My own personal view is that there is no such thing as a "gay gene" (though I am more than prepared to be proven wrong).  Instead I believe that all sexuality is brain oriented/hormonal in nature.  The default position being heterosexual and that in a percentage of fetuses certain stressors and other as yet unknown factors cause increases and/or decreases in testosterone or estrogen to "wash over" the fetus "rewiring" or altering the sexuality of the fetus. This doesn't make it any less "hard-wired" than the existence of a "gay gene" - it's just a different biological process.  This may very well be true of transgenderism.

However, I do have my own POLITICAL issues with the trans community.  For one, I am not altogether certain that the T in transgender belongs lumped in with LGBT.  Transgenderism is a GENDER issue, not a sexual ORIENTATION issue.  It's apples and oranges.  For example, a  cisgender woman who transitions into a man, and who is sexually attracted to women, is a heterosexually oriented man.  They are not lesbian, gay or bisexual.  

I could also go on about my disdain for the highly politically charged issue of there being more than 2 genders.  Since the header of this thread is to "Trust the Science... the science is clear: from a chromosomal perspective, there are XX, XY and the very rare instances of genetic mosaic variations (e.g. XXY).  We can't expect the right wing to take us seriously on things like climate change when we insist on wanting 33 different gender check boxes on census forms!  

Again, our LACK of understanding of what is most likely a chemical/hormonal/brain issue should not have us radically changing language and known scientific facts.  At best it should have us saying "we just don't know yet".

Marc

The science is also clear that the chromosomal perspective is insufficient in determining sex and gender identity. There are XY individuals who are phenotypically female and XX individuals who are phenotypically male, due to factors like a malfunctioning SRY gene or androgen insensitivity or disorders that affect the production of hormones. The takeaway is that it’s not simply X and Y. 

That stems from trying to apply a binary categorization to something that is not binary and complicating it further by conflating socially determined gender roles with gender identity. 

All very good and interesting points for me to study and learn from.  I repeat, I am no scientist or medical professional.

Please let me point out that I stand 100% square in my support of the rights of transgender people, along with all vulnerable minorities to be specifically and categorically protected in law and are equally deserving of the love and support of their fellow humans (though I realize you cannot mandate the latter).

I also abhor the practice of gender assignment surgery (you cannot call it gender confirmation surgery when done on infants or very young children who cannot give their thoughts and consent to it) just to make doctors and parents "feel" better and more "secure" that their child is a real "boy" or a "girl".

I still stand by my closing point that there is still SO much we don't know.

Marc

(P.S., please note, if you read my post thoroughly you quite clearly see that I DID point out that BINARY gender does not exist)

Seriously, this horrifying b*tch can't be gone too soon.

———

Certainly. But we do know enough to know the conservative definition of “science” when it comes to sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity is wrong.

I'm on the right, and I take you seriously regarding both issues.  

At this point I question whether there should even be a "gender" box on government forms anymore.  How is it relevant to any of the services provided by the government?  If we separate the concept of gender from the concept of biological sex, why does the government need to know my gender in the first place?

Personally, I don't care how many genders there are, nor do I consider it my business or my right to tell someone else what gender they should identify as. 

I oppose discrimination based on gender identity, but I should clarify because I'm sure that I view the concept of "discrimination" differently that many of you on the left do in this instance.  

I would consider it discrimination to terminate someone's employment, refuse to hire a person, or refuse them essential services based on their gender identity.  

I would not consider it discrimination to require a person to use a restroom that matches their biological sex, or play on a sports team that is designated for their biological sex.  Because again, I am treating gender identity and biological sex as two separate issues.  And in the latter examples, the designation is based on sex, rather than gender.  

Michael Roberts, I acknowledge your point that even sex is not as simple as X or Y, but the people who don't fit into those categories are an extremely small minority.  I think in general, policy/rules should be crafted to apply to the 99% of individuals who are either biologically male or biologically female.  In the truly rare instances where biological sex is unclear, the individual circumstances of that person should be considered, and an appropriate accommodation should be made.