> It might only be a matter of years before a genetic test for tendency towards “transgender” will be created.

Do you recognize that you're about five years behind in "the message"? Trans is purely self-id, to declare yourself trans in the "progressive" countries like NZ and Canada you don't need to even suggest that there's anything physical involved. Specifically you're even allowed to keep changing your identity, something that couldn't happen if trans had a physical nature. Also, you're allowed to claim non-binary but use the women's washroom without even explaining why this would be appropriate.

In Canada you'd be called a trans-medicalist, which theoretically is advocating conversion therapy - to talk people out of their felt experience of gender or gender identity. It's borderline 'hate speech'.

> The science is still new, but has solid foundations.

What is the contention? Not the evidence, just the premise?

Do you suggest that males, like William (Lia) Thomas and Boyd (Fallon Fox) Burton are no stronger than women the moment they transition or that they rapidly become female-like by taking estrogen and losing testosterone as a consequence of their genital surgeries?

In these studies, is Caster Semenya treated as female despite fathering a baby?

> That’s the scary part - the facts are readily available, but so few take the time to understan the current state of it.

What facts? Be specific. Because many studies in the subject area would have failed a second-year student recently in any other specialty. Specifically the small sample size and self-selected nature of the trans athletes who have a motive to sandbag and return worse times in order to "prove" that they belong in women's sports, etc.

If that isn't what you meant, then please list these good studies because the space is crowded with academically blessed nonsense.

Tell you what, I'll examine any of those studies with you if you wish. If you're serious, tell me which claims resonate with you and we can examine them.

My post (parent to yours) outlined enough problems with "studies" in general that I can't think you're seriously suggesting any of them except by inertia at this point. Trying to pick an accurate journal, by reputation, in a time of extreme cancelling doesn't work. Even if SciAm had any standards they couldn't have published a negative article about transition because they would literally receive death threats.

If you've got sources that say sex is a spectrum, they're simply wrong. Developmental sex disorders don't make a new sex. Males produce sperm, and females produce eggs. There's no third sex that produces spegg, or what have you.

All of these articles contradict basic, and observable, biology. If they were true we'd have discovered it long ago when people and animals couldn't breed in expected ways. It's one of those things that only academics, who've never set foot on a farm, could believe.

Further, most of those articles are literally attempted child murder to justify the fetishes of their adult authors. They say things like "puberty blockers are reversible" despite all evidence (and basic logic) showing that they are not. It's impossible to have performed a study on giving children puberty blockers (at regular puberty age, not earlier like in the cases of precocious puberty) because we weren't performing a standard procedure until recently which could be studied. Those authors are saying "things we've never tested, which have huge and systemic impacts on your body, have zero long-term consequences".

John Stewart tells us that children are not being given puberty blockers, but doctors are telling us they are - and in sufficient quantity to have studied their impact. Obviously one, or both, of these is a lie. The more you look into trans "science" the more you'll see none of it is even intellectually plausible, let alone the pinnacle of science as you implied.