horton described the book as persuasive and credited levay, along with other researchers, with helping make a strong but not definitive case that biological influences play an important or even decisive role in "determining sexual preference among males", and with "taking a "broad philosophical perspective in his discussion of human sexuality by placing his research in the context of animal evolution." he wrote that levay supported his contentious view that there are separate centers in the hypothalamus responsible for generating "male-typical and female-typical sexual behavior and feelings" with a wide range of sources, notably that concerning women with congenital adrenal hyperplasia. though noting that levay acknowledged the limitations of his research, he criticized levay for having an unsubtle view of the meaning of "biologial influence" on sexual orientation that ignores the question of how genes produce an "unpredictable interplay of behavioral impulses", and engaging in "overstretched speculations" about "why a gene for homosexuality still exists when it apparently has little apparent survival value in evolutionary terms." he concluded that while levay's work "presents technical and conceptual difficulties" and his "preliminary findings obviously need replication or refutation" it "represents a genuine epistemological break away from the past's rigid and withered conceptions of sexual preference."