Just look at the transgender movement and you can understand why people no longer trust what is presented as "science". "Science" is often agenda driven, meaning that "science" is a marketing word.
Against my better judgment, I will respond.
I am specifically setting aside the issue as it relates to minors, as I have some concerns there.
As this discussion relates to adults - all words are arbitrary social choices -- why am I typing on a keyboard and not an alphabet selector? Similarly, pronouns and sex/gender-related labels are all arbitrary social choices. As are expected clothing choices (see, kilts), hairstyles, use of makeup, piercings, etc. Humans have also extended expectations to the roles individuals play in society based on a number of criteria. If we go back 150 years I am not sure 95% of us have any affinity for the social expectations for blacks, women, Jewish people (progroms), and children (factory labor?). We changed. It probably took longer than it needed to, but we made changes. But human social change does not have a beginning or an end, it is an ever-ongoing process. So, if society wants to revisit its social constructs related to use of certain words, certain "dress codes", and certain expected "roles" for its individuals, this is not science and it is not news.
But some changes to common convention are educated by science. Sometimes good (surgeons washing their hands, reduced tobacco usage, etc) and sometimes bad (eugenics). In this case, as society considers a change to gender framework - while a social and not scientific task - science may offer some insight. So, science may be able to shed some light on how the human brain works as it relates to gender and sexuality outside of the prior arbitrary social preferences. I have not dug into the science so take no position on the "science", but given the general state of neuroscience, I would say we are very early in our understanding. But it is not marketing, real science is being done and I have no doubt in 40 or 50 years we will have a much better understanding of how our brain shapes our self image.
So, science should educate how certain we are about continuing our past social choices, but it does not actually answer yes or no.
On difficult topics, I look to my three foundational values. I look through a lens of individual liberty - and I ask myself, what choice maximizes personal liberty? The adult trans answer is clear - it's none of my business. Another foundational value is my faith - and I ask myself what am I taught - in my view I am given hundreds of directions to see all in the image of god and to love all of god's children as I am loved and a few small passing references to gender/sexuality, for me the choice is clear. And I look to the value of nuclear family integrity - not really relevant to the adult trans discussion but is the basis of my reluctance in how early in this discussion we throw kids and parents into the blender given our general fuzzy understanding of the issue - and this goes both ways - parents on either side of the issue have to be given some latitude until broader consensus is reached.
Sorry to all if this results in a lock, but I do think those of us in the middle need to wade into the culture wars from time to time if we ever want the dialog to become productive.
