This is great! It's very important for actual research to be highlighted when people feel like making all sorts of wild and unsupportable claims.

However, it is important to note that the standard of care in the Netherlands for people with gender dysphoria is very high. They take gender dysphoria really seriously.

For instance (from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29463477/), over the 25 years the program had run at that point, the rates of people being referred to gender identity clinics increased by twenty times. You would expect when the numbers massively increase that you're more likely to get people who aren't strongly committed to transitioning, which is exactly what they saw: the fraction who went on to take hormone therapy decreased from 90% to 65%. But, critically, if you are inattentive with your patients, what you would expect is that these same rates would continue to propagate through the data: of the people who took HT, fewer would get surgery; of those who got surgery, more would experience regret. But that's not what was observed. The rates of surgery and rates of regret did not change. This strongly suggests that they took the time to really understand the needs of the people who came in--there was no inclination to push people through a pipeline, or push them away, just, it seems, a desire to deliver the right result for each person. When more people came, but fewer of those needed high-intervention care, everyone still got what they needed.

This is how care should be.

Alas, not all transgender people live somewhere with as enlightened of care as in the Netherlands. Thus, while the studies are great at saying "this can be done right!", they are not very good at countering criticisms of actal policies in, say, the United States.

For instance, the Netherlands has half the rate of C-section and a quarter the rate of maternal mortality as compared to the United States. It would be completely inappropriate to use studies on C-section necessity and outcome from the Netherlands to address a charge of poor outcome and over-use of C-section in the United States.

Studies like these (and older ones, too) shift the burden of proof very solidly onto the people who claim that there are extraordinarily high rates of regret and detransition. But it's also important to assess how individual treatment plans are executed. For instance, there is a significantly higher rate of ceasing care in the U.K. study than in the Amsterdam study. (Also, the U.K. study shows twice the rate of ceasing care in the under-16 GnRHa cohort than the over-16 GnRHa cohort.)

Since, if we look carefully, the results are anything but simple and there is consistency in the order of magnitude of effects but not in quantitative detail, the responsible thing to do is keep studying outcomes while trying to deliver people the care that they need.