I was meaning my statement as more of a logistical reason. All your points would stand, but we would wind back the clock to say, 1990 or so when trans was still around, but not a zeitgeist.

It is harmful to many AGP men who transition-- people on r/askAGP caution against it.

Selection bias, but I otherwise agree. My opinion for most AGP is that transitioning is harmful to them. If they could instead understand that their motivation is paraphillic, then it would be possible for them to integrate that part into their life rather than believing the lie that's perpetrated by mostly other AGP. One cannot sort themselves out with a giant, unresolved cognitive dissonance. Transitioning does not resolve that dissonance, either, it just digs the claws in deeper, really.

It seems like it may even be harmful to HSTS (homosexual transsexual) men, see point #2.

My recent post, which you participated in, on Ken Zucker's tweet deals with this in a fashion. To quote him: "Many contemporary clinicians have argued that GID in children is the result, at least in part, of psychodynamic and psychosocial mechanisms, which lead to an analogous fantasy solution: that becoming a member of the other sex would somehow resolve internalized distress."

Hypothetically there is a treatment option for GID rather than transitioning (this is why the tweet thread is in fact topically relevant,) and IMHO since transing is so dangerous, unhealthy and destructive, this should be explored. Activists, of course, will be opposed to this as "conversion therapy." Sexual-orientation conversion therapy is unlikely ever to work because sexual orientation is innate and very likely immutable. Gender identity is socially moderated.