What is the actual point of this?

Because it’s not informing anyone. The differences are fractions of millimetres across group averages. You cannot look at your own hands and learn anything about yourself from this. The article knows it, too – buries the “this isn’t a diagnostic test” bit right at the bottom, well after the damage is done. After the headline’s already done its job of making queer people into a curiosity again. A fun little science trick. Look at your fingers! Are you gay? We’ve been looking at our fingers since the 90s.

And the tone – fuck, the tone. “Before the playground hand comparison contests make a comeback.” Mate, for a lot of queer people those playground moments weren’t cute. They were kids looking for ways to identify and single out the different ones. But sure, let’s make it breezy.

This is what happens when you strip context out of research and feed it through the content mill. You get something that feels progressive because it mentions bisexuality, but is actually just repackaging queer existence as a novelty.

Something to click on between your horoscope and a listicle about avocados.
The research itself is fine – prenatal hormone exposure is a legitimate area of study. But this article isn’t for people who care about developmental biology. It’s for engagement metrics. And queer people get to be the content.