Alt Text: post that says dripping testosterone levels in men since 1980s is the biggest crime of the century.
I can’t think of a more reliable source than testosteronedecline.com
From the website:
The truth is that [the] whole project is (most of the time) quite inaccurate and error-prone, and often involves way too little data to really make a judgment, despite my best efforts. It also involves my amateur method of “age-adjusting” the results to be comparable. So this whole project is quite inaccurate and shouldn’t be used for serious conclusions. But if you understand the inaccuracies involved, you still may find it interesting.
“Listen, we know we’re full of shit, but that won’t stop your anti-trans uncle from posting our nonsense on Facebook.”
yeah, notably, estrogenincrease.com
Whoever drew that wavy line has no idea what a regression is
You are right it just looks like they used Excel + curve fitting.
It’s when your T levels regress, duh
if you ever feel down and redundant look at the degrees of freedom in this fit and feel better
No it’s just R^7 regression! Testosterone levels will be negative by next week!
Edit: and male bodies were approximately 2000% testosterone in the 1940s!
It’s babbies’ First Excel Sheet 😂
I remember fucking around with the same functionality and not understanding it, some 10 years ago. I guess this dood just found out about it too.
How much do you want to bet that the source is somebody trying to sell some sort of snake oil claiming to boost testosterone.
His tag says he beat testicular cancer and now he help
Def selling something
Well that’s interesting as testicular cancer will be closely linked to having testosterone.
Yeah I just hate those people who beat cancer then go on to share their findings with the world 🙄
It’s a terrible graph anyway. The outliers haven’t been removed and I completely don’t understand the line of best fit that’s been drawn because it appears to be squiggly. How can it be squiggly, it’s a line of best fit, it’s an approximation. Oh and making some of the points green does not increase their validity.
You grok there are ways to fit data other than lines right?
I must be unaware of the arbitrary wiggly line of best fit.
Ask your doctor if anabolic steroids are right for you
A useful approximation of normal T levels in humans can be seen in present day hunter gatherers in Africa. The Hadza tribe was shown to have an average level of 151pmol/l, well below that of what we see in societies such as America. We can, therefore, argue that the reduction of T levels in modern man over the last few years is a shift back towards the norm.
That face when high testosterone turns out to be caused by lead in petrol.
However, both populations experience suboptimal access to energy, and consequently maintain minimal levels of body fat and low BMI
You are citing a malnourished population.
Previous studies of non-western populations have revealed inconsistent associations between men’s testosterone levels and paternal or marital status. | Twenty-seven Hadza participants | Eighty Datoga participants
This is a comparitively small study, and one which contradicts other bodies of research.
As with male birds, it seems likely that testosterone facilitates reproductive effort in the form of male–male competition and mate-seeking behaviour, both of which interfere with effective paternal care.
Given the increasing social atomisation of the west (see:average age of fatherhood, number of children had, divorce rates), the hypothesis proposed by this paper implies testosterone levels in the west should be increasing not decreasing.
Look, I get the desire to debunk redpillers, but when we’re talking about a worldwide trendline in basic biology you’re going to need more research than this to do so. The Male infertility crisis is a genuine problem field experts are extremely worried about, hence the need for research and coverage by the mainstream (to stop snake oil salesmen being the main point of contact for this issue).
The Male infertility
i think male infertility is probably less of an issue when we consider that most people born now, do not want to have kids, based on the pure fact that it’s too expensive, time consuming, and grueling in the modern era.
Unless that’s what you mean by male infertility. But last i checked that’s not what that means. Perhaps even male infertility is going up because people want less children? Sign of the times sort of a deal, who knows, science is fucked! Or actually, it might be a result of better medical services, allowing people with worse fertility to have children now, when they previously wouldn’t have been as likely to have children. Perhaps a result of decreasing infant mortality. Though i frankly doubt that’s a significant factor.
Most people born now do still want to have kids. Even in my famously childless country (UK) 50% of women will have a child by the age of 30 (and a great many more afterwards.). Antinatalism remains a fringe belief.
What people do want is fewer children later. This actually makes the fertility crisis (which is very much more than a behavioural phenominon, you can jizz onto a microscope slide to get hard empirical data) a more significant issue. Since fertility decreases with age, changes that might’ve gone unnoticed when people had kids at 25 become catastrophic when people instead chose 35.
Perhaps you don’t want kids, that’s fine, I respect your choice. Most people actually still do! If this health effect is the result of (as some experts suspect) micro-plastic leached EDC’s (an environmental pollutant we have no suitable method of removing, which has a significant lag from production to release, and whose associated industry continues to expand) then saying “it’s no big issue we don’t need to worry about it” is (in essence) endorsing the forced sterilisation of many hundreds of millions, without their consent.
That is still a maybe, the evidence is far from conclusive, but do we really want another global-warming scale crisis on our hands just to dunk on Ben Shapiro?
i mean yeah, this is true, but one thing that you have to be careful of as a society, especially when you have a significant population, is keeping your general population swing balanced. If 80% of one generation has kids, and then 50% of those kids have kids, That original generation is going to be a significant burden on society, purely because they outnumber the working class of the society.
Fewer children would definitely have that knock on effect, but what i still see being a significant problem is the social incentive for people to have kids. And when you have a society that is generally not conducive to having children, people are going to be less likely to have children. That’s not a bad thing i suppose, but i don’t think it’s safe to rely on people who do want to have children, regardless.
Just to be clear here, anti-natalism is the belief that humanity as a whole, should collectively stop having children, as the lack of suffering would outweigh gained positive experience. It has almost nothing to do with this conversation, other than being an extreme side, much like forcing women to get pregnant and have children, would also be an extreme.
And i also never said that infertility wasn’t an issue, i just think it’s probably less pressing than building a society that people want to have children in.
most people born now, do not want to have kids, based on the pure fact that it’s too expensive, time consuming, and grueling in the modern era.
These people need to open a history book.
that’s just what happens when you become a highly educated society. They have less children, and since they have less children, there is less productivity.
They love to pretend that they’re experts at biology but fail to grasp that it’s fucking complicated. More isn’t always better with hormones.
But an enormous shift in hormone levels in an entire population is worthy of attention.
absolutely, there’s no guarantee that it’s a good thing, but there’s also no guarantee it’s a bad thing either. Shits weird sometimes.
No! Me more man juice, me more man! Mightiest man!
I can only infer the meaning of the graph but it seems to me that the sampling has increased which could shift the line as well.
The real crime is that fit line hahahahah
I love how redundant the degrees of freedom in that curve is “lets make it look like stience”
Yeah, it would have looked better with just a straight line fit. And 2020 does seem “statistically different” than 1970.
Edit: to be clear though, if lower testosterone means I live longer and with more hair, I’m all for it! My kids seem to be normal enough.
Low testosterone can be a real issue. It’ll reduce energy levels and limit bone and muscle strength. The right wing nonsense around it is obscuring some actual issues.
My guess is that they want to show a bump after 9/11 when “men went to war for freedom” or some shit.
Boa constrictor of best fit.
It’s clearly sexual selection; high testosterone results in early baldness, which in turn is deemed unattractive.
Thus, in order to save western society as we know it, we need to start worshipping bald men as the virile hotties we all know they truly are.
Nice try Larry David
I will put my hand up as the symbol of bald sexiness…
I’m a bald bearded 6 foot man.
Do you work in or near some chemical or nuclear industries or why do have 6 feet? /j
Nice to meet you. I’m a 6-balled bearded footman.
Me with high T still able to enjoy colours and musicals 🥰
Masculinity is on the verge of facing extinction
Why isn’t this getting more attention?
Perhaps because masculinity itself isn’t a moral good or requirement for survival? 🤔
As a man, who values his masculinity, actually fuck you and your entire attitude toward me and people like me.
As “requirement for survival” in modern day and age? Yes, we definitely don’t need it.
In prehistoric times masculinity is the reason why you live and breathe today.
Should what is masculine be redefined to fit today’s era? Hell yeah.
Masculinity is a social construct.
Whatever point you’re trying to make, you’re using the wrong words for it.
Maybe, I’m pretty fucking high, sorry
Valid.
Ah yes, there is definitely no difference between masculinity and femininity, right? Big brain 🧠 Its construct, everything that makes man a Man is a masculinity trait
Ah yes, there is definitely no difference between masculinity and femininity, right?
If you say so, I guess. I don’t really care about the distinction between masculinity and femininity.
Its construct, everything that makes man a Man is a masculinity trait
You’re wrong, though. Both about what makes a man a man, and that you seem to think that masculine is a synonym for man.
A man is a whoever tells me they are a man. If you believe differently, then we can’t be friends.
Masculine/masculinity describes characteristics, not gender or biology.If you still have questions, I encourage you to search online for answers.
I’m ok with that. How mental would I be to think everyone will agree with me or be my friend… 😜
I don’t really care about the distinction between masculinity and femininity.
You sure are putting a lot of effort into discussing this thing you don’t care about
Words?
Yeah. I guess I do care about them a lot.If we didn’t care about using words correctly and comprehending the words others use, we wind up sounding like real idiots.
I know that’s kind of an ableist sentiment. There are plenty of folks that can speak well or comprehend others, but don’t for a variety of reasons*, and even folks who can’t that are not idiots.
I’m choosing not to believe you are an idiot, so I wish you the best of luck in life. I’m rooting for you.
* Such as when someone desperately wants to bait you into an argument so they can blather their poorly considered opinions, but don’t know they’ve already been rolled.
Anyway, even though it’s tangential to my comments, if you want to tell me your thoughts about genders or gender identities, go right ahead.
I promise I won’t respond and challenge you on any of it. It’ll be the perfect void for you to scream into.
Well you have no idea about “masculinity” given by testosterone implied, eg. Can two women reproduce? Or have the strength of a man?.. and are thinking about “toxic masculinity” a term given to something else
Edit “Man needs testorones.”
Edit “How mental and stupid would I be to think that everyone online has to agree with me… I am/was not expecting that to be clear… Everyone feel free to dislike, comment and be whatever you want to be and be happy in your lives”
Edit edit "since this has become a brainless comment section: " yes woman can still reproduce without a masculine Man, then what? Ffs… It’s not like every single species has male and female with specific roles, right? Think about why society has deteriorated… Why families are being destroyed, by divorce rates increased and every single country has a birth deficit. Comes back to feminism of women (the toxic kind) and role problems for Men. Likewise toxic masculinity is also to blame… … you can’t change biology. Man needs testorones. Man is a man and woman is the traditional woman, you know with a uterus (old fashioned and traditional, those dinosaurs yes) "
No thanks, I’m not gay
spoiler
It’s a pun
As an effeminate male, I promise you I don’t need masculinity to reproduce! 😁
But how are you at opening jars (the other benchmark for man)?!
Better than my husband is at it. Still, we do own a battery powered jar opener for extreme situations. It’s the end of civilization.
THAT’S HOW THE ROBOTS WIN, YOU FOOL!
Under-cabinet jar openers are a great tool to have in the kitchen. They are effective and don’t take up much space. However, they may leave marks on certain materials, so it’s best to avoid using them on reusable water bottles.
I simply become outraged that the jar has dared to challenge my manhood and fling them against the wall to assert dominance.
You are the reason divorce rates are ao high 😭
What a thing to get credit for, feeling flattered and powerful!
Damn sexy femboys, destroying marriages.
Ah yes, the only two functions, reproduction and opening jars /s
Recently, scientists successfully induced the stem cell of a male mouse to transform into an egg instead of sperm.
The resultant litter was in all respects normal and, while we are talking about baby steps (ha) with mice instead of humans, I’m sure that would be a when, not an if.
The biggest immediate concern would probably be depression and osteoporosis. Pretty sure the depression wouldn’t be very new, sadly, for anyone still paying attention to anything around them at all, but it doesn’t need to be added to the pile for a demographic that already doesn’t tend to reach out.
Ofc you can defy biology and have kids. But then what?
Uh…then you have kids? If you want them? I do not think I understand the question.
I don’t think conveying each other’s opinions is that easy/possible here and impossible to reach some understanding ☮️
Can two women reproduce? Or have the strength of a man?
Yes to both questions.
Then what? Ffs… It’s not like every single species has male and female with specific roles, right? Think about why society has deteriorated… Why families are being destroyed, by divorce rates increased and every single country has birth deficit. Comes back to feminism of women and role problems for Men
It’s economics, not feminism, my guy.
We have less kids as the cost of living rises. Divorce rates for 40+ years have been in decline, the only exception was a small increase during lock-down. Families are being destroyed by economics as well. Most families require two incomes in order to be able to afford raising a child into adulthood. The socially isolating effects of car culture, suburbanization, loss of third places to just hang out, and socialize at, being forced to work 50+ hours a week on top of 10+ hours of commuting. These are all major contributors to the decline in birth rates. The traditional family structure you envision is very likely not even that much older than the the gilded age. Possibly a product of mid last century.
The average employed person creates ~300% more gdp than someone in the 70s. However, compared to the total cost of living, we have seen almost none of that increase in wealth on the side of laborers, and servers. We have seen historic increases in the wealth of the .01% though. Maybe if the workers were cut in on that 300% increase people could afford to have a parent stay home for their children and afford appropriate housing. Maybe if we built more housing, designed cities that are walkable, and designed in a way that generates in-person interactions, we could have nice things like nuclear family structures. Maybe if we have systemic structures to ensure that stay at home parents didn’t end up isolate, and dependent, on the working spouse, being a stay at home parent might look better to a broader range of people.
Beyond this our lives are rapidly becoming more, and more, sedentary. Desk time, for income, is getting to a point where, to afford the cost of living these days, it is exhausting to people and pushes physical activity further, and further, out from your typical daily routine. This, along with a number of other systemic reasons creating the obesity epidemic, is a huge contributor to decline in T levels. The average age of the population increasing also affects the averages of T levels in demographics studies. Then there is the is the, largely unknown, affects that plastics, and the chemicals used to produce them, are having on our bodies. We know things like BPA can affect your endocrine system, however it is not well understood how, yet. This is the new “heavy metals in almost all household products”. We are only just starting to really study what affect this is having on us, and our environment.
But you have been convinced it is to be blamed on women. You ran after the decoy, not the duck.
You wrote something so good and logical. Great actually. I don’t understand why you didn’t understand that I think Man being more Feminine is a problem. Feminism Is Woman saying that they can be a man and better and Don’t need man. You don’t see this impacting our lives in any way? You also don’t see toxic masculinity impacting our lives in any way? By the way divorce rates were higher than 80% in a lot of countries in the EU last year. It’s never going down again…
A crime, no, concerning sure.
What is causing the drop?
Lots of stuff.
Tld;r:
Obesity, Microplastics, Fewer smokers, Stress and mental health problems, Tighter underwear, Diabetes, Higher indoor temperatures
More sedentary lifestyle/not exercising
As someone who has severely low testosterone and goes to the gym 4-5 times a week, that’s just one of many potential factors.
It is, I was adding into the list the other guy had started.
Fewer smokers
Why aren’t we making men smoke more?! Why isn’t the media talking about this?!
Disclaimer: This is a pointless comment.
I watched “My Dinner with Andre” this morning and there’s a line where Wallace Shawn says “… when I was ten years old, […] Now, I’m 36, …“
This guy, 36?I rewound the scene so my wife could watch it when she flitted through the room because I thought the line was so funny.
But then I looked it up. Wallace Shawn was born in 1943, and the movie was released in 1981. Probably filmed the year before release.
I feel mildly bad for thinking it was a humorous line.I don’t know if he smoked, but I’ve heard high testosterone can cause male pattern balding. That aside, the changes to humanity in just a few decades, for whatever reason, are pretty shocking. It’s likely that we have less pollution (that impacts humans, anyway), better understanding of things that harm us, and better access to preventative healthcare, that helps to ‘slow down’ aging.
That sort of makes me feel a little less cynical about folks who keep adjusting life milestones upwards. 30 is the new 20!, 40 isn’t middle aged, etc. I had just figured those folks were vain and delusional. But I do look way better than my dad did at this age, so maybe there’s something to it.I worked with dudes that smoked like it was a job requirement that looked haggard AF at 30. I didn’t recognize one of them 10 years later because he had stopped smoking and dropped a ton of weight - he looked 10 years younger than when I met him.
Smoking is bad, kids. And no, Vaping probably isn’t much better.
Regarding your balding comment, many transmen go bald after starting on testosterone so that makes sense.
Wait do people not wear boxer shorts anymore? Did I miss something?
I think boxers are best, but boxer briefs have seemingly taken over.
Having grown up wearing tighty whities, boxer briefs are much looser. I’ve worn boxers as well. In my opinion, there’s not much difference. My boys have plenty of freedom in either.
As I’ve gotten older my balls have started to sag a bit or I’ve gained some weight and get into a weird and uncomfortable position. Been thinking about getting something with more support.
Let the boys hang free
Worse health in general it seems. And it’s not as low as the graph the person shared
https://health.clevelandclinic.org/declining-testosterone-levels
An aging population.
Are you implying that societal trends aren’t evidence of crimes?
Wtf is happening with that fit?
Well you see, testosterone levels rose when Regan was elected, 9/11 happened, and The Apprentice launched.
It’s basically science.
(this post was satire, and I’m sorry if it made anyone vomit)
I need you to add these labels to the graph, for science.
It’s bullshit. I assume the data are bullshit, too.
That’s the real crime
Time to assemble the Femboy army
I’m doing my part!
I’m sorry sir, we just call it “the army”
I have many questions, which I’m sure won’t be answered because conservative thinking doesn’t allow that. But mostly I wonder who are they testing and why?
Obese men from usa.
I love how you think conservatives cause you to be unable to think. Take some responsibility damn.
Almost as if we don’t live in a world where we need to have murder boners 247
Why isn’t this getting more attention?
Um, cause it’s not that big of news and you’re hyping shit just to get clicks.
