Article: https://lesbianandgaynews.com/2021/04/was-kiera-bell-v-tavistock-reversed-last-week-no/

It seems unsurprising that most media outlets would intentionally obscure the facts of the court case that are deemed "transphobic" or "offensive."

However, I wanted to make sure I understood this more recent case correctly. It sounds like the court gave "XY" the go-ahead for puberty blockers, yet also observed these issues below? Please feel free to correct me if I have something wrong. And if anyone has a TLDR version of this newer case, would love to hear it.

Especially relevant:

The court emphasised that this case does not reverse the decision in Bell, yet some commentators insist it has. The court has also registered two serious concerns regarding puberty blockers which has not been reflected in some reporting of the case. First, that the medical evidence submitted in this case was polarised and only considered the positive case for puberty blockers and not the potential harms. Second, that the medical institutions concerned appeared to have “strong, and perhaps fixed, positions as to the appropriateness” which would render it “difficult for a parent to be given a truly independent second opinion”. The latter suggestion, in other words, was that the medical parties to this case lacked the objectivity required of medical professionals. As with Bell the marked difference between what happens in court and what happens on social media sadly seems to show no sign of abating.