@frogopus Thank you.

The biggest problem overall is with this we're in a realm that's not exactly science. Now that doesn't make it bad it's just understanding the limits of science. Science in it's purest form is entirely objective. You can go out and test gravity and get the same answer as everyone else(assuming you do the experiment right) and so there's no real debate there. When you get outside of pure science that's when debate starts, that's not so objective, and any piece of evidence is up to interpretation. There can be multiple valid(valid doesn't mean true) interpretations and those interpretations are highly colored by worldview.

The mind is a good example of this. Is a person's mind purely physical, the neurons and chemicals in their brain or is there a non-physical, non-material component? Various drugs and chemicals affecting the mind doesn't prove it's entirely physical. I can mess with the circuitry in a computer and mess up programs but that doesn't prove software doesn't exist.

Your suicide data for example, we have dueling studies on that. There are other studies that have looked at persecuted groups to attempt to control for that and not found a high suicide rate, so that suggests it's not so much telling them it's wrong but some other factor. Who's right? Well we don't know for sure. And that's the problem.

The thing about worldview affecting the debate and the interpretation of the evidence is that it also means the experts are susceptible to the exact same thing. That's why I pointed to those historical examples of which there are many more. They were sure they knew, sure they were experts, they were in the majority, yet look at how they're viewed today. Mental health is actually in a bad position when it comes to influences. It relies heavily on studies and statistics which can be easily manipulated, is highly susceptible to confirmation bias, and is susceptible to money(do this so we can sell a drug). Now I'm not suggesting everyone in the field is doing these things or is dishonest, I'm just pointing out these are major things that are difficult to combat.

There was an article a while back(not here elsewhere) about a trans boy in Australia, he was like 12 or something and doctors advised his parents to put him on all kinds of hormones and stuff to start the process of transitioning him to female. The article was about how now he's basically grown out of it and doesn't want to anymore and in his own words says he's not trans anymore. What I didn't like was the comments and even implications by the people sharing it that basically were talking about how these doctors were just harming the kid and his parents should be locked up for abuse and stuff like that. That's not right, I understand how much of a struggle they were likely going through and the doctors really thought they were helping. While I still think it's legitimate to question their decides despite their motives, we shouldn't do it in such a mean way. And that goes for all sides, I don't believe most people are legitimately out to harm others they just get caught up in the us vs them.

Ultimately we all have to decide what we believe and why, and a lot of those beliefs are not going to be based on concrete, objective facts. That doesn't mean we don't debate, defend our beliefs, and try to tell others why we think they're wrong, but we should do it in a kind way and try to understand that it's a difference of opinion.