Not exactly right, but close enough to get more than nowhere. So you perhaps partly understand why I was dissatisfied at least with the first study you brought up, which does not address different subgroups.

The extra bit is that it is at least plausible that only the most severely affected people have been treated in the past--so you need to check, when you notice rates going up by an order of magnitude or two, that it's actually the same phenomenon.

(It's not a trap. Good grief.)

So you kinda missed the math but partly got #1; you didn't get #2, though. It was a survey, but of whom? "An initial phase of outreach involved developing lists of active transgender, LGBTQ, and allied organizations who served transgender people...Of the organizations contacted, approximately half responded to requests for support, resulting in direct recruitment correspondence with nearly 400 organizations." And: "it is important to note that respondents in this study were not randomly sampled and the actual population

characteristics of transgender people in the U.S. are not known. Therefore, it is not appropriate to generalize the findings in this study to all transgender people." (p. 26, Herman et al., The Report of the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey: https://transequality.org/sites/default/files/docs/usts/USTS-Full-Report-Dec17.pdf)

So, among people contacted by transgender and allied organizations, there are low rates of regret. This is kind of like going to a Taylor Swift fan club and asking, "Hey, how do you like Taylor?" (If you select for people who identify as having de-transitioned, you get radically different results. D'you know the paper I have in mind?) Now, it's not that this kind of survey is useless--indeed, it's supremely useful if you want to know what challenges trans people are facing (especially those contactable by trans-supporting organizations), and what some of the main demographics are. This is really important stuff. And you can tell that transitioning is not universally awful--there are quite a few people who seem to quite prefer it over the alternative. But what it's not terribly useful for is answering exactly the kind of issue that I said I was concerned with.

I'm not sure which Netherlands study you mean, but reporting 2% not-progressing-with-care doesn't answer the question I asked. It does answer what you say you thought I asked, so although there doesn't seem much reason to cite the first one, I at least can understand why it seemed appropriate to give this stat. It's way easier if you cite your sources, though--then I don't have to guess which paper you mean if it's one I've seen, and I learn something new if it's one I haven't. (The Netherlands papers are some of the best, but the result you cited isn't all that helpful.)

Regarding rudeness--you don't think telling someone they are ignoring the math and science after they wrote a long post about the mathematics of interpreting science (but addressing zero of their points) is maybe just a little bit rude?

If you're going to dish it out, expect to get some back, even if it is toned down. (Which I did--I toned down the discourtesy, but yes, there was an element of condescension in my reply. As there is here, again with overall rudeness toned down from what you gave this time, but not down all the way to zero.)