-If you're trans, you _need_ to transition, and if you're not-trans, then you mustn't
+Returning to Serano's dilemma: $10 million is a life-changing amount of money, enough to buy one's way out of many life problems. I find it not at all surprising or trollish to think that that kind of consideration could swing a great many people from "gender-dysphoric to some degree, but not desperate enough to do much about it, for fear of losing jobs, friends, _&c._" to actually becoming transsexuals.
+
+The intrinsic-identity view can be seen as the limiting special case of the economic model where demand for transitioning is infinitely [inelastic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elasticity_(economics))—
+
+![two models of demand for transitions]({filename}/images/transition_demand.png)
+
+This insight helps us make sense in secular changes in the expression of gender variance. The phenomenon of [increases in transgender identification](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/01/health/transgender-population.html) that some commentators characterize as [_social contagion_](https://youthtranscriticalprofessionals.org/tag/social-contagion/) could also be seen as an entirely _rational_ response to incentives: as being trans becomes less costly—whether due to increased social acceptance, improvements in surgical or hormone-administration technology, or any other reason—we _should_ see more gender-dysphoric people doing something about it on the margin.
+
+Perhaps demand is sufficiently inelastic such that the intrinsic-identity model is a good approximation. But analyses of where Society's flirtation with [the transgender tipping point](https://newrepublic.com/article/118451/what-transgender-tipping-point-really-means) is heading should take into account the extent to which, in our present state of information, we _don't know_ what the demand curve for sex changes looks like.