I think there's a fourth option - and it's one that you haven't mentioned. It's child protection. That's got a fucktonne of nuance that I can't go into in a single comment, but suffice to say - some children will need trans-affirming care as a matter of child protection because they are trans and it is genuinely painful for them to exist in the world and their suicidal ideation rates are very high. Conversely some children will need protecting from trans-affirming care because they are presenting psychological distress from other causes and trans-affirming care under these circumstances would be akin to invasive and unnecessary treatment. What the pro-trans and anti-trans movement fail to see is that gap in the middle - and both sides tend to shout at the centrists like me - a Penguin who worked in child protection.