective appearance of breasts on a male for any reason, of which true gynecomastia would be a minority.--Taylornate (talk) 23:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Do we have a ref for it? Could be appropriate in the section on society and culture. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:16, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the colloquialism is inappropriate for this article, but what you said is also true Taylor. "Man boobs" does not only refer to gynecomastia, but to pseudogynecomastia. Regardless, I think the term has no place in an encyclopedic article. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:48, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. We have a scholarly ref. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 11:21, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

See also the relevant discussion at WT:MED (now archived). Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 11:27, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I would support moving this content to a section on "society and culture". Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:08, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Done. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 13:33, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, I think that's a more appropriate approach. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 00:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Gynecomastia

I have removed a whole gallery of pre and post op images as seen here [8] twice now as I consider one to be enough. Thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Consensus at WT:MED supported this. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 13:55, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

See [9] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:49, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Protection for the page?

Just wanted to start a discussion about possibly protecting this page since it does get a fair amount of vandalism/non-constructive edits (i.e., the one reverted today). I would be in favor of it, but I would certainly like to hear what other editors have to say. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 04:10, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• Hi TylerDurden8823 - Use {{edit semi-protected}} template only when you are unable to makes changes in some semi-protected articles, templates, etc. I've removed the template placed on top of this talk page for no reason. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 20:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

No need to get snippy. I misread this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protection_policy#semi TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:03, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

As distinct from excess fat on upper chest

General body composition being less than optimum and leading to the appearance of the condition this I take it is distinct from the condition proper with the given causes. The article is in the obesity category but there is no mention of ordinary overweight or obese condition as causes. I presume a defining criteria is accumulation of fat over the pectoral muscle at some quantifiable level. This should be clarified because I think the bulk of the apparent cases are a result of this and the true condition is not in fact common outside pediatrics. As shown in the current infobox image the condition is out of some proportion as can be seen by comparison with the image in central obesity. Also resolvable with body composition changes from ordinary diet and exercise vs. not is likely a distinguishing factor. Lycurgus (talk) 13:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Purely excess fat on the chest is pseudogynecomastia as mentioned in the article. This is distinct from true gynecomastia which involves excess fatty tissue and glandular tissue. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 02:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah good, I'll look for it. Wasn't clear if there was a difference, but if there is glandular formation unique to the condition that's much more than a quantitative diff in the amount of fat. IIRC mammary glands are just a modified fat cell complex though? Might merit a distinct subsection/heading. Lycurgus (talk) 02:13, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

See it's unresolved whether sweat or sebaceous but not fat, so a whole quite distinct histology. Lycurgus (talk) 03:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

So pseudo is only briefly mentioned, and the common confusion referred to isn't addressed but don't want to push the point, so leaving as is, will let others address. In particular think it's relevant to the Treatment, Epidemiology, and Society and Culture §§ Lycurgus (talk) 00:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, I just started expanding on it a bit more now. It's most important in the diagnosis section. I'm not sure what you were referring to above about glandular formation. In any case, your point about making sure the distinction between gynecomastia and pseudogynecomastia is clear is definitely heard. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 01:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Well as you say above "... and glandular tissue". The glandular tissue in question is not derived from fat cells and is fairly dramatically not what would be expected on a male. When I started this thread was unaware of this till you pointed out the glandular difference and I looked up the histology of mammary glands. So these are two entirely distinct issues the main differentia specifica for gyncomastia vs. pseudo and the folk perception of something other than the true condition as "bitch tits". I think it's the latter as you confirm that needs/needed addressing. Lycurgus (talk) 02:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I think I understand your point now. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:58, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

steroids

Hi Tyler, I moved steroids to the front because steroids are known to cause gyno, not "probably associated with" gyno like it was before. The meta analysis from 2001 is also specifically about the link between gyno and steroids, whereas the other one is more general. The abstract also shows the prevalence, 52% amongst users. This is why I moved it from "probably associated with" to "known to cause" De Oranje Ridder (talk) 16:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi De Oranje Ridder, I'm really not sure what you mean. The claim that anabolic androgenic steroids are probably associated (not definitely associated) with the development of gynecomastia was well-referenced to a 2012 evidence-based review (seen here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22862307) and the 2001 meta-analysis does not overrule this newer review, which likely took this paper into consideration. I have to re-read the paper to confirm my hunch that the authors of the 2012 review examined that specific 2001 paper, but using the 2001 meta-analysis to change the probable to definite is not a good argument in light of a significantly newer review that likely took additional evidence under advisement. In the abstract of this 2012 review, it says the following: "Medications probably associated with gynecomastia include risperidone, verapamil, nifedipine, omeprazole, alkylating agents, HIV medications (efavirenz), anabolic steroids, alcohol and opioids." Therefore, unless you can provide stronger evidence for this change, it should go back to the way it was before since the claim was well-supported and the onus is on you (as the one who wants to make the change from probable to definite) to show newer/stronger evidence that this relationship has been established as causative. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Wording

I think we should use easy to understand wording. "Benign" is not easy to understand. I am happy with "is a non-cancerous increase" Other thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

As long as it's made clear that gynecomastia is not a form of malignancy (obviously different from breast cancer for example), I'm fine with simple wording. I didn't think benign was difficult for the lay reader but I suppose it's possible some readers could misunderstand. The purpose of saying it's benign (to address comments from Trankuility has nothing to do with the social stigma attached to the condition. That's a separate thought. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes and it is best to keep a low number of points per sentence. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Tamoxifen

It appears that an editor wants to add a boatload of content based on primary sources emphasizing side effects of Tamoxifen. I have reverted back to this version.

Tracing this

• first added here on May 28 by 122.166.159.74; reverted and
• restored here by Nnew32.nj;
• reverted only in part here by TylerDurden8823
• the taken-out bit restored and a whole bunch more added in this series of diffs by 122.166.159.74
• doc james trimmed a bunch of that based on primary sources here
• reverted here by the IP
• good version restored by Doc James
• reverted by IP with all caps edit note
• good version restored by Doc James
• reverted with more yelling and more content added here by IP
• good version restored by David.moreno72
• reverted and more content added here by IP
• good version restored by David.moreno72
• reverted and more content added here by IP
• good version restored by David.moreno72; possible SOCKING noted in edit note
• reverted here by IP with strange edit note about proxying
• good version restored by David.moreno72
• reverted here by IP
• good version restored by CambridgeBayWeather
• reverted and other changes made here by IP
• good version restored here by David.moreno72
• reverted here by IP
• I restored way back to last good version before the disruption here

The page has now been protected here and the IP blocked here. Jytdog (talk) 20:57, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

The main differences here seem to be [here] and [here], if anyone cares to look back at them. Jimw338 (talk) 17:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gynecomastia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151116234358/http://www.eje-online.org/content/171/2/R67.long to http://eje-online.org/content/171/2/R67.long

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:21, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Causes

The main cause of gynecomastia is an imbalance between estrogen and androgen varying from increase in estrogen production, decrease in adrogen production, or a combination of both.Kkher (talk) 19:06, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Self-contradiction

The lead contradicts itself. It says that gynecomastia is "abnormal," but then goes on to say that 35% of men and 70% of teenaged boys get it. (Those numbers seem astronomically high, by the way.) In what way is it abnormal, then? And do those numbers include only gynecomastia, or do they also include pseudogynecomastia (which would make them somewhat more plausible)? 74.67.45.185 (talk) 13:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

It's abnormal for it to be permanent. As for teenagers, a high level of teen boys get a small form during puberty because level of androgens in pubescent boys also rise in this period, just before the rise in testosterone (going by memories here), but it doesn't last. As for adults, having large ones is abnormal, same with it being permanent. A somewhat large share of adults have it nowadays because a somewhat large share of them are obese or overweights. Doesn't make it normal.--Aréat (talk) 21:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 September 2020 and 14 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kkher.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:54, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Acceptance

There was a lengthy discussion on Talk (which is now archived) about men with gynecomastia who have accepted it without problems. It's an important part of the subject but unfortunately all the information on the article page seems to be about negative psychological effects of gynecomastia on men who have it, and dealing with gynecomastia by getting rid of it by surgery etc. This seems to be a reflection of much of the medical and psychiatric attitudes to it. It's quite clear that many men who accept their condition and have not suffered from it at all are prepared to discuss and describe their acceptance of gynecomastia in various forums online; some have taken to breaking the image of traditional "unfeminine masculinity" by wearing brassieres and the like as part of their way of dealing with male breasts. It's a pity that the forums and such are unlikely to be regarded as reputable sources for inclusion in this article, which means a whole sector of people who successfully accept their gynecomastia are invisible, and people reading the article are most likely to form an opinion that it is all bad and must be cured by some medical or even surgical intervention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:EA01:1090:2DE7:AEB8:1CF6:11CF (talk) 11:47, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

UCSF Inquiry Immersion 2022 - Workplan

Hello, we are current medical students who are working to edit and improve medical wikipedia pages as part of a learning initiative at UCSF!

We have a few goals for improvement that we would like to implement within this article and are categorically working on improving these aspects of the Gynecomastia page:

- Remove gendered terminology from this page to remain inclusive

- Review current content for outdated or vague information and edit accordingly to maintain clinical accuracy

- Review Signs and Symptoms content for appropriate accuracy and detailed language that is patient-oriented

- Engage with current medical literature in the field of gynecomastia and update the Causes, Pathophysiology, and Diagnosis sections to reflect the breadth of underlying etiologies to Gynecomastia

- Reorganize Causes, Pathophysiology, and Diagnosis sections with appropriate Headings and visual aids to facilitate ease of understanding

- Add clinically useful images to supplement the content of the page AN ucsf (talk) 02:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

UCSF Inquiry Immersion 2022 review-Javarcia

Howdy WikiCommunity, I'm a UCSF medical student (and classmates with the student editors who revised the Gynecomastia article this past month). I'm providing some feedback for additional edits that might be helpful for anyone who edits this article in the future.

After reading the article, I can see the hard work you all have put in! I appreciate the addition of the table, the additional and updated sources, and the restructuring of the pathophysiology section to be more specific and thorough. I did not find any irrelevant information, non-neutral claims/framing, or unsupported facts in the paper (though I could have easily missed something!).

With regards to future edits, I think these edits could be helpful: maybe clarify/change the wording around secondary vs. central gynecomastia (it's called one in the androgen deficiency section but the other in the hypogonadism section. Are they the same, different?); define AMAB upon first usage (currently AMAB is used for the first time in the Diagnosis section but is not defined there or prior to); revise the article additionally to make the AMAB/individual with testes usage more consistent (both with regards to using that language throughout the entire article AND maybe deciding to use one or the other throughout the article for ease of reading).

On a broader level for the WikiCommunity, it might be helpful for future editors to reduce some of the jargon present in the article overall. Most of this came from the previous state of the article (as opposed to from our med students' edits), but it could improve the article and make it more accessible.

Great work so far, I learned a lot reading this article!! ~~~ Javarcia (talk) 03:13, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

UCSF Inquiry Immersion 2022 Peer review #2 by Jvb26

Overall great job so far making the edits. It is very evident that this group has put a lot of work into improving this page. I want to address first that I believe that you have met all goals set on your workplan. You have successfully made the language of this article more gender inclusive. Also, I appreciate the changes made to the pathophysiology section from the new organization, extra level of detail that is included in each section, and that you updated the information that was out of date from prior revisions. The organization that you have now is consistent with wikipedia's manual of style for Medicine related articles. Some more general feedback: - This article includes relevant and recent publications, it also includes citations where necessary. - The tone of the article is neutral and does not appear to have bias - Facts are supported by reliable sources - Most sources included are reviews from peer reviewed journal articles.

Small feedback the group can consider implementing: - The two images on the Gynecomastia box on the right of the summary of the article do not load properly. I tried this in different word browsers and they do not load, the link also takes me to a place that says the page does not exist. All the other images besides those two are correctly loaded. - Some of the wording can be simplified to include less jargon so that it is more understandable for people less familiar with the topic. - Under the "society and culture section", consider removing source 70 and associated information. This source is not as high quality and the information that it is used to cite is not in that article. (note: this was not an source included by UCSF students, it was included in prior revisions but I figured I might as well comment on here since its a minor edit)

Wonderful job at significantly improving this article!

Jvb26 (talk) 06:06, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: UCSF SOM Inquiry In Action-- Wikipedia Editing 2022

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 August 2022 and 20 September 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AN ucsf, Mitac10, CNICHOLAS6533 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Javarcia, Jvb26, Mhsiddeek, EBPS rulez.

— Assignment last updated by Mhsiddeek (talk) 06:22, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Only in males?

The article says that gynecomastia only occurs in males. According to the wiki article on Sam Smith, who is non-binary and therefore not male, they had gynecomastia as a child. Should the article discuss gynecomastia in non-males? Baller McGee (talk) 16:37, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Source(s)? Bon courage (talk) 17:35, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I think it is perfectly obvious that "males" here means people assigned male at birth, irrespective of gender, who are not taking hormones with the intention of growing breasts nor who otherwise desire to grow breasts. There is no reason to drag Sam Smith into this. DanielRigal (talk) 18:33, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Changing "males" to "those assigned male at birth" or even "cis males" is not a difficult change and in my opinion would clarify the article. For example, it is not obvious whether this condition does or does not apply to trans men, whether it would be considered something medically distinct if it *did* manifest in a post-op trans man, etc. Sam Smith is not a trans man but the term "male" in the article is painfully ambiguous about if it's referring to gender identity or physical sex at birth. If an enby or even an intersex individual did develop this condition, depending on their situation there could be very little medical guidance they could turn to, so using "male" as if it's a biological monolith is a misnomer at best. Eferwalt (talk) 02:13, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Acceptance and previous discussions

I've just now found this article and wanted to know more about it. But it's disappointing to see no mention of acceptance in the article and that all the comments regarding males who accept their gynecomastia, and do not intend to have medical intervention to "cure" the condition, have been moved to a discussion archive. Indeed, one fairly recent comment was made on 7 April 2022 and moved to the archive less than five months later, on 30 August 2022. I fail to see how discussions might continue without retaining comments for a longer period. Additionally, there is one comment what was made in 15 April 2023 that is still present. Is that evidence of some kind of bias away from the concept that gynecomastia might be accepted by those who have it? As far as I'm concerned it's a valid issue that ought to be included in the article, and not only because some people might prefer to see more balance replace the overwhelming theme that it's a nasty disease which must be got rid of. 2600:1700:EA01:1090:C81E:7714:B747:2E1B (talk) 09:02, 18 September 2023 (UTC)