Here is science from the Harvard link

First and foremost, is gender identity genetic? It seems the answer is yes – though, as with most traits involving identity, there is some environmental influence. One classic way for scientists to test whether a trait (which can be any characteristic from red hair to cancer susceptibility to love of horror movies) is influenced by genetics is twin studies. Identical twins have the exact same genetic background, and are usually raised in the same environment. Fraternal (nonidentical) twins, however, share only half their genes, but tend to also be raised in the same environment. Thus, if identical twins tend to share a trait more than fraternal twins, that trait is probably influenced by genetics. Several studies have shown that identical twins are more often both transgender than fraternal twins, indicating that there is indeed a genetic influence for this identity. So, what genes might be responsible?

Figure 2: Transgender women tend to have brain structures that resemble cisgender women, rather than cisgender men. Two sexually dimorphic (differing between men and women) areas of the brain are often compared between men and women. The bed nucleus of the stria terminalus (BSTc) and sexually dimorphic nucleus of transgender women are more similar to those of cisgender woman than to those of cisgender men, suggesting that the general brain structure of these women is in keeping with their gender identity.(image in original link)

In 1995 and 2000, two independent teams of researchers decided to examine a region of the brain called the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BSTc) in trans- and cisgender men and women (Figure 2). The BSTc functions in anxiety, but is, on average, twice as large and twice as densely populated with cells in men compared to women. This sexual dimorphism is pretty robust, and though scientists don’t know why it exists, it appears to be a good marker of a “male” vs. “female” brain. Thus, these two studies sought to examine the brains of transgender individuals to figure out if their brains better resembled their assigned or chosen sex.

Interestingly, both teams discovered that male-to-female transgender women had a BSTc more closely resembling that of cisgender women than men in both size and cell density, and that female-to-male transgender men had BSTcs resembling cisgender men. These differences remained even after the scientists took into account the fact that many transgender men and women in their study were taking estrogen and testosterone during their transition by including cisgender men and women who were also on hormones not corresponding to their assigned biological sex (for a variety of medical reasons). These findings have since been confirmed and corroborated in other studies and other regions of the brain, including a region of the brain called the sexually dimorphic nucleus (Figure 2) that is believed to affect sexual behavior in animals.

It has been conclusively shown that hormone treatment can vastly affect the structure and composition of the brain; thus, several teams sought to characterize the brains of transgender men and women who had not yet undergone hormone treatment. Several studies confirmed previous findings, showing once more that transgender people appear to be born with brains more similar to gender with which they identify, rather than the one to which they were assigned.

Paglia says sex changes are impossible. Science reveals changes in brains that match sexual identities. Paglia calls this biological reality “subjective”. Paglia says that Liberals are fleeing biology, when in reality, scientists are saying that they are making observations that may explain why transgender makes sense. Paglia gives her opinion and seems unaware of the science.

Students leave college with an enormous debt burden. Perhaps the objection to Paglia is that she is the one not keeping up with observations being made in biology.

While I kinda agree with Paglia's views on the transgender movement I've tried to watch several of her videos on youtube and she always seems to be in the provocateur role like Yiannopoulos. She doesn't make good arguments to support her views and she always seems to me to dislike trans people. Even in your brief excerpt she has to toss in a reference to global warming. It doesn't support her arguments about transgendered at all. She has to know that would be a trigger to liberals. Why discuss it at all when she has absolutely no training in the sciences and none of her books show any deep scientific knowledge. I've looked into the science of global warming and I find the evidence convincing. It's a small thing but there is always something extraneous in everything she says that's designed purely to provoke and trigger a response out side the subject she's talking about. I think that's a technique used to avoid a serious discussion of the central topic.

It does seem there might be an attempt to shut down conservative speech on college campus. If true I support pushing back against those attempting to shut down free speech. But I wonder why some of these conservatives are even invited. Yainnopoulos, Ingraham, Coulter have nothing to offer in the intellectual realm. Their whole schtick is to insult liberals and provoke angry responses. That's not scholarly discourse

Jewish people make up about 2% of the population of the United States. When there is a slaughter at a synagogue, we express concern and look for ways to protect them When a member of Congress is said the be attacking the 2%, we do look into the matter. The U.S. does look after small groups.

In regards to Paglia, she is entitled to her opinion. The problem is that she lacks a scientific basis for her opinion. Students may want professors who provide up to date info so they can respond to people spouting nonsense, rather than a professor spouting the nonsense.

Edit to add:

I have not noted any changes in my life to “accommodate” transgender people. There are M-F and F-M transgender people in the workplace. No bathroom fights or other events.