It’s really only ‘interesting’ to the extent one finds its hard to believe that people would harm another on the basis of their supposed sexual orientation. Otherwise it just sounds like humans finding more pretexts to harm each other, which sounds like a pretty common occurrence.

LOL. Do these advocacy groups even both with things like logical consistency before denouncing something.

One could argue that even if the AI doesn't actually work, if people believe it works then it could bring harm (sorta like lie detector tests which are ineffective but useful for getting confessions out of people who don't know any better). Hence junk science that could harm people of any orientation.

Junk science can certainly harm everyone, but if the research is junk then it won’t be able to harm anyone.

If you wanted to railroad someone specific into a confession you wouldn’t use this research, you would just use a lie detector. Potential harm can only arise if this research is not junk.

The real risk is that we sleepwalk into letting governments and large corporations build these systems without any discussion of the consequences.

The lie detector test was an example of junk science that still can be used to produce a desired result. Not meant to imply that people will use a "gaydar" to try and get people to confess to crimes. My mental contrived example was that homophobes in a homophobic community might doctor up such a system to try and convince other people in the community that someone they don't like is gay and should thus be ostracized, but I realize it's a stretch.

Potential harm can certainly arise if the research is junk. People misuse research or believe in junk research all the time. Just look at the anti-vaccines crowd.

I agree on your third point.