I wanted to see the argument, but an over a hour long video with a bad speaker is a bit more than I will invest just to see the argument. From what I could catc

I wanted to see the argument, but an over a hour long video with a bad speaker is a bit more than I will invest just to see the argument. From what I could catch by jumping with 5m intervals for the first 30m of the video, it seems to focus on the medical topic of gender dysphoria on young children, and on that topic I do know a bit to say that it is an area of research where there are many questions. Doctors themselves say it one of harder medical problems to get right, in both diagnoses and treatment. For specifics, about 60% of ten age girls and 30% for boys with gender dysphoria also suffer from server psychological problems such as PTSD, trauma, server depression or autism. It takes years to diagnose. There is about 2.2% error rate when a decisions is finally made to make sex reassignment surgery and hormone treatment. An other worry sign in gender dysphoria here in Sweden is that the number of patients between 2015 and 2017 has increased by almost 300% and people are now worrying a lot that the error rate will increase as well. In recent news here in Sweden, the 2.2% error rate is seen as lost group of patients being ignored, or worse feeling pushed and harmed by the medical profession that was there to help them. A third worrying sign is that the ages are dropping. There is a medical fact that early intervention before puberty has a better response, but it must be balanced with the ethnically questions of informed consent in regard to an irreversible medical intervention. Nothing of that is "openly hostile to trans people", but is sometimes taken as criticism of the trans movement (by whom I don't know). It is criticism of the medical system, and it is important to distinguish between the two. Similar people argue that a view of biological causes of gender dysphoria is anti-trans, while other argue it is pro-trans. Research such as that is just research, while policy decision based on it can be either anti or pro-trans. Putting the medical and research area of those topics aside, what I am hearing is the question about restrooms and sports. On that I have very strong opinions in that all restrooms should be unisex (and cleaning should be done regularly as neither sex deserve restrooms that stinks), and sports should quantify what unfair biological advantage is so that it can be applied universally regardless if we are talking about an increased amount of testosterone or red blood cells in the bloodstream. Heritability is considered to determine 66% of athletic success, and for sports where an hight advantage exist that number increases to 80% heritability. If we pitted a baseball team of significant above height women vs a significant below average height men, I would guess the women team had a biological advantage to win the match. Those views on restrooms and sports are sadly not universal nor even agreed on by the left side of the political spectrum.