However, it does seem to eliminate the impact that could have resulted from family structure variations, in other words it weakens the traditional sense of “nurture” claims.

However, as what Dr. Throckmorton postulates is not traditional nurture but rather environmental reaction to a biological propensity to atypical gender interests, this study does not threaten his position, as I see it.

Timothy

“Of course it is correct; the authors found no evidence, but the statement leaves the impression that the authors looked for all possible “social interactions between family members” and didn’t find anything. It appears they only looked a birth order.”

It appears that they did look for more than just birth order. The previous study identified a correlation with birth order. This one sought to eliminate other extraneous causal factors.

It eliminated “raised by mother”, “presence of older brothers in the household”, and “paternal older siblings or adopted siblings”. From what I’ve read (which has not yet been the full report – I’m still trying to get it) the increased rate of incidence had no correlation with these factors.

While there may be other social interactions that could have an impact specifically on younger male siblings that would not have an impact on older male siblings, I, for one, can’t think of any.

That isn’t to say that they aren’t there, but it does suggest that the most obvious ones have been eliminated.

Timothy Kincaid

(ps I’m still pondering the other matter and will get back to you shortly)