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.

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.

Valid.

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.

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.

I simply become outraged that the jar has dared to challenge my manhood and fling them against the wall to assert dominance.

What a thing to get credit for, feeling flattered and powerful!

Damn sexy femboys, destroying marriages.

Uh....then you have kids? If you want them? I do not think I understand the question.

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.

It is, I was adding into the list the other guy had started.

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.

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.

Let the boys hang free

Nah it's cool it's good to question everything. Especially in this day in age where the fake is being manufactured faster than the real.

Being a vegan, I like to stay abreast of the literature, and I'd never heard of a link between veganism and low T-levels. I quickly checked it, there's no link (in fact the opposite seems more likely), so it seemed like an unnecessary dig at veganism for no reason. I don't have a vested interest in any of the other claims OP made, so that's why I picked at that one. You don't have to fact check an entire comment to have an issue with one point.