>If they were, they wouldn't be called "gay men" but "women with a penis" or something like that.
What a bizarre thing to say. People used to really think that all gay men were unusually feminine, but they still didn't call them women with penises, because they aren't.
>Otherwise, the proportion of counterexamples only serves to bound the effect size, which is obviously quite small in this case.
But why the interest in an effect which is small if it exists at all, and for which there is little evidence? There are probably hundreds of other features which correlate equally strongly (i.e., not very strongly at all) with homosexuality. This one happens to tap into pre-existing stereotypes.
>A direct relation would certainly be surprising, but that doesn't mean you can't study correlations between sexual orientation and certain measurements of the body. That's science and might lead to insights how and when sexual orientation develops.
The topic of the article isn't a scientific study. It's a couple of people in a business school playing around with deep learning for marketing purposes. They are not doing it because they're genuinely interested in uncovering the mechanisms underlying the development of human sexuality.
>I don't really care what people make of it who confuse correlation for causation or don't understand that statistical significance doesn't imply a large effect size.
In other words, you don't care what the majority of the population make of this research. That's fine for you if you're not gay and you're not affected by it. But the question of how this research is marketed, and how it's perceived by the general public, is potentially very important to gay people. It matters to us what the general public thinks about us.