Thread by @JolyonMaugham

Here is a link to the full judgment in the Tavistock case. judiciary.uk/wp-content/upl…

The practical effect of the judgment will be that puberty blockers will very rarely be prescribed to those under 16 which will mean (given they are only useful to those undergoing puberty) that they are very rarely prescribed.

In short, those who supported the litigation are perfectly entitled to say that they have 'won'.

Although there are reports that the Tavistock will seek to appeal the decision - and I would expect them to - it will be an extremely difficult decision to overturn on appeal.

Nor is it easy for me to anticipate a legislative intervention. This is likely to be the situation in the United Kingdom for a very long time indeed.

But, of course, the decision only covers prescribing practice in the NHS - which was already an international outlier in terms of its institutional hostility to gender dysphoria.

And, in practical terms, the length of NHS waiting lists were such that most families of young people sought treatment abroad anyway: sub-optimal for the wealthy and discriminatory against the poor. This practice is now bound to accelerate.

It is also possible to, in effect, self-medicate by buying drugs on the dark web without any triaging. It is inevitable, I would say, that this practice will grow.

On a personal level I want to re-up this thread (dating to before the hearing) that makes the point that, I believe, it was profoundly wrong for the Court to have refused to hear from a single trans child or organisation representing their interests.

https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1313168858556116993

We are taking advice on whether families who take their child abroad for treatment are at risk of having their child taken into care. We will, of course, publish that advice.

That the Tavistock, in support of its case, led evidence from those seeking treatment from it is very different to trans children or charities representing their interests being heard, having their own voice, before the Court.

This is not a formal difference.

The Tavistock pathologises gender incongruence and departs from international treatment norms recommended by, e.g. the World Health Organisation (see euro.who.int/en/health-topi…). The Tavistock is not liked or trusted in the trans community.

The bare facts, and they are undeniable, are that (at least) two charities, Stonewall and Mermaids, applied to intervene in the judicial review and both were refused permission. And (at least) one trans child also applied to intervene and they, too, were also refused permission.

I shrink not one inch from the point I made, before the hearing started, that it was profoundly wrong of the Court to determine the treatment rights of trans children whilst refusing to hear from any.