Are 99% of "gender dysphoria" cases organic (i.e. authentic), or spurred by...popularity?

 You should be able to click the pic below to enlarge it.  Notice anything?

 

16 fairly influential parents above, 19 kids, all trans.  I'm mildly curious as to the percentage of trans kids in the entire population, versus the kids of "influential parents."  

A decade ago, a study in the U.K. compared the incidence of self-declared trans kids at two highschools about two miles apart, but with nearly identical demographics--race, income, food sources, water supply and so on.  In one school something like 40% of the girls said they identified as male, while in the other only about two percent said they were.

If "gender dysphoria" (or whatever the current in-group term is at the moment) were a "natural" phenomenon, one would expect the percentages in schools with the same demographics would be pretty close.  For one school to have 20 times more trannies than the other, with the same population characteristics, strongly suggested being trans was NOT organic, but was triggered by...something else.

The researchers found that in the high-percentage school, two of the most popular girls said they were now male, and that seemed to trigger an avalanche of trend-followers.  By contrast, in the low-incidence school the first girl to declare she was male was NOT popular, which seems to have made other girls uninterested in joining her.

The tranny mafia immediately sneered that the study was flawed, and it vanished from the Media.  See, just like the girls in the study, people who run the Media wanna be popular with the Cool Kids, eh?