What did @biblical_strength actually say?
The creator argued that disliking weapons and violence is "a very strong sign" of low testosterone. The logic goes like this: testosterone wires the dopamine system to reward competition and winning, biological success means dominating the food chain with maximum "female access," and weapons have historically extended male power, just like muscles. Disinterest in any of that, the argument goes, means your testosterone is probably low.
This is not a nuanced take with a few overstatements. It is a chain of evolutionary speculation dressed up as endocrinology. Let's break it down claim by claim.
Does the science back this up?
No, not really. Testosterone does interact with the dopamine reward system, but the relationship is far more specific and conditional than this video suggests. It does not produce a general appetite for weapons or violence.
Research by Mehta and Josephs (2010, Hormones and Behavior) showed testosterone is associated with status-seeking behavior, but status-seeking takes radically different forms across cultures and individuals. A competitive surgeon, a chess grandmaster, and a combat soldier can all have identical testosterone levels. Carre and colleagues (2013, Psychological Science) found testosterone increases reactive aggression primarily in high-provocation contexts, not as a baseline personality preference. The idea that a man with normal testosterone should inherently enjoy firearms is not supported by any clinical or behavioral endocrinology literature. There is simply no study showing weapon enthusiasm as a diagnostic marker for hormone levels.
What did they get wrong (or right)?
They got the basic testosterone-dopamine connection partially right. Testosterone does modulate dopamine pathways involved in reward. Schultheiss and colleagues (2005, European Journal of Neuroscience) demonstrated that testosterone interacts with reward circuits during dominance-related tasks. Credit where it is due: that part is not invented.
But the rest collapses quickly. The creator frames "the ultimate win biologically" as food-chain dominance with maximum female access. That is a pop-evolutionary narrative, not a clinical finding. Evolutionary psychology is a legitimate field, but single-variable just-so stories like this one get criticized even within that field (Buller, 2005, Adapting Minds). More importantly, none of this maps onto testosterone levels in a diagnostic way. Plenty of men with clinically confirmed hypogonadism, meaning actually low testosterone by lab standards, have strong preferences for competition, weapons, and physical dominance. And plenty of men with high testosterone have zero interest in firearms. Preference is not a biomarker. Using it as one is misleading.
What should you actually know?
Actual symptoms of low testosterone are well-documented and have nothing to do with attitude toward weapons. According to the American Urological Association guidelines (2018), clinically meaningful hypogonadism involves symptoms like persistent fatigue, reduced libido, loss of muscle mass, increased body fat, depressed mood, and difficulty concentrating, confirmed by two fasting morning total testosterone measurements below 300 ng/dL.
If you are genuinely concerned about your testosterone levels, the starting point is a blood panel, not a personality inventory about your feelings on firearms. A video that tells men their cultural attitudes signal a hormone deficiency is not health information. It is identity-based marketing using clinical-sounding language. That framing can push people toward unnecessary interventions or cause men with real hypogonadism to dismiss actual symptoms because they think they pass the "weapons test." Both outcomes are bad. Talk to a licensed provider. Get your labs done. Ignore personality litmus tests for hormone status.