It's a bit of a leap to say they can use this to diagnose children.
They are comparing a select population to a broad control group.
The findings are interesting, and point to some good areas for further research, but it's very primitive still.
It is too early to make the kind of statements that the article seems to imply.
I like that the gender-holy-knights are getting bent out of shape over the implications that biology might have some connection to gender.
It's a bit of a leap to say they can use this to diagnose children.
They are comparing a select population to a broad control group.
The findings are interesting, and point to some good areas for further research, but it's very primitive still.
It is too early to make the kind of statements that the article seems to imply.
I like that the gender-holy-knights are getting bent out of shape over the implications that biology might have some connection to gender.
It's a bit of a leap to say they can use this to diagnose children.
They are comparing a select population to a broad control group.
The findings are interesting, and point to some good areas for further research, but it's very primitive still.
It is too early to make the kind of statements that the article seems to imply.
I like that the gender-holy-knights are getting bent out of shape over the implications that biology might have some connection to gender.