https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6095578/
And if it's true it's dangerous to deny.
For those who don't know, PubPeer was designed as a kind of forum where people can discuss articles after they're published (with or without a pseudonym). Of course, it almost instantly turned into a place for anonymous whistleblowing and call-outs for fraud, replication failure, etc. So while it's not an absolute rule, an article having one comment or two on PubPeer is usually a middling red flag for that article being generally dubious.
The reason I'm talking about all this is that the parent's link has twenty-five (25) comments on PubPeer. See for yourself, read the discussion and make of that what you will.
>Notice of republication
>After publication of this article [1], questions were raised that prompted the journal to conduct a post-publication reassessment of the article, involving senior members of the journal’s editorial team, two Academic Editors, a statistics reviewer, and an external expert reviewer.
If there's some property "being trans" which functions like we think "being gay" does, either set biologically or early on in life or some combination of those, then you expect this property to be relatively randomly distributed in the population.
What you see instead is one teenage girl transitions and then her friends are far more likely to also transition. The effect clusters around social relationships. Hence it's a social contagion of the mind.
Again not in all cases, I'm not denying there are real trans people out there who benefit from transitioning.
Dr. Debrah Soh lays the argument out in much greater detail and with supporting citations in her book: https://www.amazon.ca/End-Gender-Debunking-Identity-Society/...