Thing is, you'd just go ahead to say those aren't "real sciences" or the results are "politically motivated" or come up with some nice strawmen to tear down or some other reason just so that you can bend and twist reality to fit into that thick head of yours.
You are quite simply not worth the effort of serious discussion.
Just ask yourself this:
What is more likely?
Almost all researchers in the current medical and humanities community being wrong or people with a much lower education level (nobody likes to hear this, but it's just a statistical truth) and no actual study experience on the topic, who just flat out refuse any science they don't like by any mental gymnastics necessary and are unable to deal with a world changing around them being wrong?
Objectively, the answer is clear.
That's why I, not having studied in those fields, either, go with those that have - without going to the SJW extremes of the horseshoe and making everything about identity politics.
But somehow, you ended up in the second group. I wonder why.
Well guess everyone is going to have to stfu and suck my penis because I have studied in this field. And by the authority invested in me I decree that people here are absolutely right, the field of psychology, where most of this sexuality bs comes from, has been turned into a joke for quite a while.
First of all, it is a fact that the field is contaminated and tampered with, psychology journals where research is published do have an idealogical bias, to the point that a team actually submitted in an extract from Mein Kampf and switched the words around to be pro feminist drivel, it got accepted and even praised (meanwhile other research unpalatable to the modern dogma is rejected or has to be heavily censored otherwise they are refused publication). This ain't the only incident of its type and thankfully bought to light the degree to which grievance studies have contaminated and dominated the field.
Why is psychology so easily infiltrated? Because it's a soft science. What is a soft science? Well universal among the various scientific disciplines, in research there is something called a correlation coefficient that determines the strength of whatever variables you are testing for in your experiment. How high the correlation coefficient needs to be depends on the field, with physics for example needing a 0.9 (scale goes from 0 to 1 to so 0.9 means the correlation between two variables is almost guaranteed) coefficient strength in its studies to be taken seriously, thus making physics one of the hard sciences.
In psychology? It's considered top tier if you get a correlation coefficient of 0.3 but even 0.1 is acceptable, so you really can bullshit your way to anything, especially if it's idealogically approved so that no one can really argue your results, and then when your bogus research starts getting quoted by other bogus research making for a human centipede of idealogues turned pseudo "scientists" it results in what we have now.
And worst, in psychology we accept experiental research as standard in the field which is basically interviewing people and making whatever conclusions suits our views, these are the easiest of all to bs because you can skip the pretense of even being scientific here.
Experiental research has its place imo but the way it is abused now when it comes to trans and gender related issues has proven a great trojan horse for any random crazy to push their shitty views and have it treated as serious science, with your mentality of "just listen to the experts!" playing right into it.
And this problem has been building up for years since as mentioned, the way research works is you reference other people's work and once the field of psychology has started loosening its standards and let itself get contaminated it creates a self perpetuating ecosystem of bullshit and charlatans. I could write a half arsed research paper right now claiming being trans or non binary makes you mentally healthier then if you are "CIS" and it would likely be accepted no questions asked,
I'd just have to interview a few select people picked up from twitter and let them tell me what i want to hear, place it in a matrix for a semblance of scientific credibility and find a coefficient correlation of 0.1ish and bam, now its a "scientific fact" that trans people are more mentally healthy then non trans and if you try to make a research paper to debunk me it would never be published so your research therefore doesnt exist and im right and you are wrong, welcome to modern academia.
Seriously don't ever feel like you can't question a humanities major and if you ever meet one who tries to be all like "pah i'm an expert and you are a simple pleb who cannot understand how advanced my science is" then you are dealing with an arrogant deluded fool, psychology is an easy field where all we are taught is:
-basic statistics (and i had barely done any maths in school because i was in section L of the french education system, aka the one that focuses on writing and languages)
-how to conduct basic research and read research reports
-history of psychology (thankfully my teachers were quite happy to point out how much of it is questionnable, they used to rip on sigmund freud and loathed john money, the latter of which i imagine is celebrated as a hero now with the way his views have become mainstream and irrefutable fact somehow)
-introdution to a few treatment methods like CBT
-optional module in a specialist field like military psychology or sports psychology
None of this is arcane knowledge or something out of reach for the average pleb, if you understand basic stats and can skim through a wiki article, you are on the level of an average psychology major.
Sorry for the tldr and further derailling but I couldn't let that one stand.