Table of Con­tents | Arti­cle doi: 10.17742/IMAGE.BR.11.1.1 | PDF

Erotic. Maternal. Cultural. Symbolic. Medical. What are breasts? How are they imagined? And who gets to decide?

Reisa Klein, Gabrielle M. Siegers and Dorothy Woodman

The three of us, each in our own way, have var­ied and long term rela­tion­ships with breasts. Grow­ing up, we have expe­ri­enced years of watch­ing our own bod­ies change before our very eyes, often medi­at­ed through the male gaze. And that chang­ing ter­rain that we call our body-self con­tin­ues to shift and alter, as repro­duc­tion, aging, and—for one of us—breast can­cer leave their marks. Through their pres­ence or absence, breasts are large­ly visu­al, even more so through their objec­ti­fi­ca­tion and frag­men­ta­tion in media rep­re­sen­ta­tions and adver­tise­ments as well as med­ical imagery and cos­met­ic pro­ce­dures, recon­struc­tions, and pros­the­ses. These visu­al “imag­ings” of our ever-chang­ing breasts, along with their inher­ent flu­id­i­ty and tex­tures, prompt­ed us to begin ongo­ing con­ver­sa­tions that are occur­ring across a num­ber of dis­ci­plines, includ­ing human­i­ties, social sci­ences, and the arts, but also biol­o­gy, oncol­o­gy and medicine.

Breast imag­ing in med­i­cine has shaped how we under­stand these mate­r­i­al objects as self-evi­dent. At the micro­scop­ic lev­el, the med­ical gaze con­cen­trates on breast tis­sue as a form of synec­doche. Such med­ical imag­ing informs sur­geons as to the loca­tion of breast tumour tis­sues to be removed, and radi­ol­o­gists as to where to direct radio­ther­a­py, either to debulk tumours pri­or to surgery, or to erad­i­cate poten­tial remain­ing malig­nant cells after removal of the pri­ma­ry tumour. These pro­ce­dures sug­gest that breasts are con­tin­gent upon how they are framed through med­ical tech­niques. Biop­sies, small pieces of tumour removed with a nee­dle, pri­or to surgery and/or tumour tis­sue removed dur­ing surgery are sent to the pathol­o­gy lab, where they are processed, stained, and under­go assess­ment by a pathol­o­gist to deter­mine char­ac­ter­is­tics of the tumour, such as stage and type, that inform fur­ther patient treat­ment. The whole is con­tained with­in the part; the breast’s nar­ra­tive is relayed through its cells.

From a sci­en­tif­ic per­spec­tive, imag­ing pro­vides an invalu­able tool to mon­i­tor breasts over time and detect patho­log­i­cal changes that could lead to a can­cer diag­no­sis. Mam­mog­ra­phy (low-dose x-ray) is a stan­dard imag­ing tech­nique used for rou­tine screen­ing, which is some­what con­tro­ver­sial (Bley­er et al.; Cold­man et al.; Helvie and Bev­ers; Nagler et al.). Ultra­sound, com­put­er­ized axi­al tomog­ra­phy (CT or CAT), mag­net­ic res­o­nance imag­ing (MRI), or Positron Emis­sion Tomog­ra­phy (PET) may also be employed to sup­port diag­nos­tic and treat­ment deci­sions. If breast can­cer is diag­nosed at a lat­er stage, bone scans, X-rays, CT, or PET imag­ing may be used to detect metas­tases, tumours that may have formed in oth­er areas of the body, such as bones, brain, lungs, and liv­er. Thus, mul­ti­ple imag­ing modal­i­ties are used togeth­er in the diag­no­sis, treat­ment, and fol­low-up mon­i­tor­ing of breast can­cer patients.

While these visu­al tools are wide­ly employed as per guide­lines set out by provin­cial and nation­al orga­ni­za­tions, their use is not with­out con­tro­ver­sy and dis­cus­sion, as ben­e­fits and risks should be con­sid­ered in each indi­vid­ual case. For exam­ple, some research sug­gests that wide­spread mam­mog­ra­phy screen­ing has no impact on breast can­cer patient mor­tal­i­ty (Bley­er et al.), where­as oth­er research shows that ear­ly detec­tion enabled by mam­mog­ra­phy is sav­ing women’s lives (Cold­man et al.; Helvie and Bev­ers). Of course, the poten­tial harm due to radi­a­tion expo­sure must be weighed against the ben­e­fits of ear­ly detec­tion. False pos­i­tive and false neg­a­tive inter­pre­ta­tions of imag­ing bring their own lay­ers of anx­i­ety that are detri­men­tal to health. Yet, by and large, the ben­e­fits of these med­ical imag­ing tech­niques are thought to far out­weigh any asso­ci­at­ed risks. As such, even med­ical imag­ing does not nec­es­sar­i­ly pro­vide a val­ue-free or neu­tral under­stand­ing of the breast, but is co-con­sti­tut­ed by social, cul­tur­al, eco­nom­ic, and polit­i­cal influ­ences. The process is thus both diag­nos­tic and aes­thet­ic; breasts are there­by reim­aged. From local biop­sies, we then turn to cross-species exper­i­men­ta­tion. The lat­ter process is explained, with exam­ples of his­to­log­i­cal analy­sis, in the arti­cle “Imag­ing Human Breast Tumours in Dif­fer­ent Species: How Human are They?” by Gabrielle M. Siegers et al. in this issue.

Turn­ing from the microscopy of the med­ical gaze to the macroscopy of cul­tur­al analy­sis, we find dis­cus­sions about breasts as sym­bols and sites of asym­met­ri­cal pow­er. A rep­re­sen­ta­tive sur­vey of this field includes his­tor­i­cal stud­ies, cul­tur­al cri­tique, and inter­sec­tion­al fem­i­nist and queer inter­ven­tions. Mar­i­lyn Yalom, in her sur­vey of West­ern Europe and North America’s his­to­ry of breasts, has sit­u­at­ed the vari­eties of invest­ments in the rep­re­sen­ta­tion of breasts and their func­tions as means for the sur­veil­lance and dis­ci­pline of women’s bod­ies for large scale polit­i­cal, reli­gious, and sex­ist pur­pos­es (Yalom). Bar­bara Ehren­re­ich has engaged with her expe­ri­ences of breast can­cer to inves­ti­gate and expose the cor­po­rate, polit­i­cal, bio­med­ical, and gen­dered agen­das with which breast can­cer patients and “sur­vivors” are bur­dened (“Smile or Die”; “Wel­come to Can­cer­land”). And oth­ers, such as Audre Lorde, have pro­vid­ed ground­break­ing reflec­tions, often through their own expe­ri­ences of breast can­cer, on the inter­sec­tion­al forces that oper­ate to oppress queer women of col­or and pres­sure “sur­vivors” to con­form to nor­ma­tive fem­i­nine and healthy bod­ies (Lorde).

The field of dis­cus­sion is by no means homo­ge­neous. Diane Herndl revis­its Lorde’s argu­ments and pro­pos­es a some­what dif­fer­ent, post-human­ist approach for deter­min­ing whether to recon­struct (or reim­age) the breast (Herndl). Con­sid­er­ing cul­tur­al forces more gen­er­al­ly that influ­ence women’s under­stand­ings about their breasts and expe­ri­ences of breast can­cer, Saman­tha King takes a panoram­ic view of the pink cul­ture dri­ving phil­an­thropic inter­ests close­ly tied to cor­po­rate inter­ests (King). Queer the­o­ry also informs new con­cep­tu­al­iza­tions about breasts. Kim Hall asks us to con­sid­er the assump­tions under­ly­ing claims that a breast is tru­ly female and how queer-breast­ed expe­ri­ences offer impor­tant counter-imag­in­ings (Hall). Trevor Mac­Don­ald pro­vides impor­tant reflec­tions and reimag­ings of breasts/chests by trans­men who have giv­en birth and how they make deci­sions about lac­ta­tion (Mac­Don­ald).

As we met togeth­er to con­cep­tu­alise this project, we want­ed to build on these pro­duc­tive and some­times com­pet­ing per­spec­tives by bring­ing new under­stand­ings and visu­al imag­in­ings to the table. We were look­ing for new ways for­ward that could not only break through the con­ven­tion­al bina­ries of gen­dered, racist, het­ero­nor­ma­tive, colo­nial, and neolib­er­al tropes, but would also exper­i­ment with con­cep­tu­al inno­va­tions. In short, in reimag­ing breasts, we want to explore resis­tant and sub­ver­sive voic­es and images where breasts are not just enclosed bio­log­i­cal body parts, but where they are com­plex “assem­blages” that are co-con­sti­tut­ed by mate­ri­al­i­ties and dis­cours­es (on assem­blage, see Braidot­ti; Grosz; Deleuze and Guat­tari; Puar). These diverse bio­log­i­cal, bio­med­ical, socio-cul­tur­al, and politi­co-eco­nom­ic inter­ac­tions refig­ure the bound­aried imag­ings of the breast, one exam­ple being the use of breast tis­sue for penile recon­struc­tion (Safak), anoth­er the use of abdom­i­nal tis­sue in TRAM flap breast recon­struc­tion (“TRAM Flap Recon­struc­tion”). Rep­re­sen­ta­tions of breasts as land­scapes, for exam­ple, in Lorde’s can­cer jour­nals, Sal­ly Loughridge’s piece in this issue, or the imag­ing of breasts through their haunt­ing absence in Hol­lis Sigler’s art, are only a few exam­ples of how breasts are being reim­aged (Lorde; Sigler). By engag­ing with the tis­sued, leaky, and plas­tic (Shildrick), our approach con­sid­ers new impli­ca­tions for the breast as rhi­zomat­ic, empha­siz­ing rela­tions and move­ments, rather than sta­bi­liz­ing tropes of gen­der, sex, body, and iden­ti­ty. Unlike the lega­cy of the phal­lus, where its essen­tial­ist sig­ni­fi­ca­tion, log­ics, and gram­mars con­strain by their nec­es­sary cre­ation of the “Oth­er,” the breast’s capa­cious­ness offers mul­ti­ple absences and pres­ences that mobi­lize bod­ies, dis­cours­es, and spaces as assem­blages and tactics.

In con­tem­po­rary cul­tures, across bor­ders and ter­ri­to­ries, breasts are increas­ing­ly “pop­ping up” phys­i­cal­ly and cul­tur­al­ly in new places: as inflat­a­bles atop build­ings (“Giant Breast”) and bob­bing in canals (Stake), as archi­tec­tur­al inno­va­tions (Ver­steeg) and mis-ren­der­ings in anatom­i­cal rep­re­sen­ta­tions (e.g., images of milk ducts; see Dean), images cir­cu­lat­ing on social media (Hock­ing), and art cre­at­ed with/by “boobs” (Kirko­va). We look to pop­u­lar culture’s emer­gent “play” with breasts as new bod­i­ly dis­plays of protest. Build­ing on these new re-imag­in­ings, this spe­cial issue ini­ti­ates a flu­id and re-pro­duc­tive space for reimag­ing and milky writ­ing (Cixous) in which those who read some or all of this jour­nal could tra­verse and gen­er­ate new con­ver­sa­tions. Like milk-ducts and the expan­sive unbor­dered ter­ri­to­ry of the breast, this jour­nal was envi­sioned as a rhizome—a pro­lif­er­at­ing, non-lin­ear assem­blage that, in its best form, would extend its life-force beyond even the infini­ties of the web. We are thrilled to use the elec­tron­ic jour­nal plat­form for this—its rhi­zomat­ic rela­tion­ship to oth­er diverse con­ver­sa­tions and its acces­si­bil­i­ty to diverse read­ers cre­ate an ide­al envi­ron­ment for this project.

In this edi­tion, you will find paint­ings, pho­tographs, med­ical imag­ing, poet­ry, per­son­al and ana­lyt­i­cal essays, and even pod­casts. They are all, in the spir­it of the rhi­zome, con­nect­ed with­in the perime­ters of the jour­nal genre, and free-float­ing enough to reach beyond it. They invite mul­ti-sen­so­ry expe­ri­ences as vital com­po­nents of crit­i­cal think­ing and reflec­tion. We wel­come you to dip into the jour­nal, in whole or in parts, and to let these con­trib­u­tors take you back into your own bod­ies, expe­ri­ences, and selves, and con­sid­er how the archive of bod­i­ly expe­ri­ences, dreams, affects, intel­lects and tech­nolo­gies can restruc­ture the very par­a­dig­mat­ic foun­da­tion upon which these are under­stood and processed over time. This work may extend into the larg­er con­texts in which you labour, repro­duce, cre­ate, and engage as cit­i­zens dur­ing this time of cri­sis, call­ing us to reim­age our place with­in and among all that are part of a glob­al community.

Con­trib­u­tors have brought cre­ativ­i­ty to this dis­cus­sion in diverse ways. In the abstract for “Sea­wa­ter/C-cup: Fishy Trans Embod­i­ments and Geo­gra­phies of Sex Work in New­found­land,” Daze Jef­feries elo­quent­ly writes:

I think with my aug­ment­ed breasts—beyond the med­ical archive and away from the clinic—as an embod­ied inquiry into trans geo­gra­phies of sex work in the island world of Ktaqamkuk/Newfoundland, Cana­da. Employ­ing the felt knowl­edges of my breasts in visu­als and poet­ics, I illus­trate fishy entan­gle­ments shared between my sex work and breast aug­men­ta­tion that have reframed my social and sex­u­al embod­i­ment. Engag­ing with my breasts as a con­tact zone of embod­ied dis/pleasure, eco­nom­ic promise, and social vio­lence, I sug­gest that pay­ing cre­ative atten­tion to trans women’s breasts might reim­age notions of trans sex-work­ing desire.

These words exem­pli­fy this edition’s larg­er project: to engage diverse expe­ri­ences and rela­tion­ships, images and lan­guage, so as to dis­sem­ble the con­straints of rep­re­sen­ta­tion and reflec­tion (in all their forms) in the neolib­er­al and Carte­sian hege­monies that con­tin­ue to hold us hostage to out­mod­ed, harm­ful, and mori­bund praxis.

Anique Ellis and Josephine Baker’s col­lab­o­ra­tive poet­ic prose “Reclaim­ing Breast” star­tles us from the out­set. We won­der: why the sin­gu­lar? We take out our red pen to cor­rect. In so doing, we become the audi­tor addressed by the poem—we are impli­cat­ed in the pol­i­tics it names and resists. This dis­rup­tion of gram­marly expec­ta­tions strikes at the heart of the hege­mon­ic modes of rep­re­sen­ta­tion and think­ing about women’s bod­ies. It dis­ables the ide­o­log­i­cal sig­ni­fi­er. Breast must always be pluralized—to say oth­er­wise is to devi­ate from accept­ed prac­tices. The poem con­tin­ues to veer between plur­al and sin­gu­lar, invit­ing the gram­mat­i­cal dis­rup­tions that punc­tu­ate the poem through­out. The strug­gle to speak is to resist the ide­o­log­i­cal gram­mars that coerce rep­re­sen­ta­tion of words and ideas, of breast itself, and in so doing, to dis­rupt oppres­sive cul­tur­al and social gram­mars that dis­ci­pline the body: “My breast does not define me, so don’t define my val­ue, fem­i­nin­i­ty, or worth with my breast.”

In “Going Flat: Breast Can­cer, Mas­tec­to­my and the Pol­i­tics of Choice,” Abi­gail Bakan exam­ines her own per­son­al jour­ney of “going flat” as an alter­na­tive to breast recon­struc­tion. She chal­lenges the pater­nal­is­tic bio­med­ical push for breast con­ser­va­tion where breast can­cer is (re)affirmed as a loss, a lack and an absence. Through a new col­lec­tiv­i­ty of women choos­ing to “go flat” Bakan advo­cates for a pol­i­tics of choice and a reimag­in­ing of sur­gi­cal options fol­low­ing sur­gi­cal treat­ments for breast can­cer that fore­grounds women’s rights and bod­i­ly autonomy.

In “Reveal­ing Nar­ra­tives in Before and After Pho­tographs of Cos­met­ic Breast Surg­eries,” Rachel Hurst breathes life into oth­er­wise “unre­mark­able” images of pre- and post-sur­gi­cal cas­es, deriv­ing unex­pect­ed lay­ers of mean­ing from the pho­tographs by bind­ing them to real-life sto­ries of women who have under­gone plas­tic surg­eries. In short, Hurst reim­ages these images and recon­nects the de-indi­vid­u­al­ized tor­sos to women who have been in their place, fill­ing in some of the gaps by shed­ding light on what is—by design—hidden from the intend­ed nar­ra­tive embod­ied by such photographs.

Vanes­sa Greaves’s stun­ning tor­so sculp­ture “Bro­ken” chal­lenges us to con­tem­plate the impli­ca­tions sur­round­ing a miss­ing breast. Defi­ant in its beau­ty and solid­i­ty, this piece encour­ages us to focus on and appre­ci­ate what is present as opposed to what is absent, yet acknowl­edges the inner strug­gle women face when com­ing to terms with their altered self after mastectomy.

Sal­ly Loughridge’s art­work and reflec­tions in “Rad Art: A Jour­ney Through Radi­a­tion Treat­ment” offer remark­able paint­ings of breasts as land­scapes accom­pa­nied by brief reflec­tive state­ments as she con­tem­plates her expe­ri­ences of breast can­cer through image and text. She writes in her open­ing reflec­tion: “I had always thought of my breasts as a matched pair. But since I received a diag­no­sis of breast can­cer, they have become dis­tinct­ly indi­vid­ual. I am anx­ious about start­ing radi­a­tion, and I feel pro­tec­tive of my right breast—in a famil­iar, moth­er­ly way.” Play­ing with old tropes in new ways, Loughridge express­es the incom­men­su­ra­bil­i­ty of her expe­ri­ences, open­ing up vis­tas for expan­sive reimagings.

In “Run­ning for the Future,” Rachael Pack con­sid­ers images used for the Cana­di­an Breast Can­cer Foundation’s 2013 Run for the Future fundrais­ing cam­paign, reveal­ing unex­pect­ed mes­sag­ing pro­ject­ed from images of chil­dren tak­ing steps to cre­ate a bet­ter future with­out breast can­cer. Pack is com­pelling and artic­u­late, argu­ing that the “queer­ing of time” employed by the fundrais­ing cam­paign con­veys a sense of duty on Cana­di­ans to take steps to pro­tect het­ero­sex­u­al nuclear fam­i­lies of the future. Pack’s sur­pris­ing analy­sis will cer­tain­ly stim­u­late inter­est­ing dis­cus­sions with respect to ethics, com­mu­ni­ca­tion, fem­i­nism, pol­i­tics, and intersectionality.

In “Imag­ing Human Breast Tumours in Dif­fer­ent Species: How Human are They?,” Siegers et al. con­sid­er in a gedanken­ex­per­i­ment the philo­soph­i­cal ques­tion of whether implant­ed human breast tis­sue can still be con­sid­ered human once it is grow­ing with­in anoth­er species, and show strik­ing images of such hybrid enti­ties. While enlight­en­ing read­ers about aspects of sci­en­tif­ic research, this piece dis­cussing implan­ta­tion of human tis­sue into oth­er liv­ing species rais­es ques­tions about bor­ders and cat­e­gories in numer­ous ways, most impor­tant­ly for this issue, con­cern­ing where breasts begin and end, or if they do at all.

Dorothy Wood­man and Aloys Fleischmann’s haunt­ing “Still Life” also asks the audi­ence to con­sid­er where the body begins and ends. Their unique col­lab­o­ra­tion results in art that incor­po­rates mul­ti­ple per­spec­tives simul­ta­ne­ous­ly. The public/private move­ment and dis­play of the pros­the­sis invites oppor­tu­ni­ties for his, as well as her, expe­ri­ence, chal­leng­ing ideas of fixed sub­jects and objects. As the pros­the­sis both stands in for a body part and is incor­po­rat­ed into a painter­ly pho­to­graph and still life, the bina­ries are blurred in ways that cre­ate new arrange­ments and dis­cours­es that set the stage for a new breast politics.

Works Cited

Bley­er, Archie, et al. “Impact of screen­ing mam­mog­ra­phy on breast can­cer mor­tal­i­ty.” Inter­na­tion­al Jour­nal of Can­cer, vol. 138, no. 8, 2016, pp. 2003-12.

Braidot­ti, Rosi. The Posthu­man. Poli­ty Press, 2013.

Cixous, Hélène. “The Laugh of the Medusa.” Trans­lat­ed by Kei­th Cohen and Paula Cohen, Signs, vol. 1, no. 4, 1976, pp. 875-93.

Cold­man, Andrew, et al. “Pan-Cana­di­an Study of Mam­mog­ra­phy Screen­ing and Mor­tal­i­ty from Breast Can­cer.” Jour­nal of the Nation­al Can­cer Insti­tute, vol. 106, no. 11, 2014, p. 1, doi:10.1093/jnci/dju261.

Dean, Signe. “Don’t Freak Out About That Viral ‘Milk Duct’ Image, It’s Not Actu­al­ly Cor­rect.” Sci­enceAl­ert, 26 Apr. 2019, www​.sci​enceal​ert​.com/​d​o​n​-​t​-​f​r​e​a​k​-​o​u​t​-​a​b​o​u​t​-​t​h​a​t​-​v​i​r​a​l​-​m​i​l​k​-​d​u​c​t​-​i​m​a​g​e​-​i​t​-​s​-​n​o​t​-​a​c​t​u​a​l​l​y​-​c​o​r​r​ect.

Deleuze, Gilles, and Félix Guat­tari. A Thou­sand Plateaus: Cap­i­tal­ism and Schiz­o­phre­nia. Trans­lat­ed by Bri­an Mas­su­mi, U of Min­neso­ta P, 1987.

Ehren­re­ich, Bar­bara. “Smile or Die: The Bright Side of Can­cer.” Bright-Sided: How the Relent­less Pro­mo­tion of Pos­i­tive Think­ing Has Under­mined Amer­i­ca. Met­ro­pol­i­tan Books/Henry Holt and Com­pa­ny, 2009, pp. 15-44.

—. “Wel­come to Can­cer­land.” Harper’s, Nov. 2001, pp. 43-53, https://​harpers​.org/​a​r​c​h​i​v​e​/​2​0​0​1​/​1​1​/​w​e​l​c​o​m​e​-​t​o​-​c​a​n​c​e​r​l​and.

Giant Breast Erect­ed on Top of Lon­don Build­ing to Counter Stig­ma Over Breast­feed­ing.” Women in the World, 29 Mar. 2017, wom​eninthe​world​.com/​2​0​1​7​/​0​3​/​2​9​/​g​i​a​n​t​-​b​r​e​a​s​t​-​e​r​e​c​t​e​d​-​o​n​-​t​o​p​-​o​f​-​l​o​n​d​o​n​-​b​u​i​l​d​i​n​g​-​t​o​-​c​o​u​n​t​e​r​-​s​t​i​g​m​a​-​o​v​e​r​-​b​r​e​a​s​t​f​e​e​d​ing.

Grosz, Eliz­a­beth A. Volatile Bod­ies: Towards a Cor­po­re­al Fem­i­nism. Indi­ana UP, 1994.

Hall, Kim Q. “Queer Breast­ed Expe­ri­ence.” “You’ve Changed”: Sex Reas­sign­ment and Per­son­al Iden­ti­ty. Edit­ed by Lau­rie Shrage, Oxford UP, 2009, pp. 121-34.

Helvie, Mark A., and Therese B. Bev­ers. “Screen­ing Mam­mog­ra­phy for Aver­age-Risk Women: The Con­tro­ver­sy and NCCN’s Posi­tion.” Jour­nal of the Nation­al Com­pre­hen­sive Can­cer Net­work, vol. 16, no. 11, 2018, pp. 1398-04.

Herndl, Diane Price. “Recon­struct­ing the Posthu­man Fem­i­nist Body Twen­ty Years after Audre Lorde’s The Can­cer Jour­nals.” Dis­abil­i­ty Stud­ies: Enabling the Human­i­ties. Edit­ed by Sharon Sny­der et al., Mod­ern Lan­guage Asso­ci­a­tion of Amer­i­ca, 2002, pp. 144-55.

Hock­ing, Jana. “I Con­duct­ed an Exper­i­ment on Insta­gram … With My Boobs. The Results Speak Vol­umes.” MamaMia, 5 Dec. 2017, www​.mamamia​.com​.au/​s​o​c​i​a​l​-​m​e​d​i​a​-​l​o​v​e​s​-​b​o​obs.

King, Saman­tha. Pink Rib­bons, Inc.: Breast Can­cer and the Pol­i­tics of Phil­an­thropy. U of Min­neso­ta P, 2006.

Kirko­va, Deni. “Exclu­sive: The ‘Boob Artist’—Who Has Sold Her £300 Can­vas­es to Rus­sell Brand and Hugh Hefner—Gives Us Her Breast Paint­ing Tips in Two New Videos.” Dai­ly Mail, 31 Dec. 2013, www​.dai​ly​mail​.co​.uk/​f​e​m​a​i​l​/​a​r​t​i​c​l​e​-​2​5​3​1​7​1​8​/​T​h​e​-​B​o​o​b​i​e​-​P​a​i​n​t​e​r​-​s​o​l​d​-​3​0​0​-​c​a​n​v​a​s​e​s​-​R​u​s​s​e​l​l​-​B​r​a​n​d​-​H​u​g​h​-​H​e​f​n​e​r​-​g​i​v​e​s​-​b​r​e​a​s​t​-​p​a​i​n​t​i​n​g​-​t​i​p​s​-​t​w​o​-​n​e​w​-​v​i​d​e​o​s​.​h​tml.

Lorde, Audre. The Can­cer Jour­nals: Spe­cial Edi­tion. Aunt Lute, 1997.

Mac­Don­ald, Trevor, et al. “Trans­mas­cu­line Indi­vid­u­als’ Expe­ri­ences with Lac­ta­tion, Chest­feed­ing, and Gen­der Iden­ti­ty: A Qual­i­ta­tive Study.” BMC Preg­nan­cy and Child­birth, vol. 16, no. 106, 2016, pp. 1-17, doi: 10.1186/s12884-016-0907-y.

Nagler, Rebekah H., et al. “The Evo­lu­tion of Mam­mog­ra­phy Con­tro­ver­sy in the News Media: A Con­tent Analy­sis of Four Pub­li­cized Screen­ing Rec­om­men­da­tions, 2009 to 2016.” Women’s Health Issues, vol. 29, no. 1, 2019, pp. 87-95.

Puar, Jas­bir K. “‘I Would Rather be a Cyborg Than a God­dess’: Becom­ing-Inter­sec­tion­al in Assem­blage The­o­ry.” philoSOPHIA, vol. 2, no. 1, 2012, pp. 49-66.

Safak, Tune, et al. “Uti­liza­tion of the Breast for Penile Recon­struc­tion in a Trans­sex­u­al.” Plas­tic and Recon­struc­tive Surgery, vol. 96, no. 6, 1995, p. 1483-85.

Shildrick, Margrit. Leaky Bod­ies and Bound­aries: Fem­i­nism, Post­mod­ernism and (Bio)Ethics. Rout­ledge, 1997.

Sigler, Hol­lis. Hol­lis Sigler’s Breast Can­cer Jour­nal. Hud­son Hills Press, 1999.

Stake, Mare­ka. “I Float­ed Boobs Down Amsterdam’s Canals in Cel­e­bra­tion of Women’s Bod­ies.” Metro, 27 Mar. 2019, metro​.co​.uk/​2​0​1​9​/​0​3​/​2​7​/​i​-​f​l​o​a​t​e​d​-​b​o​o​b​s​-​d​o​w​n​-​a​m​s​t​e​r​d​a​m​s​-​c​a​n​a​l​s​-​i​n​-​c​e​l​e​b​r​a​t​i​o​n​-​o​f​-​w​o​m​e​n​s​-​b​o​d​i​e​s​-​8​9​0​8​166.

TRAM Flap Recon­struc­tion: What to Expect.” Breast Can­cer, 7 Mar. 2019. https://​www​.breast​cancer​.org/​t​r​e​a​t​m​e​n​t​/​s​u​r​g​e​r​y​/​r​e​c​o​n​s​t​r​u​c​t​i​o​n​/​t​y​p​e​s​/​a​u​t​o​l​o​g​o​u​s​/​t​r​a​m​/​w​h​a​t​-​t​o​-​e​x​p​ect.

Ver­steeg, Anna. “Archi­tec­ture of the Breast.” BBook Project, 26 Jan. 2019, bbookpro​ject​.com/​2​0​1​9​/​0​1​/​2​6​/​a​r​c​h​i​t​e​c​t​u​r​e​-​o​f​-​t​h​e​-​b​r​e​ast.

Yalom, Mar­i­lyn. A His­to­ry of the Breast. Bal­lan­tine Pub­lish­ing-Ran­dom House, 1997.