We are in the Royal Court of Justice waiting for proceedings to begin at Keira Bells landmark court case against the Tavistock and GIDS. DJ lippy tweeting from this account for Make More Noise #IStandWithKeiraBell

Claimants case rests on evidence which states majority gender dysphoric teens dysphoria resolves following puberty #IStandWithKeiraBell

Discussion rise of teenage girls seeking treatment. Evidence from peer reviewed article tells us that children given hormone blockers invariously progress to cross sex hormones

Consequences argue claimant and psychological impact of suspening children in a 'child like state' reduces sexual feelings, impairs cognition and causes hot flushes

Consequence of hormone blockers is that they loose fertility or are likely to. Also a risk that hormone blockers increase likelyhood of persistence of gender dysphoria. #IStandWithKeiraBell

Evidence bases for positive benefits of hormone blockers is poor. Consequences of starting hormone treatment include inability to reach orgasm, vaginal atrophy, compromised cognitive function, likely lifelong need for medication and repeated surgical intervention

Claimants argue claims that blockers fully reversible have no evidence. Truth is defendant does not know what long term psychological and psycho social effects are because we have no evidence.

Discussion ability of children to give informed consent. Average age of children seeking hormone blockers 15.4. Defendant claims 16% patients referred to endocrinologis under 13 and able to consent to risks associated including creation neo-vagina. #IStandWithKeiraBell

Polly Carmichael argues ''those we see for blocking treatment understand the implications and limitations of treatment and are able to consent.' Claimants argue this is a 'Fairy Tale.'

The case ia about the use of puberty blocking drugs and ability for them to give consent. Defendants argue children as young at ten able to consent. Claimants say this is untrue. Children cannot consent to this treatment and must have court decide whether they can be treated thus

The court is the arbiter or whether or not appropriate medical material is given to patient and not the medical team. Material risks must be explained or no informed consent will be obtained