There is some disagreement, it seems, about whether there are any trans children.
(Of course ...) The answer depends on what we take "trans child" to mean.
If a trans child is a child who (1) wishes he or she were the opposite sex, or, being a boy, thinks he's a girl, or, being a girl, thinks she may be a boy ... and so on ... or thinks he or she has a gender identity that may or not somehow tally with his or her sex ... then there certainly are trans children.
If, on the other hand, a trans child is a child who (2), born a girl, is actually now a boy, or, born male is actually female ... and so on ... or a child who actually posseses a gender identity that in some unspecified manner fails to match his or her sex ... then, equally certainly, there are no trans children.
Too often people seem to try to argue from the fact that there are trans children in sense (1) to the conclusion that we should treat such children as though they were trans in sense (2). That's nonsense, of course. Dangerous nonsense.
If, then, indeed we are to take it that there are, in fact, trans children, we are forced willy-nilly to take "trans child" in sense (1), given that there are no such children in sense (2). This then debars us from treating such children so badly as by giving them puberty blockers etc.
This is all clear enough, or so it seems to me. I wonder, hence, at the motivation of those who, apparently failing to understand, advocate - effectively - sterilisation or similar harmful treatment of children. Deliberately disingenuity in pursuit of some personal nefarious agenda? Or just fucking stupidity?