So, about the science--my biggest critique here is actually that you don't understand the science well enough to use it in an argument.

That 1% number for detransition for kids specifically--do you know which study or studies that number comes from? Do you know the dropout rate? Do you know the 95% confidence interval? Do you know if there are any other studies that give a different number? Do you know if the confidence intervals overlap?

The best thoughtful source and discussion of he topic is from Lexi Henny here on Medium--this is, to her great credit, superior to any published review article I've found. The number is low (I'll let you read her discussion), but it's not 1%. And being marginally familiar with the literature on children detransitioning also wouldn't lead one to say 1%.

And the literature doesn't even touch the relevant metrics needed to have a good idea of whether policy should be relaxed, tightened, or what. For that, the minimum would be an assessment of the strength of the usual criteria used to recommend treatment (persistence, strength of feeling, etc.), and see if there are correlations between that score and outcome. If you don't know that, you're almost blind when it comes to any proposal to lower the guardrails (Chu's proposal seems to be: no guardrails at all).

This leads me to believe that you either don't understand, don't believe, or aren't familiar with the science. That's fine--not everyone needs to be. But what isn't so fine is to act like you do know what's going on and criticize others' more targeted reading of the literature. (Chait, for instance, did not cite as support any of the really sloppy, poor-methodology papers that genuinely anti-trans activists love to bring up. If he had, then the Cornell list might have been a good counter. But he didn't!)