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.
If the data is flawed, so is the hypothesis.
I agree that he could have put in a sentence citing papers that take issue with the conclusions of Hamer and LeVay.
He misused/misrepresented LeVays work. That is a serious flaw. See post 29.
He has already been proven to use flawed material.
From the article: A previous study (1999) by Dr. Boegart concluded that homosexual men have larger genitalia than heterosexual men. Boegart based his findings on data from 5,000 interviews of men by Alfred C. Kinsey, the now-discredited sex research pioneer.
A mindset to the contrary is reminiscent of liberals with their speech codes.