The page you linked to doesn't exactly present evidence of a strong genetic component (or much of a consensus for that matter).

Could you elaborate? For example, the estimate from the largest study in the page (3,826 pairs) seems pretty nontrivial: 39% of variance! That's not small or trivial by any means - that's getting up there with some twin estimates of intelligence. And especially since the shared-environment estimate is 0.

The page you linked to doesn't exactly present evidence of a strong genetic component (or much of a consensus for that matter).

Of the studies in question, the only one which showed a weak correlation listed is Bearman and Brückner, which still showed a 7.7% concordance rate for male homosexuality. The female rate is lower, which shouldn't be that surprising, given that the other studies included also showed lower concordance rates for females, and that there's other evidence for female sexuality being more malleable than male sexuality. Moreover, the largest study in question, the Sweden study, used literally every single pair of twins born in the country, which makes for a much larger study and handles the selection bias problems. And that study agreed with the results of the other studies excepting Bearman and Bruckner.

The brain evidence is interesting, but it goes more to a lack of choice, rather than a genetic aspect.

Except it's not evidence of lack of choice (unless you adopt a very specific kind of Cartesian dualism) either.

What does this have to do with Cartesian dualism at all? For that matter, how is this at all relevant, since as I stated earlier, the matter under discussion is what is descriptively thought of as a choice or not by members of society. The entire point was discussing why someone would have a different reaction to the homosexuality discrimination issue than the atheism discrimination issue. In that context, colloquial intuitive notions of choice are relevant.

Your reasoning was basically "everyone lies thus some political group lying isn't evidence against their other claims". Not a particularly strong argument at the best of times, certainly not here were the situation is extremely analogous to the lie under discussion (just substitute "transgender" for "homosexuality").

That' isn't what the argument is. Please reread that discussion.

It wasn't just presenting selective evidence, it was getting BS or outright lies declared part of the scientific consensus.

Really? Did you see any evidence in that discussion that any aspect of this has had any influence on the scientific studies in question? Have they somehow managed to fake data and get it through? Do you think they've had papers get rejected? The only plausible sort of situation is selective granting, which requires specific aspects of the LGBTQE movement (not even generically but people who would agree with this lying idea, which the vast majority would not) to have somehow gotten positions in grant giving institutions. Do you have any evidence for that?

Such a requirement would bother (to put it mildly) me much more as a Jew than it would as an atheist, FWIW.