Fair, sorry for that, feeling a tad defensive. Let me try to be clear, being while acknowledging there are things I have clear opinions on and thing I don't. I

Fair, sorry for that, feeling a tad defensive. Let me try to be clear, being while acknowledging there are things I have clear opinions on and thing I don't. I had two big problems with the original comment. First the implication that identities based on hormones are weird in anyway (hormones make a big part of who we are), and the tone in which it was written. I also took some issue with the idea that it's likely the cause of some sort lgbtqness, because yes it's the sort of thing that gets expressed mostly by people who think other groups of people are in essence broken and it's tempting so we have seen it about all sorts of issues including the gay people. I am not confident on the last note though, I can believe that some environment factor has contributed, but if so being careful about your language, and worried about falling into bias is the proper way to talk about it. Certainly some day we will have the ability to mold things like sexuality to our desire, but we'll still need to decide how we label such things 1. Not everyone agrees that trans people are trans because of hormone imbalances, at least not in the same way 2. Using language of damaged, or brokenness to express the idea of environmental influences where not warranted is wrong especially where it's used to imply that adult trans people are invalid in some way