Formative years social pressure tells you that the things you like are only for some other group. You identify with that group.

But the vast majority of children and adults who "identify as" the opposite sex don't really "identify with" members of the sex they want to identify into, do they? Because that would mean seeing members of opposite sex and their own sex as people first and foremost, people who come in the form of individuals. If they saw members of the opposite sex and their own sex as people, they'd see them as fully fleshed-out sentient beings with living, breathing bodies that exist in material reality, and with personalities that are multifaceted, complicated and often contradictory - and which vary greatly from individual to individual.

But it seems to me that people who adopt an opposite-sex gender identity, natal females just as much as natal males, usually do something very different: First, they reduce everyone of their own sex and the opposite sex alike to one-dimensional, cardboard caricatures defined by a very narrow set of sexist stereotypes based on superficial aspects like clothes, hairstyle, toys and interests, which you sum up as "the things they like." Then they hyper-focus on "the things they like" that they associate with the opposite sex and build their sense of self solely around those "things they like," pretending all the while that "the things they like" which they associate with the opposite sex somehow outweigh and erase the actual sex of their own bodies.

You know how kaleidoscopes make ordinary sights look like a fascinating, rich array of patterns and colors? Well, it seems to me that people who regard the world through the lens of genderism do that in reverse. They look at human beings through a genderscope that strips every person of all the fascinating, rich diversity of styles, personality types and quirks of individuality that make him/her unique and different. The genderscope instead reduces everyone in its sights to a bland sameness based solely on superficial sex stereotypes that constitute what genderists focus on exclusively because they believe that a few surface and obvious "things you like" = who you are.

society teaches you at an early age what you should like. If you like what one gender is supposed to like

I suspect dysphoria has a biological root in brain structures but that wouldn’t cover trans identities that claim to have never suffered from dysphoria

So which is it? Do people with dysphoria who try to resolve their distress by developing or claiming to have an opposite-sex gender identity possess an innate sense of gendered self that they're born with and is hard-wired into their brain structures? Or is it mainly about "the things you like," or rather some of them that genderists fixate on, being at odds with the sense obtained in childhood about society's rules regarding "what you should like"?