I did forget to add that this was after a period of 15 years or more. Maybe put that filter on and the results could be a little different.

Maybe there weren't as many people going through the process. Like the number who might regret getting neck tattoos or having three inch earlobes.

So how many is a good sample. 300 from a recent survey wasn’t enough iyo.
Go on stato how many ?

Why does it have to be prejudice? Can't it just be lack of interest? Other people's gender might be the core of their own existence but why should it matter to anyone else?

But, and it’s a big but in this case, the study you quote is outdated. Not saying it is a bad study, and being one of the earliest studies it is important, and it does highlight some negative consequences of the surgery. It is likely that this has had an impact on how this procedure is now carried out. If this procedure was still causing a significant rise in suicides within this group I find it hard to believe that any reputable medical professionals would be willing to provide this procedure.
If it was really the case that this procedure was producing significantly negative effects, even without the extreme of suicide, I’d agree that it should be avoided. But as others have said current research suggests a significant benefit for people undergoing the procedure. As the earlier study concluded, it is very important that people who undergo the procedure receive psychological support at all stages and afterwards. It may be that this study was instrumental in reducing the negative outcomes by highlighting the need for psychological support.
Current research suggests that things have improved significantly in the last couple of decades, not even the authors of your study suggested that there should be a halt to this procedure. If you want to cling to a view that runs counter to the evidence what should we call that? The Heritage Foundation have right wing political views as their excuse, you can choose to go with them or you can go with the data.

The sports change certainly made sense, as biological men in womens sport provably puts women at distinct disadvantage, no matter if testosterone levels and the like were now reduced. The knock on effect on records, physical safety and the like is clear.

The bathroom issue has become near hysterical from all sides, clearly almost all trans women (as with all women, and indeed men) go to the toilet to actually use it. If someone is nuts enough to want to sexually violate others, they can do so without impersonating a woman, so it doesn't in any way reflect on a group as a whole. The other side is that it's fair in a womens space for those present to.. well actually be considered to be women.

I'd say the changing room issue is more difficult in that people are more exposed. There are aspects of that to any use of changing rooms though and to my mind places that just have individual cubicles have the right idea. Maybe that should be a law with new facilities goes forward, it would seem to be a sensible idea.

A 'careful what you wish for' with this proposed change is that if we base use of these facilities on biological sex, trans men (those who are visually male but are biologically female) are then forced to use womens spaces, and is that the most rational place for them to be? Doesn't that defeat the object (and question the logic) of bringing in such a single sex measures? As with anything newly hyper political, the realities and more nuanced than the lurches.