Ok let's go to what is not said and often isn't allowed to be said.
If we accept it's a condition then let's examine that.
First of all the Cass Report pointed out that it was a multi-cohort who identified as trans for a multitude of reasons.
However there's been this weird desire for so many, including academics, to lump them altogether into one group rather than discuss whether there is a number of different things going on.
So let's start with one of the elephants on the room.
Why did the T attach a condition to the LGB?
Are we suggesting that the LGB are 'a condition'? Cos that's pretty offensive now isn't it.
And it's always be really quite bizarre why the T attached itself originally to the LGB. Until you start examining the history and how historically it was virtually only men who transitioned unusually in middle age. We also know that in the past, police would have actively noted cross dressing as a potential red flag for sexually motivated crimes because it was so common. We can't get away from this point about it often being sexually driven - ESPECIALLY because the T attached itself to sexualities and emphasises that it's 'just like being gay'.
There was this need to turn the LGB into an identity rather than a sexuality as part of this legitimisation process. But many LGB people don't see it as an identity, just their sexuality. Their identity is lots of other things and they just happen to be homosexual or bisexual. It's almost as if the T wanted to sanitise being a sexuality by saying it was an identity.
Moving on from this, we also have a different group who it's very firmly about dislike of their body. We have lots of forms of body dsymorphia - anorexia is one. So why on earth is a condition from the same family as anorexia tacking itself onto the LGB. It seems actively very odd. More than that treatments for body dsymorphia have been very much the opposite - you don't affirm issues relating to disgust with your body in any other scenarios as it makes the issue worse. There is a very firm movement to deny talking therapies too - but we see resistance to treatment for anorexia too and that can result in being sectioned. So this is very odd. And then we get the stuff about how people with this condition should be making all the decisions and then telling doctors!
Moving on from this, we see clear patterns relating to trauma, particularly sexual trauma. If it's a naturally occurring phenomenon which is innate, what the hell is the explanation of this? Trauma is a product of nurture not nature. And yet we are asked to put the T alongside the LGB. Are we saying that the LG or the B are also strongly related to trauma? There's absolutely no parallel evidence for this. Which once again is pretty offensive when you think about it.
Moving on from that we have this new wave of young people coming out as trans. Except theres really high rates of homosexuality in this group. And we are also seeing the young lesbian population shrinking. This is odd. Except this is a generation which grew up with marketing pink for girls and blue for boys to a degree we never had as children. And never had to deal with the same levels of pornification as the current youth. And we have a middle aged cohort of women who say they felt similar in their teens and twenties due to social pressure but are glad they never transitioned because they are happy now. This group are routinely ignored as 'ignorant' at best but there's a whole range abusive terms thrown at them and they are dismissed as having an inadequate 'lived experience' whilst we simultaneously MUST ABSOLUTELY UNCONDITIONALLY listen to their male peers who DID transition, but not in their youth - only once they'd reproduced and we're in middle age. There's a massive cognitive dissonance here and dare I say it, clear sexism.
Then there's the cult like trends. Detransitioners are ostracised and any dissent can led to shunning. From people within the same community and who supposedly have the same condition. This is not a naturally occurring thing. This is purely about condition and we see these extreme lengths to control the narrative.
Which brings us back to all these scholarly articles. And asking a pretty big question. How good in quality are they? And a really big question - would people, use biased studies simply to show the results they wanted for ideological reasons?
Now we know this is a huge issue in medicine. Particularly around ANY medicine that relates to sex - women's health is ideologically dominated in a way mens doesn't tend to be. There are huge numbers of studies relating to 'whats best, section or vb' which are debunked. WHO got caught using one study to say that a planned CS was more dangerous than a planned VB when the actual data in that particular study showed the exact opposite!
Also many of these studies are dated now - and never took data relating to females. Because there pretty much were any. That's interesting in its own right. Especially when these studies are used to advocate for transition treatment for females. This is a pretty damn big flaw. As we start to get data based on a female cohort we are seeing different information emerging.
So I might propose that this might be an area of medicine which might be ideologically biased deliberately in favour male sexualities and out of homophobia.
And that actually the whole argument that being transgender is deeply flawed on a HUGE number of levels ESPECIALLY when tacked onto LGB interests and groups.
Perversely when you start to break it down the homophobia, the sexism, the activism led by the cohort who display some worrying trends about sexualisation, the frequent anti-science and anti safeguarding narratives, the extreme attempts to control the narative and the attempts to monolith being transgender into a singluar group start to look not like 'just like being gay' but something much more sinister that ignores the best interests of a huge number of particularly vulnerable young people and children.
It is troubling on a huge number of levels.
The argument doesnt stack up.