Do you have data to that effect? What you're saying runs contrary to the data I've seen (e.g. https://news.gallup.com/poll/234863/estimate-lgbt-population...) and it doesn't matter how elegant a theory is, if the data doesn't fit. There of course may well be additional data that I'm missing, which is why I'm asking.

It’s not obvious AT ALL. If you’re aware of the “cluster effect” of those with rapid-onset gender dysphoria, you’re aware that being trans is highly influenced by ones social conditions.

You’re making an argument that nature is everything when it comes to one’s LGBT status and nurture means nothing, but there’s mountains of evidence to show this is not the case.

If you want to tell me that it’s JUST A COINKYDINK that so many female movie stars have male children that JUST SO HAPPEN to be gender dysphoric, your “nature means everything and nurture means nothing” philosophy on LGBT status seems incredibly far-fetched.

It’s an interesting question. For example, gender-at-birth should be evenly distributed, but in wealthy families kids skew towards male much more frequently than expected. As another factor, some social structures and norms will make it more difficult for LGBTQ people to come out - even with identical odds, there will be less visibility and personal experience within those groups.

That’s a needlessly hostile reply.

Sickle cell, lupus, hypertension, IQ, diabetes, etc etc are all not distributed evenly across race or sex. Also, environmental factors and epigenetics interact in complex ways. I would not be at all surprised that there’s a prevalence difference among racial or social groups.

Science is not based on "obviousness" and "It would be very surprising if it wasn't." is not an argument, it is a confirmation that your are guessing. If someone has data, a point can be made, otherwise we can assume and "are you trolling" is not an appropriate reaction.