Certainly there is merit in your comment, Oopster, that “it would be better to speak to a trained counsellor who will listen to the person and ask the right questions, never guiding them in one direction or another.” If that is so, however, can you address for us why it is that trans-activists have mounted a (largely successful) drive to make sure that never happens?
Legislatures across the United States have uncritically accepted the notion of banning “conversion therapy” that at least arguably includes any effort to reconcile a minor with his/her birth sex or to take anything other than the “gender affirmative” approach with clients. It’s a problem with the legislation; the bills are all modeled after one put forward by the National Center for “Lesbian” Rights, and the language is so unclear that no therapist can know exactly what is or what is not prohibited. It seems pretty clear from the face of it that at the least there’s a serious question as to whether anything besides gender affirmation is permitted. Certainly a cautious therapist could assume that discussions of a full and fair review of the decision, in light of all the facts, would be prohibited under the law.
So what about that? Why exactly is it that the trans-activist community is so threatened by the idea that people should explore all possible causes, and options, for reconciling gender dysphoria, in addition to those presented by medical transition? Certainly pretty much everyone can agree that medical transition will entail some fairly serious and potentially detrimental physical consequences. Why is it that those consequences are to be embraced and promoted to the exclusion of all other less intrusive means?