You did not address the content of my comment. You instead used it as inspiration to launch a typical anti-oppression talk. But I was never arguing for oppression. I was only questioning whether your gender-crit-like perspective comports with the evidence.

If X causes Y, and X is going down, Y should be going down.

But you say rigid gender roles are what necessitates atypical gender identity — otherwise you’d just be who you are. But as rigidity of gender roles has been going down, atypical gender identity has been going up, indicating that fewer people are content with the status quo.

This is exactly backwards from what your model naively predicts.

Now, it could be that the pressure to shut up and conform was so strong that it overpowered the increased discomfiture of the narrower roles. But even if this is true, it still renders the observation of societal trends at the very least unhelpful in evaluating your perspective.

So what evidence do we have that your model is correct, as opposed to, say, a biological essentialist perspective?