I did wonder, as I read the Bell judgment, if it has roots in an assumption many people acquire as they grow up, viz., lawyers are essentially spongers who do no socially necessary work. This sort of behaviour has been a running sore in recent high-profile matters. Naturally, this irritated the High Court no end, so much so that several times in the judgment the three judges say they are “surprised” by a party’s activities, which is commonly acknowledged judge-speak (at least in Blighty) for “hopping mad.” Arguments were made with no foundation in legal authorities, and more than that, did not even attempt to pretend to have any such foundation.

Organisations tried to join as interveners despite not having any evidence to add that had not already been adduced by the principal parties. People hadn’t compiled data requested by the court (despite being able to do so). However, before I could comment on the judgment or its merits, the first thing that leapt out at me was how the trial was full of bad litigants. These drugs facilitate transition for those suffering from gender dysphoria, and form part of the treatment plan for what used to be called “getting a sex-change.”

Bell concerned the capacity of children and young people under the age of 16 to consent to gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists, also known as puberty blockers, followed by cross-sex hormones. Late last year, I read the High Court ruling in Bell v Tavistock so I could write a case note on it for CapX.

Irreversible Damage by Abigail Shrier