[–] xyzpdq 8 points (+8|-0) Edited

Was this article revised and republished? I don't have much time to look into this but a quick search reveals the journal eneuro issued a retraction of this paper in December 2019 after being brigaded by transactivists, as described in Retraction Watch, which "tracks retractions as a window into the scientific process":

Retraction Watch, 2020/4/30: Journal retracts paper on gender dysphoria after 900 critics petition

Retraction Watch describes some of the criticisms launched against the paper, including many along the lines of how dare anyone question how a trans identity arises and how dare anyone suggest we should explore non-affirming treatments for gender dysphoria, for example:

Beyond the numerous scientific and theoretical short-comings of this manuscript, the clear intent of the paper was to do harm to the transgender community, one of the most vulnerable communities across the globe. This was not only evident in the section on clinical implications that was removed, but in the basic assumption that transgender people are a deleterious deviation with a disordered network of brain regions which pervades the entire manuscript. This is not merely an example of difference in scientific opinion, but a direct attack on a vulnerable community.

The "scientific community" needs to grow a spine. I learned in middle school that science is a body of theories, which are always subject to challenge and testing. If skepticism is not welcome or tolerated then there is no more science.

[–] Srfthrowaway 4 points (+4|-0)

Wow. That is not how I was educated in science 20-30 years ago. Yikes.

[–] khlarghk [OP] 4 points (+4|-0)

I posted this twice (well the first post is to an article linking to this) because I think the initial post I made had an obscure title. I feel this is very consequential. We all know trans people suffer dysphoria but not why. This theory I find compelling and intuitive to myself.