Well this seems like a really big deal - A longitudinal study of 2,679 people reporting gender dysphoria in Sweden found that cross-sex surgical procedures resulted in no observable benefits to those who only took hormones or did nothing (if I read this correctly).

The article originally claimed to see an 8% decrease in seeking mental health services / support, therefore making the claim SRS could impart a benefit to people with GD - this was of course seized upon as support that cross sex procedures imparted a benefit but upon reanalysis the evidence just isn't there.

I'd love to hear people's thoughts on this but this seems to stand against just about any argument I've heard for cross-sex medical procedures as a treatment for gender dysphoria. People in Sweden appreciate national health care footing the bill for cross sex procedures, wide social and familial support, legal protections, and just about every other thing that is blamed for distress trans people experience. Yet when provided with all of those things they still experience marked distress and don't show any observable improvements across a longitudinal and large sample size. I'd love to hear other people's thoughts.

Also imagine if the same flaws were found in an article that was critical of current trans-orthodoxy? Much less flawed (in fact unflawed) studies, along with their researchers, have been pilloried for even daring to question the efficacy of gender affirmation orthodoxy, given it is not a zero-harm approach, why is that?

Original article here - correction here -

"After the article “Reduction in Mental Health Treatment Utilization Among Transgender Individuals After Gender-Affirming Surgeries: A Total Population Study” by Richard Bränström, Ph.D., and John E. Pachankis, Ph.D. (doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2019.19010080), was published online on October 4, 2019 in the American Journal of Psychiatry, some letters containing questions on the statistical methodology employed in the study led the Journal to seek statistical consultations. The results of these consultations were presented to the study authors, who concurred with many of the points raised. Upon request, the authors reanalyzed the data to compare outcomes between individuals diagnosed with gender incongruence who had received gender-affirming surgical treatments and those diagnosed with gender incongruence who had not. While this comparison was performed retrospectively and was not part of the original research question given that several other factors may differ between the groups, the results demonstrated no advantage of surgery in relation to subsequent mood or anxiety disorder-related health care visits or prescriptions or hospitalizations following suicide attempts in that comparison. Given that the study used neither a prospective cohort design nor a randomized controlled trial design, the conclusion that “the longitudinal association between gender-affirming surgery and lower use of mental health treatment lends support to the decision to provide gender-affirming surgeries to transgender individuals who seek them” is too strong. Finally, although the percentage of individuals with a gender incongruence diagnosis who had received gender-affirming surgical treatments during the follow-up period is correctly reported in Table 3 (37.9%), the text incorrectly refers to this percentage as 48%. A corrected article will be posted on August 1, along with a postpublication discussion captured in the Letters to the Editor section."

https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.ajp.2019.19010080