So basically what your saying is that it is possible for a man to "really" be a woman even though not only all the physical/biological evidence points that way, but he isn't even aware of it? This raises even more questions whether you definition of "really a woman" corresponds to anything in reality.

Hm, good question! I'd say: in the same way one might discover one prefers, say, some obscure flavor of ice cream one hadn't tried before to one's previous favorite of chocolate ice cream. Does that mean that the person's favorite wasn't really chocolate before? It was, but also they "actually" preferred something else... I think it comes down to how the individual's narrative of their past or somesuch.

So you agree that the claim that my explanation "necessitates a lot of people lying" that you made in the grandparent is BS. That raises the question why did you make it?

I think we must've talked past each other; I'm having trouble connecting the dots. In any case, to try to elucidate my meaning: In the past, being transgender was more and more widely low-status. If transgenderism isn't real, then it becoming less low-status on average means that more and more people would lie about being transgender. If it is real, then it becoming less low-status on average means that more and more people would be exposed to the concept and feel safer in coming out.

It's similar, the difference being that "gay" properly refers to a person's behavior rather than an intrinsic property. And yes, the current attempt to claim that "gayness" is an intrinsic property is similarly problematic.

I see. I might have a different (though not diametrically opposed) idea on this, but afaict that disagreement doesn't have a bearing on the main idea of this discussion at the moment so for time and clarity's sake I think I'll not take this up, if you're amenable.