I expected you to fix the link. You did. I found the review to be unimpressive. I expected you to be comprehensive regarding the blood clotting stuff, and you were. Some of that stuff is interesting; but all of it is speculation.
I didn't expect you to provide links to my marriage stuff and how it relates to the GOP and why that is a good thing to spend time on ... and you didn't. For whatever reason, the health of the GOP, its bedrock support by marrieds ... to you, not worthy of consideration.
I didn't expect you to spend time on Ayn Rand and how she hated kids and dogs ... and you didn't.
I didn't expect you to respond to the sex change stuff, and surprise!, you exceeded my expectations!
So, to be clear, the primary cause of men lining up at the sex change clinics is abnormal fetal development due to genetic dis-switching on the Y chromosone in the womb? I'm interested in those links Mr. I. Where are they? And how unusual of you not to include them.
(This of course means you likely can provide links which discuss that homosexual males is an artifact of similar genetic misswitiching, correct? Evolution certainly wouldn't create 'gay men', correct?)
Btw, my impression about sex change clinics and the men who visit them has been greatly influenced by this observation: most fathers of those men appear not to care one bit about this act by their sons.
I never see articles, information which indicate support or opposition by the fathers of these sons for this kind of cutting edge decision making.
Now this observation is consistent w/ my observation that most men eager for the scalpel were also badly betrayed or more commonly, ignored, by the biological fathers; and, naturally, these men uniformly reject God. But I gather you would argue otherwise.
I am really curious now, more so, about my questions about marriage and kids and the GOP that you didn't answer.
So I have concluded that most gay men, and most men who travel to the sex change clinic share in common the desire to adopt the only identity that socially/psychologically they understand .... mom's. Although a tiny fraction do indeed suffer from bona fide detectable genetic disasters, most men, gay, transv, mass murderers, whatever .... genetically they are fully identifable as men and function biologically just fine.
A poor fathering 'imprint' is my primary understanding for all this gay nonsense. I can find plenty of links about that if you are interested; but maybe your links about how genetic all this nonsense is would be more compelling?
Evolution certainly would "create" men with the capacity to end up gay, just as it obviously has not only 'created' humans with such a capacity but other species as well up and down the phylogenetic hierarchy. That appears especially true of species at the highest orders of intelligence (primates, pinnipeds, porpoises, pachyderms - hmm, there seems to be an exceedingly strange p correlation ;) while the 'lower' phyla tend to have much fuzzier sex-type boundaries to begin with.
The far more intriguing question to ask yourself is why an intelligent designer would "create" something that he allegedly abhors.
"All of it is speculation"? Clearly, you're unable to recognize solid research and evidence when you see it, or learn anything from it. That explains much.
PS. For precision, I should have said the capacity to engage in homosexual behavior when referring to other species (keeping in mind that 'gayness' denotes a uniquely human personality trait). That is not to suggest that certain other critters don't engage in extensive periods of homosexuality that are homologous to gay human male behavior (e.g., bottlenose dolphins).