As a society, we are so determined to put people (and prehistoric ones, for that matter) in their prescribed groups. Let those groups be whether or not those people were hunter/gatherers or carnivores or highly religious or even in terms of their sexuality. I can see from a archaeological stand point that knowing if the people that you are researching are hunter/gatherers or not may be important because we are curious of how humanity started out and if the hunter/gatherers started using another form of getting food or if they stayed this way and why. 

There may have been a big fuss about this because some may think that 'hey, people have been expressing their sexuality in different ways for millennia!'. Well sorry to burst your bubble, but science has proven that a person's sexuality is determined in the genetic code and being 'gay' like the caveman that they are describing is not a choice.

Looking at an article in the Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/8433527/First-homosexual-caveman-found.html), it doesn't seem that the researcher was being critical of that person's potential sexuality, but she may have failed to consider that the man may have been buried in this way as a punishment in the after life. Or even in other cultures where there isn't a boy in the family, a daughter will take the place of a man in a marriage, this may have been the case, where there weren't any daughters in the family, so this man took a female position in a relationship. I do not refute the researcher's point that this may be the first transgendered individual found in the fossil record, but is there really a need to make a big fuss about it. Is there any evidence that this individual wasn't in fact human? I don't believe so. This individual was/is human and should be treated as such.