For Matthew: references for sexuality

Hey Matthew, there are a TON of different places that comment on this. The easiest way to get a good (understandable no matter what your background in hormones and genetics) sample is to go to http://www.google.com and type in "Finger length and sexuality" as a search. You will find a ton of stuff. It is, of course, controversial, then look up "Womb memory and sexuality". There are the original scholarly journals which are a bit too complicated for most people, but they are summarized nicely in the news articles on them. Check it out! In my undergraduate education, we made "fruity" fruit flies - a spliced gene can make male fruit flies mount other male fruit flies. Of course, as a Catholic, I believe in free will no matter what proclivity we may have, but I do accept that we cannot choose many innate things, and that who we are attracted to is not something we can really choose, and is therefore not an act of exercising free will. You should be able to find the basic research on the net if you want to. Marc Aramini

Anyone can google, that's what they say, easy. Anyone can google, any old day, easy. It's all so simple: Relax, let go, let fly! So someone tell me, why can't I? I can dance a tango, I can read Greek, easy. I can slay a dragon any old week, easy! What's hard is simple, What's natural comes hard. Maybe you could show me how to let go, Lower my guard, learn to be free. Maybe if you google, google for me.

Adding "peer review" and "journal" has interesting effects on the search. For example all the pages from Berkeley Dept of Psych recorded in Google have been taken down. http://www4.ncsu.edu/~n51ls801/PHI340mirror/finger.html is instructive. You will find a ton of stuff. It

The initial report in "Nature" was incorrect. Can't find any peer review of the matter. Statistical significance questioned, as is the rather casual methodology. And even ignoring all that, the differences were noted in lesbians contrary to your implication of a generalised case or demonstrable correlation in male homosexuality - apparently the error that the editors of "Nature" made. Issues around sexuality are contentious enough already. Presenting as fact matters that remain speculative; then misrepresenting those matters is at best irresponsible. Matthew - With apologies to Stephen Sondheim