17th century medical books largely agreed that non-pregnant bodies could lactate. But did this include cis men?

In some cases, yes. Still, they were certain that “man’s milk” differed from “women’s milk” #EarlyModernPeriod1/8

Repeating this because it’s important. Trans rights, always. 2/ https://twitter.com/solveig_hanson/status/1389729820490158081

An anatomy textbook from 1694 opens a discussion of non-pregnant bodies lactating by saying that “Milk never breeds in Men, because they have no redundancy of menstruous Blood”

This goes back to the idea that breast milk was made of blood. No period = no breast milk 3/ https://twitter.com/solveig_hanson/status/1389403883751890947

The author, Diemerbroek, immediately contradicts himself, saying that “Men many times give a great quantity of Milk” but that “Mens milk is no true Milk, but a juice like to Milk, and therefore to be distinguished from Milk” 4/

Other than not being milk, “it is bred in the Breasts, and differs nothing at all from Womens Milk, neither in colour, smell, taste or substance, and the Children are as well nourished with it, as with Womens milk” 5/

So it’s identical but not the same because it can’t be made from menstrual blood. No one seems to have any theories as to what it *is* made of. Some concern is voiced that those lactating w/o menstrual blood to spare will perish from blood loss — it’s not a major concern. 6/

He’s sure cis men do lactate, but Diemerbroek is quick to assert that it isn’t the norm among white, Christian men (hi racism!)

He challenges readers to “Suck or handle the Breasts of a hundred Men..as long as you please, you shall not find the Milk come to all, perhaps not any”

The topic of Breasts & breast milk, specifically men lactating was used to propel some seriously problematic narratives in early modern print — something I’ll talk more about tomorrow. For now, check out Hannah’s #EarlyModernPeriod thread from today which touches on this! 8/8 https://twitter.com/theglintoflight/status/1390700831742304256