Well you've found a particularly sane corner of Reddit...

Yes, I think that we can look at the USA and the UK and historically assess that the TQ+ stuff didn't come until after gay marriage. In part due to the normal people packing up their activism and going home once the majority goal of full citizenship was accomplished. In part due to activist organizations like Stonewall and HRC needing to keep the lights on and the money flowing. Your points #1 and #2.

So yeah, the social conservatives were correct in their assumed outcome. It was a slippery slope, but I don't think they understood that it would work in this fashion. Correct outcome, incorrect reasoning for it. Now, the concern I have with regard to them is an inability to see the difference between the two camps of people. Those that just want to live their lives and those that are activists who will never be satisfied. That's an important distinction I would consider when evaluating social movements. Conservativeism is essentially a desire for things to remain static, if you reach an agreement with them that there is a Mission Accomplished step, you'll get a lot farther with support.

Gay 2.0 (TQ+) is not the same thing as gay 1.0, but the TQ+ crowd wants to bolt itself to the success of 1.0 and pretend to be the same thing. This much is obvious. The gay rights movement did not create the TQ+, they've been around for a while, but it did give them a framework. A framework with historical success, which TQ+ are in large part ignoring, because trans activism is not about living your own life in peace and tolerance, it's about forcing others to participate, say things that are untrue, robbing people of their livelihoods, etc.

As far as mental disorder goes, that's a philosophical problem, and one that it's easy and compelling to move the goal posts to get the desired outcome. What constitutes "clinically significant distress" anyhow? Where does that distress come from? Society? Internal to the individual?

But I see your point... will I look back 40 years down the line and think, gee, I can't believe I thought trans was a mental disorder? What though is the distinction between having a mental disorder and our attitudes around mental disorder though? Major depressive disorder is a mental disorder, and many people suffer from it. It's called depression, colloquially. We're quite sympathetic to it, because experiencing grief and loss is part of the normal human condition. Everyone can relate.

Unfortunately, the treatment we have available for the various etiologies of transsexualism--affirmation is one approach that may be appropriate, if you're only looking at the microcosm of the individual. Especially with regard to childhood-onset GD. You can find men with autogynephilia that fully understand they have a paraphilia that makes them motivated to become a facsimile of their erotic ideal, and that they are indeed men. You can also find children who learn about transsexuals from television and see their own path forward, cementing the idea in their heads.

That does not mean that affirmation approaches should be all-encompassing, such as sports, bathrooms, etc. It's very undemocratic to rearrange our entire society for a minority. I think there's a healthy balance, but don't ask trans activists about what a good compromise is, they don't understand the concept.

If I'm being cynical, homosexuality would not have been removed from the DSM if there was a "treatment" for it. Trans... trans we can "treat" with drugs so I don't see it coming out any time soon.

It's a question to me of whether or not you can have success getting the person to identify with their birth sex. Some cases yes, other cases no. If you can, then that's going to lead to the best life for the person. If you can't, then affirmation might be the only thing that improves their lives, but it's not going to be a great life in the overall. Trans isn't beautiful, like the activists say it is.

I don't view affirmation as discarding it as a mental disorder. I think of affirmation as one option as treatment for mental disorder. "Yes, you have major depressive disorder." "Reeeee! No I'm a depressive! It's my identity!" It's a weird way to treat, I'll give you that though, it's like telling schizophrenics that the voices in their head are indeed real.

Of course I can rope this into the DSM and homosexuality insofar as how the mental profession stigmatizing homosexuality is a cause of distress and draw the parallel to trans. Which some activists do, but they're between a rock-and-a-hard-place in terms of medical insurance vs stigma.

I don't think being in the DSM is all that stigmatizing, I think it's societal attitudes. E.g. what I mentioned about depression.

I think that perhaps further etiological understanding of homosexuality, paraphilia, and childhood-onset GD might blow this entire discussion up again. E.g. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-012-9900-3 That's many years down the line though.

Ultimately, the salient confluence of trans and mental disorder, to me, is false belief. In some circumstances, you can dissuade them from the false belief, but that won't necessarily change their situation.