In the US, the question only comes up in Arizona and Louisiana. ARS 13-1402(A) says that "A person commits indecent exposure if he or she exposes his or her genitals or anus or she exposes the areola or nipple of her breast or breasts and another person is present, and the defendant is reckless about whether the other person, as a reasonable person, would be offended or alarmed by the act", and LA Rev Stat §14:106 "The crime of obscenity is the intentional: (1) Exposure of the genitals, pubic hair, anus, vulva, or female breast nipples in any public place or place open to the public view, or in any prison or jail, with the intent of arousing sexual desire or which appeals to prurient interest or is patently offensive...".
The size of the breast is thus immaterial. In Arizona, the question is whether the exposure would offend or alarm a reasonable person, and in Louisiana, the question is whether the exposure had the intent of arousing sexual desire, or appealed to prurient interest or is patently offensive. Furthermore, an unsettled question is whether a person legally qualifies as a female. It is, however, correct to conclude that a statutory male can lewdly or patently offensively display his nipple(s) without suffering legal repercussions. In neither state is there a statutory definition of "female" as applicable to criminal law.
Discrimination based on sex is widely prohibited in the US, so there are very few opportunities to discover whether a person's gender self-identification is legally recognized, and from what I can tell, there are no test cases in Arizona or Louisiana whereby one can find out whether those states accept gender self-identification.