But regardless, consider “engineer’s disease”. Engineers have stupid ideas about things outside their domain all the time. But if someone with no experience disregards the engineer’s advice within their domain, based on those other stupid opinions, they’re going to have a bad time.

If scientific journals printed the irrelevant opinions that physicists and chemists had on topics outside their specialties I'd question the value of that journal too, but scientific publications don't do that.

The Economist publishes articles on all sorts of things, and they print opinions about trans politics a lot. If the editor was expressing these views personally but the magazine never commented on it one way or the other I'd be more sympathetic to your view here, but there's no clear distinction between The Economist's "area of expertise" when they print both the stuff they're good on and the stuff they're bad on.

And in your first paragraph either I'm missing context or you're being way too charitable. Nothing about this sounded like, "I'm worried that people who don't medically need to transition are transitioning", it just sounded like "nobody should transition".

Transitioning is really complicated anyway, you can't just buy hormones on amazon and do it on your own, so idk where the idea of people without gender dysphoria transitioning comes from.