It feels like we’re talking past each other. I’m trying to have a conversation about causal inference; you seem to be talking about woke mind viruses or whatever. I’ll post this and then head to sleep. The easiest way to think about causal inference is through a simple analogy: imagine two vats of liquid. Into one vat, we drop a chemical agent and observe the result. If that vat explodes while the other remains stable, we can reasonably say the agent caused the explosion. This is the gold standard: a controlled experiment with a clear comparison. Unfortunately, in social science, we rarely get clean controls, as we can’t run parallel universes. Ideally, we’d have two timelines—one where nothing happens, and another where a specific variable (say, “the woke mind virus,” as you call it) is introduced. Then we’d compare. Instead, we live in just one timeline, where a million things are happening at once: the repeal of anti-cross-dressing laws, the loosening of medical gatekeeping, ongoing stigma, harassment, and in some cases, violence or murder (e.g., Brandon Teena in 1993). You’ve posted a timeline and attributed an inflection point to your preferred explanation, but you haven’t addressed—or ruled out—any other plausible causal factors. You've simply inserted your hypothesis and declared victory. A proper causal argument would ask: what would trans identification look like in a world without discrimination or social encouragement? Let’s say, hypothetically, the baseline is 3%. If harassment and legal barriers suppress that number, and "woke" cultural shifts increase it, then we could, in theory, measure the effect of each. If the percentage rises to 4% in a universe where the only added factor is the so-called “woke mind virus,” then you could claim a 1-point increase due to that influence. But we don’t have access to alternate timelines, so researchers have to approximate. They use comparative case studies, natural experiments, or statistical methods to isolate effects and control for confounding variables (see John Stuart Mill’s comparative method, for example). You’ve done none of this. You’ve posted a timeline, tossed in a bunch of conveniently selected studies, and declared causality where none has been demonstrated. This kind of argument goes nowhere because it lacks the intellectual discipline to distinguish correlation from cause. I’m not interested in continuing a discussion where each reply just adds more noise—more variables, more anecdotes, more ideological hand-waving. I’m not making a theory about trans identity, or about social contagion, or about woke anything. I’m just pointing out that your timeline, presented as evidence, doesn’t actually prove anything causal. It ignores far more plausible explanations—chief among them, the long-standing effects of discrimination, harassment, and fear.