Which did not support his claim.
Simon LeVay notes, "It is important to stress what I didn't find. I did not prove that homosexuality was genetic, or find a cause for being gay. I didn't show that gay men were born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work."
Sorry DJ, but one does not disprove data. One disproves hypotheses.
All the first references are to people such as [Dean] Hamer, [Simon] LeVay, [Michael] Bailey, etc., whose work has been assessed and critiqued, and there have been no follow-up studies confirming the claims of any of these people."This isn't science it's propoganda.
If you would look at *how* the papers are cited by the author, you would see that his use of the references are appropriate to the context. The mere acknowledging of a paper's existence is not the same as agreeing with its conclusions. I agree that he could have put in a sentence citing papers that take issue with the conclusions of Hamer and LeVay. That is hardly enough to turn the paper into "drivel" and "rubbish." The key issue is the actual research and analysis.
Do you actually believe that all the papers that deny any biological basis for homosexuality have not likewise been "assessed and critiqued." That is how it is supposed to be. Assessment and critique is good. There is no convention holding that one never cites a paper again because someone somewhere doesn't agree with the author's interpretation of the data.
The analysis was well done. It deserved to be published so that others can see the findings and discuss them. A mindset to the contrary is reminiscent of liberals with their speech codes.
You are attributing meaning to him that is beyond what he is alleged to have said. I say alleged because that piece had the ring of a diatribe, not a piece of scientific work.
The idea of a gay gene, if it ever existed, has been discarded. If there is a prenatal factor, the thought is that it is something in the prenatal environment. Something that happens in the womb, during gestation. Assuming LeVay was accurately quoted, his comment did not rule that out at all if you think about it.
As for the part that he did not find a biological contributor, now really DJ. You can reason well enough to acknowledge that just because LeVay admits he didn't find such a factor, it doesn't mean that further research will not discover one. It might, it might not.
I would like to see you willing to be open-minded. If that is asking too much, we will have to agree to disagree on this topic.