We are exceedingly concerned by this week's ruling of the High Court in the case of Bell v Tavistock. We deplore the immediate harm it will cause to hundreds of transgender children, and are also concerned by the potential for it to weaken Gillick competency in abortion cases.

Gillick competency is the legal principle underlying the ability of under-16s to give consent to medical treatment once they have "sufficient understanding and intelligence to understand fully what is proposed."

This week the High Court held that it is highly unlikely that a trans child under 16 can understand the implications of taking puberty blockers and their future relationship to adult hormonal treatments (note: this is erroneous reasoning - PBs do not auto imply hormones.)

It is argued that these decisions have lifelong consequences and that young teenagers therefore cannot understand them. Anyone who has experienced legal arguments around reproductive rights can immediately see where the parallels with abortion can be drawn.

Don't get us wrong - this is very bad on its own because of the harm it will do to trans kids. But it's very, very bad because of the potential future implications for the autonomy of minors to consent to court-deemed 'lifelong' decisions.

This will affect trans kids going forward and it will also potentially affect minors who need abortion services or potentially hormonal interventions like contraception. In targetting a vulnerable minority this case has opened a Pandora's box of legal trouble.