> where it accepted for young children to be attracted or even in love with other children of the same sex. That's sexual orientation, not gender identity, no?

> where it accepted for young children to be attracted or even in love with other children of the same sex. That's sexual orientation, not gender identity, no? One of the salient points in the original article is precisely the distinction between gender identity (which the GIC sees as flexible, but their critics see as immutable) and sexual orientation (which both appear to view as immutable): > GIC clinicians view this as a conceptual error: The critics are conflating sexual orientation — which can’t be changed, which is part of the reason we view attempts to mess with it it as unethical — and gender identity, which they say isn’t some hardwired thing