For a quarter of a century researchers investigating the origins of sexual orientation have largely ascribed to the fraternal birth order effect (FBOE) as a fact, holding that older brothers increase the odds of homosexual orientation among men through an immunoreactivity process. Here, we triangulate the empirical foundations of the FBOE from three distinct, informative perspectives: First, drawing on basic probability calculus, we deduce mathematically that the body of statistical evidence of the FBOE rests on the false assumptions that effects of family size should be controlled for and that this could be achieved through the use of ratio variables. Second, using a data-simulation approach, we demonstrate that by using ratio variables, researchers are bound to falsely declare corroborating evidence of an excess of older brothers at a rate of up to 100%, and that valid approaches attempting to quantify a potential excess of older brothers among homosexual men must control for the confounding effects of the number of older siblings. And third, we re-examine the empirical evidence of the FBOE by using a novel specification-curve and multiverse approach to meta-analysis. This yielded highly inconsistent and moreover similarly-sized effects across 64 male and 17 female samples (N = 2,778,998), compatible with an excess as well as with a lack of older brothers in both groups, thus, suggesting that almost no variation in the number of older brothers in men is attributable to sexual orientation.