OK, I'll bite. I'm not willing to sit through an hour of TRA chatter though. I got a few minutes in during which they fail to mention the original lead claimant in the judicial review, Susan Evans, a psychotherapist who worked at the Tavistock clinic and later became a governor of the NHS trust which operates it [edit: I got that wrong, her husband Marcus Evans was a governor. He resigned over its treatment of gender-dysphoric kids].

Is the supposed danger to abortion rights something to do with this argument, promoted by Penis News and Mermaids? That if under-18s are ruled unable to consent to hormone treatment, then their ability to consent to contraception and abortion without parental consent (called 'Gillick competence' in English law after the litigant whose challenge to this failed in the 80s) will also be challenged in court by the religious right.

It is true that Paul Conrathe, the solicitor acting for the claimants, has acted in various anti-abortion cases. As I understand it his argument in this case is that Gillick competence is being stretched too far here by the nature of the treatment (experimental, poor evidence base, etc), and its consequences (infertility, lack of improved mental health, etc.), not the age of the patients.

Am I close? If not you will need to give me a clue.