It’s not a sad article if one writes it happily ;). Whole article? More like most/majority, at least I didn’t use my “prejudices” (science really) to argue that the science is settle, which it clearly isn’t. Something that you’d do?

The science of intersex people is indirectly relevant to transgender people. Biological sex is made up of chromosomes, genitalia, gonads, hormones, and secondary sex characteristics.

All of which can be manipulated by HRT or surgery, except for chromosomal sex. So it’s not possible to completely change bio sex, but it is possible to almost completely change it to create a form of intersexualism.

Gender dysphoria is rare, not a “psychological epidemic or cultural tsunami”, the stats show that. Interesting point about Anne Fausto-Sterling’s suggestion, but other than that, I clearly have been honest and very much care about what the science says.

As for you, you criticise one part of my blog post, and say nothing in detail about the rest? It’s just “not good enough”? I don’t get paid to write, nor am I seeking payment; I don’t need to be “good enough” for your “prejudices”. Why don’t you write a response blog post on this platform instead of displaying your sense of entitlement? Cheers.