I see. Your approach is unusual for this site. That is welcomed, if not very unexpected.No. I find all of this abhorrent. That post was in response to somebody's concern that the loudest and most aggressive voices can indelibly influence policy, regardless if it is in society's interest.
And I said, no, not as easy as you think, because ultimately the evidence will be evident. Every discipline has its rigors, you can't just say something and change existing procedures. Evidence needs to be weighed pro and con, etc.
But if the evidence is overwhelming that trooning kids out is in their best interest, I am willing to listen.
The idea of basing the legitimacy transitioning purely on the "overwhelming evidence" seems like an ill-conceived endeavor in my opinion. As you rightly pointed out, to address transitions one would need a scientifically rigorous, multidisciplinary approach. Any knowledge such research produces would be extraordinarily complex, inconclusive and thus fall laterally short of your own expectations; especially if taking into account the subjectiveness of the persons in question (i.e. the "troons".) Even if you devised this extraordinarily overwhelming evidence (that transitioning is in some child's best long-term interest), there is bound to be a significant number of outliers that will suffer under such a policy. So, you cannot expect science/medicine to be the only arbiters to determine how the transitioning in youths is to be approached in the US (or any other country.) This would lead us to medical ethics, which whilst can be informed by empirical findings, must still be reconciled with the public's interests. And it is here that the advocacy groups most certainly do influence the policies. Look at issues like decriminalizing homosexuality, legalizing abortion or addressing global warming as hugely contested issues of our epoch, even if the science of these things are largely settled.
Edit: Typos typed out.