Worth considering: I think the reason this topic is so hot is not because of the study, but the "What if other people use this as a justification for X?" fear.

Worth considering: I think the reason this topic is so hot is not because of the study, but the "What if other people use this as a justification for X?" fear. For example, if it turns out that there are certain physical traits that predict sexuality, does this imply a physiological component (rather than a purely psychological one)? If there is a physiological component, I think some people worry this can be used to "pathologize" alternative sexualities. However, what if all the endocrine disrupters we're exposed to daily [1] that act as estrogens play some role in this? What if we make the topic so unspeakable that we fail to recognize environmental contamination causes both physical differences [2] and sexual differentiation differences [3]? This is part of the reason I think we can't reject information that may allow some socially-backward conclusion. Because we don't know all the other good things (i.e. medical) that information may be necessary for. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisphenol_A#Uses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisphenol_A#Uses 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anogenital_distance#In_humans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anogenital_distance#In_humans 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diethylstilbestrol#DES_sons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diethylstilbestrol#DES_sons