Yes, scientists are looking at many things because that is their job and most of them don’t pan out. I was once one of those in a Ivy League lab specializing in sexual differentiation. Genetics don’t directly cause sexual differentiation, the sex hormones do. Identical twins don’t have a firm link for both being homosexual because it isn’t genes that cause it. The environment (meaning the in utero environment) can be slightly different for twins which explains the difference in development perfectly I
It is very easy to interfere with critical periods in animals to produce all kinds of weird traits including things that appear to be homosexual. Human conditions that appear naturally illustrate this quite well. I still don’t understand why people equate biological determinism to genetics. They don’t match up well and even though “genetic” has become a buzzword in popular press. Its use in this context tends to be ignorant although there is still a small amount a wiggle room for it to be relevant at all. All of this research goes back decades yet most people latch onto the “genetic” meme which isn’t necessary at all. It is probably just a biological accident resulting from a fragile system which has no relevance to evolution.
Can’t people just stop assuming that all biological traits are caused by genetics and evolution? They most certainly are not. Sometimes developmental traits are a simple accidents of development. This general idea isn’t just a failure on this board, it appears in popular press as well and it is not accurate. How many time do I have to say it? Genetics aren’t the important player in sexual differentiation and I have no idea why anyone is focusing on it.