Wikipedia’s Female Perspective in an Article on a “Rare Condition in Older Men”

It is well-known that Wikipedia is a heavily biased source. Their bias is against men, biological fact, and conservatism. In short, feminists are entrenched there. Sometimes, the bias of Wikipedia is almost comical. For instance, if you look up the term ‘andropause’, which is a term for a non-exisiting condition, you get redirected to a page on ‘Late-onset hypogonadism‘. That article starts as follows:

Late-onset hypogonadism is a rare condition in older men, characterized by measurably low testosterone levels and clinical symptoms mostly of a sexual nature, including decreased desire for sex, fewer spontaneous erections, and erectile dysfunction.[1] It is the result of a gradual drop in testosterone; a steady decline in testosterone levels of about 1% per year can happen and is well documented in both men and women.

So, we learn that this is a “rare condition in older men.” Yet, the introduction concludes by shoving in that there is a steady decline of 1% of testosterone per year, which happens in both men and women. How the hell is the “female perspective” of any value in an article on a condition that only rarely afflicts only older men? It clearly isn’t.

You may now wonder why this is happening, and I can tell you why. The big push of leftist academia is that there are no biological differences between men and women. Despite compelling evidence to the contrary, you’ll find plenty of gender-studies crazies who tell you that a woman could be as strong as a man, or that women are as smart as men, even though there is no area of intellectual inquiry in which, at the highest level, women can effectively compete with men. Here, we learn that women and men experience the same decline in testosterone. It’s a rare condition in men. Is it as rare in women? Oh, that doesn’t make much sense as we are talking about an exclusively male condition. How sexist!

Assuming that it is true that female testosterone declines with age, does anything else strike you as problematic? How about the fact that women carry almost insignificant levels of testosterone, and that they don’t have testicles? From this it follows that it is extremely dishonest to draw that kind of comparison as it glosses over fundamental differences between the sexes. This is just one example of the extremely biased nature of Wikipedia. You’ll find plenty more if you read articles carefully.

Did you enjoy this article? Excellent! If you want to support what I am doing, then please consider buying my amazing books or donating to the upkeep of this site. If you want tailored advice, I am available for one-on-one consultation sessions.

2 thoughts on “Wikipedia’s Female Perspective in an Article on a “Rare Condition in Older Men”

  1. I think the google engineer situation proofs enough. Scientific facts are now considered sexist. They make women feel unsafe. And are now even considered sexual assault. And if you state scientific facts when we ask for feedback on gender issues, you’ll lose your job. (everything is a gender issue according to feminist) Feminist love freedom of speech. But you’re not allowed to have a different opinion. Or show scientific research that proofs them rong. That’s hate speech.

    1. “Scientific facts are now considered sexist.”

      This is a parody youtube movie, but it is more true than anything. It’s called “modern educayshun”:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.