The
ncbi link that was given here has nothing what so ever to do gender dysphoria nor does it have anything to do with "transgenderism." It mentions gender once and only once. It states
Adolescence is associated with changing social roles, and there is good reason to believe that gender socialization intensifies at that time of life (Crouter et al., 1995; Hill and Lynch, 1983; Stein, 1976).
The ncbi article is about SEX determination. Where genes determine sex and how epigenetics (how methyl groups can 'switch' genes off and on) can affect how gene regulation works.
Gene's involved in sex determination for males are not restricted to the Y chromosome, but the SRY gene which starts the ball rolling for sex determination is on the Y chromosome.
Also "hard wiring" has not been proven. In the
Bakker study, brain activation areas were studied. Those activation areas were a repeat of a previous 2014
study that Bakker took part in. Her study is a post-hoc study and post-hoc studies are similar to the 'god of the gaps' logical fallacy. But maybe her intuition on this is correct, only time will tell.
When it comes to "expert" opinion, there are always more than one opinion. the
Dutch Approach (2012) on GD states
By informing parents about the various psychosexual trajectories, we want them to succeed in finding a sensible middle of the road approach between an accepting and supportive attitude toward their child’s gender dysphoria, while at the same time protecting their child against any negative reactions from others and remaining realistic about the actual situation. If they speak about their natal son as being a girl with a penis, we stress that they have a male child who very much wants to be a girl, but will need an invasive treatment to align his body with his identity if this desire does not remit. Finding the right balance is essential for parents and clinicians because gender variant children are highly vulnerable to developing a negative sense of self (Yunger, Carver, & Perry, 2004).
The Dutch Approach concentrates on the the welfare of the child not the diagnosis of the GD, it states
The Dutch approach to clinical management of children with GID contains elements of a therapeutic approach but is not directed at the gender dysphoria itself. Instead, it focuses on its concomitant emotional and behavioral and family problems that may or may not have an impact on the child’s gender dysphoria.
but if you compare this to
Bakker's approach she concentrates on "treating" the gender dysphoria.
The earlier one can start with the treatment, including puberty inhibition with GnRH agonists then followed by cross-sex hormones, the better the outcome
the
NHS also takes the approach of treating the GD rather than concentrating on the child with GD
When first introduced, an age of 12 years was recommended for puberty suppression. However, boys and girls enter puberty at different stages.
The Dutch Approach also tries to make sure the child with GD has the mental facilities to make a decision for itself
Because the protocol for young adolescents had started in a period when there were no studies on the effects of puberty suppression, the age limit was set at 12 years because some cognitive and emotional maturation is desirable when starting these physical medical interventions. Further, Dutch adolescents are legally partly competent to make a medical decision together with their parent´s consent at age 12. It is, however, conceivable that when more information about the safety of early hormone treatment becomes available, the age limit may be further adjusted (de Vries, 2010).
but the NHS and Bakker don't seem to take into account the ability of a child to be able to provable reason for itself.
I hope those that read the above have enjoyed my little informative rant on the topic of GD.