There are seem to be so many things wrong with your critique that I was quite frustrated reading it!
First, you simply seem unable to accept science, and scientific results that you dont like! The fact that McHughs literature survey cannot conclude that transgender identity is malleable vs inherent does NOT mean that is it therefore inherent or biological , as you try to argue! Youre statements sound as though you have absolutely NO understanding of research designs and conclusions! And Im sure you do have this knowledge since you are writing the critique of this report. But your conclusion here seems absurd!
The McHugh/Mayer report , which I have read (admittedly not with a fine tooth comb, but fairly carefully) , simply seems to conclude that the current research studies to date show that there COULD be biological factors related to transgender identity, and others that say its more developmental and malleable. One CANNOT conclude from this analysis of various studies that transgender is therefore innate! SORRY! You are simply reading something that is NOT there! Why?
You then impugn Mayers objectivity simply because he was PAID to testify, as though being paid a nice rate is evidence of bias. WRONG! Expert witnesses are USUALLY paid, and paid well for their extensive knowledge and skill. They are not paid by one side or the other. They are paid by the COURT! It is YOUR objectivity that seems skewed here!
AND you impugn the researchers integrity regarding which studies they chose to include and which they left out. While I admit I do not know ALL the relevant studies, their research survey defines the design criteria for what is included. My point is that you simply do even attempt to argue why that design is flawed.
Another illustration of your seeming ignorance or bias, and that of so many others who try to discredit McHugh, is that you labor under the false assumption that McHugh has based his conclusion regarding the dangers of sex reassignment surgery on the one Scandinavian study that the researcher has asked others to stop citing as support against reassignment surgery. The fact is there are at least , nearly a dozen OTHER studies McHugh has referenced regarding evidence of either harm or ineffectiveness of surgery! Yet ALL you refer to is the 2011 study.
And there are a few other false assumptions you make as well. But these few alone are enough to complain about the veracity of your expertise to critique! And I write this not as someone who really cares about this issue in terms of having a preference for the outcome of this specific scientific inquiry. It really makes no difference to me whether transgender identity is “hardwired” biological and innate or developmental, malleable or some combination. What I am interested in is the TRUTH! And you seem more interested in a political agenda than Dr. McHugh!
You may be aware of more support for your arguments than what you have written in your article, but just based on what is written, you simply seem off base for the reasons I mention. And, your critique of the McHugh , Mayer article is what is actually a whole lot of nothing.