I would have likely been unable to discuss this on any of the GC forums, and I can't now as I am banned from both, so I will take the opportunity to this here:

Women also tend to follow trends more often than lead them, as they have a tendency to be more collectivistic. That is a known phenomenon, also freely spoken of in marketing and advertisement. Women usually wait for social approval before embracing a new trend, so your explanation would be consistent with that, and it is what one would expect from a novel social trend like this. It will also subside just as quickly among women once that is no longer the case and the transgender trend falls out of favor. It is a similar phenomenon as the many college girls who appear to turn "lesbian" soon after beginning their college life.

This is further consistent with women's greater in-group bias and why women seem to show a greater tendency to vote in blocks and can sway elections in recent times. Men show less such group cohesion, tend to be more individualistic and are more likely to be "social pioneers". That has its upsides and downsides. The upsides are that they are often times the ones braving unknowns of novel frontiers, but they also often act against their own self-interests, as is illustrated from the state of men's rights, for example.

Here is a video that is mainly for entertainment, not serious research, but it illustrates some of those points, anecdotally, and a more illustrative fashion:

"The Riddle Of The Pumpkin Spice Latte"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NreA_Sx6m7E

Women's greater need for social cohesion might also be a reason why censorship seems to follow women online. Spaces that were previously primarily frequented by men, many discussion forums, value debate to a greater extent, as it requires a willingness to allow conflict and discourse. Right now, women have decided that the transgender trend has "social approval", so, even though individual women like Rowling might buck the trend, they are usually ostracized, as it is inconsistent with what "the sisterhood" decided. Women that tun to run afoul of the group's dogma or do not fit into the "pecking order" usually face this ostracism, in part because ostracism from society hurts women more than men, who are predisposed towards being individualists. That is also one of the reasons why the "queen bee" phenomenon is so strong in the work place and how any attempts to create women only spaces usually end up in drama. It is more important to agree and for social cohesion to maintained than being right. That will also be a reason, apart from women's greater interest in things over people, why women will probably never be great inventors. It would need a great amount of emotional hardiness to resist social pressures to conform and not leave the beaten path. On the other extreme, for men, there are individuals that tend to be somewhat akin to autists and simply oblivious to some social dynamics, so they simply ignore social dogma for those reasons and thereby can sometimes have insights that are opposed to dogma. That is how otherwise highly intelligent men can sometimes put their foot in their mouths in spectular ways. There are few gender differences that would not tie into those fundamental distinctions between men and women, even such noted differences as men's greater skill for humor.

Either way, as I have said on GC (where I do not know if this post is still up), as long as the sisterhood decides that transgenderism is the flavor of the day, transgenderism is here to stay. Even though transgenderism in its current form was fronted primarily by men, men as a group would not have decided to make transgenderism a social issue. Rowling is an indicator, among many others, that we are now, once more, in a transition phase and we are slowly moving on from transgenderism, as soon as a new cause can be found that will meet with women's approval. There are other indicators for this. For example, it is not that consistent in which direction women lean, although they tend towards "care based morality". It is more consistent that they decide on those matters in a collective manner, which could also be the reason why they have been known to be more religious or "conservative" even than men at some time.

The Gender Gap in Religion Around the World

https://www.pewforum.org/2016/03/22/the-gender-gap-in-religion-around-the-world/

It is also one of the reasons why in cultures that we, in the west, view as oppressive towards women (actually or not) it is women who impose their culture's restrictions on other women, primarily. Even in Islam, or more so, women are responsible for the domain of the home, and thus also to bring up other women into the fold of cultural expectations, despite it appearing like a deeply patriarchal system. In general, men and women have a tendency to be far more enforcers of cultural and social norms on members of their own sex, rather than the other, which is also why I am so critical of the insane patriarchy theory that paints all gender based social restrictions as the oppression of men and the subjugation of women, apart from the inconsistencies with that and what we see from other social mammalian species or what we know of gender differences and dynamics from evolutionary psychology.

I am not an expert on Islam, but it does not take more than a few days of actually occupying oneself with their religious texts to notice that the harshness of the restrictions on women are not that far removed from the strictness in which men must conduct themselves and the weight of the expectations placed on them. It is completely consistent with what one would expect (from a more primitive culture) in the light of gender role divisions in evolution of a sexually dimorphic species. A very common technique of validating the patriarchy nonsense by feminists being ignorant of precisely this tendency for men to also carry a greater burden in exchange for what is usually portrayed as their privileges in society:

“Is the Husband Obliged to Spend on His Wife If She Is Working? Does He Have the Right to Take Anything of Her Salary? - Islam Question & Answer.” Accessed January 17, 2020. https://islamqa.info/en/answers/126316/is-the-husband-obliged-to-spend-on-his-wife-if-she-is-working-does-he-have-the-right-to-take-anything-of-her-salary.

There are thousands and thousands such examples in Islam. It is not very different from the supposed "oppression" by men in the west who were expected, even at a young age, to defend society, country, family, and women as a group, at the risk of life, limb, and health. Women, evolutionarily speaking, play it safe. They do not tend to be the pioneers or the inventors. The same pattern, overwhelmingly, is reflected in how women restructure society, politics, and the online world. The trend of Internet adoption has been pretty consistent with this: in its initial stages, the Internet was "geeky", "nerdy" and the young men interested in it were usually ridiculed. Even though other men might have been just as responsible for this derision, it is also true that the few outliers among men were the first adopters. Now that the Internet is a common part of daily life and has met with social approval among women, there has been a rush for women to enter the spaces that have been made comfortable and accessible by men, complete with the usual cries of supposed patriarchal oppression or exclusion of women, despite that fact that many men would have been elated to welcome women to their geeky hobbies, if they had had anything but scorn for being associated with such circles.

More sources:

Hugenberg, Kurt, and Sabine Sczesny. “On Wonderful Women and Seeing Smiles: Social Categorization Moderates the Happy Face Response Latency Advantage.” Social Cognition 24, no. 5 (2006): 516–539.

Rudman, Laurie A., and Stephanie A. Goodwin. “Gender Differences in Automatic In-Group Bias: Why Do Women like Women More than Men like Men?” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 87, no. 4 (2004): 494.

Starr, Sonja B. “Estimating Gender Disparities in Federal Criminal Cases.” American Law and Economics Review 17, no. 1 (2014): 127–159.

I do not agree with the authors' conclusions on the root causes, as they are the usual tired platitudes about patriarchy and women's oppression, but it presents the data and defines the concept of what I mean by "queen bee syndrome":

Derks, Belle, Colette Van Laar, and Naomi Ellemers. “The Queen Bee Phenomenon: Why Women Leaders Distance Themselves from Junior Women.” The Leadership Quarterly, Special Issue: Gender and Leadership, 27, no. 3 (June 1, 2016): 456–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.12.007.

Disclaimer For The Offended

Women and men are not enemies. What I am stating is not to put down or elevate one gender over the other. Doing that is precisely the nonsense that is coming out of gender studies and feminist circles. We, as hairless, clawless, pathetic apes, have made it this far through the close collaboration of women and men. We would not be here if men and women were enemies, as so often portrayed in modern social discourse. Men and women each have their idiosyncrasies, many of which are probably exacerbated through the evolutionarily unfamiliar setting of modern culture, not unlike our tendency to store body fat or seek out nutritious food has also resulted in an epidemic of obesity and diabetes. We came from the savannah to the world of super-stimuli, so to speak, and a result of modern society is that we have to use our higher brain functions to compensate for the behaviors that have come to be maladaptive in the society that these same higher brain functions have allowed us to create.