That is a totally mis-directed refutation, caused by far too casual reading of the argument I have presented. Of course it is a small percentage now. Times are good now, and that favors pair-bonding over the alternative scheme: harem-keeping by the alphas and redirection for everyone else.
Science has found no biological etiology, pointing more toward environmental/behavioral factors, such as abuse.
And again, lots of words--no sign of comprehension. The gist of my argument is that scarce resources produce stress in the young in a manner that is emblematic of scarce resources: missing parents-uncertainty-neglect-resentment-rejection, and that stress determines gender choice.
As usual, you are re-enforcing my argument when you think you are attacking it--which comes from not being bothered to understand it.
Tammy Bruce, in her book, Death of Right and Wrong, said that of the hundreds of homosexual men she has talked to (and she is a lesbian) reported sexual abuse as a child or adolescent. This is a behavioral problem which is probably exacerbated by unstable family situations, i.e. creating children at risk. Stress does not determine gender. Abuse does.
BTW, you still haven't answered my question: when did the "separation of rear openings" occur? Or have you decided to give up on that tack?