I don't know how many times I've pointed out to people online that the Swedish study had cis people as a control group, and therefore says nothing whatsoever about the effectiveness of transition as medical treatment. For the study to say something about that, the controls would have to be trans people who never transitioned, but that would be unethical given how detrimental dysphoria could be to their lives. And having a blind study would kind of be impossible.
What the study does indicate, is that many trans people need to be followed up also after having transitioned, since there will still be a higher incident of depression etc. than in the general population, even after SRS. This is obvious in my opinion, as often the dysphoria will have made permanent scars, especially for late transitioners. For me, some of the scars after years of living a lie are permanent, and I'm not even that late - I started HRT when I was 32. Then there's also the extra stress caused by societal attitudes, higher risk of discrimination, harrassment, violence and so on. The study was prompted by the fact that in most Scandinavian public gender clinics, you're considered "finished" once you've gone through SRS, meaning no further followup except by an endocrinologist. This study uncovered that for many, being followed up by a therapist also post transition is essential.
The scientists even point this out in the study. It says clearly that it can't be used to evaluate the effectiveness of transition to alleviate gender dysphoria. However, anti-trans individuals like Dr. Paul R. McHugh keep quoting it to support their view, despite knowing better (I assume, given their degrees).
As I said above, I've pointed this out to many people online, but then later they misuse the study again, without exception. The intellectual dishonesty of social conservatives never ceases to amaze me. I've more or less given up on online discussion because of this.
