It was based on the so-called Dutch protocol which was published in 2011, so they where doing it way before that date. Which is weird , becouse by then it should have been abundantly clear that puberty blocking was never a sane option.
Slight power level. In my elementary class there where several girls who started developing around age 10. Two of those got put on puberty blockers, not even a decade later they where gangly, anemic looking bitches with a myriad of vague aches and pains. Offcourse them being vagina people, it landed them at the therapists office first, nevermind their fucking teeth crumbling out of their face. Luckily around the mid nineties one of the old treating physicians informed all his old patients to get themselves checked for about two pages of serious side effects.
Let's not forget the treatment of "precocious puberty" is basicly preventing girl children from growing tits and menstruating at An inconvienently young age not because it in itself is terrible for
them but becouse the (right or wrong) assumption is the chance of them gettinh sexually abused goes through the roof.
Anyway my point is mid nineties, in the Netherlands, they already knew damn well the longer term effects of puberty blocking and all these shit bags need to be put against the wall even if the did develop methods to mitigate the damage.
Ps here's some half assed sources and a screen cap. (Thumbnailed, nool where's my cookie)
https://www.researchgate.net/public...n_Children_and_Adolescents_The_Dutch_Approach