Independent of any conclusions reached in the article, I do think that it's topic subject matter is complex.
However, I personally found the article a labour to read after the following paragraph, which considers psychology a discipline capable of providing findings worthy of being considered scientific fact.
In 2003 a sex researcher and psychology professor at Northwestern University named J. Michael Bailey published "The Man Who Would Be Queen," a book that countered the idea that male-to-female ->-bleeped-<- is innately tied to gender identity. For some, he said, the attraction is related to a sexual fantasy of being a woman. Dr. Bailey was quickly accused of transphobia and sustained several years of vicious public attacks. The episode left a lasting impression on sexology: Science that doesn't align with prevailing attitudes can be dangerous.
And if that were not bad enough, the article's author throws in a false dichotomy of "science versus prevailing attitudes," ignoring the fact that "prevailing attitudes" includes research that counter Bailey's findings.
As a 45-year-old who's only now putting the pieces together regarding my gender identity/expression (and harbouring huge regrets and grudges because of it), I don't pretend to know all of the answers to these difficult questions. But it's for this very reason that I know the "experts" referenced in this article certainly do not have a monopoly on the truth of the matter.