It's not true at all. The only thing that's true is genetic material degrades over time. The age difference doesn't directly make any fucking difference other than the chance of getting a bunk swimmer. When it comes to sampling sizes, you have something called Staring Into the Statistical Abyss. When you go looking at a sample, you're looking at children with autism. You're going to see a lot of autistic children with many having parents with large age gaps. If the true statement is Genetic Material Wanes Over Time, you can't look at a sample size of autistic children and claim it's statistically significant that old men and young women create more autistic children because the previous above statement directly covers this statement. So there's not really a control group you can compare it to. Even if there was, how do we know age gap was the direct cause? Autism is an inheritable trait. You don't and can't.
So the question has to be, is this statistically significant to the amount of normal children born from these couples? And if the answer is 95% of children are born fine, and .05% have autism, and others have other issues, then does it really fucking matter? The answer is no. It's just soyence cope that feminist harpies can reeeeee and screech about. It's why I'm so critical about viewing things through the lens of KiwiFarms. You can't look at the abyss and make these statements based off the abyss.