Aha. I was only aware of your first article, which you linked to in the previous pun-day. This is why I was confused by the leap from respect of transgender people to sterilisation.
In the article they discuss giving children hormone treatments to prevent puberty and then to change their secondary sexual characteristics, the result of doing that is sterility. They try to be misleading because the first part of that is usually reversible but the second part causes sterility.
I see. First, the claim from your second article that this results in 100% permanent sterility is demonstrably false.
Long-term bicalutamide (50 mg) treatment appears to have very little impact on testis ultrastructure and sperm maturation
This means, essentially, that it doesn't stop sperm from being fertile. The patients in this study used hormone treatment to treat prostate cancer, but these same hormones can be used as hormone treatment for transgender people.
Other hormone treatments temporarily lower fertility, but revert after treatment has stopped.
Yes, some treatments have high risks of permanent sterility, and these risks must be considered carefully and weighed against other options.
Now, you claimed that you objected to the sterilisation of children. This sounds quite reasonable. Obviously, nobody should be sterilised against their will, child or not. However, I'm sure you are aware that there are, sadly, situations in which a child must undergo a hysterectomy for preservation of life. If we can save a child's life by having them undergo a procedure which results in sterility, surely life is more important than fertility. I hope that you would agree that in this case, any sterility caused is well justified. But isn't this sterilisation of children?
But nobody is suggesting anybody sterilise children, because nobody is suggesting hormone treatment for children. The whole point of delaying puberty is to give children more time to decide – to become adults before they can consent to hormone treatment, which may result in sterility.
Now, I would suggest that your objection could be rephrased more precisely. You cannot object to the sterilisation of children here, because no such thing exists. You are objecting to the right of children to choose treatments which delay puberty, and the right of adults to choose treatments which may result in sterility. Would you agree with this rephrasing? We must be precise language in our language if we wish to get to the heart of the issue.
If in fact transgenderism is a genetic condition, wouldn't that wipe them out in a generation or two?
I don't see the relevance here, and I have never seen anybody claim it to be a genetic condition. Regardless, this betrays a sadly common misunderstanding of genetics: there is a distinction between being affected by a gene, for example "I have red hair", and carrying a gene, which is "my descendants may have red hair". One may carry the "red hair" gene even though their hair is brown, and pass it on to their children. Red hair is just an example here, and is not necessarily dictated by a single gene.
What you seem to be hinting at here is the idea of eugenics. Eugenics requires involuntary sterility. This is neither involuntary nor certain permanent sterility. Even if transgender were dictated by genes, this is quite a leap.
Is it ok to encourage a 12 or 13 year old girl to wear an old fashioned corset to make her look more feminine?
I don't see how this is relevant, and we have enough to deal with without strange hypothetical issues coming in. Let's focus on the core issue.