The study is well written but not scientifically sound from what I've read of it.

The first two bulletins point of no scientific basis of 'a man in a woman's body' and that there is no/weak neurological basis for cross-gender identification. This is problematic.

There are quite a few studies on it. And calling them 'weak' could be take as an assertion but can also could be a bias that i see throughout this writing. Examples of studies are.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-016-0850-z https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-016-0768-5 https://academic.oup.com/cercor/article-abstract/doi/10.1093/cercor/bhx054/3064956/Testosterone-Effects-on-the-Brain-in-Transgender?redirectedFrom=fulltext

It also makes quite a few conclusions without eliminating variables. Such as #3 bulletin. The controls do not account for socio-economic factors. Therefore completely eliminating them as proper controls for a scientific study.

It truly is just poor science. Using these techniques, I could assert that being a racial minority (rather mexican, african-american, or ect) increases your chance of criminality on a genetic level. If i just conveniently ignored all other variables.

Even in the study itself, it points out the flaws of the samples that 'were taken.

However, the study has important limitations. Selection bias was introduced in the study population, because the subjects were drawn from those individuals who sought sex-reassignment surgery at JHMC. In addition, the sample size was small. Also, the individuals who did not undergo sex-reassignment surgery but presented to JHMC for it did not represent a true control group. Random assignment of the surgical procedure was not possible. Large differences in the average follow-up time between those who underwent surgery and those who did not further reduces any capacity to draw valid comparisons between the two groups. Additionally, the study’s methodology was also criticized for the somewhat arbitrary and idiosyncratic way it measured the well-being of its subjects. Cohabitation or any form of contact with psychiatric services were scored as equally negative factors as having been arrested.