I'm generally staying out of this debate, but I want to make a point about a frequent problem on this talk page that I believe is occurring in this section. It is not unusual for someone on this talk page to refer to a source that dispels a possible misconception (e.g., "the misconception that human blood in veins is blue has been disproved by source X"), but that same editor doesn't seem to get it that the problem for this article is not just that an idea is not true, but it is equally or more important to demonstrate that the misconception is widespread (e.g., "source X identifies a widespread misconception that human blood can be blue"). I think that's where the "multiple sources" idea is important. Yes, generally Wikipedia does not require multiple sources (unless a source is challenged), but this article is unique in that sometimes it is difficult to determine whether a misconception is widespread. I favor the idea of multiple sources to confirm that a misconception is common, especially when it is challenged on this talk page. And how widespread the testosterone misconception is certainly has been challenged here.