1. Is it unfair to say that Dr. John Money did pretty much what Dr. George Rekers did; at least, in his misrepresentation of his own research results; and, his unwillingness to alter and rectify his propositions?

Worse, I think. Money did some really fine work – but as the capstone of his career, he committed the one unpardonable scientific sin: he published fraudulent data. A flawed hero. The damage he caused, after doing so much good work… tragic.
Rekers is as mad as a meataxe IMHO. I feel the same way about flat-earthers, and dominionist cultists in general. He believes in demons and devils, but the only demons he has are within him, and of his own devising.

2. Of course, much, much work is left to be done and discovered regarding Sexuality within the sciences; that’s a given. But, is it irresonsible to dismiss what we have found to date?

I don’t think so. Much of what has been found to date without sound and objective metrics has proven to be chimeric,. It’s too easy to see what we want to see in psychological testing. It’s harder – though still possible – when it comes down to autopsy results. Interpreting what they mean still leaves us – including me – open to being misled by prejudice.
A good example is the work at CAMH with vaginal plethysmography. A very basic mistake was made, comparing 3 groups: men, women, and trans women who had had genital reconstruction. Non-transsexual women who had had genital reconstruction were not in the control group. so all the measurements regarding blood-flow and so on being closer to the male group during sexual arousal were misleading at best. When non-trans women who *had* had genital reconstruction were measured (not by CAMH), their readings were undistinguishable from the trans group.
Such a basic error is inexplicable, unless you accept that CAMH viewed trans women as “really” men in the first place. Their data about autogynephilia likewise – they didn’t include non-trans women in their control groups.

From your readings, your living in a research community and knowing intimately the good, the bad, and the ugly that exists personally and structurally within those communities … can I, as ignorant as can be about such matters, adhere with confidence to some of what Dr. Drantz presented?

I think so, yes, pretty much all of it in fact. Her views aren’t controversial amongst neuro-anatomists, though there’s much opposition from both psychologists and psychiatrists. Some is politicised a bit – the “default female” issue for example is a gross over-simplification, but I’d have to start talking about FOX2 and SOXL9 genes to say why.
For an even more politicised talk, see the one to the American Medical Association by Dr Kate O’Hanlan
http://aebrain.blogspot.com/2011/02/ama-on-origins-of-sexual-orientation.html
What’s currently being taught to medical and psych students is summarised in this powerpoint presentation:
http://cs.anu.edu.au/~Zoe.Brain/BGI%203.3.2.ppt

I suspect my scientific bent may cloud my better judgment on this. My bias in that direction needs to be moderated by more educated minds than mine.

Well, that leaves me out. I knew nothing about this area before 2005, all you see on my blog is from collation in my spare time since then.

Richard:
Perhaps the greatest area where we do have some kind of genuine choice is with regard to whether or not we are prepared to ‘search’ and to ‘question’.

Thinking about your statement above, Richard, I’m not sure I can agree with this. The willingness to ‘search’ or ‘question’ is really out-of-bounds for a good many of us, on assorted topics, I think.
Case in point: in Dr. Drantz’s presentation on the Myth of Sexuality, she states that the ‘female’ is the default gender. We are all ‘female’ until about the 6th or 7th week of gestation. The reality she states is that men come from women, which plays into the whole Genesis story on Creation. With this in mind, Eve did not come from Adam; but, Adam came from Eve.
This idea is so revolutionary on some levels, that the first response from many of us is to declare Dr. Drantz a heretic, evil, someone with an agenda, The Powers That Be are out to get us, etc., etc. The whole framework for Genesis becomes a matter of concern, not the least of which is the dynamic of male/female relationship, and how that’s been used in all sorts of ways to the detriment of mankind.
An ‘inquiring’ mind is often the doorway to public ignominy; and, I suspect more than one reasonably unbiased scientist has left work unpublished believing the maxim: “Fools rush in, where angels fear to tread.”
Just some further thoughts, Richard. What do you think?