Many scientists believe that a structural difference represents the brain location for measured behavioral differences. In contrast, connectionist models argue that function emerges from the complexity and strength of many neural connections acting at once. The tenets of some connectionist theory provide interesting starting points for understanding human sexual development. Because connectionist networks, for example, are usually non linear, small changes can produce large effects. I suspect that sexualities which we label as homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, and transgender are really not good categories at all, and are best understood only in terms of unique individual developmental events.
Development is a process of emergence.
In most public and in most scientific discussions, sex and nature, are thought to be real, while gender and culture are seen as constructed. But these are false dichotomies. Sometimes, for example, sex is, literally, constructed. Alas, their truths come from the social arena and are reinforced, in part, by the medical tradition of rendering intersexual births invisible. Thus, as we move from genitalia on the outside, to the invisible psyche, we find ourselves, suddenly, walking along the surface of a Mobius strip back towards, and beyond, the body's exterior.