Economically Ludicrous

play like a white onion

And that assumption is useful to transphobes because it means they can uncritically extend properties of the AGAB group to the subset who transitions. E.g. they will say AMAB kids are likely to have behaved like X or experienced Y in their youth, therefore trans women are likely to have behaved like X or experienced Y in their youth. And they can say this without ever checking if it's true about trans women, because if everyone knows it's true of cis boys, they will assume that extension to trans women.

But like, if you took down the details of every 30-year-old trans woman right now, then went back in time 20 years, and studied that group of 10-year-olds, you would find they already had properties that differed from the 10-year-old-AMAB average in 2006. Perhaps they would be a little quieter, perhaps they would have a couple more female friends, perhaps they'd have fewer friends in general, perhaps they would have more anxiety, perhaps they would have more depression. Perhaps none of these and something else, idk.

But, the point is, people don't just decide to transition *at random*, there is a whole history of life experience in each trans girl leading up to that realisation "I am trans" and that decision "I should do something about it", and that common history of all these kids would be reflected in some group average differences from the AGAB cohort even long before that realisation took place.

And this is what makes "male socialisation" rhetoric so frustrating. Because the very fact of having all the life history that led up to your realisation that you were trans, the life history that *caused* that realisation, that very history marks you as someone with an atypical social experience compared to your AGAB average.