> The problem with this kind of thing is that despite representations to the contrary, no-one is really interested in the group means for their own sake.

I'm interested in group means for their own sake. Or rather, I'm interested in them because they hint at underlying mechanisms, and I'm interested in mechanisms for their own sake.

FWIW, I'm asexual and do not regard homosexuality as some kind of defect. Otherwise, what would I have to think of myself?

Additionally, I don't think you can "lack" masculinity in the sense that you "need" some amount and are deficient otherwise. There are some people who are closer to one extreme than to the other, and if likelihood of attraction to a specific sex changes somewhat monotonically with position on this axis, that tells you very little about individuals, but a bit more about biological interactions, which, again, I find interesting for their own sake.