The forty years worth of proof you are referring to is in almost all cases where the use was to block early puberty and then allow it to take its course at a normal age. There are very few case studies regarding the extended use of puberty blockers during the years where it would typically take place. I did mention these things.
How much proof I would need is a tough question because it obviously requires testing on children and it's an ethical issue. If a consensus of respected doctors were to agree, I wouldn't argue though.
At the end of the day, I'm not pretending to be an expert in puberty blockers, I'm saying that sometimes children need to be protected from themselves.
That is quite obviously an assumption. You are extrapolating data and although I see the logic of your argument, it's bad science. The rest of your comment is based on this premise.