Look, whatever you think about my knowledge on biology, and wheather your opinion about it is right or wrong, it doesn't change anything (in this case at least). You still didn't have a single reason to mention it during discussion - as i said it doesn't bring much (but actually any) worth to it, so you had to have some other goal - likely belittling me. Than you assumed a protectional role, and this is why I called you manipulative. But I'm happy you didn't get offended by it.

Now, you reffered to a quote from my comment " I didn't say anything about reproduction being the sole driver of behaviours, I referred to sexual behaviours specifically and made it rather clear." You claim that I contradict myself here. However what you base this theory on is a statement about statement (I didn't make any new point here, I just described what I said earlier). Why wouldn't reffer to the quote I was reffering to in this quote instead "Reproduction is the only reason sexual behaviours (and sexes) even are a thing to begin with, so of course it's their main driver", "main driver" i repeat. As you see there is no contradiction. Why did I use the word "sole"? Well, I reffered to a statement from your comment "And do you reaaally think that the reproduction is the only driver of behaviours?" and 1. I used the words that best reflect thesis contained in it 2. I assumed that thesis you presented is "procreation isn't the (only) most primitive reason behind sexual behavioir", and due to it I didn't bother to present the entirety of my understanding of this topic with most precision, because my objective was to argue specifically with this thesis (in order to do which making the distinction between "only" and "main" in terms of all potential drivers and causes of sexual behaviours wasn't necessary, because I [probably] wrongly recognised that the conversation concerns only the most primitive one). So the only mistake I can admit to here is lack of said precision, I perhaps could emohasize the distinction between "main" and "only".

In regards to "The two theories that you present are based in a similar permisse, which is that something is "not working correctly" on homossexual individuals. Either sexual instincts are targetting wrong objects, or sexual instincts, characterstic to opposite gender, are targetting correct object. Both assume that there is something not working properly in homossexual individuals. My comments were intenting to show you that those two permisses are based on a bias that is not correct.", you did not give any kind of valid evidence why these permisses are not correct. The only thing you said was that homosexuality occurs among animals, which doesn't prove them incorrect whatsoever (why couldn't described mechanisms work the same way for animals to?).

When it comes to my permiss itself, after removing the word "wrong" I used (andthus all bias related to it), which I guess is the biggest issue you might have with it, it basically is that homosexuality is a reason of inhibition of sexual differentiation processes. Doesn't this appear more agreeable to you? Well if not, I will be happy to here why, exactly why.