We found a match
Your institution may have access to this item. Find your institution then sign in to continue.
- Title
Comment on Halasz and Amos.
- Authors
Ryan, Christopher James; Corderoy, Amy
- Abstract
In a letter to the editor of Australasian Psychiatry, Christopher James Ryan and Amy Corderoy criticize a recent paper by Halasz and Amos. The authors argue that Halasz and Amos were wrong to base their argument on the findings of a UK court case, Bell v Tavistock (Bell No. 1), as it was overturned on appeal by a higher court in a case referred to as Bell No. 2. The judges in Bell No. 1 made findings that Halasz and Amos used to support their conclusions, but failed to inform readers of the appeal's outcome. Ryan and Corderoy suggest that Halasz and Amos' paper should be revised and read with knowledge of the lack of legal foundation.
- Subjects
IDENTITY (Psychology); JUDGES; GENDER dysphoria; PUBERTY blockers; GENDER identity
- Publication
Australasian Psychiatry, 2024, Vol 32, Issue 3, p259
- ISSN
1039-8562
- Publication type
Article
- DOI
10.1177/10398562241239234