2.8/2.9 = .96551, which puts me in the normal female range.

but, this strikes me as a neo-phrenology and not something to take particularly seriously. given what we know about the importance of nutrition, i would reject the rigidity of this correlation, in the first place: i would not accept the claim that finger length is determined in the womb, but would rather point to environment factors and request that more study be done to clearly demonstrate the point.

but, does this idea that hormones in the womb might affect your sexual orientation make sense?  no. this is no less irrational than the idea that it is genetic, which is indeed deeply irrational (and void of any meaningful evidence, i might add).

that said, i can accept the idea that androgenic changes may affect gender identity rather than sexual orientation. and, if you read the studies properly, which i have, you'll see that this is usually what the data actually suggests, but that researchers continually present it in screwy ways.

you'll note that, like the birth order studies, which i will repeat have the strongest correlations that we've been able to find, far stronger than this, this idea simply does not apply to women. they've really only discovered a very specific thing, which is that xy fetuses that are underexposed to testosterone in utero develop more feminized traits - that is, that this is perhaps a partial explanation for the 'queeny' type of queer male, as well as the male to female transsexual.

but, what about bears? are you going to tell me that you think macho, rough gay men are what they are because they have a lack of testosterone? that's ridiculous. and, let's be clear about this: more than half of the population of gay men out there are hyper-masculine, tough guys with chiselled body-building type physiques, and that pride themselves on this hyper-masculinity.

the queeny types may not transition, in the end. but even the queeny gay men that identify as queeny gay men for their entire lives are expressing a kind of gender fluidity, and a kind of gender-queeredness. and, as mentioned, this actually makes sense, because an xy fetus with zero testosterone in utero would just end up female, and if the presence of testosterone is low enough, the testes may grow but not fall. we can do these experiments and see what happens. sure.

but, as a general explanation, this fails horribly. it does not describe the phenomenon of masculine gay men, which in truth is statistically the most of them. and it does not describe any kind of homosexuality or bisexuality in women at all.

what it describes is the phenomenon of effeminate men, whatever their orientation. and, it didn't require a study - you could have pulled it out of a textbook.

besides putting forth the argument that masculine gay men are created by an exaggerated excess of testosterone in the womb, and presenting some research for it that argues that heterosexuality only exists in a narrow range of testosterone production, i don't see how this idea of exposure in utero has any future. to my knowledge, this has not been done. and, the idea would likely not go down well, either.

but, i'll remind you that i'm skeptical about the idea that digit ratios are developed in the womb in the first place..

(and, yes, my hands are very small.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digit_ratio

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.