I would like to know more about the biological research that has been done in the field of sexual identity?

I couldn't find a link to the work from 2018 that is mentioned on this Science magazine post.

I would love to learn more about the research has been done in this area.


put on hold as too broad by David, kmm, theforestecologist, iayork, WYSIWYG 2 days ago

Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate answer. Avoid asking multiple distinct questions at once. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • $\begingroup$ @ImprisonedRhesus can you elaborate? $\endgroup$ – 0x90 Feb 10 at 3:21
  • $\begingroup$ In any experiment based on statistics, there are two problems: confounding factors and noise. Confounding factors are some shared similarity that is hidden. For example, you might conclude people that live in the city are more likely to get cancer, but if you also found out that people in city are more likely to smoke that is the confounding factor. It is actually the smoking that is significant, not the fact that they live in the city. Noise is randomness. If you ask 1000 people if they have cancer, maybe 10 say yes. You ask a different 1000 the same question, maybe 21 say yes. That's double. $\endgroup$ – Imprisoned Rhesus Feb 10 at 3:37
  • $\begingroup$ Scientists can abuse these two effects: confounding factors and noise to present misleading results based on statistics. For example, drug companies often push their drugs saying things like "take this drug and your chance of survival doubles", but if you understand statistics often you will see that the "doubling" is within the margin of error of the underlying studies, so it is just noise. So, for example, a drug company can push a drug that essentially does nothing by abusing statistics. The research you are citing is of the same ilk. $\endgroup$ – Imprisoned Rhesus Feb 10 at 3:41
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Who is "we"? I don't "trust" science, science is not supposed to be trusted, it is supposed to be analyzed. I read the papers researchers write and accept what makes sense to me and do not accept what does not make sense. The logical person applies critical thought to any published research. To accept a published work without analyzing it or validating it is foolish. $\endgroup$ – Imprisoned Rhesus Feb 10 at 3:58
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I have voted to close this question as too broad. This is a question and answer site for "practical questions people have faced", not a discussion site. "I would love to learn more about the research has been done in this area" is an admirable sentiment, but not the sort of question that conforms to the requirements of this site. $\endgroup$ – David Feb 10 at 10:35

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.