Sometimes, the statements made by advocates for transgender issues can inadvertently support the opposite side of the debate.
A recent argument by a Democrat for a bill aimed at fighting “conversion therapy” actually underscored the case against his proposal. This legislation would effectively prohibit counseling that could help young individuals align their feelings with their biological reality. Such counseling could be crucial for addressing gender dysphoria, which is the distress experienced when one’s gender identity does not match their biological sex.
Scott Wiener, a California Senate Democrat, spoke in favor of SB-934 on Tuesday. This bill would extend the time frame during which individuals could sue over alleged attempts to change their sexual orientation or gender identity.
Wiener explained the situation like this: “Imagine a parent has a 15-year-old who was assigned female at birth but identifies as male. If that parent decides to send the child to a camp where a ‘therapist’ will attempt to change their identity back to female, that scenario would fall under this bill.”
We shouldn’t be sidetracked by the confusing narratives surrounding transgender identities. A child “assigned female at birth” but identifying as male is, in essence, a girl. No amount of hormone treatment or surgical procedure to alter her healthy body will change that fundamental truth.
Yet, according to Wiener, the idea of therapy aimed at helping her accept her biological reality equates to “conversion therapy.”
In what feels like a bizarre twist, it’s deemed “acceptable” to subject someone to experimental drugs and surgeries that alter their body, but trying to help them come to terms with their biological sex is framed as “conversion.”
‘Conversion Therapy’
Wiener continues to defend this flawed notion, referring to it as “conversion therapy.” Historically, this term has pertained to various controversial practices aimed at suppressing same-sex attraction.
Conventional therapy has moved towards patient-centered talk therapy, and recently, the Supreme Court affirmed a therapist’s right to discuss same-sex attraction and gender identity with clients, even in the face of legislative restrictions.
Wiener stated that when a child says, “I’m gay or I’m trans,” and a parent responds by sending them off for therapy to change that identity, it results in significant psychological harm.
However, the argument that patient-directed talk therapy constitutes a serious risk is tough to substantiate. Unlike surgical interventions, talk therapy leaves no lasting physical marks. In contrast, the lasting effects of “gender-affirming care” are usually visible.
Wiener himself heard a stark testimony from detransitioner Jonni Skinner during the hearing. Skinner recounted his experience of accessing online influence, where he was told changing his body would improve his life, or else he’d face dire consequences, as doctors warned his mother he might commit suicide.
“The medical professionals didn’t inquire into my deeper feelings,” Skinner said. “They introduced me to blockers and hormones, stopping my puberty and disrupting my development. Now, at 23, I’m a gay man who’s never experienced orgasm and may never do so.”
He added, “The moment you suggest exploring the possibility of being trans, that’s it; there’s no further inquiry allowed, even for a struggling young person.”
Science Exposes Transgender Lies
A recent study from Finland revealed that young people diagnosed with gender dysphoria typically received higher levels of psychiatric care both before and after their diagnosis. It suggested that “gender-affirming care” actually led to an increased need for specialized psychiatric services over time.
This raises two possibilities: individuals who identify as transgender may have underlying psychological issues, and “gender-affirming care” could exacerbate these conditions.
Wiener is, perhaps, on shaky ground.
The Department of Health and Human Services has indicated little evidence supporting positive outcomes from transgender medical interventions in minors, while highlighting various documented harms.
In one case, a jury awarded a former patient $2 million, holding the medical professionals accountable for malpractice related to irreversible procedures conducted on her.
The American Society of Plastic Surgeons released a statement advising against transgender surgery for anyone under 19, which has prompted other medical organizations to follow suit.
It seems more Americans are becoming aware of the potential dangers associated with transgender ideology, but advocates like Wiener are unlikely to back down anytime soon.
Those genuinely seeking to aid individuals grappling with gender dysphoria ought to support talk therapy aimed at helping them reconcile their identity rather than endorsing medical procedures that may complicate matters. Unfortunately, we first need to counter the efforts of politicians like Wiener, who are trying to deem such therapies unacceptable.
This is, in essence, the troubling aspect of the transgender debate: individuals like Wiener are advocating against what could be a genuine solution to gender dysphoria. They appear to prefer maintaining a cycle of medical interventions that could potentially lead to permanent changes, leaving individuals reliant on ongoing pharmaceutical treatments.
