That's a bit better Lamont, but not much. 

A. That it is older does not invalidate its conclusions--to counter, you would need to show evidence of a peer-reviewed study that finds something different. 
B. Noted: but then there aren't a lot of subjects to study. Since the body of evidence as a whole corroborates a biological link, this is simply a piece of the puzzle. A small sample size does not invalidate the findings, we just need more of them. 
C. Which of the five studies linked on that page do you refer to? And how does this point invalidate the other studies? 

Moreover, you addressed one of three links, and at that partially. The others? Still looks like hard science to me!

As for your qualifiers, that is how peer-related research works Lamont. Further, I see no qualifiers in "Overall, the results support the hypothesis that there is a strong heritable component to GID." 

I do agree that there is plenty more to learn about how this works. But there's also plenty of evidence.