I've been reading up about this lately, when I can, but the more I read and think about it, the more it appears to be a very misguided and contradictory field of research.
For example, one group of researchers will state that very low 2d:4d ratios (more masculine) are indicators for homosexuality, another group will state the opposite; that homosexual men possess more feminine ratios.
Also curious is the fact that they believe low ratios are predictors of male facial attractiveness. One of the leading researchers in this field is Professor John Manning. Manning himself has a very low, masculine ratio of 0.90, but here is what he looks like:
I don't know, somehow I don't think he has to pry women off him with a crowbar. I know plenty of guys that I would say are definitely high T guys, but they are to be frank, ugly as shit, so I'm not sure about the correlation between facial attractiveness and high prenatal testosterone exposure, I think that might more come down to what your parents looked like.
Furthermore, indicators of sporting talent?? How can you even quantify something that has as many variables as that. In one of the studies Manning conducts, he measures an up and coming soccer talent, who has a ratio of 0.97, which is pretty average at best. Sure there's probably never been guys playing a sport at elite levels that were low-T, but there are so many more variables to consider.
Then again, I'm no researcher and possibly just greatly misinterpreting the findings?