A recent segment on CNN’s “Table for Five” ignited widespread laughter and debate as Turning Point USA head Charlie Kirk presented a controversial theory linking male testosterone levels to political affiliation. Kirk’s assertions, framed as a “manhood rant,” quickly became the focal point of the Saturday morning discussion, challenging conventional political discourse.
Host Abby Philip initiated the segment by highlighting Kirk’s provocative statement: “According to one MAGA star, it’s a man’s world and anyone who’s not MAGA is just living in it.” This set the stage for a clip featuring Kirk’s emphatic claim that a “direct correlation between someone’s testosterone and their politics” exists, suggesting lower testosterone makes men more likely to be Democratic.
Kirk elaborated on his hypothesis, contending that “Democrats are not going to be able to win over high testosterone men because they’re too self-directed so differently.” He further posited that reduced testosterone levels lead to individuals being “subservient and compliant,” advocating for a republic that “needs alpha men” to thrive.
The panel’s reaction was immediate and unconcealed. Amidst an explosion of laughter, CNN’s Harry Enten blurted out in disbelief, “What the hell is he talking about? Oh my god! Does anyone here know?” The sheer absurdity of the argument visibly amused the hosts and guests.
A laughing Abby Philip playfully dodged the direct question, deferring to the male panelists and jokingly asking if they were “taking testosterone tests and then, like, registering to vote?” This lighthearted evasion underscored the difficulty in seriously addressing such an unconventional and unscientific claim.
Podcaster Touré offered a more measured, yet equally critical, perspective. He acknowledged Kirk’s desire to correlate testosterone and masculinity but pivoted to established social science, stating, “empathy is the core thing that divides the left from the right many times.” Touré asserted that the essence of political division often lies in differing approaches to collective versus individual well-being, rather than biological markers.
Former Donald Trump White House communications director Alyssa Farah Griffin provided a sharp, insightful observation. With a smile, she remarked, “I’ve also just never heard a man I consider masculine spend time thinking about another man’s testosterone levels. I think that’s where you lost me,” effectively dismissing Kirk’s premise as indicative of a peculiar fixation rather than genuine strength.
Another former Trump official, attorney Jim Schultz, delivered perhaps the most cutting remark, eliciting renewed laughter from the panel. He candidly questioned Kirk’s own physical fitness, suggesting, “I’m not so sure that Charlie Kirk hits the weights all that much either.” This quip effectively undermined Kirk’s “alpha men” rhetoric by subtly questioning his personal embodiment of the very traits he espoused.
The segment underscored a growing trend in political commentary where fringe theories are introduced, often eliciting immediate and strong reactions from mainstream media. Kirk’s “silly” manhood rant serves as a stark example of how certain narratives, despite their lack of scientific backing, attempt to frame political identity through unconventional and often derided lenses, sparking wider societal debate on masculinity and political leanings.
