If you had said "We should not allow teenagers to (go through major body-altering procedures without significant counselling, deep psychological evaluation, and allowing them to make other life changes such as changing schools first)", we could have a reasonable discussion about harm reduction and trade-offs of being wrong, or statistics of transition regret.

But if you insist on using intentional language like categorizing all breast binding as "self-harm", then you're not really interested in having a debate are you? You've already decided what you believe, and you're going to pick the most incendiary "Won't anyone think of the children" language that only a monster would disagree with.

But that was already obvious by your casual dismissal of the term dogwhistle, which shows you have no interest in discussing reality if you think it's a concept irrelevant to this context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_whistle_(politics)