Although, to be fair, neither Dr. Berger nor Dr. van der Aardweg could be called impartial critics. They each have their own particular hobby horses to peddle. A more persuasive criticism of the study would be an evaluation of the data and conclusions by actual geneticists and statisticians. This particular study, as I remember, is simply correlational and the authors make the classic mistake of concluding cause and effect from correlation, which is a big statistical faux pas. This is done every day when associating things like caffeine intake and cardiovascular disease or cancer. It is reported as cause and effect when no such conclusion can be validly reached based on correlation. Also, these two doctors seem not to know the difference between genetic and prenatal. The study made no claims for a genetic basis for homosexuality, but instead concluded something in the prenatal environment was causing the effect. (The most obvious factor that could account for this would be changes in hormonal levels in the womb as a result of the aging of the mother and is something that could actually be tested to support or disprove Bogaert's conclusions.)
Also, how much do you want to bet that these same two doctors see no problem with the whole global warming hoax which is based on similar "levels" of proof?
Although, to be fair The point is that science is not fair. If the science is sound THEN motive matters not -- IF the science is junk THEN motive matters. Regardless in either case, motive does not make or break the science IT makes or breaks the "scientist"...