Debunking Hormonal Myths: Testosterone, Estrogen, and Masculinity

Could our deeply rooted beliefs about testosterone and estrogen be harming men’s health more than helping it? A new review article published in our flagship journal Psychology of Men and Masculinities challenges conventional views, revealing how assumptions about these hormones, such as the notion that testosterone is exclusively masculine and estrogen is inherently feminine, shape men’s behaviors, health choices, and self-identity. Led by Dr. Chris Burris of St. Jerome’s University and graduate student Connery Knox from the University of Waterloo, this integrative paper uncovers surprising placebo effects and underappreciated benefits of estrogen for men’s well-being, calling for a re-evaluation of traditional perspectives (full citation below).

Burris, C. T. & Knox, C. (2024). Gonadal hormones: The men, the myths, and the legends. Psychology of Men & Masculinities, 25(4), 347–356. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000468

What were the key questions you were addressing in this article?

My co-author and I first sought to make the case for the existence of essentialized beliefs about gonadal hormones (EBAGHs) – such that testosterone is assumed to be THE biological marker of belonging to the group “men” and estrogen is THE marker of “women” (or “not-men”). We subsequently wished to explore some of the implications of EBAGHs for men’s physical, psychological, and interpersonal wellbeing.

What were the main conclusions of your article?

Based on a broad survey and integration of relevant literature, we concluded that EBAGHs oversimplify and distort the impact of gonadal hormones on men and their experiences. For example, although pop culture rhetoric often blames testosterone for “male aggression,” experimental research has failed to find consistent evidence for a cause-effect relationship. There is, however, evidence of a placebo effect – so that men who think they got a dose of testosterone report feeling angrier and more irritable, for example. At least one study revealed a placebo effect for estrogen as well, such that men (and women) who thought they received it were more passive and compliant in an ultimatum game. Moreover, pop culture messaging often portrays estrogen as the emasculating “enemy” of men – despite research pointing to its neuroprotective and cardioprotective effects and its essential role in maintaining men’s sexual functioning. The irony here shouldn’t be overlooked: Estrogen can boost men’s efficacy across multiple domains, thereby facilitating rather than obstructing their ability to enact an agentic, “masculine” role.

What are the key implications of your article for research, policy, or practice?

EBAGHs may have a variety of adverse implications for men’s wellbeing. For example, we highlighted research suggesting that certain lifestyle choices that have been touted as symbolically “masculine” – such as alcohol abuse, excessive red meat consumption, and anabolic steroid use – have been linked to dysregulation of gonadal hormones and impaired sexual functioning in men. There is also evidence that testosterone is being overprescribed as a cure-all for (especially aging) men’s malaise, despite evidence that its therapeutic physiological effects are more circumscribed than what marketers would have men believe.

Attributing behaviors, values, moods, and the like to gonadal hormone levels – often manifest by using “testosterone” and “estrogen” as symbolic shorthand – oversimplifies nuanced physiological effects and caricaturizes men’s lived experiences. Moreover, although our primary focus was on cisgender biological males (reflective of the available literature), EBAGHs can also have a negative impact on trans men’s wellbeing – when the physically transformative effects of testosterone supplementation are more modest than a recipient anticipates, for example.

At the same time, EBAGHs may not only have an adverse impact on how men are perceived or perceive themselves, but also how they perceive others. For example, one hypothesis to be tested is whether EBAGH endorsement predicts cisgender men’s disparagement of aging men and post-menopausal women, as both groups deviate from the “testosterone = men and estrogen = women” binary.

Ultimately, we would love to see research-based hormone education curricula specifically designed to deconstruct and correct the misconceptions inherent in EBAGHs. Our hope is that biologically accurate understandings of gonadal hormones would have beneficial consequences for men’s self-perception, their perception by others, and their overall wellbeing.

Where do you see this line of research heading in the future (i.e., what’s next)?

We’ve recently constructed a self-report measure of EBAGHs designed to tap individual differences in people’s endorsement of these biological binaries. We’re currently collecting data from a university sample that we hope will not only help us to assess the measure’s psychometric properties, but also to gauge the extent to which EBAGH endorsement maps onto myths and biomedical knowledge deficits surrounding testosterone and estrogen. In addition, we’re exploring whether EBAGH endorsement and/or self-estimates of one’s gonadal hormone levels predict emotional reactions to presentation of biomedically accurate hormone information. Pending those results, provision of false feedback about an individual’s gonadal hormone profile could serve as an effective experimental manipulation of masculinity threat – one that might be expected to be particularly potent among men who endorse EBAGHs. Mapping out the potential pervasiveness and resilience of EBAGHs may assist in developing hormone-related messaging to have the maximum positive impact on men’s physical and mental health.

How did you become interested in this line of inquiry?

In the context of our recent collaboration in an undergraduate Psychology of Men seminar, my co-author and I became increasingly sensitized to the use of “hormones” as rhetorical tools to assert dominance or to ridicule and dismiss men’s experiences and lifestyle choices. For example, when men behave aggressively, “too much testosterone” is the scapegoat. Alternatively, when men opt for a plant-based diet, consume little or no alcohol, or express empathy for others, they’re “soy boys,” “low T,” or “betas.” The tragic irony of this no-win situation for men is that much of the labeling is based on myths: As we’ve already noted, there’s no consistent experimental evidence of a cause-effect relationship between testosterone and aggression in men, and red meat and alcohol can both be hormone disrupters when in excess. Moreover, meta-analyses have failed to find a relationship between the consumption of soy-based phytoestrogens and gonadal hormone levels in men.

We won’t go further here – please read our article! Suffice it to say that our survey of relevant literature led us to the conclusion that belief in the “testosterone = men and estrogen = women” binary has a lot of problematic implications, and this seemed like a story worth telling.

Chris Burris, Ph.D.

Professor of Psychology
St. Jerome’s University
Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
cburris@uwaterloo.ca

Connery Knox

Graduate Student
University of Waterloo
Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
connery.knox@uwaterloo.ca