Testosterone!

Now we have the chance to turn the US military into a bunch of fat cats!

As an outside observer, it is easy to laugh off the news that the US Secretary for Bang-Bang, Peter Hegseth, has solemnly announced that personnel in the country’s armed forces are to undergo compulsory testosterone level tests from the age of 30 onwards, whilst for those under 30 the tests are voluntary. The fact of the matter is, and this is an undisputed fact, that we do not know what a normal testosterone level is. On the other hand, our understanding of what happens when we attempt to artificially manipulate it upwards is disastrous. In short, the US military risks, in the near future, consisting of what can best be described as neutered cats.

It is, of course, US taxpayers who ultimately, at least in theory, decide what their tax money should be spent on. But intuitively, I can imagine that these poor people would rather prioritise functioning toilets on aircraft carriers, a well-organised immigration policy, and military projects that do not completely fall apart because certain factors relating to a particular strait were overlooked. The testosterone levels among military personnel are, so to speak, of secondary importance in the grand scheme of things.

To claim that Sweden is far better than the US at appointing Ministers for Bang-Bang or at spending money on its armed forces, which until our hasty and unpleasant panic-driven accession to NATO, were called the “Defence Forces” so as not to provoke the Russians too much, is a lie. Whilst Peter Hegseth’s military background can, at best, be described as dubious, I can note that Sweden’s former Social Democratic Minister for Bang-Bang, Peter Hultqvist, was granted exemption from military service on grounds of conscience. About six months before it was decided that we would apply for NATO membership, he claimed that such an application would have to be made over his dead body.¹

For a long time, Sweden’s military defence was characterised by dilemmas other than how it would withstand an attack on our poor little northern European kingdom. We were mainly involved in trying to establish peace in dark Africa, keeping the Taliban in pyjamas at bay in Afghanistan, and taking part in the annual Pride parade in Stockholm. Such were the opponents of an effective territorial defence that a Prime Minister (whose name we shall refrain from mentioning so as not to invoke satanic forces) referred to the Armed Forces as “one special interest group amongst other special interest groups”.

And so things turned out as they did, badly to put it mildly. One day, people woke up to find that the soldiers had neither boots to march in, nor cooking pots to prepare food with, nor rainwear capable of keeping them dry. They are still grappling with the awkward fact that the female anatomy differs so fundamentally from the male that women cannot use standard issue underpants without suffering a significant loss of combat effectiveness, as they are unable to move any great distance whilst wearing them.

To make matters worse, they procured automatic carbines with the peculiarity that there was a delay between the soldier thinking they had fired the shot and it actually going off.

In other words, it is not entirely easy to get the armed forces to function properly, and the US Secretary of Bang-Bang has no doubt noted this on more than one occasion. Admittedly, the Americans are adept at carrying out precision operations involving the abduction of foreign heads of state right on their own doorstep, but theocratic dictatorships half a world away are a considerably tougher nut to crack. It is in the light of this observation that one can explain Peter Hegseth’s latest remarks on the importance of engaging in pseudoscientific measurements of military personnel’s hormone levels.

It cannot, reasonably speaking, at least if your name is Peter Hegseth and you are the US Secretary for Bang-Bang, be the case that there is anything wrong with the competence or ability of the current US administration. Even entertaining such a thought would, reasonably speaking, lead to immediate dismissal and perhaps also to the person who thought it being declared persona non grata for life. The fault must lie at a completely different level; in the eyes of politicians, it lies with the rank and file, a bunch of underhand types who mostly freeload and are, in all essentials, a burden (except every four years when they’re supposed to vote). What, then, could be better than measuring testosterone levels?

In my own clinical practice, I’ve noticed that an increasing number of men, both older and younger, are uncritically taking various tests to measure their testosterone levels and buying all sorts of preparations, dietary supplements and all manner of quackery to boost those levels. One thing is certain: if my patients were as sceptical of dodgy letterbox companies in the testosterone industry as they are of me, that sector wouldn’t survive for very long. Unfortunately, they don’t even seem to consider the possibility that the companies they buy from have a vested interest in selling their products to as many people as possible. That’s exactly how it is: testosterone is the new black, and it’s the trend that Peter Hegseth has now jumped on.

Healthy, normal-weight men rarely develop a testosterone deficiency, even in old age. The vast majority of men therefore maintain normal testosterone levels throughout their lives. Around 3–4 per cent of men over the age of 50 have low levels associated with symptoms consistent with low testosterone. However, in order to effectively cripple the US military’s ability to wage war and wreak havoc, I suggest, in all humility, of course, that all levels below 30 nmol/L be regarded as too low and therefore requiring treatment. Please take the samples after 12.00, as levels should have dropped by then following the peak that occurs between 07.00 and 10.00.

One thing is certain: the US’s many enemies will be rejoicing!

1. At the time of this text’s publication, he is still living in the best of health.