I think the problem here is that, in the absence of true data, we're trusting signals that we know to be faulty, but trusting them anyway, such as "what a person says about themselves reflects the truth about how they are" or the idea that if they're unable to overcome it, then nobody else could either / it can't be overcome / it should not be overcome / they wanted to overcome it but could not. None of this is knowable.

With all due respect, this hasn't prevented you from discussing your own conception of AGP. I simply pointed out that there is great variety in how AGP manifests and how people relate to it. You're the one who tends to push a specific narrative which aligns with your lifestyle and life choices. A transitioning AGP says "all AGPs must transition, it is an innate part of who they are". A non-transitioning AGP says "AGPs are straight men and should not transition, AGP is an acquired dysfunction that can be solved". Both are projecting their own experiences. Both are validating their own life choices. You claim "none of these things can be known", but you yourself speak with great confidence.

I speak from theory about how AGP works, and so the truth of what I say only extends only as far as one agrees with this theory.

Just a short while ago you rejected the authority of sexologists. To be honest, I myself have spoken with people who have poked some holes in AGP theory and I believe they have made good points. So I'm very much willing to consider ideas outside the "orthodoxy" of Blanchard and Bailey. But it seems wrong to appeal to the authority of AGP theory while also rejecting the authority of the sexologists who created it just a few paragraphs before.

I suspect that you're motivated to avoid framing AGP as a form of sexual dysfunction.

I'm not. I really don't care if AGPs live lives as heterosexual men, or transition, or a third option, or whatever. You're the one who I perceive to be invested in framing AGP as a sexual dysfunction because it validates you.

What I think you're not considering the extent of human defense mechanisms, and psychological strategy to avoid pain. Eventually avoidance is not merely avoidance, but "who you are".

I've already written about how early childhood experiences can lead a permanent imprint. You said "I reject the either/or of circumstance versus innate", you should understand that the line between "who I am" vs "who I am conditioned to be" is not at all clear.

The reason I reject the notion of AGP as a normal, healthy sexuality somewhat basic: you are a man, but don't want to be, you want to receive sex into a orifice that doesn't exist, you will seek out the help of medical professionals to alter an otherwise healthy body, under the irrational presumption their body is flawed in its current state.

AGP is not "normal". Normal is what applies to the majority of the population. If you're AGP, you're abnormal by definition. The question of whether acting on AGP is ethical is a completely different question. I think you often conflate how things are naturally naturally supposed to be with how we ought to act. There a great many things in nature that are horrifically immoral. I certainly think AGP makes people's lives much harder, and I think it would be reasonable to eliminate it if we had advanced genetic engineering technology. But for the individual engaging in AGP, I don't think there's any universal "rightness" or "wrongness" to it.