13 comments

  • tyleo 1 hour ago
    I don’t know much about this except that I know perfectly normal or even jacked men with lower than expected testosterone. I suspect messing with hormones based on the results of a test and no actual problems can unnecessarily alter mood.

    So my theory—based mostly on conjecture—is that these tests selected people they didn’t expect and the treatments would do more harm than good.

    • noir_lord 1 hour ago
      I think it's simpler than that, I think Hanlon's Razor applies here.

      Not sure there has been a less capable Secretary of Defence in my lifetime than who they currently have in the role.

      Note: not saying less objectionable, I'd put Rumsfeld right alongside for that but as much as I didn't like the man, it was hard to argue he was incapable.

      • Jgrubb 52 minutes ago
        Rumsfeld put in the work and was very smart. His natural disposition was such that, when given the ring of power, things went badly.

        The current head of DoD is basically a manosphere influencer that bumbled into this job.

        Now, I'm not an endocrinologist, just an aging guy, but from my current vantage point it appears that over the course of my life, many stupid decisions have been made that I have lived to tell about. I can't help but feel that my "wisdom of age" might just be testosterone getting out of the way.

        This is all to say that our current "situation" just kinda looks like one insecure guys roid rage when you take a big step back.

        • lokar 42 minutes ago
          Trump was pretty clear he chose him because he looked good in TV.
          • dylan604 11 minutes ago
            The entire cabinet and appointed administration positions is full of the closest to Idiocracy level people.
          • ceejayoz 37 minutes ago
            And keeps him because he's good at the number one priority, being a fluffer.
          • budman1 29 minutes ago
            plus, he could hold his liquor.

            and does not take no for an answer.

      • InsideOutSanta 15 minutes ago
        It still irks me that people mocked Rumsfeld's explanation of unknown unknowns. The guy was probably a terrible excuse for a human being, but he wasn't stupid, and that quote was a pretty good explanation for why we shouldn't be overconfident in our knowledge:

        "There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know."

        • YackerLose 5 minutes ago
          Wisdom tends to sound obvious, and obvious statements aren't novel. The digital society values the novel over the wise.
      • tyleo 33 minutes ago
        I think we're saying the same thing. I suspect there were a lot of people saying, "this probably won't work," but the Secretary of Defense pursued it anyways until real problems materialized.
      • amelius 1 hour ago
        Both can be true. Incompetence AND malice.
        • schiffern 59 minutes ago
          Troublingly, I think he actually does think these ideas are helpful. Is a True Believer any less dangerous?

          "Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice."

          • dylan604 8 minutes ago
            I think True Believer is worse. I would say that if someone is willing to try something while still willing to accept that it might not work but need to confirm they'd be a rational person. A True Believer will not accept that the thing is not working and try to rationalize why others are still wrong.
          • noir_lord 56 minutes ago
            They are generally dangerous but they are truly dangerous when what they believe is itself dangerous.
          • jjgreen 51 minutes ago
            I'll be using that
        • budman1 25 minutes ago
          a while back we had an army private as the secretary of defense.

          end of the day, his experience as a private meant nothing towards the job. perhaps he was slightly more able to relate to the needs of the troops.

          now we have a reserve captain. who was pushed out of the service for extremest views and body art. his experience means he hates the army, and his selection to the post means his political views have been vindicated.

          a master of strategy? leader of men in battle? CEO of the worlds biggest institution? nope. he doesn't even understand those roles.

      • bryancoxwell 56 minutes ago
        Or simpler still, although related. Maybe we just can’t afford it: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2026/07/21/...
        • xnx 25 minutes ago
          Not being able to afford something has never stopped the US before.
          • duskdozer 17 minutes ago
            Well, depends on what "something"
    • alexgieg 7 minutes ago
      There's also the relevant details that we don't live at a time in which being extremely muscular and full of aggressiveness (which is what the testosterone policy was meant to cause) makes one a good soldier. Being healthy and able to exert a lot of physical effort is absolutely needed, but beyond that not much is gained.

      To put it mildly, no matter how pumped up with hormones one is, one cannot outrun an explosion (much less a thermobaric one), a sniper firing from hundreds of meters away or, for that matter, a drone swarm. For those kinds of challenge other traits are needed.

      And these required traits are dismissed as unimportant, just witness all the extremely competent military personal, including medal recipients, who were dismissed or made to "voluntarily" resign due to stuff that had no bearing whatsoever on whether they were good soldiers or not.

      Note: I'm not American and, from the perspective of my country's own national interests, which tend to be at odds with the US's more often than not, it's a good thing the US is doing all of this, since it's making itself weaker. But from a personal perspective, that I find it quite sad, I do. I have too many American friends for me not to worry about what this will cause them on the long run.

    • XorNot 17 minutes ago
      Going on injectable testosterone suppresses natural production. It also leads to compensatory feedback effects like an increase in estrogen.

      Once you're on it it's very hard to come off it, and the side effects are significant.

  • Steven420 0 minutes ago
    Hopefully they figured out that they would be effectively castrating their military
  • bob1029 56 minutes ago
    > “Taking testosterone is not going to make you more manly, more strong, or a more robust individual. That’s just not how it works,”

    It will make you stronger. Perhaps not at certain therapeutic ranges, but there is a reason this would get you kicked out of the Olympic Games.

    • roncesvalles 41 minutes ago
      I think it still depends. More test can also result in more estrogen. There is selection bias in athletes who dope because they're the ones who happen to respond positively to it.

      There must be a graveyard of athletes who tried doping and it made them worse lol.

      • vkazanov 21 minutes ago
        It will make you stronger period.

        There are side effects, problems, long-term consequences...

        But testosteron blood levels absolutely do regulate muscle growth.

    • radial_symmetry 31 minutes ago
      it absolutely does make you stronger, I was training for powerlifting when I started it and my lifts went up a LOT with no change in my routine or diet, both of which I was tracking.
      • ChrisMarshallNY 22 minutes ago
        It also makes you crazy. I have a friend that took it for years. It certainly made him buff, but it also made him divorced, friendless, addicted, and unhealthy.
        • monster_truck 14 minutes ago
          Yep. Knew someone that got himself killed thinking that being strong was the same thing as knowing how to fight. Stupidly got into a fistfight on pavement outside a bar, got knocked out and that was it.
          • skylurk 8 minutes ago
            Testosterone is a hell of a drug.
      • pasquinelli 20 minutes ago
        what if your baseline was not so much training? i assume it works by improving recovery, if not someone will need to explain what it's supposed to do to make you stronger. so, given that, your anrcdote indicates you were overtraining before t, and t reduced your recover times so that you were no longer overtraining.

        but if you're working well within your ability to recover and you add t and change nothing else, how do you get stronger?

    • petesergeant 39 minutes ago
      Yeah, it's weird, isn't it? That's exactly what testosterone does, including the "more manly" part. Literally the reason it's gender-affirming care for female-to-male transitioners and aging men. "Robust" is the only word there that's questionable, and even then, I'd say science says "probably". You can give it to a horse, and it will make the horse notably stronger and more “manly”.
    • nba456_ 46 minutes ago
      Crazy that a doctor would say taking testosterone would not make you stronger. Remind me to never listen to the American College of Physicians.
      • duskdozer 19 minutes ago
        It depends. It may be that more testosterone when you already produce "enough" - which is individual-dependent - won't give much additional strength if you aren't training specifically to take advantage of it. Additionally, hormones are complicated. The body will downregulate its own production when given "too much". I'm aware that bodybuilders have to follow certain treatment regimens and add other drugs to restart the body's production if they stop supplementing it at times.
      • lokar 41 minutes ago
        IMO he obviously meant boosting someone who was low back into the normal range.
  • taybin 11 minutes ago
    I’m surprised that reading The Game hasn’t been added to the annual trainings for soldiers and DoD civilians.
  • jmpman 18 minutes ago
    I figured they were just trying to manipulate the elections.

    https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12230349/

  • quickthrowman 19 minutes ago
    What’s next, force the troops to drink as much whiskey as the SecDef does on a daily basis? Most of them would die on the first day, after their BAC hits .3% at 3 PM, a double whiskey on the hour every hour hits the liver hard.
  • ungreased0675 1 hour ago
    I was very curious what the results were going to show.
  • add-sub-mul-div 34 minutes ago
    Stupid ideas is all they have yet they won't even stick with them?
    • stevenwoo 4 minutes ago
      First impressions will stick with people so just the announcement of things is seen as positive by supporters who do not seem inclined to peek behind the curtain and do work on following up on what actually happened - which tends to get a lot less media coverage because it requires journalists to work instead of regurgitating press releases. A lot of low information voters can be swayed by this. It doesn’t work on people who are paying attention but it’s not meant for them.
  • badgersnake 41 minutes ago
    If we explained how dumb this was somebody would have to resign, so we’ll just sweep it under the carpet.
    • bloaf 23 minutes ago
      My money is on "someone higher up the chain of command got pinged for low T, and decided that the tests were bullshit".
  • actionfromafar 8 minutes ago
    But but ... how will they now win against iranian bears in hand to paw combat?
  • bflesch 1 hour ago
    Is there even a US-based testosterone supply chain? Or was the idea to inject all their service members with a product from overseas that could have supply problems or subtle strategic "impurities"?
    • petcat 57 minutes ago
      The US produces an enormous amount of pharmaceutical testosterone
  • greggsy 47 minutes ago
    I had no idea this was a thing.

    It seems to edge us closer to the dystopian ‘super soldier gone wrong’ trope.

    • pavel_lishin 11 minutes ago
      It seems more like the "middle school penis inspections" joke to me.
  • jrm4 55 minutes ago
    "Without explanation"

    I mean, sure, it would probably be embarrassing to have to say "because this was extremely stupid and nonsensical and entirely due to the weird hangups of the present guy in charge."

    • diydsp 37 minutes ago
      Perhaps the explanation is: to make space for other incoherent self-defeating policies like threatening the Fed that they'll increase tariffs if rates aren't lowered?
    • ilaksh 35 minutes ago
      They're not weird at all given his worldview. It's Nazism. From his book to his public statements and actions, he consistently expresses this. The only thing he does not do is use the literal language that is not accepted. But the meaning and actions are the same. People are in denial.