[T]he proceedings of the Court were based on a history of illegal prescription and administration of sex hormones to an underage youth, for reasons that were not validated by international practice. It might be expected that such illegality would have been examined by the Court, but it was not. It was passed over: stated reasons were accepted without question and the father was virtually commended for his vigilance.
The father, however, had a long history of domestic violence, and the poor youth, Imogen, and her sister, had existed in turmoil, descending into mental illness. The psychiatrist for the mother who opposed the administration of cross-sex hormones maintained gender confusion was but a symptom that had emerged from a panoply of prior psychiatric disease. He advocated a year of psychotherapy. Despite there being no childhood indications, the father’s psychiatrist argued for the primacy of gender dysphoria. Justice Watts aligned with the argument for hormonal transgendering. In the process, his rejection of the ideas of the mother’s psychiatrist became more ad hominen.
Strangely, it does not appear the Court wondered at the influence of the father over his natal son. Sigmund Freud might have asked if conflict had been avoided by the natal son’s adoption of the opposite sex. The possibility that psychotherapy which might have explored and ameliorated such tensions has, however, been precluded by Justice Watt’s preference for hormonal action.