Offensive or not, sexual orientation is DNA based and so does your facial structure. What do you make of the claim that based on 5 photos they achieved a 90% success rate? That's significant.
I'm reminded of Gerd Gigerenzer's book "Reckoning with risk". It's about medical testing, so forgive the language used:
> A condition exists. There is a test for that condition. The test is good, but not perfect. If someone has the condition there is a 90% chance they'll return positive. If someone does not have the condition there is a 1% chance they'll return positive. About 1% of the population have the condition. Bob has the test, and it comes back positive. What's the probability Bob has the condition?
Most people, even doctors who give these types of tests, get this wrong. The answer is about 50%, but most people put it much higher at 99% or 90%.
I think the Guardian reporting is irresponsible because the general public do not understand percentages, and any reporter using percentages is misleading (albeit inadvertantly) the public.
Here's a link to the book: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Reckoning-Risk-Learning-Live-Uncert...
Sorry, but do you have a source for that claim?
It has nothing to do with gender. You're just trying to proliferate your opinion that gender = biological sex. Anyone that is transgender would disagree with your opinion.
"As of 1999, about 500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, have been documented engaging in same-sex behaviors.[3][page needed][4] According to the organizers of the 2006 Against Nature? exhibit, it has been observed in 1,500 species.[5]"
So if not DNA, then what else?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals
I'm assuming their model is badly trained and overfitting or they're misinterpreting (though I hope not misrepresenting) their results.