Right, the US is MORE vulnerable because "use of testosterone and similar substances to enhance performance."
This does hit home personally as my wife's young cousin died a couple weeks ago, probably as a consequence of illicit use of testosterone, and he was in the military.
Illicit use is different than doctor prescribed and monitored hormone replacement therapy. Contrary to idiot post-feminism BS, military might is powered by masculinity, and female participation is a reflection of that fundamental precept and not a refutation of it.
To be clear, assertion of masculinity (or femininity) isn't necessarily good. It depends on the circumstances and how the spirit of it manifests. Currently Islamism is on the rise due to the masculine principles that perpetuate the ideologies. It promises to threaten all civilizations with Sharia Law by force, and the only counter is... masculinity. There is no amount of bending over that counters such a force of nature.
That said, you and I both know that the effectiveness of our military likely does not come down to old dudes taking shots in the butt, and this is more performative than a practical solution. Perception drives real outcomes though. It's a thinly veiled message that military might derives from the masculine, and it's packaged as "men's health" in an attempt to fly under the radar. Like most politics, it's an emotional appeal rather than a rational one. The question then is whether it's directionally advantageous or not to the interests of the USA?
