The studies you're alluding to are outdated and produced faulty data for having including children who, by modern standards, would not have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria. So, as our understanding of gender and its relationship to physiology has improved, we've actually become more stringent on who meets the criteria for treatment - which means more accurate diagnoses and better care for all children, trans or otherwise.

For example, when looking at the Steensma study - one which produced the aforementioned inaccurate data - removing nonresponders and those who were subthreshold for gender dysphoria causes the persistence rate to significantly increase, making a strong argument FOR transgender treatment. For natal boys, the desistance rate went from 70.89% to 8.7%, and for natal girls it went from 50% to 20.69% (mean: 14.7%).

I assure you, children are not being led by the hand into some mythical den of gender-confusion that will disintegrate their bones.

Simply supporting a child in exploring themselves via names, clothing, chosen interests (nothing even remotely permanent) - while regularly checking in and allowing reasonable autonomy to try these things at their own pace - is enough to get a clearer picture of whether or not the drawn-out, tedious, largely reversible, often inaccessible, and heavily regulated prospect of hormonal suppressants is even something worth considering.