In the 90s, trans people were rarely spoken about. Back then, I remember the dominant narrative being “woman/man trapped in a man's/woman's body.” Often this wasn't further specified, but one could guess that it was an argument related to a person's neurology.
In the 00s, this narrative was put into sharper focus. There was a lot of talk about this part of the brain or another. Links to studies showing light similarities between trans people and the gender they identify as were posted in forums, subreddits and co. (many ignoring whether a person was pre- or post-HRT and brain plasticity, but that's beside the point.)
In the 10s we had the explosion of numbers of trans-identified people as “transgender” became the new popular subculture for the same kinds of people who had identified as otherkin a couple years before, as goth a few years before that, and as punks a few years earlier still.
With that came a loosening of the definition so that anybody could easily adopt the identity without having to put in too much effort. Dysphoria became unimportant. The short-lived joy one might experience who transitions for clearly unhealthy reasons was legitimized through the now-common euphemism “euphoria” and turned into proof for the legitimacy of one's identity. Genitals lost their connection to the topic; the penis of a trans-identified man turned from a source of intense dysphoria into “simply a choice” and finally into “delicious girldick.” The binary definition was lost and with it the distance one usually had to reach from one's sex to be considered trans; surgery, HRT and legal sex changes were replaced with getting a new haircut and wearing pastel-colored clothing as steps one had to take to be considered a legitimate part of the community.
The general definition changed, too. Transsexuality turned into transgender. “Sex=Gender” turned into “Sex=biology” and “Gender=culture.” And nobody really seemed to notice that the new definition they adopted was transphobic. Nobody, neither the trans community itself nor the many institutions supporting it and spreading information about it, including this definition, seemed to care that “being trans” was now defined as a choice having to do with which parts of culture one has a preference for - for any reason whatsoever, including fetishization - and no longer about biology.
I can understand this turn away from biology as a way to make it easier for people to call themselves trans and not having to deal with their identity being questioned because they didn't jump through enough hoops. But at this point, is there even a dominant narrative anymore that makes sense? Is there any dominant narrative left that withstands or at least doesn't instantly collapse upon closer inspection and doesn't require this strange, cultish attitude in which an obvious contradiction at the heart of your entire life and community is somehow politely ignored by everyone?
The trans community never had much convincing evidence for its “woman trapped in a man's body” claim. But at least it was a claim that could have been correct and verified by researchers sometime in the future and one where a person could make a reasonable argument that assuming its validity would help people in the meantime while the researchers are busy working things out. Is there anything like that anymore? Because it seems to me like the trans community has just given up trying. It seems so busy enjoying the intense momentum it has right now that it doesn't seem to notice its foundation crumbling due to its very own rhetoric, like Wile E. Coyote running on air because he hasn't yet realized he's gone over the cliff. I routinely see threads now in trans communities where people all somehow agree with each other despite claiming completely different and entirely incompatible root causes for their identity. One person thinks it's neurology, another thinks it's whether you like skirts or pants, another thinks it's whether thinking of himself as a girl arouses him sexually or not, and yet another thinks it's nothing but a choice because gender's only an invention by the patriarchy anyways. None of them agree and I fail to see any narrative dominating among any of them, except for one - that whatever the cause may be, everyone present is clearly valid.