> It's about feeling.

This is equally unscientific.

> If you declare that unscientific you can throw out the entire psychological/psychiatric sciences.

May as well, given the catastrophe that is the replication crisis [2]. Besides, psychology has grown divorced from its roots, which are found in religion as a proto-psychology of mind (which is the modern term for what would have classically been known as "the soul"). You can further investigate the correspondences between religion, mysticism, and psychology in Jung's "Psychology and Alchemy."

> Gender identity has always existed.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and so far there is no evidentiary basis for the "gender identity" in the body; some would even say that there cannot be a biological basis of gender, for this "holds the societal acceptance of transgenderism hostage to a biological account of sex-gender." [0]

Absent any biological or physical evidence I can only surmise that "gender identities" either do not exist, or are metaphysical; and to the scientifically-minded, these two statements are functionally equivalent.

In fact, I could even just as easily say "souls have always existed."

The paper [0] even continues on to state, essentially, that gender is an "intersubjectival" reality, which, ironically, is defined in an Encyclopedia of Psychology and Religion:

    Rejecting the notion that knowledge is purely
    empirical and cumulative, Gergen has argued
    that “truth” is always value laden and, therefore
    (drawing from critical theory), “reality” is not
    immutable, but always is understood via interpre-
    tation [3].

> as kids they are impressionable and can be indoctrinated. If people have no kids, there's no new religious minions being produced and thus the religion's survival probability is a bit affected.

Much of the LGBTQ+, almost by definition, cannot reproduce biologically and thus cannot have kids. Would you also claim that LGBTQ+'s survival probability, as a neo-religion complete with rebranded souls, is also affected? How does such an ideology reproduce, if not through indoctrination of children?

> But DEI is not affirmative action

At a layman's first glance this would appear to be the case from the SCOTUS syllabus:

    More broadly, it is becoming increasingly clear that
    discrimination on the basis of race—often packaged as “af-
    firmative action” or “equity” programs—are based on the
    benighted notion “that it is possible to tell when discrimi-
    nation helps, rather than hurts, racial minorities.” Fisher
    I, 570 U. S., at 328 (THOMAS, J., concurring). [1]

[1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis

[3] https://sci-hub.se/https://link.springer.com/referenceworken...

Feelings are important because they affect us. They can hurt just as much as the physical. It's a condition of the mind, not the 'soul'. That doesn't make it any less real for the person experiencing those feelings. The concept of a soul was invented, as some entity that survives after death. So that even people with nothing to lose in life could be forced to conform using the many threats religion makes to their 'afterlife'.

And LGBTIQ+ is not an ideology. People don't choose who they are attracted to. That's a conservative myth invented to make it seem like people are 'converted' to being gay or trans and that thus this could be prevented or reverted. There is no ideology nor agenda and it just is. We don't convert people. That's again a projection of something that religions do. They have agendas and conversion.

And I don't care about what the SCOTUS says. They are completely irrelevant where I live (and they should be in the US too as they are heavily politicised by the appointment process by the president).