> Nobody is saying we should deny them their self-image outright

> [I am opposed to the situation that] any claim to be male, female, non-binary or whatever must be accepted at face value

That is exactly what GP was implying - that their self-image does _not_ have to be accepted.

While wise it ignores the fact that the intervention can save lives which would be ended by 18 years of age.

Would you be for puberty blockers so that puberty can be delayed until 18 and automatic sex transformations be paused until the person can make a decision which way they want to go?

This might come off sounding a little rough, but as someone who had one sibling die of overdose and another by suicide, I don't think teenagers are the best stewards of their own bodies or sanity. Sometimes allowing them to make their own decisions about who they're going to be friends with or what they're going to do with their bodies ends up losing a life. I can see how lives might be saved by being permissive to them having what they want, when they want it, but I've also seen lives lost that way. So I find the "save lives" argument a little disingenuous or misinformed.

An open conversation and a working plan for what they want to do later in life is a good thing. I'm not opposed to hormone therapy as an interim measure. But I'm opposed to catering to teenage whims that aren't thought through very well, or discussed well, or which are driven by a desire to be part of a popular group, because I've seen the results. Confusion and self-hate and self-destruction can happen as a result of not being able to express yourself, but they can also happen as a result of too much unrestrained emancipation for a teenager, who doesn't understand the consequences. I'm not even speaking about trans issues here, just about teenage decisions in general. They're not fully rational people. I wasn't, either.

The current mental problems of young people will not be solved with puberty blockers.