As for the first source: an interesting study indeed - the question is, what weighs higher: a potential risk of inability to have an orgasm, or the very real risk of suicide attempts and successful suicides? Usually, medicine goes for "least harm". The last paragraph is particularly telling:

> Laidlaw has called the Endocrine Society’s position “highly deceptive.” Most gender-dysphoric children experience other psychological or familial problems or pre-existing trauma or autism, he said. “These kids, given time and compassionate care, should be able to become comfortable in their bodies without the harmful interventions of hormones and surgeries.”

The core issue is: access to mental health care or getting children removed from abusive families outside of actual, massive physical violence is incredibly rare. CPS and its worldwide equivalents often barely have the resources to keep up with children being sexually and physically abused, and life in shelters or being constantly shuffled around foster families is a hell on its own - not to mention moving out of strongly "conservative" areas or out of the school district to escape bullies is often financially impossible for way too many families.

So again, from a harm reduction perspective, it's obvious that providing puberty blockers and, later on, a way to transition is the more realistic and better outcome way. Besides, even when one assumes the statement of "most" trans people having had prior issues as true (which I haven't seen data yet except a correlation with autism [2]), there will also be a lot of people with absolutely zero history of abuse or other issues beyond being trans who will be trans, and so you need a framework in place to help these as well.

[1] https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-720155

[2] https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/c...