You missed my point. You can either toss a study entirely, or you can accept it. What you can't do is look at a study, add your own opinion on what they should have found even though they didn't find it, then claim that as evidence for your position. A study is either done wrongly for whatever reason (and thus shouldn't be used for evidence) or it's done correctly. If you want to claim the study is done by priests and bunk, sure, but then you can't simultaneously claim that Fraternal Birth Order is caused by a decrease in testosterone if you don't accept that the studies that found that Fraternal Birth Order causes a higher incidence of gayness.
Tl;dr: pick one, not both.
1. You can absolutely look at the facts from a study and then draw different
conclusions than the authors of the study did.
A perfect example of this is a recent study which had people living off of only nestle powetboost TM. a concoction of 60% sugar and starch, 20% fat, and 20% protein (not including the water). The study concluded that... "protein is unhealthy".
I did not dispute their factual observations (although they are a bit sus due to being gathered by clear hacks). but dispute their conclusions.
2. I did not go around cherry picking facts from studies on the subject.
I merely stated that it is "suspecious".
I currently am uncertain whether it is legit or not and will remain uncertain about it unless and until I perform much more research on the subject. Which frankly I don't have the time to do at the moment.
I believe I was clear and explicit in my communication that I am merely
suspicious of the content of said study. Rather than saying explicitly which is fact and which is fiction.
I did however clarify a few points where I think you misremembered.
Specifically, IIRC you are incorrectly remembering and the studies did not claim "3rd sons are born gay".
Rather IIRC the studies claimed "subsequent male sons have lowered prenatal male hormones which results in a small % increase of homosexuality once they grow up". Which some people then
interpreted to mean "3rd son's born gay"
3. A small but important distinction.
I did not say that the specific author of specific studies of being woke priests in a scientist costume. I did not sufficiently investigate the individual authors.
I said the study was
published under the
control of woke inqusitors / woke priests wearing scientist costume.
Take a look at Stalin's USSR.
Stalin let most sciences flourish but had a chip on his shoulder for biology.
He denied genetics as "racist nazi propaganda" and executed thousands of biologists who believed in genetics.
And promoted a conman called trofim lysenko who spouted utter nonsense.
My point was that currently in the western world we live under something similar to Lysenkoism.
Very similar actually because we too deny various sciences as "racist nazi propaganda".
Anyone who tries to publish a wrongthink study (for example, something that goes against the official LGBTQP narrative) will find himself homeless in the USA or in prison (for hatespeech) in any western country that isn't USA.
The remaining scientists are either:
A. grossly misinformed due to faulty education under woke inquisition control
B. actively complicit members of the woke cult
C. keeping their head down and skirting the noose. trying to do as much good as they can without breaking too big a taboo.
All pro LGBTQP "studies" published in any country under the woke of the woke cult are thus immediately tainted by suspicion.
And must be replicated by countries free from woke cult.