I'll have to go along with Julie & Julie.
.
While I understand your position Miniar, I'll have to disagree.
.
Waiting until the mind has completely matured...is making a decision not to make a decision. Which essentially makes the status quo of the child's physical birth sex as the default choice...regardless of their gender. Even when you don't choose...you choose something.
.
Given two choices: I would rather be frustrated with myself for choosing wrongly, than to be frustrated because I was given no choice at all. (Even better would be to choose rightly, rather than to be given no choice.)
.
The concern you bring up is a valid one. When are people ready to make decisions for themselves? Typically, current laws deem it to be 18. Before that time, parents make the important decisions for their children.
To me, if someone can be drafted and die for their country at 18...their freedom to choose for themselves shouldn't be abridged at that age either.
.
But we're talking earlier than that, which throws this into the ring of parental consent. There are many risky medical procedures that parents are given the freedom to choose. Many of these could wait if need be. cleft lip? A child could survive with it until 18-20 before deciding on reconstructive surgery for themselves. But why wait? Dealing with it early can help avoid numerous problems (ear disease, dental problems, and speech issues in the case of cleft). How many more problems arise from someone growing up in the wrong body? If it's an issue that can be aided by early intervention...why wait?
.
And to answer that question, I think the main concern is screening. The medical community needs to come up with some sort of criteria to follow. Yes...children definitely need to understand the long-term effects of their decisions...or their lack of a decision. But I honestly don't think that children are as incapable of making those decisions as you seem to think. I disagree that all people under 18-20 can't "fully process" the consequences of their actions. The more extreme the situation the child is in...whether GID, cancer, etc...the faster that child is forced to mature...to make those decisions...to "fully process" what will happen in the future. While your statements apply very well to sheltered children who do not have to deal with more serious themes on a regular basis, I don't think they apply as well to the subcategory that we're addressing here. The problem, of course, is separating one from the other...those who need to...and those who don't.
.
For myself, being different, I was forced to grow up rather quickly. I think a lot of us do. I was more mature at 12, than most people I knew later in college. It wasn't fun, but I had to be. Physical age isn't always a good marker for maturity.
.
As for blockers/hormones:
My opinion is that blockers should be made available early. Hormones could wait until 14/16. (Better to have puberty a little late, than to go through the wrong puberty first and try to correct things later...when often there is no good way to correct the changes)
.
In medicine, it's all about managing risk. There is a risk that by allowing people access to blockers and hormones, that a child who doesn't need them, will get them. But there's a certainty that if blockers/hormones are not allowed, that those who do need them, will not get them. The key is long-term screening (over the course of years) before HRT to minimize that risk. Graphic, blunt, honest, communication about everything necessary and related to the issue. And for the adults involved to help that child make an informed decision, rather than avoiding or ignoring their responsibility until it is too late....when their inaction has already caused the child numerous physical and developmental problems. To me, it's as simple as a cleft lip...sure, it's a choice...but if you need to do it...knowing all of the social & physical consequences involved...who would choose not to?