Is it a still a no true scottsman fallacy when pointing out some of these people do not experience gender dysphoria which was a requirement for transitioning up until the past 4 years.

In which case being trans now simply means to label yourself as one but that is still relatively new.

I would argue stating someone does not fit a label's parameters is not a "no true scottsman fallacy" but is instead pointing out a bad faith actor.

Say someone claims to be blonde while not biologically or chemically possessing blonde hair. It is not a "no true scottsman" as that individual does not possess the qualities to be a part of the group they are claiming to be it is pointing out someone is not part of a label they are claiming. It would however be a fallacy if that person has dyed blonde hair and claims to have blonde hair and someone says they do not because they weren't biologically blonde so they don't count.

We can go into the lobbying and subsequent changes of the dsm and how that was solely done on political pressure imposing itself on the medical community as well if you'd like which would indicate to me that the label has been moved but the medical phenomenon has not, while also reducing the label to a word game. Much like the left enjoys doing.