I find the assertions in this article indefensible. It is absolutely right that teenagers should be protected from any medical intervention that is irreversible. It is quite clear that the Tavistock clinic offers premature and potentially irreversible solutions to youngsters who might simply be confused about their sexuality. A 16 year old autistic young woman, a friend's daughter, is being given hormone treatment on the basis that she feels she is in the "wrong body" because of her attraction to other women. A more appropriate clinical response would surely be counselling based on discussion of all the issues including the possibility that she's gay. At any event a treatment which renders her permanently sterile should not be endorsed to someone of an age where all sorts of things are in flux. I also fail to see why women shouldn't have the right to separate facilities to males who identify as women . I admire the work the AWL does around issues such as anti semitism on the left but I'm afraid you're wildly wrong on this and shouldn't brand those who disagree as potential Morning Star readers.