The evidence he provides is of hormonal disruption that seems seem to affect secondary sexual characteristics not of a so called "feminization of society" which

The evidence he provides is of hormonal disruption that seems seem to affect secondary sexual characteristics not of a so called "feminization of society" which if he was trying to get his point across may have taken extra steps like saying "the femalization of society" even though the "of society" is also suspect in retrospect. What about "the regression of male characters in newborn babies"? Seems more reasonable. But back to my point: The parent is trying to conflate hard evidence of something with a very broad claim which is a typical rethorical tactic of conspiracy theorists and altrighters.