Please be so kind as to actually read and understand the counter point I am attempting to make. It seems like a lot of what I wrote previously was ignored including the direct example I gave as a counter. For once, please read and pay attention to the points provided by the members of this community that are actual transsexuals. They may just know what they are talking about.
One case proves "no", one case proves for all cases? That isn't scientific at all.
Unless we have a physical test that can detect transsexuality 100% of the time there are other factors, which may or may not be active in every case or may just be active in some cases.
Well yes, this one case does manage to prove no, because the fact of the matter that is possibly most defining was that David Reimer was not a transsexual. He was someone who would have grown up as a perfectly normal cis male, had he not had a botched circumcision. This didn't start of with a potentially androgynous child, this was a male who was forced to live as a female, it is about as 100% definition of transsexuality that you can get. This single experiment basically proved the lack of upbringing and environment as being a determining factor because all aspects of the example were taken to absolute extremes.
And furthermore, I'm not talking about consciously-directed societal influence, I'm talking about how a person may be influenced accidentally based on their misunderstanding of context. I gave my example of thinking "injured" meant "needing to wear glasses". So, if a kid associated "girl" strongly with a propensity to eat bananas and "boy" with a propensity not to eat bananas that could then become a determining factor in how the child thinks about his/her own gender, at least until they(if they) encounter, observe, and absorb enough counterexamples.
Give children some credit. While the example you gave of injuries meaning glasses is unique, children figure out the basic difference between boys and girls at an extremely young age. They may not understand the full sexual complexities of that meaning, but they know enough to not have some strange confusion like you are implying. Even in the case where there was some initial confusion, such confusion is removed relatively quickly during childhood. Of course the best example to prove that this has no impact or effect is to simply ask transsexuals if they ever encountered such a scenario. I can tell you on my side I know I never had such a problem.
There's also the factor of "role-modeling behavior", if the child's innate tendancy is whether to watch mostly boys or mostly girls and learn behaviors mostly from them then that will influence the number of "boy" labeled and "Girl" labeled things they do and so increase the possibility that they come to label themselves as that gender.
Additionally, role model has no effect because if it did we would be seeing problems with single parents, or single sex boarding schools. Neither of these scenarios have had any influence on either the occurrence of homosexuality or transsexuality. If anything what you are describing, influences learned gender roles which have already been proven to be unrelated to transsexuality by the behaviors of transsexuals themselves.
Environment does NOT have to mean direct or even deliberate social instruction. Plenty of communication especially in early childhood is communicated by accident. An anti-huffing commercial left me obsessively breathing out harshly for several years as a child because it said "when you're sniffing you're brain thinks you're drowning" and at that age I thought it meant sniffing like you'd sniff air in and forget to release enough of the CO2. Society influenced me, just not in the way it intended, or even for a cause it was interested in(society wanted to discover me from huffing, instead it encouraged me to obsessively cough).
Again this was addressed in my previous post. The current cis and hetronormative environment and society would only encourage children to act like their birth sex and to fight against their cross gender feelings. Further, with societal pressures being what they are, any early confusion would be quickly resolved, I even gave the example of how I was chastised for feminine behavior and that led to me stopping such behavior. Regardless, it did not have any effect on me as a transsexual other than keeping me in the closet for longer.
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Not saying this is what they should've done, but we will never know what would've happened had his family allowed his male-typical behavior but encouraged him to not to identify as a boy or to change his body, or even to identify as a boy but with a female-transformed body?
This piece is just plain rubbish, while the argument can be made that children will rebel against excessive pressure from a parent, the case of David Reimer proved that was not the case. There are plenty of cis children who are pressured both socially and environmentally to fit gender roles. These children do not rebel against such actions to the degree where they develop a gross gender identity. They are you more typical hyper-masculine males for example.
Even if some cases or even most cases are legitimate, to me it just seems too easy for a kid to come to strongly associate a set of traits with a word, any word including "boy" or "girl" and then come to feel like he/she needs to change their physical sex once they learn their body doesn't fit in with which word they prefer to think of themselves as. Too easy for it not to make up at least a small fraction of the cases.
Lastly, gender roles and term definitions have nothing to do with trans-people. As I already pointed out, the scope of the significant gender dysphoria only manifests during puberty. By that time gender roles would be primarily focused on ensuring that the child follow their birth sex's roles and they will also have an accurate understanding of what the term boy and girl means.
Something you seem to be missing, something I pointed out at least once before, is that becoming a transgender person is incredibly difficult. One faces massive amounts of social stigma not to mention the practical difficulties involved. For someone to choose to put themselves through all the trouble involved with being trans means they have deeply analyzed their own feelings. There is no confusion of terms, no confusion in role-modes, no confusion in societies expectations and pressures, no confusion in environment or gender roles. The only confusion would be the scope of their own inner turmoil.
I've noticed the "children can't know any better" argument doesn't seem to apply when a child is cisgendered or straight.
Just a thought.
I think the main reason for this is really just statistical numbers. Homosexual and trans people make up a small percentage of the total population. Hence in any given situation is it assumed that the majority would be cicgendered and straight. Further the very existence of the closet with regards to homosexuality proves that non cis and heterosexual people will attempt to fit the norm of being cisgendered and straight.
Although to be honest, for someone to actually come out as such, given all the pressures to remain in the closet, they should be given more credit for their statement. After all no one wants to be homosexual or transsexual (except SJW but there they are just faking it to gain prestige in the oppression Olympics.) hence, if anything they should know better.
There are plenty of homosexual and transsexual children who would swear they are normal, simply because they don't understand or know about the meanings of the feelings they have.
However, I will say as one final note, it is possible that a teen may be confused about their sexuality temporarily. After all, puberty is an extremely confusing time for children. Of course I am inclined to say that would be pretty rare.