I'm afraid the apparent short shrift given to current sexual orientation genetic studies is an illusion created by two things: 1) the desire to keep this non-technical; and 2) the desire not to go into long sidetracks ruling out ideas that I think don't pass the test of explanatory power.

I have read reams of stuff written by scientists trying to apply the results of genetic and hormonal studies to sexual orientation. The overwhelming generalization is that they sometimes find things that correlate to a statistically significant extent, but these things come nowhere near to adding up to causality. In particular, it's self-evident from the identical twin studies that though genetics may give a bias towards gay or straight, lots and lots of identical twin sets produce kids polar opposite in sexual orientation. I have met such a set of identical twins myself - a chunky lesbian auto mechanic in coveralls and a slinky hetero business woman in an expensive black dress. When you understand genetics well, you realize that even a FEW sets of identical twins differing in sexual orientation would be enough to completely rule out genetics as a deciding factor. The best it can be is a predisposing factor.

I have wrangled DNA with my own hands in the lab, so I am the last person to omit genetics where they apply.

Here is where genetics are addressed in my essay:

1. the twin studies - very hard evidence against genetically determined sexual orientation and gender identification

2. the mention of the imprinting system - this is probably a very conservative biological developmental character that must be governed by genes that many animal species also possess.

3. the statement " maybe because you’re not very aggressive by nature, you are really more in tune with what the girls are doing." The "by nature" here refers to those studies of genetic predisposing factors for sexual orientation. I think, in fact, that many of those studies will eventually be explained by finding that the genes they deal with influence the development of the personality. (Gay boys in particularly are often very unaggressive.) Since your personality will have some influence on who and what you identify with, and your early identifications will in turn influence your sexual orientation, these genes will indirectly affect the sexual orientation. Statistical studies will show a correlation.

I see your distinction of minor (fetish) and major (orientation) sexual factors, and I ask you if it wouldn't be more interesting if this traditional distinction were dropped in favour of a unified view. I think this is may be an idea, completely unsupported except by the intuition "no, it can't be like that, such trivialities and such important things with the same cause" that has deterred us from understanding the whole system.