That's not the scientific consensus:
www.endocrine.org/advocacy/position-statements/transgender-health
This tired old position paper again. (From an American trade body for a discipline that stands to gain considerably by capturing 1% of the worlds population as lifelong customers)
The whole piece relies on one paper that's used very disingenuously to make claims said paper doesn't.
This is the paper: pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0c29/7b51e86c5e5227064f743e8d65fbf3138512.pdf
DOI:10.4158/EP14351.RA
Apart from the fact that it's just a meta study filled with lots of qualifications like "maybe" and "could show", the conclusion says:
Current data suggest a biological etiology for transgender identity. Studies of DSD patients and neuroanatomical studies provide the strongest evidence for the organic basis of transgender identity. Sample sizes of the majority of studies to date on this subject are small, and conclusions must be interpreted with caution. Further research is required to assign specific biological mechanisms for gender identity.
To repeat:
Sample sizes of the majority of studies to date on this subject are small, and conclusions must be interpreted with caution.
So, DSD people are again being appropriated for another groups ends (not very intersectional of you hmmm?) and no specific biological mechanisms have been identified, just some uncertain neuroanatomical indicators in a small sample
For which the paper linked above by 334bu seems to provide a possible cause.
And this weak position paper is used everywhere by TRA's, including Crispin Blunt, to claim a biological root to transgender identities.