Interesting article. Though the fact that I have a clockwise whorl and my index finger is decidedly shorter than my ring finger make me doubt their physical observations. As for me sounding gay, I sound nasally at best. And as for being bigger? Thank god no. That's a little too big for me. So ya, I think, as a science nerd, I need to see the numbers and the test groups to actually believe any of this. As for being a different sex? Well, if that were true, how come I had the biggest crush on a straight guy in my class for a year? I'm supposed to be attracted to my own sex, but if I were a different sex it'd be like being attracted to a woman for me. And trust me, he was no woman. Though... I never did end up asking him. Maybe he was. I dunno, my gaydar never has been overly active, though that might be because of my age or the fact that I'm a total prude. From what I can tell, gaydar is just a sensitivity to details that allows certain people to notice things about a person that might make them more inclined to believe the person is gay. I simply have very little attention to detail. Heck, I have a hard time with names.
I think it's food for thought, but really sounds just like another 'study' of homosexuality that hasn't produced any real results other than a few interesting tidbits. It also, as Graeme said, did not identify for the possibility of bisexuality, which does exist (as much as people want to refuse it). As for identifying the gay gene, I'm just going to laugh when people realize that, contrary to popular opinion, it isn't pink. What people do with that gene really isn't my care until they start trying to find a cure. Then I join every other stable minded group on how there are quite a few REAL problems that need to be solved before they can start going on their own little petty political ventures. Oh, plus the fact that they aren't even sure it's genetic even now. Nice read, but I think I'll stick to Scientific American for something with a little more substance.