Agreed. We are much, much more cautious regarding the use of medication by pregnant women and children. The risks are so much higher to a developing foetus or child.
As a silly example if I bake a cake and then decorate it badly, I can remove the filling and icing and redo it. Or serve it as is, it'll still taste good.
But if I use the wrong number of eggs, or plain flour instead of self-raising, or have the oven at the wrong temperature it won't look like a cake. And it will very likely taste horrible. Baking is a science, if you change the recipe you'll change the result.
The UK Cass Review was robustly clear that the evidence underpinning the use of puberty blockers for 'gender care' was very, very weak. It did not come close to meeting the standard formally required to prescribe a powerful drug to a child. So the medical profession was flouting both good practice requirements and its "First, do no harm" principle in particular. Children's lives were being damaged as a result of their failure.
Moreover the push for puberty blocker use by children was dominated by angry middle-aged men with a sexual fetish. These men were furious they could not 'pass' as young, attractive women even with cross-sex hormones and surgeries. If only they had taken puberty blockers, they would be so much prettier, sexier and happier now.
But if these transwomen had taken puberty blockers, they wouldn't have had children, or married their wife, or built a successful career. Their body would be different. But their brains would be very different too.
And with the bitterest of ironies, the majority of 'trans children' now referred to the clinics were young vulnerable girls. Girls commonly seeking to escape the misery of womanhood due to their fears of being lesbian or struggles with autism or wishing to escape the attentions of creepy, staring, grabby middle-aged men.