The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
And some have hypothesized that it's a similar sort of cue from the environment about the stability and availability of resources. If dad is gone, maybe the provisioning of the environment is going to be less stable. Maybe evolution would favor a reproductive strategy where you go through puberty earlier rather than this continued, you know, childhood is so costly, right?
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
I've also heard that if the biological father is present, it provides a quote unquote protective effect against this earlier onset of puberty in the presence of the non-biological father.