@SirVixofVixHall
I think the ethos in schools on this is part of the problem . If you are completely affirmed in this mid-teen dysphoria by everyone at school, if your teachers , who you trust, now call you a boy , where is there to go when you grow up a bit and start to regret that identity?
In the judgment, they made reference to this sort of thing. In the section where the judges were reviewing the law and relevant cases that were precedents, one of the cases that they highlighted at para 114 was:-
Re L (Medical Treatment: Gillick Competency) [1998] 2 F.L.R. 810
In this case, a 14 year old girl who was a Jehovah's Witness was refusing a blood transfusion which would save her life and "that the girl’s view as to having no blood transfusion is based on a very sincerely, strongly held religious belief which does not in fact lend itself in her mind to discussion".
On the other hand,:-
"It is one that has been formed by her in the context of her own family experience and the Jehovah’s Witness meetings where they all support this view."
So her whole experience was only of affirmation in this belief - in the same way that you mention everyone at school (and, no doubt, on social media) calling the pupil a boy. The judge then went on to point out:-
"He makes the point that there is a distinction between a view of this kind and the constructive formulation of an opinion which occurs with adult experience. That has not happened of course in the case of this young girl.”
"It is, therefore, a limited experience of life which she has – inevitably so – but this is in no sense a criticism of her or of her upbringing... But it does necessarily limit her understanding of matters which are as grave as her own present situation."
The courts do recognise that being in an echo chamber or self-contained bubble without hearing any dissenting voices does not enable a child to fully understand important issues.