I see two distinct sub groups of most trans people and their reasons for transitioning:

1) Dysphoria-driven transition. The reasons for wanting to transition are based on an innate and strong sense of unease about their bodies. Note: these people still may and often will desire social acceptance, but insofar as social reminders of their GAB are deeply upsetting for them, lesso because they dislike societal stereotypes or perceptions of "man" or "woman".

2) Socially-driven transition. The reasons for wanting to be referred to by certain names or pronoun, wanting to dress or present a certain way, etc, are socially-driven and a part of how culture perceives certain gendered language and clothing. Important to note: these people can still be dysphoric, but the dysphoria is a symptom rather than a cause. For example— these people have no innate distaste for their body, their sexual organs, their features that are more masculine or feminine, etc. But, because of how society views these features, they might be drawn to dislike them as a result of societal perceptions tied to their body. They want to rid themselves of body part X or have body part Y not because they hate their body or innately desire another, but because societally they are told "to be (gender) you must look this way".

I have two questions that I use to illustrate my difference between the two:

(1) If you were alone on a deserted island, with nobody else ever present to see you or refer to you in a certain way, would you still feel dysphoria towards your body? (2) if you suddenly had your "ideal" body, would you still care if people referred to you by incorrect pronouns?

If you answered Yes to (1) and No to (2), that's dysphoria-driven. If you answered No to (1) and Yes to (2), that's socially driven.

Of course, you can answer "yes" to both, as truthfully I expect it's hard to truly divorce ourselves from social expectations even on a theoretical desert island after being raised with them, and lingering dysphoria tied to gendered language doesn't just go away if you (poof) magically have your ideal body. Indeed, I don't doubt many people's transitions are fuelled by a combination of both. But I imagine there's one reason that most feel more strongly about than the other. Basically, what's more upsetting: physically BEING a given sex, or society SEEING you as a certain gender.

Now despite the fact that I view my transition as dysphoria based, I'm not here to rag on "the other side" for being less legitimate or anything. Quite the contrary— because I feel echoes of it myself. I agree that there is an innate weight to language, of assumptions made when someone looks at me and uses the wrong pronouns. It sucks. I get it. And I think the point many of the socially-driven trans people are about is a true one: it shouldn't matter what your chromosomes or genitalia is for a person to dress a certain way, call themselves by a particular name, etc, and still be treated with respect and dignity. If someone AMAB wants to wear dresses and be called Jennifer, and that brings them joy, then that's fine by me. She shouldn't have to start hormones or have surgery if presentation and recognition is all that she needs to be happy.

However, that's where I think it's important to make the distinction: what makes Jennifer happy isn't going to be what makes Violet, a theortical dysphoria-driven trans woman, happy. Violet may share traits with Jennifer, in her desire to wear dresses and makeup and have the correct pronouns used for her— but that isn't the core thing that will bring her happiness. She is likely one to need HRT and surgery/ies in order to live a satisfactory life.

And the thing is that by conflating the two groups, we're presenting a confusing narrative to the population, as well as shooting each other's group in the back as a result. Violet may advocate that transitioning has to have a medical basis, because she needs to have her HRT considered a medical necessity in order to be prescribed to her and covered by her insurance. And that's honestly a very valid take and one I personally see the merit in. But doing so would then suggest Jennifer is not a "real" trans woman if she doesn't have a medical diagnosis. If the narrative presented is that you need dysphoria and HRT in order to be recognized as your desired gender, then Jennifer might either be forced to remain her AGAB, or start HRT and have surgery she really doesn't want. That's not a great solution.

On the flip side, Jennifer may suggest that being transgender is just something you self-identify as, and that all trans people need affirmations and respect for their identity, regardless if they perfectly line up with societal expectations of what that should look like. Jennifer might even be in favour of abolishing gendered language and gender markers altogether, in pushing for a world were your sex at birth has no bearing in how you're treated or what you are or aren't allowed to wear or look like. Which seems valid to me, societal expectations of gender are pretty dumb overall and could definitely do with being not relevant in 95% of social interactions. But in doing so, this may de-medicalize transgenderism and leave people like Violet with their needs unmet, as simply being referred to by the right name and pronouns isn't sufficient for Violet to be in a good state of mind and body.

And, of course, there's the fact that these two different motives for transitioning have led to so much dismissive comments and criticism from those looking to belittle or dismiss trans people: "So is being transgender a medical condition, or is it something anyone can just say they are at any time?" To which the answer is, right now, both. Which they laugh at, because it seems paradoxical.

Which is why I personally wish there were different labels and language for the two groups that, when talking about needs and motives and rights, we could make it clear who we are talking about and what their needs and goals are. Of course I'm not suggesting anything ground-breaking by pointing out these two sub-groups. But I just really wish I could say something like "I think the medical condition of being transgender should be kept as it's important to those who require medical transition" without it implying that trans people who aren't diagnosed or medically transitioning aren't "real" or whatever. Because I think they are, they are definitely transgender too. But the two groups aren't the same, and the desire to not invalidate one or the other is having the unfortunate consequences of compromising the validity of both in the public's eyes.

tl;dr there are two basic and distinct reasons for people to transition, both of which I think are legitimate, but lumping them together under the same "trans" umbrella is doing both groups more harm than good.