@1,2 Genders should never be assumed. I have no problem whatsoever identifying or being referred to as a cis man or cisgender man and the ferocious reaction to this term on the part of some cis people surprised me when I first encountered it and has baffled me ever since. (Maybe it sounds too uncomfortably close to "sissy"? I honestly don't know, but it's not rational.)

As for what is or is not appropriate care for gender-dysphoric children, as a layperson I'm happy to leave that determination (and the profession's internal deliberations over same) to those who, like Dr. Beal, have the relevant training and credentials. One doesn't become a clinical instructor at UW without thorough knowledge of one's field. (And I'm sure they haven't "forgotten" their oath. What a gratuitously hateful remark. No wonder there's a doctor shortage.)

@4 "Man" and "woman" don't need a qualifier in most instances, and I've never claimed otherwise. Trans men and cis men are both men; trans women and cis women are both women. Almost always, the noun by itself suffices. But when gender-related issues themselves are the subject under discussion, the terms "cis" and "trans" are often essential for the sake of clarity. This article is surely one of those instances. Objecting to their use here is like objecting to the terms "Black" and "white" in a discussion of racial prejudice.

@5 If you're a doctor I'm surprised, because you aren't putting the Hippocratic Oath in its proper context, i.e., don't do harm that isn't justified by the benefit gained. Strictly speaking, doctors do harm virtually every day -- chemo and radiation therapy, for instance, do terrible things to the body but few people would say they should never be used to fight cancer. Same with amputating a limb to save someone from gangrene. Do you categorically oppose these treatments as well? If so, I give you points for consistency, but real-world medicine seems to me to involve continual, necessary trade-offs of harm vs. benefit. Why is that not the case for gender dysphoria, particularly the non- or minimally-invasive treatments typically used for children?

Obviously, I reversed the comment numbers above. Oops.

@8 So you're saying "man" and "woman" with no preceding adjective should be presumed by default to mean people who aren't trans or nonbinary, and you're implying that discourse on gender-related issues could proceed unhampered if everyone would just agree to follow that rule. (I hope I've restated your position fairly as I don't want to distort it.) But of course the problem with that idea is that it implies trans people are an aberrant subspecies, a deviation from the norm. Most of blue America has moved past that notion, even those who aren't entirely in accord with all of the trans activist community's goals and/or strategies. If you want to engage and influence the Seattle-area mainstream on gender-related topics reasonable minds can differ on and not be preemptively dismissed as a transphobic troll, I'm afraid you have to get over your aversion to "cisgender." It carries no negative connotations, serves an essential purpose, and is here to stay.

As a European who has lived in the Seattle area for 27 years, it’s very clear that the drugs to halt puberty and even social interventions and their long term effects (such as telling a young child or teen that their biological sex is irrelevant or harmful to them) are untested. A huge experiment is happening in real time on thousands of children in the USA. In many European countries the lack of meaningful research on the long term effects of these interventions on children has meant a halt to these treatments on trans-identifying children. All the long term studies, especially those from decades ago are for ADULTS, adults who made a choice to transition after many years of therapy and usually when they were in their 30s, 40s and above and AFTER they had gone through their natural puberty. The enormous rise in trans identifying children in the past 15 years or so is a completely new phenomenon and coincides with the introduction of Smart Phones in 2007 and consequently social media. There has also been an increase in sexist stereotypes where feminine boys are being told they are girls because they enjoy the arts and masculine girls who prefer short hairstyles and sports are encouraged to think of themselves as boys. Gender nonconformity in children has also been strongly correlated with homosexuality in adulthood, so we are effectively warping the self-image and self-acceptance of many young gay children by forcing them into changing their bodies to be accepted for who they are.
The many current ideas of gender are upside down. Women for example can be any race, nationality, ethnic group, sexuality, have any skin color or hair texture, speak any language, have any political opinion, be of any religion, they can wear any clothes, hairstyle or makeup, have any talent or personality the ONLY thing they have in common is their biology. By ignoring biology you are ALWAYS referring to stereotypes of a biological sex and how their gender role plays out in the society they find themselves in.
Puberty is necessary for the brain to develop critical thinking and understanding of the long term consequences of our actions. We never expect or encourage children to make permanent decisions in any area of life. Medicalizing children in this way is the absolute opposite of progressive and is reactionary and conservative in nature. It’s also opposed by the vast majority of the population, not because they hate trans people but because they love and understand children and know that these decisions should be made once the brain has fully developed.