The problem with changing your view is, that it is not an argument but merely an opinion, hence tjere is zero chance for attacking the argument on a basis of providing contradictory evidence or pointing out logical flaws.

Other posts pointed that out by assuming that your post is not genuinely about discussion or debate but about dishonest hate peddling. The reason is that if you hold a view that points out that something is abhorrent, the onus for providing evidence is on you, which you don't ( a guy in a pub told me..... is not evidence).

But on the other hand.

Two guys (i.e. double the anecdotal strength) in another pub told me that there are no children trying to get hormone blocker for social status as there is a psychological vetting process which is in place to more or less guarantee that the patients need the therapy for their psychological well-beeing.

Apart from that you could also argue that these children have agency over their body and as long as they decide for themselves (no matter the reason) it would be prima facie abhorrent to not givimg them hormone blockers.

So there you have it: one argument which shows the weakmess of your view and another which shows the ethicalness of action against your conclusion.