Nice try. But they are literally the arguments you made, so I don't think you know what strawman means.
No, I am assuming that when doctors set guidelines to do "only what is medically necessary" and that those guidelines include drug therapies as per those guidelines, that those drug therapies under those circumstances are medically necessary. You're saying regardless of circumstances never use the drug therapies based on age.
Yes, exactly. And studies have examined and reviewed the effect of different effects of those "tools" and have set guidelines for when to use which, and when some become "medically necessary". They didn't say "Well now, turns out we can just show acceptance and have the same outcomes as puberty blockers, but let's do puberty blockers anyway." These are medical professionals making evidence-based decisions to create guidelines for other medical professionals to determine what treatments are appropriate for which people and which ones may be medically necessary when the conditions are met. They have compared the outcomes of different treatments and established guidelines for each. You're just assuming they don't. But they absolutely do.
Exactly. It's age-appropriate, evidence-based, medically-necessary treatment, which can run he gambit. But you're trying to halt a number of those treatments that are age-appropriate, evidence-based, and medically-necessary, meaning the 73% reduction in harm will not be achieved.
Now who is strawmanning? I'm saying we should let evidence-based science let doctors determine medically-necessary, age-appropriate treatments for their patients based on their examinations and in consultations with the myriad of other professionals, their patients, and their patients' parents. Any that those treatments may, at times, when appropriate, within the guidelines, when medically necessary, include drug and hormone therapies. Because they save lives and I care about the lives (and happiness) of everyone, including children. That's what I'm saying. You're saying never under any circumstances use those treatments, based on your own feelings and not on evidence.
Oh man, if only the doctors and scientists had considered that! Oh wait, they did. Turns out not as effective, not necessarily appropriate in most cases, also not without risks. But believe it or not, antidepressants are in the guidelines too, when appropriate, and may be combined with other treatments. Humans aren't cookie cutters, we aren't all the same.
That's really what this is about. No one is saying "give every 10 year old with transgender thoughts puberty blockers." We're saying let health professionals follow guidelines determined by evidence to determine the best course of treatments for their patients in consultation with other experts, their patient, and their patients family, and to take whatever action is medically-necessary when it is age-appropriate and evidence-based. You're saying take one treatment off the table, regardless of the scientific evidence, regardless of whether it's determined to be medically necessary, and regardless of what the examinations and consultations uncover, because you just don't like the idea.
You're literally applying the same bullshit logic that lead to eugenics. Kids who otherwise will live happy lives will commit suicide due to depression if we do what you say.
Here is the type of study they use. Please note they discuss its unreliability due to methodology. Thats common in a few I looked at(there aren't many). Generally limited sample sizes, no control groups, shorter terms, online surveys, are the norm.
Secondly they discuss, which is important, that youths who have other mental comorbidies are not eligible for the blockers. Which means the ones with other mental illnesses, including those like depression that can cause suicide, don't get them.
I'd say the will fuck up the stats. The cause of the suicide can just as easily be something else.
The science us far from settled on this. Until there are real studies, per scientific methodology, with real control groups, its all supposition, reliance on unconfirmed data, and now political bias.