This is the pretty much universally acknowledged advice given to anyone considering transition. Justifiably so. Yet there is an inherent paradox that never seems to be talked about. Along with this universal advice comes the almost equally universal "I wish I had transitioned sooner". It seems on a cursory interpretation that whilst an individual should not transition "until they have too" it would seem from experience here that the only regret experienced is that they should have transitioned presumably before they had too (i.e. I wish I had done it earlier).
The converse paradox is that of early intervention vs do no harm. As a veterinarian I am a strong advocate for early intervention. Generally the earlier treatment is initiated in treatment of a problem then the higher likelihood of a successful outcome, the easier is the resolution and the interventions are generally cheaper. It is arguable that by leaving intervention "until they have too" that there is a higher risk of significant pararelated illness occurring complicating initiation of appropriate intervention for the true underlying concern. Unfortunately though there is no real definitive test or even general agreement on when is the ideal time to initiate interventions. In the absence of clear evidence then it is arguable that a non interventional "do no harm" approach is preferable. there is certainly significant medical effects associated with medication or surgical interventions associated with gender transition therapy.
What do others think of this apparent conundrum?