Hector Martin

It's an instance of what has sometimes happened. If you want to object to it as atypical, fair enough, though I might ask for evidence of that. Anyway, I answered your uncomfortable question, so how about if you answer mine: have you validated any of the science here?

Yes, and every single article I can find states that puberty blockers have no permanent effect on fertility. *HRT* does, which is why you use puberty blockers until the person has had plenty of time to evaluate whether they want to transition or not. Got evidence to the contrary?

No, though it does seem surprising. How long can kids stay on puberty blockers and have that still apply? (Perhaps a limit isn't known, but the studies must all have ended at some point.)

Blockers only started being under fire when they started using them for this. They had been used for early puberty for decades before that. They don't make you sterile because they stop the signals that cause hormones to be made in the body, they're not sex hormones themselves

Thanks. I nevertheless wonder how much you can postpone development and still have all the pieces work together correctly. As for the controversy, compare to human growth hormone: nobody objects to giving it to kids deficient in it, but other uses are attacked.

You don't have to wonder whether the pieces still work together properly after giving a kid puberty blockers for enough time to develop a strong sense of gender identity and decide what to do, because it's well established that they do.

So how much time is "enough"? (I can well believe that a year of delay is fine, given that puberty varies more than that with nutrition; but I've known plenty of people to dither longer than that over much less consequential decisions.)

It depends on the person. The whole point of the treatment is to delay *longer* than the normal start of puberty so that the person has more time to mature and solidify their identity. And that it is safe to do so. Do you have evidence that it isn't safe?