I suspect this is one of those things where scientific evidence and research can be produced to substantiate the position of both sides.
Similar thing happened around smoking being linked to lung cancer. Didn't mean the conclusions were right or accurate.
I think it can be acknowledged or agreed that it is an area requiring further study with a wider sample to draw from
With only a superficial read of the studies, it does occur to me that just because there is a similar chemical composition in the test between urine and the 'other fluid' doesn't mean it is all urine. Just because a chimpanzee has 98% of their genes matching humans doesn't make us chimpanzees.
I was also a little puzzled at the inference that was drawn about the bladder filling up again and then being re-emptied that was noted in the article. Really? Are they certain? Could there be other explanations?
I've been squirted on. I didn't think it was in any way urine. Just because we don't yet understand something completely doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Nor does it mean it wasn't urine simply because I didn't think it was (for the doubters out there). I'm definitely in the camp that some women squirt, and it isn't urine.
Look at the Mpemba effect? Just 'cause scientists couldn't explain (until 2013) why warm liquids freeze faster than cold liquids, doesn't mean it didn't exist.
And even now, the explanation is probably still in the realms of being a theory rather than absolute explanation.
Does this really need to be a big deal?