>>12497459try to remember I'm not paid to post here, and a paper that is flooded with sources(some citing themselves) is just tiring at some point(likely why they do it), from a skim it looks like I would need to write full separate paper to refute, I'll focus on the premise.
This is the first sentence of the abstract, this alone should be enough to realize the paper is ideological
>Both transgenderism and homosexuality are facets of human biology, believed to derive from different sexual differentiation of the brainThis is the first sentence of the paper’s body(on the same page)
>Gender identity and sexual orientation belong to the most interesting facets of human biology. Yet, their under-lying mechanisms are still unrevealed.This should have already been the red flag.
--ctrl-F (cortical thick) still on the same first page.
>Despite the rapid increase of neuroimaging studies in GD describing cortical thickness, grey matter volume, and structural connectivity this aspect has not been addressedYES IT HAS. Years before this study(BEING FROM 2017). Maybe at some point I will actually pick this paper apart (probably not) but I can’t even get past the first page without writing about it’s BS and I imagine it would take an exponential amount of time dig through the rest.
