Five minutes of hate news

[Abhorsen]

1. You can absolutely look at the facts from a study and then draw different conclusions than the authors of the study did.

Sure, you could. But that's not what happened here. New facts without evidence were introduced. That's my issue. You can toss a studies evidence, but just adding new evidence without a study backing it, because you think the evidence fits, is bad science (despite scientists doing it a ton).

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'm not addressing your arguments here, more @DarthOne , who made a logical error. I quoted you because you defended Darth's point, which made this error.

Specifically, IIRC you are incorrectly remembering and the studies did not claim "3rd sons are born gay".

Somewhat agree here. My recollection of the study was initially wrong in my first post, before I relooked it up. I had claimed off hand that 3rd sons were more likely to be gay. It turns out instead it was each subsequent son was significantly more likely to be gay than the one before (if the first kid is gay at a 2% rate, then the next would have a 3% chance of being gay, and a third son a ~5% chance etc, if the increase is ~50% per son. Obviously ball park and example figures).

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.

This I agree with, but there are ways to gather solid info from dubious sources. One key way is to look for information found prior to their complete capture, the earlier data tends to be more reliable in this respect (though sometimes less reliable in other things, but all else equal, older study is better).

That's something the Fraternal Birth Order stuff has going for it: there's evidence for it from the 50s and it was studied in the 90s.

Another is stuff that contradicts what they want to be true. They (initially) wanted there to be a gay gene. That Fraternal Birth Order doesn't present this is an issue for the ideologically captured scientist, but not much of an issue, as it's close enough.

But now, in a more modern sense (think 2015 on), that it's not a choice is an issue for an ideologue. They want sexuality to be a social construct, but it doesn't appear to be. Why? Because they want to shame people who won't sleep with trans people. They hate anything that reeks of biology working as intended, such as this.

Pointing out that there's actual biological reasons behind people being immutably gay, and the sheer lack of evidence for trans stuff, is telling, IMO.