Respectfully, you're not familiar with the emotions or medicine, and very familiar with talking points. Regret for SRS surgeries and HRT should be looked at in comparison for other life-altering changes, and compare well, especially against usual cosmetic surgeries that somehow even children can have. Suicide rates are relevant in context of how a society treats people, which given the media environment involves discrimination. Immediate support and reducing documented avenues for harm like local peer abuse are the most powerful factors for reducing self-harm. Actual science-focused journalists such as Erin Reed give an informed perspective different from yours.
For most readers the best cue is the more a story pushes political outrage the less it's about helping readers to discern fact from fiction. See those establishments who delayed mounting climate science and sexuality science in the past. If you personally read any literature or reviews, you fundamentally need to figure out which reports do or don't cherry pick data and/or their topline interpretation to be used by others as a tool, which can be difficult for a well-intentioned layperson when there's now a new-agey medical counter-establishment against LGBT and in step with political parties and certain media powers. Similar to the climate or sexuality sciences, or most conspiracies: If you belief a righteous "few" in the medical community are the only ones asking about purported harm, while the major research countries have Do No Harm and ethics review boards, you're neglecting the obvious fact that your designated villains are also professionals making decisions off of a lot of information, not a majority of 2-dimensional fools. Outrage and irrational conspiracies are a very old weapon against minorities, so this trap is common. Whether you see yourself as trivializing, you're certainly infantilizing both trans people and both the research and empathic observations of modern science. Critical reading is a skill, and info from one or a few sources can easily mislead you. Carl Sagan has a helpful book on critical thinking that touches on every process I brought up.
You're seemed loosely on track about overall support, whatever that means to you, then use a crude and addictingly visceral meme against giving affirming support... "labotomy". Disgust is one of the most powerful emotions. I can't pick apart that morality since I can't know where you picked it up, only give you some tools. Since you're maybe hoping to do well, and don't mean to give a pass to disgusted hate aligned to your views, I'm not meaning this against your character, you're sort of led into that stuff. And since you felt the need to put that out there, however you felt doing so, I hope you can understand this as not trying to insult you either. I'm also not going to point by point discuss some fraction of emotionally-charged dissent from established science, you can look that up if you actually care. With all this spelled out, this is also the only direct warning you should need to learn how you really feel about others' humanity, maturity, and how to talk about them. Be honest to yourself.
