What is the evidentiary basis for mandating the full *diya* for male breasts?

Primary text

The evidence is that whatever incurs *diya* in a woman also incurs it in a man, such as hands and other limbs. They are two organs in the body that provide aesthetic value, and there are no others of their kind in the body, so the full *diya* is due, similar to the hands. Furthermore, the aesthetic value has been removed, necessitating *diya*, analogous to the ruling on the four types of hair according to Abu Hanifa, or the deaf person's ear or the flat-nosed person's nose according to all scholars. This differs from the intact eye because it lacks complete aesthetic value, and because it is an organ where the part that warrants *diya* has been lost, so its full *diya* is not due, unlike hands that are paralyzed, which is distinct from the current issue.