Not quite. 'trans' hasn't existed many places at all. Most instances quoted are, in fact, torturous attempts to relitigate instances of historical homophobia. What's happening now isn't too far off, as you've noted elsewhere. Most trans youth resile into being gay at puberty.

What I meant by true is 'verifiable'. Claiming to be trans is nonsense, on it's face. Not that it can't mean anything at all socially, but on it's face, its like claiming to be a rock. Your second point is taken, and the sudden drop in identification in the last 18 months seems to suggest something along those lines. — AmadeusD

I'm not talking about woke types retconning trans identities on famous figures. Historically, anthropologically, there have been people who we would label trans today - although they would most likely have been simply viewed as 'gay'.

There are also some societies that had an identifiable 'third' role, the 'gay uncle' is one example I recall.

This history is fraught. Perhaps some of the examples I've seen have been politicized research? I know that here in Canada some contest the two-spirited designation of indigenous Canadians as a retcon.

There is also the confounding group of those with atypical biology.

None of these groups would have been claiming 'trans' identity though, a modern conceptualization of a human characteristic. And all together, we are still looking at a much smaller percentage of people than those who identify as trans today.

Trans may not be verifiable, but it is arguably universal. Which, to me, is yet another reason to insist on honest, accurate conversations about the topic, as you and others here do - it also helps the 'historically' trans people, those consistent with long-term data about characteristics (early, persistent onset, for one)
highly predictive of 'trans' identity in adulthood.

This seems to me the best benchmark available for judging how 'real' a trans identity might be.