The whistleblowers provide much food for thought.

This passage about halfway through for instance:

The puberty blocker trial has a fundamental flaw in what it intends to discover. Young people experiencing intense distress about pubertal changes will understandably feel great relief when offered a way to halt them, and this relief may seem like successful treatment. However, the trial overlooks how the very prospect of medical intervention affects their mental state during assessment, and it fails to consider what this communicates: that their distress is unbearable instead of something they might be supported to work through. Many of these young people already struggle with their identity and experience a sense of not fitting in with most of their peers. Keeping them in developmental stasis for two years while their peer group matures around them does not provide a neutral pause; it further isolates them from a normal developmental path. While their friends face the social and psychological challenges of puberty, forming new relationships and shaping their adult identities, these young people remain frozen at an earlier stage. This divergence from their peers may worsen their difficulties rather than help, reinforcing their feeling that they cannot manage what their peers are handling, at the very moment when connecting with peers matters most.

And the thing is, these young people who remain frozen won’t be able to understand that fact until it happens. Their brains aren’t old enough yet. Infants don’t understand fairy tales, and 15-year-olds don’t know how they will think and feel at age 20. It’s a black box to them. So when the choice is between let maturation proceed even though it feels awkward and wrong, or halt maturation even though that will feel like a horrific mistake in 5 or 10 years, option number one seems at least less risky.