>>4893
>"At least 20%" is very high, though.
He's using an inclusive definition that includes people who feel too weakly female for any transition to be worth it. People who would, all other things being equal (even things that can't be equal), prefer a female body.
Even then, 20% intuitively seems on the high side for the general population, but it's plausible for some communities. So maybe.
>It is hard to believe it was that high even 50 years ago, whereas it is easy to believe ~1% of men was homosexual in 1968, 1918 or 1868. Something must have happened.
Would you have thought the same thing 50 years ago?
It's very obvious in retrospect that a lot of homosexual people existed, but that's taking current data into account. I think I would make a much lower estimate if I only had the common knowledge of 50 years ago.