I've gone over this Cornell study before, and it has quite a lot of flaws as others have pointed out.
They ignored any studies looking at physical outcomes, because apparently physical effects aren't a factor in "well-being". They didn't impose any restrictions for length of study nor methodology of the study. They looked at no comparison analysis. Most of the studies are pay to view only, so to double check their research you'd have to drop hundreds of dollars on just the studies they picked, many of which are studies directly funded by aggressively trans positive groups such as the Scottish Transgender Alliance and the Trans Resource and Empowerment Centre (TREC).
When you actually start reading into the studies they cite, provided you can even view them. Almost all of them state a high dropout rate, a high level of bias, and directly report that the data should be interpreted with caution and that no conclusions can be drawn despite essentially positive results.
It's one thing to say we should research this more in depth and more accurately, and quite another to say "well this study shows it's good so there is scientific consensus that this is the best thing we could ever do for trans people." Even on the Cornell site you linked it states: "More research is needed to adequately characterize and address the needs of the transgender population."
Your own "indisputable proof" admits that the research is insufficient to even characterize the needs of transgender people adequately, let alone address them. I know you want to virtue signal and pretend you are fighting for the downtrodden, but if you are going to do so, at least do it honestly.
Here's another meta analysis talking about quality of life. If you stop after the first sentence of the conclusion it sounds like supporting this treatment is the way to go, but if you read the 6 sentences after it tells a much different story. Most of the misconceptions about this topic come from people who just read that first sentence but completely ignore the rest. I would hate to be a researcher in the internet age because as soon as something comes up even potentially positive for a political side they latch onto it regardless of the caveats.