FIND in
<--prev V202 next-->
From: matthew.malthouse@guardian.co.uk
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 13:02:28 +0000
Subject: Re: (urth) For Matthew: references for sexuality

On 05/02/2002 05:21:14 maa32 wrote:

>Hey Matthew, there are a TON of different places that comment on this.  The
>easiest way to get a good (understandable no matter what your background in
>hormones and genetics) sample is to go to http://www.google.com and type in

Anyone can google, that's what they say, easy.
Anyone can google, any old day, easy.

It's all so simple:
Relax, let go, let fly!
So someone tell me, why can't I?

I can dance a tango, I can read Greek, easy.
I can slay a dragon any old week, easy!

What's hard is simple,
What's natural comes hard.
Maybe you could show me how to let go,
Lower my guard, learn to be free.
Maybe if you google, google for me.

>"Finger length and sexuality" as a search.

Adding "peer review" and "journal" has interesting effects on the search.  For
example all the pages from Berkeley Dept of Psych recorded in Google have been
taken down.

http://www4.ncsu.edu/~n51ls801/PHI340mirror/finger.html  is instructive.

You will find a ton of stuff. It
>is, of course, controversial, then look up "Womb memory and sexuality".  There
>are the original scholarly journals which are a bit too complicated for most
>people, but they are summarized nicely in the news articles on them.

The initial report in "Nature" was incorrect.

Can't find any peer review of the matter.

Statistical significance questioned, as is the rather casual methodology.

And even ignoring all that, the differences were noted in lesbians contrary to
your implication of a generalised case or demonstrable correlation in male
homosexuality - apparently the error that the editors of "Nature" made.

Issues around sexuality are contentious enough already.  Presenting as fact
matters that remain speculative; then misrepresenting those matters is at best

 - With apologies to Stephen Sondheim


<--prev V202 next-->