Well uhm, I haven't talked about that, but so far, everything supports (amazingly coherently) that HSTS are all exclusively or nearly exclusively into their birth sex, that they all have the same brain structure feminization, more or less, that they are all quite feminine in their personality behaviour, and that none has experienced ->-bleeped-<-. And everything suggests that all those currently categorized as ->-bleeped-<- have experienced ->-bleeped-<-. By the way, so far, no true bisexual, asexual or gynephilic (into women) has shown up in the HSTS group. There have been attempts to recategorize, to make out more than two categories, as well as to make only one, before, but they all failed.
Basically, right now nothing in research shows that there exist cases of transsexualism that do not fit those seemingly excessively limited categories.
By the way, I should say, "gender identity" is not a concept supported by current science at all (they'll rather call it desire to transition/female self-identification, since "gender identity" as a term doesn't make sense at all and has no factual basis), and right now, science is only studying transsexualism, I think. Other less clear-cut forms of ->-bleeped-<- are not subject to study yet. It makes sense if you ask me. How can you hope to truly understand the complicated, hard to grasp individuals if your understanding of the clear, more certain cases is still foggy?
Besides, as a wide term, transgender is way too wide for actual study unless they can pinpoint things more. Transsexuals are fairly simple to study. They only need to investigate those who seek HRT/surgery. But transgender doesn't have a limited definition. Depending on how you look at it, whoever is non-gender-conforming can be transgender.
