Hormones to children: UK judges wash their hands of them. Court of Appeal ruling on Keira Bell case

In response to the Tavistock Clinic's appeal on the Keira Bell ruling, the Court threw the ball back to the doctors: it is they, not the courts, who must decide whether a minor is able to give consent to experimental 'therapy' that blocks development and initiates transition. But the debate is now open. And the fear of lawsuits by repentant minors -detransitioners- induces the medical class to caution.
Please be aware that the translation of contents, although automatic, has a cost to Feminist Post but is provided to you without any charge. Please consider making a contribution via the "Support us" page if you intend to use our translation service intensively.
The contents of this site are translated using automatic translation systems without the intervention of professional translators.
Translations are provided for the sole purpose of facilitating reading by international visitors.
Share this article

The English Court of Appeal partially overturned the judgement that had found in favour of the young detransitioner Keira Bell (here her story) against the Tavistock Clinic, which had rushed her into puberty blocker therapy when she was 16.

With a pilatesque judgment and merely formalistic, the Court threw the ball back to the doctorsIt is up to them, and not to the courts, to decide whether a minor can have access to this 'therapy' with hormone blockers. Doctors and not judges must take responsibility for deciding. whether or not the child has what is known as the Gillick Competence, or the maturity to assess the consequences of hormone treatments, which are irreversible.

Transactivists welcomed the ruling, but the time of easy transitions for minors is over anyway. As we are seeing all over the world (read here) in the face of the increasing number of gender non-conforming former children who, once adults, regret the irreversible changes caused by puberty blockers, especially Faced with the risk of lawsuits for damages -follow the money- more and more doctors and clinics are adopting a principle of caution. Thus it will be increasingly difficult for a child under 16 to be experimentally initiated into transition according to the 'affirmation only' principle - in essence, blockers are not denied to anyone-. In short, the number of children treated with blockers will in any case decrease.

The era of acting in a derelict manner to follow an ideology and not correct medical practice is over. Keira Bell, who asked to be allowed to address the Supreme Court, commented: "My case has opened a global debate, although much remains to be done. It is a deeply disturbing fantasy that a doctor could believe that a 10-year-old child could consent to the loss of his or her own fertility".

Marina Terragni


The following is the comment from the website Transgendertrend after the judgment of the Court of Appeal.

We are disconcerted by the decision in which the Court of Appeal today upheld Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust's appeal against the first instance decision of the Court of Justice in London in the case of Bell and Mrs A v Tavistock.

The appeal was upheld on the basis that the Court of First Instance did not rule that the use of puberty blockers to treat gender dysphoria was unlawful, and that the ruling and directions issued by the Court of First Instance related to contested facts, expert evidence and medical opinions that could not be examined and assessed in court proceedings.

The Court of Appeal ruled that the principles expressed in the GILLICK case are based on medical assessments, and it is not for the court to decide on the capacity of children under 16 to give valid consent to medical treatment.

Underlying the Tavistock appeal is the argument that, in its judgment, the Court of First Instance relied on the principles set out in the Gillick case, which state that children under the age of 16 are capable of making valid decisions if deemed competent to do so by their treating doctor after a specific individual assessment.

Tavistock had objected that the Court '.trespassed into the area of decision-making reserved for doctors, patients and their parents, where it had not previously ventured.".

In essence, the Court of Appeal held that "the Court of First Instance ruled on an improper restriction on the use of the Gillick competency tests"

The appeal judges rejected the idea that the use of puberty blockers for gender dysphoria is a borderline case.

In paragraph 76 of the judgment it is even stated that consent to puberty blockers is no different to consent to contraception:

"Nothing about the nature or implications of treatment with puberty blockers allows a real distinction to be made between the assessment of contraception in Gillick and puberty blockers in this case, bearing in mind that, when the Gillick case was decided 35 years ago, the issues raised in relation to contraception for under-16s were highly controversial in a way that is difficult to imagine today."

On the whole, the judgement, while paying lip service to the fact that there are widespread opposing views on the issue, takes Tavistock's evidence at face value without elaborating.

For example: the assertion that only 16% of children are subsequently treated with puberty blockers when in earlier testimony Dr Polly Carmichael suggested that the percentage overall is rather 41-45%; the assertion that only 55% of children treated with puberty blockers then go on to treatment with hormones of the opposite sex when on the same GIDS site the percentage indicated is 98%; and the assertion that "the primary purpose of puberty blockers was to give the patient time to reflect on his or her gender identity" e "treatment with puberty blockers was separated from subsequent treatment with opposite-sex hormones"when the Health Research Authority, in its reviews of Tavistock's Early Intervention studies, determined:

"Confusion would have been reduced if the description of the purpose of the treatment had made it clear that it was offered specifically to children who demonstrated strong and persistent gender dysphoria at an early stage of puberty, so that the suppression of puberty itself would allow subsequent treatment with hormones of the opposite sex to avoid resorting to surgery to change or otherwise mask the undesirable physical effects of puberty in the birth gender."

Although much emphasis has been placed on the consideration that it is not the role of the courts to evaluate medical evidence, it is inevitable that the courts will be influenced by the evidence made available to them.

In the case of puberty blockers, the evidence (provided by Tavistock) is weak, the ethical considerations involved very serious, and in any case Tavistock has never made available alternative, less invasive treatments. Not even the supervisory bodies have ever questioned the ideological basis of the 'affirmative' approach.

The first instance judgment in Bell & Mrs A v Tavistock is quoted extensively from the Court of Appeal's decision and none of its points are contested except from a purely legal/formal point of view.

All 'concerns' still exist.

The Court of Appeal states:

"Doctors will inevitably have to take great care before prescribing treatment to a child, and be wise enough to ensure that the consent obtained from both child and parents has been preceded by adequate information about the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed treatment, in the light of evolving research, and a clear understanding of the implications and long-term consequences of such treatment. Great care is needed to ensure that the necessary consents are properly obtained. As Gillick has made clear, doctors may still be subject to disciplinary and civil action when problems arise in individual cases."

The original court ruling and subsequent appeal brought the issue of puberty prevention in children into the public eye, and the attention of the medical and political world.

Keira Bell opened the confrontation.

Authorisation for further appeal to the Supreme Court will be sought.

(translation by La Crissy)

here the original article

here the High Court ruling


Much of the news published by Feminist Post you will not read elsewhere. That is why it is important to support us, even with a small contribution: Feminist Post is produced solely by the voluntary work of many people and has no funding.
If you think our work can be useful for your life, we will be grateful for even the smallest contribution.

You can give us your contribution by clicking here: Patreon - Feminist Post
You might also be interested in
15 February 2024
How to convince progressives to give up gender
Terrified of transactivists and worried about sounding 'right-wing', left-wingers support the transition of minors even in the absence of studies showing that 'affirmative therapy' works and promotes the well-being of gender non-conforming girls and boys. "But everyone has a right to evidence-based medicine," argue some liberals determined to "break the spell". And they start DIAG -Democrats for an Informed Approach to Gender- to convince democrats in the US and around the world that continuing on this path is wrong and dangerous. For children and for the left. An article by Bernard Lane
A new movement of US Democrats wants to find out how to break the spell of gender ideology and bring the party back to the liberal values of science and reason. Democrats for an Informed Approach to Gender (DIAG) launched a project yesterday on X Space (Twitter) to commission research on how to more effectively reach out to left-wing voters who believe that science is now in favour of 'gender-affirming' medicalisation of gender non-conforming youth. "The only way to end this [...]
Read now
6 February 2024
New York Times: Strong doubts about hormones for children with gender dysphoria
The world's leading woke newspaper has always unhesitatingly supported transactivist demands, starting with the indecent treatment of JK Rowling. Today the paper changes course and in a very long article criticises the 'affirmative therapy' (puberty blockers, hormones and surgery) for trans minors, giving a voice to some hitherto censored and ostracised detransitioners. Because by now even many Democratic voters have strong doubts. And there is a risk of losing many readers: "get woke, go broke".
For years, the New York Times has been the world's leading woke newspaper and has always unhesitatingly supported transactivist demands, jubilating critical voices. The treatment of JK Rowling is exemplary. In 2022 a very violent subscription campaign invited people to imagine Harry Potter without its creator: the ultimate in cancel culture (see here) A misogynistic and aggressive gesture - the initiative turned out to be a boomerang and many female subscribers threatened to cancel -. A few months ago The Daily published [...].
Read now
22 January 2024
Men IntintA and other wonders
The health of 'Marco', a trans FtM who is five months pregnant with testosterone, and that of her baby are the least of the problems. What matters to the liberal press talking about an 'anthropological revolution' is whether 'Marco' is to be called mother or father. But only a woman can give birth even if at the registry office her name is male. In this nothing has changed since the dawn of time. In the meantime, the trans front is losing ground: in one year, the number of members of WPATH, the largest transgender health organisation, has fallen by 60 per cent.
La Repubblica online headlines with a triple somersault about the 'young man who got pregnant': pregnant is not dared even at the transphilic GEDI group. The story is that of 'Marco', a girl undergoing testosterone therapy to look more like a man: beard, graver voice -not to 'become male' because sex cannot be changed and every single cell will remain damned XX-. 'Marco' had retained his uterus and ovaries and following a hetero sexual relationship (a [...]
Read now
11 January 2024
Child rapists: shock report in UK
In Great Britain, 18 rapes a day are committed by minors on their peers: in 2022 these cases numbered 15,000, almost always by very young males. A British police report shows how free access to violent pornography online is normalising criminal sexual behaviour in England and all other Western countries
For years, we have been reporting on the psychological and material damage produced on an entire generation by free access to violent online pornography, consumed by boys and girls from the age of 7 but also much earlier: gang rapes committed by minors are just the tip of the iceberg of this dramatic phenomenon, which has now been analysed and quantified by a study by the British police. On this topic you can find previous articles here, here, here and here. We were almost only [...]
Read now
7 January 2024
New Hampshire: No more 'sex change' surgery on minors
The US state has passed a bill banning surgeons from performing operations on under-18 year olds such as the removal of ovaries and breasts for females and penises and testicles for males. The bill states that these operations violate the patient's 'informed consent' and points out that studies have not shown a decrease in the suicide risk of minors after the operations. On the contrary: the danger increases
New Hampshire is preparing to ban under-18s from undergoing sex-change operations. Last Thursday, the New Hampshire House of Representatives passed a bill to this effect, also with the help of some Democratic members. House Bill 619 prohibits doctors from performing 'any genital gender reassignment surgery', i.e. the removal of the uterus, ovaries and breasts in the case of women; testicles and penis for men, to anyone in the [...]
Read now
31 December 2023
Puberty should perhaps be stopped at ALL: Transhuman drift of the World Health Organisation
In a veritable Christmas blitz, the WHO announces that it wants to draw up new gender-affirming guidelines and sets up a panel made up of three-quarters transactivists in favour of medicalising children. Preferably all of them, even those who do not suffer from dysphoria. Because choosing what sex you are must become a universal right. An international petition calls for a halt to the initiative
A few days before Christmas, the World Health Organisation (WHO) announced that it will develop new guidelines on the 'health of trans and gender diverse people', with a focus on access to hormones and surgery (what it calls 'gender-inclusive care.) ') and legal recognition of gender self-identification (self id). The WHO also announced that it has formed a group to develop the guidelines. This expert group includes many World Professional Association of Transgender Health (WPATH) apparatchiks, including [...]
Read now
1 2 3 56