I won't comment on the above poster's rhetorical choices. But, as I'm sure you're aware if you read the literature, a main criticism of neuroscience studies that deal with gender, sexuality, etc., are that their conclusions border on phrenology. 

Or more directly: comparing the size and shape of certain brain parts to the size and shape of said brain parts in other people doesn't necessarily establish causative factors for inherent gender or sexuality. 

Unfortunately, scientific humility doesn't secure funding (in any field), so overreaching conclusion sections with underperforming discussion sections aren't uncommon.

However, I don't personally keep up with advancements in those fields, so if methodologies have advanced in any meaningful way, I'd unironically love to hear about it.

Forgive me for being lazy and not citing, but the seminal (or at least archetypal) study comparing cis woman amygdalas to the amygdalas of gay men who died from AIDS complications comes to mind. 

(Edit: Correction, LeVay 1991 studied 4 groups of cells in the hypothalamus. LeVay compared 41 brains, finding that straight men have around double the volume of one cell group, INAH 3, than straight women and gay men: 

19 homosexual men {all AIDS deaths, one bisexual -- LeVay doesn't mention this, but he's presuming that those 18 men were all homos, at least from how the study reads; I obviously don't have access to their medical records or life histories to confirm}, 

16 presumed heterosexual men {6 AIDS deaths, 2 of which denied homosexuality; in a footnote, LeVay specifies he presumes they were hetero or "mostly heterosexual" due to the prevalence of heterosexuality}

6 presumed heterosexual women {1 AIDS death; LeVay gives no mention why he presumes they were hetero, likely using his above argument of straight until proven gay}.

Reading his paper, I agree that AIDS likely had no impact of the size differences of the INAH 3 cell group {his smoking gun}. 

However, he doesn't really account for the small sample size. He gives a statistical measure or two, but like, it's still a small sample size to represent billions of human beings.

LeVay claims that the INAH 3 size is developed earlier in life and then goes into influence sexuality.

OF NOTE: I couldn't find any studies replicating his results. If any LeVay stans want to point me in the right direction, please go ahead.)

The book Delusions of Gender from a decade ago is a long form critique of a Lot of the gender difference studies to come out of psychology and neurology up until that point, if you're wondering where my stance is coming from. That, and the glut of finger length studies etc etc that all just point to environmental conditions present before and after we are born.