Keira Bell is British anti-trans activist, known primarily for her involvement in a 2020 UK court case pertaining to the prescription of hormone blockers to transgender youth. Her experiences with England’s health care system and eventual decision to cease hormone therapy have been used as political ammunition to decry the already-difficult standards of transgender health care in her home county.

Early Life

Bell’s autobiographical account of her life and transition mentions a difficult upbringing and a strained relationship with her parents, especially in relation to her gender identity and sexuality. By the age of 15, Bell’s visits with a National Health Service therapist and her repeated experiences with gender dysphoria led to a referral to the Gender Identity Development Service at the Tavistock and Portman clinic in London. She began taking puberty blockers at 16, moved to testosterone supplements at 17, and underwent a double mastectomy at age 20. 

Bell v. Tavistock

In 2019, an unnamed mother of a trans child and Susan Evans, a nurse previously employed by the Tavistock clinic, filed a legal complaint regarding the speed at which children were being prescribed hormone blockers and the cognitive ability of minors to give informed consent. Evans brought in Bell to replace her as a claimant in 2020, given Bell’s much more recent experience with the Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS), as Evans left the Tavistock clinic in 2007.

Bell claims she did not receive enough pushback about her desire to transition, despite a year of prior counseling before being referred to the GIDS. After several years of hormone therapy and gender-affirming surgery lasting into her 20s, she decided to stop taking hormonal supplements and reconsidered her gender identity.

The High Court’s original judgment led to a nationwide pause on gender-affirming therapy for trans youth that left many feeling “left in limbo” amidst a surge to begin the long wait to seek treatment. The court’s ruling effectively barred anyone under the age of 16 from seeking care.

Less than a year later, an official appeal led to a reversal of the original ruling. The Court of Appeal asserted that Tavistock had followed approved standards of care and, by allowing the case to be heard after affirming Tavistock’s actions had followed guidelines, the High Courts had attempted to act as clinicians in dictating youth-affirming care.

Following a rise in applications for appointments following the appeal, the NHS closed the Tavistock clinic in an effort to restructure the availability of appointments and resources by founding more health care centers.

Further resources:

• Twitter
• Bell v. Tavistock original judgment
• Bell v. Tavistock appeal