Some questions re Belle V Tavistock

[BluesandClues]

Hello,

I’m wondering if someone can help me, I’m trying to refer to this case in an academic piece of work.

Is it that Belle wanted the Tavistock to not prescribe puberty blockers to under sixteens, or was there an element of her own issues with her treatment whilst she was under the age of eighteen (and thus question of competence in under eighteens).

Sorry if this has been asked before, my brain is currently Swiss cheese trying to read medico legal jargon.

many thanks

Who is Belle?

Keira Bell, I assume

This case?

Bell-v-Tavistock-Judgment.pdf (judiciary.uk)

If you're writing an academic piece of work using this case, the very least you can do is spell her name correctly.

These three blog posts are a good overview

original judicial review:

https://www.transgendertrend.com/keira-bell-high-court-historic-judgment-protect-vulnerable-children/

Tavistock appeal against the judgement:

https://www.transgendertrend.com/tavistock-appeal-keira-bell-high-court-judgment/

Refusal by the Supreme Court (and why ultimately it doesn’t matter because Bell V Tavi set the Cass Review in motion which led to the closure of GIDS):

https://www.transgendertrend.com/supreme-court-decision-keira-bell-case-is-not-a-loss/

If you look at the pdf at the link provided by misscockerspaniel you'll find a summary of the submissions from Bell:

90. The claimants’ primary case is that children or young persons under the age of 18 are not capable of giving consent to the administration of PBs. Their secondary case is that the information given by the defendant and the Interested Party is misleading and inadequate to form the basis for informed consent to be given. In their statement of issues, the claimants put issue one as the adequacy of the information and issue two whether children and young people are capable of giving consent. In our view, the first issue must be whether Gillick competence can be achieved, and the secondary or alternative issue, whether the information being given is adequate. We deal with the arguments in that order.

Subsequent paragraphs contain further information.

Was your post helpful, was it kind, did it add to this discussion?

For myself it did not, and I find myself wondering what you gained out of posting such a snide comment on this thread. You do not know me, you do not know my circumstances or background.

For all you know this could be my first venture back into education in many a year. I could be a young student who is struggling and needing a bit of help to interpret case law and its nuances. I could have severe dyslexia, or my spell check could be conspiring against me. Any one of those things could be happening here, and you could choose to ignore a simple spelling mistake. I would have realised on my own eventually.

Yet, instead of any of those actions, you chose to post a snarky comment about said simple spelling mistake, casting aspirations on my academic capabilities. What was the point? What did you gain?

The terms of use for Mumsnet include a mandate to be respectful to other posters, which you have utterly failed to be in this instance.

Your opinion really doesn’t matter to me, I’ve heard worse. Yet for others, your comment might strike a chord and cause any number of reactions.

Please do better next time.

Thank you, that is really helpful.

Thank you, it was this that I was confused over. You have been super helpful.

If you are interested in Keira’s personal story there are a few videos that go beyond the surface level of news articles.

This is a casual live chat with two other detrans people (Siobhan FtMtF and Ritchie MtFtM) that I found really interesting: